#119400 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-okt-2011, om 15:28 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > But I find it significant that Buddha often speaks in such an > imperative way, calling for active practice in cultivating > mindfulness. I don't think it's incidental, or that the imperative > and active sense that is in the Buddha's actual speech can be > dismissed. ------- N: I see your point when looking at the texts. But the javanacittas are too fast as Scott just quoted. The Buddha's words are an encouragement, like we can say to each other: do not forget the present moment. There is no person who could do so and we know that cittas are conditioned, beyond control. Still, such words can be a condition for seeing the value of kusala and sati. For instance, we read in the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, (second book of the Abhidhamma) and also in the suttas about ardent energy. We read about the boddhisatta's energy and that there was nothing that would be too much for him in order to reach the goal. Reading about this can awaken us from our usual laziness and uninterestedness to develop understanding of seeing, visible object, hearing and all dhammas. All these words of the Buddha to arouse energy is to waken us up. Wake up to the present moment! ----- Nina. #119401 From: "connie" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:55 am Subject: Re: What are the Four Constituents of Sammappadhana. nichiconn Chuck, > > Question: What are the four constituents of sammappadhana? > SN 49.1 There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. connie #119402 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 27-okt-2011, om 15:28 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > But I find it significant that Buddha often speaks in such an > > imperative way, calling for active practice in cultivating > > mindfulness. I don't think it's incidental, or that the imperative > > and active sense that is in the Buddha's actual speech can be > > dismissed. > ------- > N: I see your point when looking at the texts. But the javanacittas > are too fast as Scott just quoted. The Buddha's words are an > encouragement, like we can say to each other: do not forget the > present moment. There is no person who could do so and we know that > cittas are conditioned, beyond control. Still, such words can be a > condition for seeing the value of kusala and sati. For instance, we > read in the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, (second book of the > Abhidhamma) and also in the suttas about ardent energy. We read about > the boddhisatta's energy and that there was nothing that would be too > much for him in order to reach the goal. Reading about this can > awaken us from our usual laziness and uninterestedness to develop > understanding of seeing, visible object, hearing and all dhammas. > All these words of the Buddha to arouse energy is to waken us up. > Wake up to the present moment! Although I don't fully agree in a *direct* sense that the Buddha's admonitions on practice were only encouragement, I do agree with it in another way: I think that the Buddha's words can create the conditions for practice and that practice creates further conditions for development. Even if you don't see it this way and you see it as just causing arising of more kusala cetana which will cause arousal of more kusala, I would agree in that sense too that the spur of the Buddha's words would cause more arising of kusala. What's kind of interesting to me is that the quote from the commentary that Scott presented speaks about cetana leading to physical action. Maybe it is saying that the cetana that leads to physical action is not the most kusala cetana -- I haven't been able to sort that out myself from the commentary -- but it does acknowledge the possibility of physical action coming out of such moments of cetana. That sort of opens the door for the body to be involved in right action, I think, and then that leaves open the question for what kind of physical action would constitute right action? A lot of possibility there..., including the possibility of sitting around developing mindfulness! ;-) "Wake up to the present moment!" Thanks for the encouragement! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119403 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Opinions are One Thing epsteinrob Hi Chuck. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > > Really???? No more opinions here??? DSG??? Oh, come on, now!!!! > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: dhammasaro@... > <...> > All agree, then? > > > > No more opinions? I would like to respectfully point out to you that you appear to be looking for reasons to get upset with the people here and the list in general. You have accused the group moderators of censorship several times, and seem to get upset when others don't participate in subjects that you bring up. There is no demand or pressure on this list for anyone to join in on a thread, and it is just a matter of personal interest whether someone answers a post or not. I would appreciate it if you would relax and participate in whatever threads interest you, as well as bringing up your own subjects, and just take it with a grain of salt if someone does or doesn't answer your posts. I think you can enjoy "talking" to people here, but only if you take a positive attitude. As for private email, many people may enjoy being on a group list and do not want to get into a private one-on-one conversation. We should just allow everyone to do what is comfortable for them, and not make too many demands. Anyway, that is just my opinion, and I hope it's not too personal. The above message seems unnecessary to me. If people don't have much to say about the meaning of "bhanga," that's just the way it is - no big deal. I would just let it go if people aren't interested in a topic that you raise. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119404 From: "connie" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:45 am Subject: Re: Pali: Bhanga nichiconn Hi Chuck, Alex, Nina, > > > How is it used in a sentence or paragraph in the Tipitaka? > ------ > N: Ba.nga ~naa.na is a stage of vipassanaa. Knowledge of > dissolution.The fifth vipassanaa ~naa.na, or the second stage of > principal insight. Arising after the arising and falling away of > realities has been directly known. The attention turns more to the > falling away of realities, and it is more clearly realized that naama > and ruupa cannot be of any refuge (Survey, p. 332). > At this stage there is more detachment. > thanks, Nina. I am just giving a few quotes I think relate to this. Chuck, I don't read Pali. Alex, I do not wish to argue - I just said yesterday that I would get back to you if I saw anything else, so here: 'What is called "permanent" is what is lasting, eternal, like nibbana. What is called "impermanent" is what is not permanent, and is possessed of rise and fall. He said "The five aggregates are 'the impermanent'", signifying that they are formed dhammas as to meaning. Why? "Because their essence is rise and fall and change"; the meaning is that their individual essences have rise and fall and change. Herein, formed dhammas' arising owing to cause and condition, their coming to be after non-existence, their acquisition of an individual self (atta-laabha), is "rise". Their momentary cessation when arisen is "fall". Their changedness due to ageing is "change". For just as when the occasion of arising dissolves and the occasion of dissolution [succeeds it] there is no break in the object (vatthu), so also there is no break in the object on the occasion facing dissolution, in other words, presence, which is what the term of common usage "ageing" refers to. So it is proper that the ageing of a single dhamma is meant, which is called "momentary ageing". And without any reservation there must be no break in the object between the occasions of arising and dissolution, otherwise it follows that one thing arises and another dissolves' (Pm.280). 'A [formed] dhamma with an individual essence is delimited by rise and fall because it is produced after having not been, and because after having been it vanishes. But space is called boundless since it has neither rise nor fall because it is a dhamma without individual essence' (Pm.323). 'Hardness, touching, etc., as the respective characteristics of earth, contact, etc., which are observable at all three instants [of arising, presence and dissolution], are apprehended by their being established as the respective individual essences of definite materialness. But it is not so with the characteristics of impermanence, and so on. These are apprehended as though they were attributive respective headings of dissolution and rise and fall, of oppression, and of insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery' (Pm.779). 'When the generation of materiality is seen its dissolution also is seen, and so he said "One who sees the generation of materiality thus is said to comprehend the material at one time" because of the brevity of states' occurrence; for it is not the seeing of mere generation that is called comprehension but there must be seeing of rise and fall besides. So too the apprehending of generation in the other instances' (Pm.795). connie #119405 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:19 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "a. I do not understand the distinction of cetana making 'pure' contact with the speech door but not vocal organ, and what the significance is of it being considered mind door or something else." Scott: The significance is that cetanaa, and it's function, are to be understood to be 'mental' - that is, naama - not 'physical' - that is, ruupa. The functional aspect of cetanaa are mental, not physical and, again, have already occured by the time there is the thought 'I will do or not do thus and so. Understanding cetanaa to be 'mental' rather than 'physical' clarifies misleading ideas about action coming first. The 'vocal organ' is a concept that ultimately consists of ruupa, also arising and falling away at such a rate as to be impossible to control by self (that it, 'will' as you seem to understand it, being in the western philosophical, not the Dhamma sense). Ruupa is the reality that knows nothing, therefore it is only ruupa. Cetanaa is not equivalent to so-called physical action. Scott. #119406 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:33 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...b. There is an acknowledgment of cetana leading to bodily action, whether it is speech or physical activity. Isn't that what always happens in order for there to be any physical action? There obviously has to be volition first and then that volition leads to the action, as it says." Scott: Cetanaa (volition - again not at all like the western philosophical notions about 'free-will) is kamma. Yes, when kamma is at the level of speech or body, cetanaa has played an initial role. Later I will give a quote detailing the functions of cetanaa - a mental factor only and always - again, not to be confused with notions of 'free-will' or conscious thoughts about doing. These are *not* cetanaa. Scott. #119407 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...c. I don't understand why the action that takes place is referred to as a form of 'non-restraint.' Do you understand what the significance of this is?" Scott: It is because of the abscence of dhammas which, if present, would have functioned as 'restraint.' Again, since cetanaa is not 'free-will' and is not in any way about thoughts of doing or not doing, one has to understand that 'restraint' is the result of kusala mental factors arisen and functioning as restraint. 'Non-restraint' is due to the absence of these kusala mental factors. The significance here is that 'I' doesn't restrain. Scott. #119408 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:52 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...d. There's nothing here to suggest that the apperceptional volition, which I think is being said to lead to action under the conditions of 'non-restraint' is of a different kind than any other volition. Are there two types of volition here - one that leads to action through 'non-restraint' and another which is more 'pure' that does not lead to action and is thus considered 'mind-door?' If you can help me with these distinctions I will have a better idea of what is being proposed here." Scott: I'm afraid that it requires a hard-earned working knowledge of Abhidhamma to understand the significance of considering the function of mental factors - dhammas arising and falling away with rapidity. Javana - 'apperception' or 'impulsion' - is a series of cittas, identically composed, one after the other (faster than thought) which function as the true motive force in this case. If the operative mental factors are akusala, then there can be non-restraint. Conventionally speaking - conventionall speaking, mind you - this is when an 'action' - again conventionally speaking - can be said to happen - 'it' wasn't restrained. Restraint, then, is a function of the presence of kusala dhammas in the javana series. And of course there are 'two types of volition' - kusala and akusala, but this is considering 'volition' - that is, the mental factor cetanaa - as kamma. When considering the function of cetanaa - the mental factor that arises with each moment of citta - this is always the same and, in the end, there is only one 'kind' of cetanaa - whether arising in the mind or the body doors. Given that the operative 'process' - and I don't mean to imply some amorphous concept here, I mean simply 'a series' - is javana, this occurs in the mind-door and is 'impulsion' or active (not 'action' - not in the mind-door) whenever it occurs. Scott. #119409 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:03 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...e. There is nothing in this passage to suggest that volition is not tied to activity, and that it would be impossible to have volition lead to 'right practice' that is exercised through mind or body door, that would represent meditation practice to develop mindfulness. Obviously if one has the volition arise to take the bodily action of sitting, and then to practice mindfulness, that volition must have arisen or one would not do this. So I don't quite get the point about the 'non-control' of arising cetana. No one is claiming it is 'controlled,' just that it 'arises' and is then acted upon, and that this can lead to cultivation of mindfulness." Scott: No. Absolutely not. here is where you go wrong and leave the level of discourse we were having about dhammas. In the above you consider 'volition' from the western philosophical position and equate it with 'free will.' Now you are talking about self. At the risk of upsetting you, you have yet to define what you mean by 'right practice' - what is this? Again, in the above very clearly and very incorrectly you are simply asserting that because you decide consciously to sit and practice mindfulness that mindfulness will automattically ensue. Hence there are two problems, one, how is it known that the thought comes from an antecedent javana that was kusala versus akusala, and, two, no one can, by mere thought, make such a thing happen. The knowing of the kusala or akusala must be a function of other uncontrollable dhammas. Remember, volition is not part of the eightfold path. The so-called volition to sit and practice mindfulness is akusala and will not bear fruit. The thought 'I will sit and practice mindfulness' is not cetanaa. Since cetanaa arises with each moment of consciousness, cetanaa will be part of everything that is 'done' but not everything that is done can possibly be kusala, especially just because one wishes it were so. Scott. #119410 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:38 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Pali: Bhanga dhammasaro Good friend Nina, et al Warm thanks for the clarification. And, thanks for the reference source. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: vangorko@... <...> ------ N: Ba.nga ~naa.na is a stage of vipassanaa. Knowledge of dissolution.The fifth vipassanaa ~naa.na, or the second stage of principal insight. Arising after the arising and falling away of realities has been directly known. The attention turns more to the falling away of realities, and it is more clearly realized that naama and ruupa cannot be of any refuge (Survey, p. 332). At this stage there is more detachment. <....> #119411 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:52 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: What are the Four Constituents of Sammappadhana. dhammasaro Good friend Connie, et al Warm thanks for the clarification. And, thanks for the reference source. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119412 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:28 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Opinions are One Thing dhammasaro Good friend Ryan, et al Warm thanks for your reply. Yes, unfortunately you are correct. Most of the discussions here are mere opinions. When I ask a question; I do not want mere opinion. I want answers as good friends Connie and Nina recently gave me. They partially quoted the text and gave the source reference. Now, thanks to Connie and Nina I can further research. An answer of; it is in a book or in the text; is no help to me. I already diligently researched and now need help. For opinions, there are many, many other forums for opinions... No, I am not interested in, "conceptualize individual experience." A person's experience is a person's experience. And, I am not interested in a person's, "OPINION based perceptions." A person's perception is a person's perception. To this ole bag of Texican bones, opinions smack of plain ole gossip.... at my age, I have no tyme fer gossipy stuff... [bummers] Thanks again for your thoughtful response. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119413 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Nina (p.s to Lukas) > It is not all lobha, kusala and akusala are alternating. We can > appreciate the comfort friends are giving us, that is not akusala. Ph: Only a few openings in the roof of lobha, as A.Sujin said. I feel that is true. Day by day akusala is increasing more and more. Scary, someone said. But understanding, only understanding leads out. If we panic and try to force issues, we will go on and on. Courage comes in again. I remember once saying I couldn't understand why you speak of courage, now I understand a bit better. > You spoke before about seeking comfort in Dhamma, and the inclination > to lobha. I think of 'Dhamma kamo', fondness of Dhamma, as one of the > protections or supports, just posted in Sangiitisutta: < he loves the > Dhamma and delights in hearing it, he is especially fond of the > advanced doctrine and discipline (abhidhamme abhivanaye)..> > Kusala citta with wisdom can be accompanied by happy feeling. One can > rejoice in the truth. > Ph:Very nice, Dhamma kamo. Nevertheless, only a few openings in the roof of lobha. That isn't changed by knowing there is this good term, Dhamma kamo. But there is alobha with every kusala citta, and there are kusala cittas. And there is panna. Now I am reading the second half of Cetasikas, the sobhana. Somehow it doesn't seem as pertinent to read about sobhana cetasikas, but there are sobhana cetasikas, the Buddha said develop kusala and abandon akusala, it can be done. Don't worry, I am not pessimstic at all. I feel very fortunate to have arrived back at this point of starting out again and again to understand nama and rupa a little better, seeing and visible object, etc. Metta, Phil p.s Lukas, yesterday as I walked a long time I thought about your situation,and mine. Just stories, but interesting. I will write to you more on the weekend. #119414 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: Pali: Bhanga epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi Chuck, Alex, Nina, > > > > > > How is it used in a sentence or paragraph in the Tipitaka? > > ------ > > N: Ba.nga ~naa.na is a stage of vipassanaa. Knowledge of > > dissolution.The fifth vipassanaa ~naa.na, or the second stage of > > principal insight. Arising after the arising and falling away of > > realities has been directly known. The attention turns more to the > > falling away of realities, and it is more clearly realized that naama > > and ruupa cannot be of any refuge (Survey, p. 332). > > At this stage there is more detachment. This is cool. I like this description especially. It's simple but gives a clear sense of the detachment that comes from seeing that "nama and rupa cannot be of any refuge." I like that phrase a lot. The language in the Survey is really very nice. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #119415 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:19 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "a. I do not understand the distinction of cetana making 'pure' contact with the speech door but not vocal organ, and what the significance is of it being considered mind door or something else." > > Scott: The significance is that cetanaa, and it's function, are to be understood to be 'mental' - that is, naama - not 'physical' - that is, ruupa. The functional aspect of cetanaa are mental, not physical and, again, have already occured by the time there is the thought 'I will do or not do thus and so. Understanding cetanaa to be 'mental' rather than 'physical' clarifies misleading ideas about action coming first. Why would anyone think that action comes first? Obviously there must be volition first before an action can take place... > The 'vocal organ' is a concept that ultimately consists of ruupa, also arising and falling away at such a rate as to be impossible to control by self (that it, 'will' as you seem to understand it, being in the western philosophical, not the Dhamma sense). Ruupa is the reality that knows nothing, therefore it is only ruupa. Cetanaa is not equivalent to so-called physical action. Who ever thought that cetana is equivalent to physical action? Physical action is the result of volition, that is obvious. And it can also be the expression of volition, and of intention. If one "intends" or "wishes" to murder someone, that may or may not get expressed in physical action. Maybe I think "I'd like to kill that person," and it makes me so mad that I punch them in the face when I see them. Obviously the punch comes from the volition and accompanying thoughts and feelings. No one would say that the "punch" comes first! So I don't see exactly what you're arguing against. Of course cetana is a mental factor. That is what makes it volition. No matter how fast it arises and falls, it can and does lead to action based on that intention, wish, desire, whatever. And that action is intentional. It's not like a chair falling off of a ledge, obviously human action comes out of volition. So you recognize that the cetana is mental, but as the passage relates, it does lead to physical action in many cases. So what is the issue? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #119416 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi again Nina >Day by day akusala is increasing more and more. Scary, someone said. But understanding, only understanding leads out. Correction. It is safe to say that akusala is accumulating more and more. Panna isn't developed enough to say whether akusala is increasing or not, there is not panna that knows kusala from akusala except in gross terms (i.e less or more akusala kamma patha) and even there not much understanding. The adze handle simile is always always true, that's another aspect of courage, we can't have proof of progress, any movement from the moment (e.g thinking about how much we understand) is sure to be lobha. Metta, Phil #119417 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:22 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...b. There is an acknowledgment of cetana leading to bodily action, whether it is speech or physical activity. Isn't that what always happens in order for there to be any physical action? There obviously has to be volition first and then that volition leads to the action, as it says." > > Scott: Cetanaa (volition - again not at all like the western philosophical notions about 'free-will) is kamma. Yes, when kamma is at the level of speech or body, cetanaa has played an initial role. Later I will give a quote detailing the functions of cetanaa - a mental factor only and always - again, not to be confused with notions of 'free-will' or conscious thoughts about doing. These are *not* cetanaa. That's fine that it is a mental factor - no one would think otherwise. But you can't use the specialized nature of such definition as pre-figured proof that what you are saying is correct. The relation of such volition -- however defined -- to action, is what is at issue in this particular subject. So that is what is to be further understood, not presupposed. If one does a particular action, that comes from volition, does it not? Can we establish that? How does that take place? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119418 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:23 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...c. I don't understand why the action that takes place is referred to as a form of 'non-restraint.' Do you understand what the significance of this is?" > > Scott: It is because of the abscence of dhammas which, if present, would have functioned as 'restraint.' Again, since cetanaa is not 'free-will' and is not in any way about thoughts of doing or not doing, one has to understand that 'restraint' is the result of kusala mental factors arisen and functioning as restraint. 'Non-restraint' is due to the absence of these kusala mental factors. The significance here is that 'I' doesn't restrain. Okay, thanks for explaining that. That is good. So what is it that is restrained or not restrained? The action that would arise from the volition if it were non-restrained, and that would not arise if it were restrained by the relevant dhammas? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #119419 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...d. There's nothing here to suggest that the apperceptional volition, which I think is being said to lead to action under the conditions of 'non-restraint' is of a different kind than any other volition. Are there two types of volition here - one that leads to action through 'non-restraint' and another which is more 'pure' that does not lead to action and is thus considered 'mind-door?' If you can help me with these distinctions I will have a better idea of what is being proposed here." > > Scott: I'm afraid that it requires a hard-earned working knowledge of Abhidhamma to understand the significance of considering the function of mental factors - dhammas arising and falling away with rapidity. This may come as a bit of a news-flash to you, but having these conversations is one of the main ways that I learn about this stuff. May not be your preferred method, maybe you think that asking questions and thinking about the subjects that are discussed is not "hard-earned" enough, but that's how it is. You can choose to talk to me despite my "unearned ignorance" on a number of issues, or not. But it's silly to keep making such comments in the middle of a conversation. If you think I don't know enough to warrant talking to me, just let me know that *once,* and we can end the conversation. More later. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119420 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:09 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...You can choose to talk to me..." Scott: Rob, I *am* talking to you. Scott. #119421 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:26 am Subject: Re: Pali: Bhanga truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, >Herein, formed dhammas' arising owing to cause and condition, their >coming to be after non-existence, their acquisition of an individual >self (atta-laabha), is "rise". Their momentary cessation when arisen >is "fall". Their changedness due to ageing is "change". For just as >when the occasion of arising dissolves and the occasion of >dissolution [succeeds it] there is no break in the object (vatthu), >so also there is no break in the object on the occasion facing >dissolution, in other words, presence, which is what the term of >common usage "ageing" refers to. So it is proper that the ageing of >a single dhamma is meant, which is called "momentary ageing". And >without any reservation there must be no break in the object between >the occasions of arising and dissolution, otherwise it follows that >one thing arises and another dissolves' (Pm.280). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) What exactly is atta-laabha? How isn't it a notion of a self being sneaked into these dhammas? 2) How can there be aging of a single dhamma at a single moment? Aging is a process in time, just like motion is. It requires multiple moments, and we know what that entails... With best wishes, Alex #119422 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:41 am Subject: Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Good friends all, Seems one of the most influential members made the very strong statement that he does not worship monks!!! Where does he get the horrific thought that one should or must worship monks??? Heck, we Theravadan followers do not even worship the Historic Buddha!!! Where does this teaching come from??? Here on DSG??? Dismayed... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <...> #119423 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:15 am Subject: RE: [dsg] RE: An Antagonist and This Ole Sentient Being dhammasaro jes ah gentle bump... a repeat request... Good friend Sarah, you repied with "beginner citta." What is "beginner citta." This ole sentient being is unable to find the term in any document? [bummer] yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <...> #119424 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:53 am Subject: RE: [dsg] predominance-condition. dhammasaro Good friend Nina, Excellent!!! Sincere warm thanks. I downloaded to word processor for further study and possible printout. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ............................................................................... Subject: [dsg] predominance-condition. Dear Chuck, somewhat shortened: Predominance-Condition (Adhipati-Paccaya) ............................................................................. rest deleted .......................... #119425 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:56 am Subject: A Quesrtion on Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse dhammasaro Good friends all, Initial comments from the translator on the subject sutta-pitaka: This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth. Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens, how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be brought to an end. The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what," what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in the future?" (MN 2) He put all these questions aside because they interfered with the path of practice leading to the end of suffering. Instead, he focused on the process of how birth happens, because the process involves factors that are immediately apparent to one's awareness throughout life and lie enough under one's control to turn them toward the ending of birth. An understanding of the process as process and in particular, as an example of the process of dependent co-arising can actually contribute to the end to suffering, because it gives guidance in how to apply the tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to all the factors in the process leading up to birth. Question: Have any of you studied this sutta and can offer cogent comments? Warm thanks... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119426 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:11 am Subject: On Patisambhida dhammasaro Good friends all, Any comments on this? Paṭisambhidā: formed from paṭi- + saṃ- + bhid, where paṭi + saṃ should probably be understood as 'back together', and the verbal root bhid means 'to break, split, sever'. Rhys Davids and Stede propose that a literal rendering would be "resolving continuous breaking up", and gloss this as 'analysis, analytic insight, discriminating knowledge'; moreover, they associate it with the idea of 'logical analysis' (Pali-English Dictionary, p. 400.2). Bhikkhu Nyanatiloka similarly renders the term as 'analytical knowledge', but also as 'discrimination' (Buddhist Dictionary, p. 137). Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli voices a divergent view in a note to his translation of in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, XIV.8, where he renders paṭisambhidā as 'discrimination': Paṭisambhidā is usually rendered by 'analysis'... But the Tipiṭaka explanations of the four paṭisambhidā suggest no emphasis on analysis rather than synthesis... 'Discrimination' has been chosen for paṭisambhidā because, while it has the sense of 'division', it does not imply an opposite process as 'analysis' does. Also it may be questioned whether the four are well described as 'entirely logical': 'entirely epistemological' might perhaps be both less rigid and nearer; for they seem to cover four interlocking fields, namely: meanings of statements and effects of causes (etc.), statements of meanings and causes of effects (etc.), language as restricted to etymological rules of verbal expression, and clarity (or perspicuous inspiration) in marshalling the other three. (The Path of Purification, 5th ed., 1991, p. 804, n. 4) oOo peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119427 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:50 am Subject: RE: [dsg] RE: 31 Planes; was: Are Buddhists Atheists? dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Do you agree? Chuck: Hence, in conventional language, Buddhist being atheist depend on the agreed definition of "atheists" and the agreed concept of "31 Planes." Thanks. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119428 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:10 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Understanding kamma and vipaaka. What I heard. dhammasaro Good friend Nina, et al I agree with your comment; among, I think, all: Direct understanding is not to be compared with intellectual understanding and it does not need any words. On this partial quote: One is sure that there is kamma and that there is vipaaka and ones understanding is more detailed, deeper than intellectual understanding occurring when there is no vipassanaa. Is this quote advocating no vipassanaa???? I am confused... please help... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119429 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arising & falling of citta. Same or different moment? kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> KH: That's right; every conditioned reality exists for three sub-moments during which it arises, persists and falls away. So where's the problem? >> > HCW: Already answered. ------ KH: I have genuinely missed the answer. But that's all right; don't repeat yourself unless you feel inclined to. ------------ <. . .> KH: What is this so-called "warmth" that you say is being reified? >> > HCW: You don't know? An imagined "heat atom". ------------- KH: What makes people imagine a heat atom? According to the Abhidhamma there is a fleeting reality called heat, which people unknowingly conceptualise into something lasting. But according to your Dhamma (if I understand you correctly) there is no reality, there is just the conceptualising. So what makes people conceive of a 'hot flame' etc? Where do our concepts of heat come from? ------------------- <. . .> HCW: If a rupa or citta should arise, then change while standing, and then fall away, noting especially the changing-while-standing, where is its vaunted "reality". -------------------- KH: For as long as a dhamma stands (exists) it bears the characteristic of anicca (impermanence). That means while it stands it changes, but it doesn't change into something else. It exhibits the characteristic of impermanence. -------------------------------- <. . .> > HCW: When there is talk of "realities" (plural), the substantialist cat has been let out of the bag. I don't know, however, that Abhidhamma engages in that. But I've seen such terminology quite a bit here. -------------------------------- KH: Do you mean the Abhidhamma supports your theory that there is only one reality nibbana and that conditioned reality is just a misunderstanding of nibbana? Why doesn't it say so? Why does it describe conditioned dhammas in intricate detail if they don't exist? ---------------------- <. . .> KH: My guess is the power was in the cells of the sprout. >> >HCW: LOL! The speaking of "the power" as a thing to be found somewhere is absurd reification. All that it means to say that the sprout "has the power to grow into an apple tree" is that a variety of conditions will lead to such growth. There is no "power-to-grow" thing. for that matter, there is no "growth" thing. ------------------------- KH: OK, that one has gone over my head. :-) ------------------- <. . .> >> KH: Surely he was referring to conditioned absolute realities. >> > HCW: Surely! "Absolute realities," huh? That is not the way the Buddha spoke, Ken. I give an indication of how he spoke about what is real and what is unreal at the end of this post. ------------------------ KH: You are welcome to prefer one interpretation of the Buddha's words over another, as we all do. I prefer the interpretation contained in the Pali Canon, but I am happy to discuss other interpretations too. My only proviso is that we keep them clearly separated. No harm will be done just so long as we don't muddy the waters. Ken H #119430 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:38 am Subject: Again: The Relationship between Teacher and Student is Like... dhammasaro A repost for comments... Good friends all, May I share a few thoughts??? In Theravada, the relationship between teacher and student is like that between a master craftsman and his apprentice. The Dhamma is a skill, like carpentry, archery, or cooking. The duty of the teacher is to pass on the skill not only by word and example, but also by creating situations to foster the ingenuity and powers of observation the student will need to become skillful. The duty of the student is to choose a reliable master someone whose skills are solid and whose intentions can be trusted and to be as observant as possible. After all, there's no way you can become a skilled craftsman by passively watching the master or merely obeying his words. You can't abdicate responsibility for your own actions. You have to pay attention both to your actions and to their results, at the same time using your ingenuity and discernment to correct mistakes and overcome obstacles as they arise. This requires that you combine respect for your teacher with respect for the principle of cause and effect as it plays out in your own thoughts, words, and deeds. ... So I swallowed my pride and learned to take my mistakes as my teachers. Before, I could never tolerate being in the wrong. But when I could finally admit to being wrong, I started finding the inner resources I needed to start setting things right. ... Nevertheless, he [teacher] was a human being with human foibles. Because my Christian upbringing had taught me to reserve my ultimate respect for a supposedly infallible being, I was awkward in handling the occasions when Ajaan Fuang was a little less than perfect. At the same time, I didn't know quite what to do with my strongly ingrained streak of independence. So one day, out of the blue, Ajaan Fuang told me a story about a time when he had had a disagreement with his own teacher, Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo. oOo Good friends all, To read all: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/thinklikeathief.html Comments after your studied perusal of referenced web site? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119431 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Duh... dhammasaro Connie, Duh... I do not know how to reply, my friend... [bummers] You wrote, in part: Evidently, I didn't feel like answering whatever your initial statement was. I don't recall it. No, I don't have any evidence to offer at this time... for or against. Is there some special reason I should feel like I need to answer every post and point or that anyone should expect someone to? Gee... where did that response come from????? FWIW, may I gently and quietly suggest do as I do... just ignore... just ignore... just ignore... okay??? peace my friend... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119432 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:24 am Subject: Re: Duh... philofillet Hi Chuck > FWIW, may I gently and quietly suggest do as I do... just ignore... just ignore... just ignore... okay??? Ph: This is great advice, truly. Thanks. I wanna try to follow it too. Are you able to follow it? I am concerned about your health. Maybe go for a walk, enjoy the fresh air, stay away from the infernal beast the internet for an evening? You are sending too many posts for all the sentient bags of bones here to possibly process! (bummer) Metta, Phil #119433 From: "connie" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:20 pm Subject: Re: Duh... nichiconn Sorry Chuck. Nice of you to ignore my outburst. thanks, connie #119434 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:43 am Subject: Ans to Phil: was; Duh... dhammasaro Good friend Phil, et al A very good surprise message!!! Sincere warm thanks for your apparent concern about my mental and physical conditions. I very politely bow to your very good concerns. FWIW: 1. It is raining outside and below 70 degrees F. Are you indirectly telling me to go to Hell??????????????? [verily beeg Texican grins] 2. Are you the management here?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [duh???] 3. No, I do not always follow my advice!!! Do you?????????????? [major bummers] 4. What good Dhamma-vinaya discussion do you want to engage???????????????????????????????????? [heh?] peace my very ole fiend... [sp] yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119435 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:10 pm Subject: FW: [dsg] Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Good friend Philip, et al As you are awake... well, at the time I send this message I think you are still awake.... What is your teachings' on worshiping monks? I ask, as one of your apparent antagonist seems it is taught here on DSG to worship monks... What say you, heh?............................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ....................... Seems one of the most influential members made the very strong statement that he does not worship monks!!! Where does he get the horrific thought that one should or must worship monks??? Heck, we Theravadan followers do not even worship the Historic Buddha!!! Where does this teaching come from??? Here on DSG???..........................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ......................... <...> #119436 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:27 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Duh... dhammasaro Good friend Connie, None of us are perfect... especially this ole bag of Texican bones... especially when I thought I knew it all... and taught the Roman Catholic Theology... [frowns to self.. ahem, frowns to non-self] FWIW, ah done fergit why u rote.... [verily beeg Texican smiles] peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119437 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Ans to Phil: was; Duh... philofillet Hi Chuck > > 1. It is raining outside and below 70 degrees F. Are you indirectly telling me to go to Hell??????????????? [verily beeg Texican grins] Ph: Oh, oops. You better run instead, you'll get less wet. > 2. Are you the management here?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Ph: No, just a momentarily nice person who is concerned about your health!!!! You mentionned medication the other day... Metta, Phil p.s > 3. No, I do not always follow my advice!!! Do you?????????????? [major bummers] Ph: nope, no control there (bummer) understanding no control (abummer, as in thr opposite!) #119438 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:48 pm Subject: Re: A Quesrtion on Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse kenhowardau Hi Chuck, ----- <. . .> > C: Question: Have any of you studied this sutta and can offer cogent comments? --------- KH: Are you refering to MN 2, the Sabbasava Sutta? We have all studied it. Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes some appalling comments about it, as you have quoted: "He put all these questions aside because they interfered with the path of practice leading to the end of suffering." That is an appalling lie! Wouldn't you agree? TB wants us to believe that anatta was just a meditation strategy, and did not mean no self. The "strategy" was to put questions of self aside so that we could concentrate on meditation. It was a totally silly idea that Thanissaro presented to the modern Buddhist world, but guess what: it worked! Millions of complete idiots fell for it, hook line and sinker. Ken H #119439 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:04 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Ans to Phil: was; Duh... dhammasaro Good friend Phil, et al Sincere warm thanks for your concerns... Way back in my youth, boys/men in USA uniform were not allowed to use umbrellas. Hence, I never owned an umbrella... today, when in Thailand, I really enjoy walking in the warm rains... without an umbrella... of course, the Thai's think I am a crazy expat... perhaps, I am... [verily beeg Texican grins] [Would you believe it is snowing in north Texas!!!! - real bummers] Again, sincere warm thanks for your concerns... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119440 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:11 pm Subject: Hey Friend! bhikkhu5 Friends: Hey Friend: Refine Your Mind! Every friend is an extension of me. Every friend has taught me what I am. How can I not be thankful to those friends, who cared for me, loved me, and gave me a warm experience of the feeling of love? How can I not be thankful to those friends, who made me feel that I am so beautiful, and gave me the feeling of being on the top of the world? How can I not be thankful to those friends, who has given me the knowledge and helped me to stand in front of the world with the feeling of security. How can I not be thankful to those friends, who went away from me and gave me the experience of detachment from loved ones and loneliness? How can I not be thankful to those friends, who cheated me and thereby gave me the experience of the feelings of hate and anger? How can I not be thankful to those friends, who left me and found another friend and thereby gave me experience of jealousy? How can I not be thankful to those friends, who put me down and made me feel inferior by showing my weakness, giving me the experience of deprivation? How can I not be thankful to ALL those friends, who just made me think that my mind is in the control of others and nothing is in my own control? One day I sat in the corner of my room, thinking and thinking, looking here and there, and then saw what: A glance at a book of Buddha! How can I not be thankful towards the Buddha who explained compassion to me . My dear friend, destroy these mental seeds of those feelings that control your mind. Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of hate? Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of anger? Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of jealousy? Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of greed? Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of laziness? Why don�t you try to destroy these mental seeds of clinging? These emotions are very harmful to your mind� Reform your mind my dear friend! Dhamma will teach you, how to reform nothing other than your mind. Poem by: Deepali Nandeshwar deepsee30@... Wonderful it is to train the mind, so swiftly moving, seizing whatever it wants. Good is it to have a well-trained mind, for a well-trained mind brings happiness. Dhammapada 35 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #119441 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:21 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A Quesrtion on Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al Sincere warm thanks for your response. Unfortunately, as I do not perceive as much as you; I must ask for your patience... I will print out and my wife will present to my senior teacher at Way Bowon. She flies to Thailand next week. I may follow. It is "up in the air" on my trip as I have some biz to care in Texas. Would you be so kind to refer to relevant web sites where he commits Buddhist heresy? I will copy for my Wat Bowon's ajahn's study. I am sure he will refer some parts to other knowledgeable monks. I admire him... he was never too proud say he did not know to my many penetrating queries... He always found a knowledgeable monk to discuss my query... he is a very great quiet monk... Sincere warm thanks for your reply. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119442 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:36 pm Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...e. There is nothing in this passage to suggest that volition is not tied to activity, and that it would be impossible to have volition lead to 'right practice' that is exercised through mind or body door, that would represent meditation practice to develop mindfulness. Obviously if one has the volition arise to take the bodily action of sitting, and then to practice mindfulness, that volition must have arisen or one would not do this. So I don't quite get the point about the 'non-control' of arising cetana. No one is claiming it is 'controlled,' just that it 'arises' and is then acted upon, and that this can lead to cultivation of mindfulness." > > Scott: No. Absolutely not. here is where you go wrong and leave the level of discourse we were having about dhammas. In the above you consider 'volition' from the western philosophical position and equate it with 'free will.' Now you are talking about self. At the risk of upsetting you, you have yet to define what you mean by 'right practice' - what is this? You can upset me if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that I disagree, and that you have offered no verification of your view that saying something can develop under certain conditions somehow necessitates a self. You jump to that conclusion, but never take the intervening steps to show how that is logically entailed. Frankly, I don't really get what Connie sees in you! :-) > Again, in the above very clearly and very incorrectly you are simply asserting that because you decide consciously to sit and practice mindfulness that mindfulness will automatically ensue. Because omniscient Buddha said so; not because I am "asserting" it. You keep leaving that out! > Hence there are two problems, one, how is it known that the thought comes from an antecedent javana that was kusala versus akusala, and, two, no one can, by mere thought, make such a thing happen. It's not by thought, it's by practice. Practice is not a form of thinking. You really did meditate? Are you sure...? > The knowing of the kusala or akusala must be a function of other uncontrollable dhammas. Remember, volition is not part of the eightfold path. > > The so-called volition to sit and practice mindfulness is akusala and will not bear fruit. The thought 'I will sit and practice mindfulness' is not cetanaa. Since cetanaa arises with each moment of consciousness, cetanaa will be part of everything that is 'done' but not everything that is done can possibly be kusala, especially just because one wishes it were so. I don't think you understand what I am talking about, because you keep mischaracterizing it. I'm not upset; I just think you don't get it. No one is saying every moment will be kusala, but I do think that conditions will relate to the situation one is in. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #119443 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > > R: "...You can choose to talk to me..." > > Scott: Rob, I *am* talking to you. Ha. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119444 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:00 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (119396) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: As I read it, the training being recommended is: "We will develop and cultivate [mindfulness of the body]". > > > > [RE:] Of course, I think that even with the B. Bodhi translation, which seems equally credible, it is a stretch to propose that "We will develop and cultivate" does not involve intentional practice. You interpret such passages in a way to remove the imperative and volitional aspects and translate it into kusala citta with no volitional practice, but that is not the way in which the Buddha spoke of this, in either translation. > =============== J: Wait a moment, I think you're jumping ahead :-)) The first point is that the training being spoken of by the Buddha in this particular passage is the recollection or recognition that gives rise to the thought or resolution, "We will develop and cultivate mindfulness of the body". (The question of exactly how that development occurs is not being addressed.) Why is that thought a training in and of itself? Because it is kusala and is based on a correct intellectual understanding of what the development of the path involves. At those instances there is no thought of the path being other than the development of mindfulness. > =============== > [RE:] I can imagine a way that Buddha could have spoken, had he wanted to clearly indicate that all that was involved in such practice was right understanding of the arising of kusala citta. He could have said "We will understand that the development and cultivation of mindfulness takes place through the arising of mindfulness and those wholesome mental factors that support it." It could have been said in such a way that it was clear that there was no practice and no practitioner, without using such abstruse terms that the ordinary follower would be confused. By putting it somewhat as I have it above, but perhaps more correctly, it would be clear that right understanding was the only "action" involved, and not meditation practice. > =============== J: It is already clear from the text that the training being spoken of in this particular instance is right understanding at an intellectual level. That is a plain reading of the words in question: "Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: 'We will develop and cultivate mindfulness directed to the body .' Thus should you train yourselves." > =============== > [RE:] But I find it significant that Buddha often speaks in such an imperative way, calling for active practice in cultivating mindfulness. I don't think it's incidental, or that the imperative and active sense that is in the Buddha's actual speech can be dismissed. > =============== J: The use of the active voice does not have to mean that it is an 'active practice' that is being described. But even if we were to give the words that meaning, the 'active practice' in this instance would be, following the wording of the sutta, reciting the mantra "We will develop mindfulness of the body ". > =============== > [RE:] Buddha speaks in a way that suggests he thinks that one can "take on" the intention to develop mindfulness, and that this is something that can be intentionally cultivated through practice - directing the mind to be aware of the arising object, whether it is the breath or one of the four foundations, and thus build the capability of mindfulness. > =============== J: That is your interpretation. It goes beyond a plain reading of the text of the sutta. > =============== > [RE:] If you look at the terms that the Buddha uses, they do suggest active practice, intentionally directing the mind to become more mindful: > > "We will develop and cultivate mindfulness..." > > "...make it our vehicle > make it our basis > stabilize it > exercise ourselves in it > fully perfect it.'" > > Thus should you train yourselves." > =============== J: Yes, but these are all preceded by the words, "We will develop". As I see it, the passage reads as follows: "We will: - develop and cultivate mindfulness - make it [mindfulness] our vehicle - make it our basis - stabilize it - exercise ourselves in it - fully perfect it." So it's the thought/resolution/recognition being spoken of in each case. > =============== > [RE:] How do we stabilize mindfulness? > How do we EXERCISE ourselves in it? > How do we fully perfect it? > =============== J: Well, these questions -- together with the question, "How do we develop and cultivate mindfulness?" -- are not directly addressed in the passage quoted. Obviously, though, as and when mindfulness is developed to higher and higher levels, it becomes stabilized, becomes a power (capable of being 'exercised'), and becomes perfected. As far as I'm aware, there are not different ways of 'practice' designed to accommodate the different stages of development. > =============== > [RE:] These terms indicate direct, purposeful practice, not merely the arising of kusala citta without practice. When we EXERCISE mindfulness in order to develop and cultivate it, it is difficult to see such a term in any other way than indicating the practice of meditation, stabilizing, practicing/exercising mindful awareness until it is perfected. > =============== J: This interpretation goes beyond a plain reading of the text in question. > =============== > [RE:] The sutta makes sense as it is written, if it is not unduly altered. > =============== J: :-)) Recently on the list there have been some sutta texts quoted that make reference to the progressive development of the path. For example, in the Jivaka Sutta AN 8:26 quoted by Dieter to Connie (see extract below) the following progression is set out: (a) being consummate in conviction (b) being consummate in virtue (c) being consummate in generosity (d) desiring to see the monks (e) wanting to hear the true Dhamma (f) habitually remembering the Dhamma that has been heard (g) exploring the meaning of the Dhamma that has been heard (h) knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma All of these factors are part of the training. They all refer to kusala states. What's interesting here is the similarity with the 4 'factors for stream entry' mentioned in SN 45:50, which are: - Association with superior persons -- (d) and (e) in the above set - hearing the true Dhamma -- (e) and (f) - careful attention -- (f) and (g) - practice in accordance with the Dhamma -- (h) Jon ******************************** AN 8.26 PTS: A iv 222 Jivaka Sutta: To Jivaka "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha, at Jivaka's Mango Grove. Then Jivaka Komarabhacca went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, to what extent is one a lay follower?" "Jivaka, when one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, and has gone to the Sangha for refuge, then to that extent is one a lay follower." "And to what extent, lord, is one a lay follower who practices both for his own benefit & the benefit of others?" "Jivaka, when a lay follower himself is consummate in conviction and encourages others in the consummation of conviction; - when he himself is consummate in virtue and encourages others in the consummation of virtue; - when he himself is consummate in generosity and encourages others in the consummation of generosity; - when he himself desires to see the monks and encourages others to see the monks; when he himself wants to hear the true Dhamma and encourages others to hear the true Dhamma; - when he himself habitually remembers the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to remember the Dhamma they have heard; - when he himself explores the meaning of the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to explore the meaning of the Dhamma they have heard; - when he himself, knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practices the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma and encourages others to practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma: - then to that extent he is a lay follower who practices both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others." (translation Thanissaro Bhikkhu) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.026.than.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/119127 ******************************** #119445 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:20 pm Subject: Selves & Not-self The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta dhammasaro Good friends all, An excerpt: In May of this year, members of Le Refuge, a Buddhist group located in Eguilles, near Aix-en-Provence, invited me to lead a ten-day retreat on the topics of breath meditation and anatt, or not-self. The retreat provided me with the rare opportunity to gather my thoughts on the topic of not-self under one framework. The result was a series of eight evening talks; edited transcripts of these talks form the body of this book. The talks draw on passages from the Pali Canon and on the writings and talks of the ajaans, or teachers, of the Thai forest tradition, in which I was trained. For people unfamiliar with the Canon, I have added passages from the discourses at the back of the book to flesh out some of the points made in the talks. These are followed by a glossary of Pali terms. For people unfamiliar with the Thai forest tradition, you should know that it is a meditation tradition founded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century by Ajaan Mun Bhuridatto. The other ajaans mentioned in the talks trained under him. Of these, Ajaan Fuang and Ajaan Suwat were my teachers. Ajaan Fuang, although he spent some time training directly under Ajaan Mun, spent more time training under one of Ajaan Mun's students, Ajaan Lee..................................................... From web site: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html#talk2 After your studied perusal of the web site, what are your comments? Warm thanks... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119446 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Again: The Relationship between Teacher and Student is Like... dhammasaro Good friends all, This ole Texican bag of bones has been very lucky... Not only did I have great parents and maternal grandparents (paternal grandparents were deceased) but I also had a very great second father... the father of a girlfriend... he, both a mathematician and psychologist... All great positive teachers... Now, later, I have many great forbearing Buddhist teachers... Just a sharing... peace... yours in Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119447 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:20 pm Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...you have offered no verification of your view that saying something can develop under certain conditions somehow necessitates a self...*it's by practice*...No one is saying every moment will be kusala, but I do think that *conditions will relate to the situation one is in*." Scott: You remain silent when asked to clearly set out your own definition of 'volition.' Yeah, I do say that it is clearly 'self.' The quotes above allow me to infer your imbedded definition. The disembedded view thus expressed is as follows: Rob's View Paraphrased: An Exercise in Hermeneutics. "Practice is active doing. A person has to actively decide to practice. A person has to actively keep the goals of practice in mind. A person has to actively do things in order to practice. A person has to want to succeed in order to practice. Wanting to succeed, coupled with actively doing certain things *is* the practice. When I say 'conditions will relate to the situation one is in' I mean that one of the moving factors in meditation is the purposeful willing to succeed and do and this constitutes the setting of conditions by the person. These intitial conditions, which are under the control of the person, will then cause a cascade of other wholesome things to occur. One has to do things on purpose - set conditions - in order to practice. All this - the wanting to succeed and the purposeful, active doing of certain things is how I define 'volition.' 'Volition' is the consciously held thought-desire to succeed and do and will, possibly slowly at first, but surely carry the plan forward to fruition. In other words, this sort of 'volition' is the prime moving factor in 'practice.'" Scott. #119448 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Arising & falling of citta. Same or different moment? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/27/2011 7:54:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> KH: That's right; every conditioned reality exists for three sub-moments during which it arises, persists and falls away. So where's the problem? >> > HCW: Already answered. ------ KH: I have genuinely missed the answer. But that's all right; don't repeat yourself unless you feel inclined to. ------------ <. . .> KH: What is this so-called "warmth" that you say is being reified? >> > HCW: You don't know? An imagined "heat atom". ------------- KH: What makes people imagine a heat atom? According to the Abhidhamma there is a fleeting reality called heat, which people unknowingly conceptualise into something lasting. But according to your Dhamma (if I understand you correctly) there is no reality, there is just the conceptualising. So what makes people conceive of a 'hot flame' etc? Where do our concepts of heat come from? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I do not deny our experiencing sensations of warmth. What I do not accept are individual "reality atoms" that are separate entities. IMO, we go too far in atomizing and reifying the aspects of experience. There are times of experiencing warmth, but there are no entities that are "warmths". -------------------------------------------------- ------------------- <. . .> HCW: If a rupa or citta should arise, then change while standing, and then fall away, noting especially the changing-while-standing, where is its vaunted "reality". -------------------- KH: For as long as a dhamma stands (exists) it bears the characteristic of anicca (impermanence). That means while it stands it changes, but it doesn't change into something else. It exhibits the characteristic of impermanence. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Whatever is in the process of change is not an entity except as a matter of convention and ordinary speech. --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- <. . .> > HCW: When there is talk of "realities" (plural), the substantialist cat has been let out of the bag. I don't know, however, that Abhidhamma engages in that. But I've seen such terminology quite a bit here. -------------------------------- KH: Do you mean the Abhidhamma supports your theory that there is only one reality – nibbana – and that conditioned reality is just a misunderstanding of nibbana? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I meant what I said. No need for anything more. I don't require paraphrasing. As regards reality and nibbana, look ahead to the second material of the Buddha's I quote below. ---------------------------------------------------- Why doesn't it say so? Why does it describe conditioned dhammas in intricate detail if they don't exist? ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: /He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta ) /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- <. . .> KH: My guess is the power was in the cells of the sprout. >> >HCW: LOL! The speaking of "the power" as a thing to be found somewhere is absurd reification. All that it means to say that the sprout "has the power to grow into an apple tree" is that a variety of conditions will lead to such growth. There is no "power-to-grow" thing. for that matter, there is no "growth" thing. ------------------------- KH: OK, that one has gone over my head. :-) ------------------- <. . .> >> KH: Surely he was referring to conditioned absolute realities. >> > HCW: Surely! "Absolute realities," huh? That is not the way the Buddha spoke, Ken. I give an indication of how he spoke about what is real and what is unreal at the end of this post. ------------------------ KH: You are welcome to prefer one interpretation of the Buddha's words over another, as we all do. I prefer the interpretation contained in the Pali Canon, but I am happy to discuss other interpretations too. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Commentary, whether Theravadin, Mahayanist, Vajrayanist, or to be found in any other Buddhist or non-Buddhist tradition, is just that, commentary, and is not part of the Pali canon. The Pali canon is the Tipitaka only! --------------------------------------------------- My only proviso is that we keep them clearly separated. No harm will be done just so long as we don't muddy the waters. Ken H ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119449 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:42 pm Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., The Oxford Dictionary gives the non-Dhamma definition of 'volition': "...the faculty or power of using one's will." The Oxford Dictionary gives the non-Dhamma definition of 'will': "...the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action..." A random non-Dhamma philosophical definition of 'free will': "'Free Will' is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives..." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Scott: I contend that this is the way in which you define volition. Please give your own definition if it differs from the above. From Atthasalaani (pp.147-148 - bear in mind, Rob, that this refers to a single mental factor in it's *momentary* conascent arising with citta): "Volition is that which co-ordinates, that is, it binds closely to itself associated states [dhammaa] as objects. This is it's characteristic; it's function is conation. There is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of co-ordinating; all volition has it. But the function of conation is only in moral and immoral acts, the remaining associated states play only a restricted part. But volition is exceedingly energetic. It makes a double-effort, a double exertion...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states...for when it puts forth energy, they also put forth energy...it arises by causing associated states to be energetic in such things a recollecting an urgent work, and so forth." Scott: Remember, Rob, this refers to the single mental factor arising conascent with citta in a single moment of consciousness - that is, after arising and before falling away. This refers in no way, shape, or form to a person. Anatta. Scott. #119450 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:45 pm Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 That should be 'Atthasaalinii' not 'Atthasalaani'. #119451 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:12 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > That should be 'Atthasaalinii' not 'Atthasalaani'. > Thanks for clarifying that! I did a little reading in the Atthasalaani and it was really weird! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119452 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:43 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Hi Ken." Scott: What's in a name. R: "Thanks for clarifying that! I did a little reading in the Atthasalaani and it was really weird!" Scott: I know, right? Scott. #119453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo nilovg Dear Phil, Thanks for your nice post. If you find that you have more akusala everyday, that means that you know it more than before. Kh Sujin spoke about this, mentioning that people after they started studying the Dhamma noticed much more akusala they did not know of before. Nina. Op 27-okt-2011, om 20:02 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I feel very fortunate to have arrived back at this point of > starting out again and again to understand nama and rupa a little > better, seeing and visible object, etc. #119454 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding kamma and vipaaka. What I heard. nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 28-okt-2011, om 1:10 heeft Maipenrai Dhammasaro het volgende geschreven: > One is sure that there is kamma and that there is vipaaka and ones > understanding is more detailed, deeper than intellectual > understanding occurring when there is no vipassanaa. > > Is this quote advocating no vipassanaa???? I am confused... > please help... ------ N: No. When there is no vipassanaa: when there is no insight that directly understands realities. This is another level of understanding. Nina. #119455 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-okt-2011, om 16:50 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > Although I don't fully agree in a *direct* sense that the Buddha's > admonitions on practice were only encouragement, I do agree with it > in another way: I think that the Buddha's words can create the > conditions for practice and that practice creates further > conditions for development.Even if you don't see it this way and > you see it as just causing arising of more kusala cetana which will > cause arousal of more kusala, I would agree in that sense too that > the spur of the Buddha's words would cause more arising of kusala. > ------- N: I would not put it this way: you see it as just causing arising of more kusala cetana which will cause arousal of more kusala. Instead I would emphasize understanding. It is understanding that conditions more kusala. ------- > > R: What's kind of interesting to me is that the quote from the > commentary that Scott presented speaks about cetana leading to > physical action. Maybe it is saying that the cetana that leads to > physical action is not the most kusala cetana -- I haven't been > able to sort that out myself from the commentary -- but it does > acknowledge the possibility of physical action coming out of such > moments of cetana. > ------- N: As to ruupas of the body these can be originated by kamma (such as the senses), citta, temperature or nutrition. When starting to walk, it can be kusala citta or akusala citta that produces ruupas. And if you want to convey something to someone else, the citta produces kaya vi~n~natti ruupa, bodily intimation. I do not see that it is specifically cetanaa, but citta and its conascent cetasikas. Citta does so at its arising moment, not at the moment of its presence or ceasing. This helps us to see that it all occurs so fast, no time for thinking: I intend to move forward. It has happened already. That is why the Buddha used the simile of a puppet. We are like puppets, and citta moves the strings so that the puppets stand or walk, perform actions. Just phenomena rolling on by conditions: In the Kindred Sayings(I, Sagth-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, 9), in the Sel-sutta, we read that at Svatth Mra addressed Sister Sel: Who was it that made the human puppets form? Where is the maker of the human doll? Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? Where will the puppet cease and pass away? Sel answered: Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense -- even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away. Then Mra the evil one thought: Sister Sel knows me, and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then. ------ R: > That sort of opens the door for the body to be involved in right > action, I think, and then that leaves open the question for what > kind of physical action would constitute right action? A lot of > possibility there..., including the possibility of sitting around > developing mindfulness! ;-) > ------ > N: Or developing mindfulness while standing, walking, lying down. > It all depends on conditions. Phenomena rolling on. > Nina. > #119456 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Dear Nina, (Rob E.) "'Kindred Sayings'(I, Sagaathaa-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, 9), in the 'Selaa-sutta', we read that at Saavatth Maara addressed Sister Selaa: 'Who was it that made the human puppet's form? Where is the maker of the human doll? Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? Where will the puppet cease and pass away?' Selaa answered: 'Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense -- even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away. Then Maara the evil one thought: `Sister Selaa knows me', and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then.' Scott: This is really a beautiful example of a sutta that clearly demonstrates anatta and, being part of the body of the suttas, it's particular demonstration of a mode of discourse and truth cannot be dissassociated from that body of teachings - it presents the fundamental way in which the teachings are to be understood in each sutta no matter if it is worded 'conventionally.' Scott. #119457 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:28 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I did a little reading in the Atthasalaani and it was really weird!" Scott: My bad spelling aside, and as an afterthought, I wonder if this also reflects to some extent your ongoing opinion of the value of the commentarial tradition itself. No need to comment, but, for what it's worth, I kind of think so... Scott. #119458 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Arising & falling of citta. Same or different moment? dhammasaro Good friends all, If i may drop in... On: HCW: Commentary, whether Theravadin, Mahayanist, Vajrayanist, or to be found in any other Buddhist or non-Buddhist tradition, is just that, commentary, and is not part of the Pali canon. The Pali canon is the Tipitaka only! ................................................................................\ ............................................................ Agreed... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119459 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:53 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Understanding kamma and vipaaka. What I heard. dhammasaro Good friend Nina, Warm thanks for the clarification. Negations always confuse me; I prefer positives... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119460 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:22 am Subject: Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Good friend Scott, et al A respectful repeated request... You may disagree with me as much as you want, okay? No problem (maipenrai). Please remember, this ole Texican bag of bones is no teacher... On your statement... Did you not write, "Scott: First of all, I don't worship monks." A repeated query to you: Where in the Theravada Teachings' is it taught to "worship monks"? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119461 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:48 am Subject: On the late Bhikkhu Phra Dep Kittis Sobhon dhammasaro Good friends all, On the late Phra Dep Kittis Sobhon, I only met him four or five times... he always treated me very cordially... Should you be interested... The Ceremony for the Royal Cremation for him will be on November 12 - 13 at Vajiradhammapadip Temple, Long Island, New York, U.S.A. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119462 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:06 am Subject: Mara was Khandhas and samsara dhammasaro Good friend Nina, et al A partial quote: Then Mra the evil one thought: Sister Sel knows me, and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then. Question: What is your teaching on, "Mara"? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119463 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:40 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pali: Bhanga dhammasaro Good friend Connie, Please forgive the delay in thanking you for your kindly response... [bummer] Warm thanks... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119464 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:48 am Subject: On Condeming Ajahn Thanissaro dhammasaro Good friends all, Recently, I observed several veiled negative comments against Ajahn Thanissaro on this DSG Buddhist Forum. I queried both publicly and privately the DSG member. To date, silence... Hence, would any member share with me what heresy was taught by Ajahn Thanissaro? Sincerely requested. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119465 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:52 am Subject: On Condemming Ajahn Bodhi dhammasaro Good friends all, Recently, I observed several veiled negative comments against Ajahn Bodhi on this Buddhist Forum. I queried both publicly and privately the DSG member. To date, silence... Hence, would any member share with me what heresy was taught by Ajahn Bodhi? Sincerely requested. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119466 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" dhammasaro Good friend Collette, My experiences are the same - mundane... [bummer] Any updates on your experiences? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119467 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:43 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma dhammasaro Good friends all, Do you all agree? A: > There is no meditation in Science. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119468 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: Scott on Worshipping Monks scottduncan2 Chuck, C: "...Did you not write, 'Scott: First of all, I don't worship monks.'" Scott: I have never seen this quote in my entire life. C: "A repeated query to you: Where in the Theravada Teachings' is it taught to 'worship monks?'" Scott: A vastly more astute and compelling query would be, 'when did it ever become a crime to question what scholar monks have opined?' I hope that this clarification will have gone some way in helping you out of the muddle you are in as this, your very own question, now, apparently, turns against you. Scott. #119469 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:11 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (119396) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: As I read it, the training being recommended is: "We will develop and cultivate [mindfulness of the body]". > > > > > > > [RE:] Of course, I think that even with the B. Bodhi translation, which seems equally credible, it is a stretch to propose that "We will develop and cultivate" does not involve intentional practice. You interpret such passages in a way to remove the imperative and volitional aspects and translate it into kusala citta with no volitional practice, but that is not the way in which the Buddha spoke of this, in either translation. > > =============== > > J: Wait a moment, I think you're jumping ahead :-)) > > The first point is that the training being spoken of by the Buddha in this particular passage is the recollection or recognition that gives rise to the thought or resolution, "We will develop and cultivate mindfulness of the body". (The question of exactly how that development occurs is not being addressed.) I disagree. It's an introductory statement regarding mindfulness practice. > Why is that thought a training in and of itself? Because it is kusala and is based on a correct intellectual understanding of what the development of the path involves. At those instances there is no thought of the path being other than the development of mindfulness. > > =============== > > [RE:] I can imagine a way that Buddha could have spoken, had he wanted to clearly indicate that all that was involved in such practice was right understanding of the arising of kusala citta. He could have said "We will understand that the development and cultivation of mindfulness takes place through the arising of mindfulness and those wholesome mental factors that support it." It could have been said in such a way that it was clear that there was no practice and no practitioner, without using such abstruse terms that the ordinary follower would be confused. By putting it somewhat as I have it above, but perhaps more correctly, it would be clear that right understanding was the only "action" involved, and not meditation practice. > > =============== > > J: It is already clear from the text that the training being spoken of in this particular instance is right understanding at an intellectual level. Not clear to me at all. > That is a plain reading of the words in question: "Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: 'We will develop and cultivate mindfulness directed to the body .' Thus should you train yourselves." I don't agree with you on this, and can't see how you derive that. Here's my breakdown of the "plain reading of the words:" "Train yourself to develop and cultivate mindfulness...of the body." Are you saying that "train yourself" means "have correct intellectual understanding that the subject that follows is kusala?" How is that a "plain reading?" If I said: "I want you to train yourself to cultivate bike riding by paying attention to various physical aspects of riding a bike," the term "train yourself" in that sentence doesn't mean "think about what bike riding consists of correctly." It means to do something regularly in order to develop the skill involved. When does "train" ever mean "think about?" It does not. > > =============== > > [RE:] But I find it significant that Buddha often speaks in such an imperative way, calling for active practice in cultivating mindfulness. I don't think it's incidental, or that the imperative and active sense that is in the Buddha's actual speech can be dismissed. > > =============== > > J: The use of the active voice does not have to mean that it is an 'active practice' that is being described. And why would you think otherwise? Why wouldn't an active voice describe an active practice? > But even if we were to give the words that meaning, the 'active practice' in this instance would be, following the wording of the sutta, reciting the mantra "We will develop mindfulness of the body ". What...? Recite what mantra? It doesn't say to "say to yourself we will develop mindfulness of the body over and over again." The training is to cultivate mindfulness, not to say anything. What are you getting that from? What word in that passage means "to recite" anything? Train = recite? > > =============== > > [RE:] Buddha speaks in a way that suggests he thinks that one can "take on" the intention to develop mindfulness, and that this is something that can be intentionally cultivated through practice - directing the mind to be aware of the arising object, whether it is the breath or one of the four foundations, and thus build the capability of mindfulness. > > =============== > > J: That is your interpretation. It goes beyond a plain reading of the text of the sutta. What you said above has nothing to do with the plain reading of the sutta. I really don't get it this time. Please explain. > > =============== > > [RE:] If you look at the terms that the Buddha uses, they do suggest active practice, intentionally directing the mind to become more mindful: > > > > "We will develop and cultivate mindfulness..." > > > > "...make it our vehicle > > make it our basis > > stabilize it > > exercise ourselves in it > > fully perfect it.'" > > > > Thus should you train yourselves." > > =============== > > J: Yes, but these are all preceded by the words, "We will develop". As I see it, the passage reads as follows: > "We will: > - develop and cultivate mindfulness > - make it [mindfulness] our vehicle > - make it our basis > - stabilize it > - exercise ourselves in it > - fully perfect it." > > So it's the thought/resolution/recognition being spoken of in each case. I don't get it. Where is there a thought in "make it," "stabilize it," "exercise...it," and "fully perfect it?" Those are all active practice terms. "Develop" is also a practice term, not a thought term. Since when does one develop a practice by thinking about it? In addition, the "develop" in the statement is followed by an "and," which refers to cultivate. You don't cultivate mindfulness by understanding better what it is. You cultivate it by practicing it. Even if you disagree with the above, there is no doubt that "exercise ourselves in it" is an active practice term, and has to do with practice. > > =============== > > [RE:] How do we stabilize mindfulness? > > How do we EXERCISE ourselves in it? > > How do we fully perfect it? > > =============== > > J: Well, these questions -- together with the question, "How do we develop and cultivate mindfulness?" -- are not directly addressed in the passage quoted. It is addressed however, that we are to *do* this. It is in the imperative and we are told to *do so.* > Obviously, though, as and when mindfulness is developed to higher and higher levels, it becomes stabilized, becomes a power (capable of being 'exercised'), and becomes perfected. As far as I'm aware, there are not different ways of 'practice' designed to accommodate the different stages of development. The development of mindfulness to higher levels is the way in which the practice evolves and stabilizes and perfects it through practice. We are being told to do it though, and you can't ignore the active imperative. > > =============== > > [RE:] These terms indicate direct, purposeful practice, not merely the arising of kusala citta without practice. When we EXERCISE mindfulness in order to develop and cultivate it, it is difficult to see such a term in any other way than indicating the practice of meditation, stabilizing, practicing/exercising mindful awareness until it is perfected. > > =============== > > J: This interpretation goes beyond a plain reading of the text in question. I don't agree, and you can only think that by ignoring the imperative terms, but they are not incidental. The plain reading says to do x, do y and do z. A plain reading does not allow you to ignore the speech in favor of another set of concepts. > > =============== > > [RE:] The sutta makes sense as it is written, if it is not unduly altered. > > =============== > > J: :-)) > > Recently on the list there have been some sutta texts quoted that make reference to the progressive development of the path. For example, in the Jivaka Sutta AN 8:26 quoted by Dieter to Connie (see extract below) the following progression is set out: > > (a) being consummate in conviction > (b) being consummate in virtue > (c) being consummate in generosity > (d) desiring to see the monks > (e) wanting to hear the true Dhamma > (f) habitually remembering the Dhamma that has been heard > (g) exploring the meaning of the Dhamma that has been heard > (h) knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma > > All of these factors are part of the training. They all refer to kusala states. But none of them say, "this is the way that mindfulness is developed, and it certainly doesn't say, "this is the only way that mindfulness is developed." There's no doubt that Dhamma is extremely important and powerful, but there's nothing to suggest it is a substitute for practice, or that it will bring about right mindfulness or right concentration without practice. > What's interesting here is the similarity with the 4 'factors for stream entry' mentioned in SN 45:50, which are: > - Association with superior persons -- (d) and (e) in the above set > - hearing the true Dhamma -- (e) and (f) > - careful attention -- (f) and (g) > - practice in accordance with the Dhamma -- (h) Yeah, well let's not forget that the fourth item on that list is *practice.* Since the other factors already cover all the Dhamma stuff, *practice* must refer to something else, ie, .....practice. That's where intentional development and cultivation of right concentration and mindfulness come in, leading to vipassana and eventually enlightenment. [Just thought I'd throw that all in.] Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119470 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:16 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I did a little reading in the Atthasalaani and it was really weird!" > > Scott: My bad spelling aside, and as an afterthought, I wonder if this also reflects to some extent your ongoing opinion of the value of the commentarial tradition itself. No need to comment, but, for what it's worth, I kind of think so... I guess that shows the negligible value of your thoughts, especially the more speculative ones. On the other hand, you don't seem especially inclined to back up anything you say with evidence, certainly not from the "unreal world" that we appear to inhabit, so, par for the course. Keep "opinionating" about where I'm coming from; seems to work for you. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119471 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:20 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...you have offered no verification of your view that saying something can develop under certain conditions somehow necessitates a self...*it's by practice*...No one is saying every moment will be kusala, but I do think that *conditions will relate to the situation one is in*." > > Scott: You remain silent when asked to clearly set out your own definition of 'volition.' Yeah, I do say that it is clearly 'self.' The quotes above allow me to infer your imbedded definition. The disembedded view thus expressed is as follows: > > Rob's View Paraphrased: An Exercise in Hermeneutics. > > "Practice is active doing. A person has to actively decide to practice. A person has to actively keep the goals of practice in mind. A person has to actively do things in order to practice. A person has to want to succeed in order to practice. Wanting to succeed, coupled with actively doing certain things *is* the practice. When I say 'conditions will relate to the situation one is in' I mean that one of the moving factors in meditation is the purposeful willing to succeed and do and this constitutes the setting of conditions by the person. These intitial conditions, which are under the control of the person, will then cause a cascade of other wholesome things to occur. One has to do things on purpose - set conditions - in order to practice. All this - the wanting to succeed and the purposeful, active doing of certain things is how I define 'volition.' 'Volition' is the consciously held thought-desire to succeed and do and will, possibly slowly at first, but surely carry the plan forward to fruition. In other words, this sort of 'volition' is the prime moving factor in 'practice.'" Actually I mean volition and practice in a fairly ordinary way, that's true. But I don't think you can define volition from your point of view very well. It's just "an arising factor" that does something, like every other dhamma. I'm not making any special claims about volition being involved or not. Volition of some kind is obviously behind action or it wouldn't take place, but my real assertion is not that one has to "want to do it really bad," or "try really hard." My assertion is simply that correct practice has certain kinds of results over time, nothing more or less. If you want to add all kinds of elements made of straw to bolster your make-believe case, then feel free. It won't move the discussion forward, but who cares? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119472 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:21 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Good friend Scott, Well, what you wrote is all over the Internet... [verily beeg Texican grins] So, deny, deny, deny; but, it is there in cyberspace for all... [more Texican grins] Now to your juvenile and very sophomoric denial... ................................................................................\ ................................ C: "...Did you not write, 'Scott: First of all, I don't worship monks.'" Scott: I have never seen this quote in my entire life. C: "A repeated query to you: Where in the Theravada Teachings' is it taught to 'worship monks?'" Scott: A vastly more astute and compelling query would be, 'when did it ever become a crime to question what scholar monks have opined?' I hope that this clarification will have gone some way in helping you out of the muddle you are in as this, your very own question, now, apparently, turns against you. Scott. ..................... As usual; you, Scott, are non-responsive to a simple question!!! So be it,,, peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119473 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:04 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Chaver & Kalyanamitta: Good Friends, from Another [the Jewish] Trad... dhammasaro Good friends all, Yes, I also agree with, "I quite agree. The process of discussion is very useful!!" Just a minor comment... both in my Catholic grade school and high school; I was most fortunate to have classmates of the Jewish Faith. In grade school, I learned to respect all religions... plus, having playmates of another religion... In addition, in my Catholic college prep-quasi military high school, I met and associated with many students of different faiths and ethnic backgrounds... Finally, to my parents, maternal grandparents, my second father; I thank all My classmates and teachers... well, most teachers... [jes kiddin; on der teashurs] Friendly discussion is fruitful... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119474 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: Does cetanaa wield power over khandas? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > The Oxford Dictionary gives the non-Dhamma definition of 'volition': > > "...the faculty or power of using one's will." > > The Oxford Dictionary gives the non-Dhamma definition of 'will': > > "...the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action..." > > A random non-Dhamma philosophical definition of 'free will': > > "'Free Will' is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives..." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) > > Scott: I contend that this is the way in which you define volition. Please give your own definition if it differs from the above. I don't believe in free will. I believe that volition arises from conditions. However, it is very obvious that people can and do engage in various activities, and that various skills arise from the doing, not because of self or control, but because of the nature of the activities and the conditions they create. You can laugh at this idea all you like, but it is basically "impersonal volition + activities" rather than one or the other, as you would have it. You may see it them as polar opposites; I think it is obvious that volition exists, that activities do have effects rather than being hallucinations as you would like; and that there is no self involved. Take the points one by one please, and please don't try to involve me in the Oxford dictionary. Dictionaries are compendiums of common usage; neither of us is using volition in that way. > From Atthasalaani (pp.147-148 - bear in mind, Rob, that this refers to a single mental factor in it's *momentary* conascent arising with citta): Which is what the Atthasalaani has to say; well, fine. > "Volition is that which co-ordinates, that is, it binds closely to itself associated states [dhammaa] as objects. This is it's characteristic; it's function is conation. There is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of co-ordinating; all volition has it. But the function of conation is only in moral and immoral acts, the remaining associated states play only a restricted part. But volition is exceedingly energetic. It makes a double-effort, a double exertion...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states...for when it puts forth energy, they also put forth energy...it arises by causing associated states to be energetic in such things a recollecting an urgent work, and so forth." > > Scott: Remember, Rob, this refers to the single mental factor arising conascent with citta in a single moment of consciousness - that is, after arising and before falling away. This refers in no way, shape, or form to a person. Anatta. No one is talking about persons, Scott. But as I have said, you have to take into account accumulation, conditionality, tendencies and other factors, that lead to many cittas arising in various series. If volition arises 1000 times and promotes sati in their cittas, the sati then accumulates. You can make believe this doesn't exist, and you still haven't dealt with it at all, but it is in fact how the path develops, and so you are left with nothing but a single citta in your hand, which explains absolutely nothing about what we are discussing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119475 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 27-okt-2011, om 16:50 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > > Although I don't fully agree in a *direct* sense that the Buddha's > > admonitions on practice were only encouragement, I do agree with it > > in another way: I think that the Buddha's words can create the > > conditions for practice and that practice creates further > > conditions for development.Even if you don't see it this way and > > you see it as just causing arising of more kusala cetana which will > > cause arousal of more kusala, I would agree in that sense too that > > the spur of the Buddha's words would cause more arising of kusala. > > > ------- > N: I would not put it this way: you see it as just causing arising > of more kusala cetana which will cause arousal of more kusala. > Instead I would emphasize understanding. It is understanding that > conditions more kusala. > ------- What role does cetana play? Any? > > R: What's kind of interesting to me is that the quote from the > > commentary that Scott presented speaks about cetana leading to > > physical action. Maybe it is saying that the cetana that leads to > > physical action is not the most kusala cetana -- I haven't been > > able to sort that out myself from the commentary -- but it does > > acknowledge the possibility of physical action coming out of such > > moments of cetana. > > > ------- > N: As to ruupas of the body these can be originated by kamma (such as > the senses), citta, temperature or nutrition. When starting to walk, > it can be kusala citta or akusala citta that produces ruupas. > And if you want to convey something to someone else, the citta > produces kaya vi~n~natti ruupa, bodily intimation. I do not see that > it is specifically cetanaa, but citta and its conascent cetasikas. > Citta does so at its arising moment, not at the moment of its > presence or ceasing. This helps us to see that it all occurs so fast, > no time for thinking: I intend to move forward. It has happened already. > That is why the Buddha used the simile of a puppet. We are like > puppets, and citta moves the strings so that the puppets stand or > walk, perform actions. Just phenomena rolling on by conditions: Well I guess what I'm aiming at is what kind of cittas will promote kusala actions, and can those actions lead to more kusala, or more understanding. When Buddha addressed the monks who were accustomed to jhana and told them how to attend jhana so that it could be used as object of sati, how would this lead to the monks using jhana as an object that would lead to more sati and development of enlightenment factors? > In the "Kindred Sayings"(I, Sagth-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, > 9), in the "Sel-sutta", we read that at Svatth Mra addressed > Sister Sel: > > "Who was it that made the human puppet's form? > Where is the maker of the human doll? > Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? > Where will the puppet cease and pass away?" > > Sel answered: > > "Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet > By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. > By reason of a cause it came to be, > By rupture of a cause it dies away. > Like a certain seed sown in the field, > Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, > And moisture likewise, by these two grows, > So the five khandhas, the elements, > And the six spheres of sense > -- even all these, > By reason of a cause they came to be; > By rupture of a cause they die away. > > Then Mra the evil one thought: `Sister Sel knows me', and sad and > sorrowful he vanished there and then." > ------ > R: > > That sort of opens the door for the body to be involved in right > > action, I think, and then that leaves open the question for what > > kind of physical action would constitute right action? A lot of > > possibility there..., including the possibility of sitting around > > developing mindfulness! ;-) > > > ------ > > N: Or developing mindfulness while standing, walking, lying down. > > It all depends on conditions. Phenomena rolling on. That all seems good to me. I would never say that only meditation is a setting for developing mindfulness. I just would like to know why Buddha spent the time on showing how meditation could develop satipatthana through breath and other objects of attention. Of course, all activities were also included as objects for practice of mindfulness. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #119476 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Nina, (Rob E.) > > "'Kindred Sayings'(I, Sagaathaa-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, > 9), in the 'Selaa-sutta', we read that at Saavatth Maara addressed > Sister Selaa: > > 'Who was it that made the human puppet's form? > Where is the maker of the human doll? > Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? > Where will the puppet cease and pass away?' > > Selaa answered: > > 'Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet > By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. > By reason of a cause it came to be, > By rupture of a cause it dies away. > Like a certain seed sown in the field, > Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, > And moisture likewise, by these two grows, > So the five khandhas, the elements, > And the six spheres of sense > -- even all these, > By reason of a cause they came to be; > By rupture of a cause they die away. > > Then Maara the evil one thought: `Sister Selaa knows me', and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then.' > > Scott: This is really a beautiful example of a sutta that clearly demonstrates anatta and, being part of the body of the suttas, it's particular demonstration of a mode of discourse and truth cannot be dissassociated from that body of teachings - it presents the fundamental way in which the teachings are to be understood in each sutta no matter if it is worded 'conventionally.' You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't seem to realize that I am fully on board with anatta, but draw a different conclusion from it about activities than you do. My different conclusion is based on what the Buddha taught. Yours is based on what the commentaries say. Different sources for different people. I follow Buddha, you follow the commentaries and use them as a guide to translate Buddha's talks about activities into arising cittas. You may be right, but the Buddha never said that was the way to take his teachings, so you are on your own with the commentators. Good luck! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119477 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E > > You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't seem to realize that I am fully on board with anatta, but draw a different conclusion from it about activities than you do. My different conclusion is based on what the Buddha taught. Yours is based on what the commentaries say. Different sources for different people. I follow Buddha, you follow the commentaries and use them as a guide to translate Buddha's talks about activities into arising cittas. You may be right, but the Buddha never said that was the way to take his teachings, so you are on your own with the commentators. Good luck! > Ph: Have a good long volitional look at the group's home page description and ask yourself if this the right place to debate endlessly based on this rejection of the commentaries. I think it's "weird." And just lacking in good ol' common sense. You are not saying the above just to Scott, but to Sarah, Jon, Nina and others as well. Why do you stay here if you have such a low opinion of their approach to the Dhamma? I don't get it. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #119478 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > > > You're barking up the wrong tree. You don't seem to realize that I am fully on board with anatta, but draw a different conclusion from it about activities than you do. My different conclusion is based on what the Buddha taught. Yours is based on what the commentaries say. Different sources for different people. I follow Buddha, you follow the commentaries and use them as a guide to translate Buddha's talks about activities into arising cittas. You may be right, but the Buddha never said that was the way to take his teachings, so you are on your own with the commentators. Good luck! > > > > > Ph: Have a good long volitional look at the group's home page description and ask yourself if this the right place to debate endlessly based on this rejection of the commentaries. I think it's "weird." I think the way you keep addressing me is weird. There's no mandate on this list to advise other members whether are subscribing to the correct philosophy or not. If you ever look at any of my exchanges with Nina or Sarah, you will see that I talk in detail and ask questions in detail about Abhidhamma and commentary-related matters, and that I often acknowledge how much I learn from the commentaries, and how much I like them. I praise K. Sujin's book, and I am largely here to learn about and talk about the Abhidhamma viewpoint, and have been for some years. On the other hand there are parts of this philosophy that I either don't agree with or that don't make sense to me, so I am either debating those points when they come up or asking for further clarification, and if you don't think that's a proper function of this group, then you have no idea what listening, talking and wisely considering Dhamma are about. In fact you are prejudiced and impatient with anyone who isn't on your wavelength at any given time, whatever that happens to be, and express your distaste with others' views in a way that at times is clearly wrong speech, and yet while defending Dhamma this doesn't seem to bother you at all. I have an idea how to make best use of this list: use it for your own edification, and if you don't like the discussions I'm having ignore them as you used to and don't participate. To keep telling me whether I belong here or not in your not-very-humble opinion is obnoxious. I've asked you to stop it before, and I'll ask you again. If you insist on critiquing my overall way of approaching this group I'll just stop replying to you. Scott also approaches me in an all-knowing and arrogant manner, and so I respond to him in a way that is not always conciliatory. Maybe I should be more patient too, but we all have our limits. He is not arguing the merits of whether an activity can have kusala effects or develop the path, which is an important topic for anyone interested in Dhamma, despite your obvious distaste for my view on this. My view that Abhidhamma and meditation can work together is reflected in suttas and Visudhimagga, so I am not out of accord with the intention of this group to study and clarify Dhamma, with special attention to Abhidhamma and commentaries. That is what I am here for, but I won't be convinced by peer group pressure to swallow everything that is taken as truth here. Again, why don't you just leave me alone? Is there some reason why you have to "philosophically cleanse" this group so that only people who agree with you are left? Too bad, not going to happen. > And just lacking in good ol' common sense. You are not saying the above just to Scott, but to Sarah, Jon, Nina and others as well. Why do you stay here if you have such a low opinion of their approach to the Dhamma? I don't get it. I don't think you've read many of the threads in which I am discussing and clarifying points of Dhamma with the expert friends on this group - and I do consider them friends. It's certainly not for you to judge whether I should be here or not - such a view towards a fellow list-member is repugnant, but I guess that's never stopped you before, so why hold back now? I'm sure if the moderators thought I was violating the spirit of this group they would let me know. And trust me, I would leave quickly and happily if they informed me that I was not contributing to the group. The truth is I am really not that interested in debating these points and sometimes get very very very tired of doing so. I would like to learn, discuss and apply those discussions to my understanding of the path, and that is my main reason for being here. But someone like you or Scott will pick a fight with me and then hang on like an angry dog, picking at every word I say. I find it time-consuming and wearying, but it's hard not to answer a post that is addressed to me, and sometimes I do get involved in trying to sort out all these points. Alex, Howard, myself and some others appreciate Abhidhamma but believe in meditation as a part of the path. If you think we all should leave because of that there's something seriously wrong with your view. You might as well just repeat phrases to yourself in the mirror and then nod your head in agreement. What a life. Yours in Dhamma, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119479 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I am fully on board with anatta, but draw a different conclusion from it about activities than you do..." Scott: You definitely do draw a different conclusion. The conclusion I draw, and this will be no surprise to you, is that you are *not* fully on board with anatta. As long as you claim that you 'meditate' you have obviously become a neo-commentator with his own take on anatta. You can directly ask Jon, Nina, or Sarah whether or not they think you understand anatta properly while maintaining an allegiance to the modern notion of 'meditation.' I'd bet, if they chose to answer, they'd have to say no. Scott. #119480 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Scott on Worshipping Monks scottduncan2 Chuck, C: "Well, what you wrote is all over the Internet... [verily beeg Texican grins]" Scott: Gotcha. Just messin' with you, Tex. C: "...As usual; you, Scott, are non-responsive to a simple question..." Scott: You've lost track of the conversation. You were like all upset because Phil and I were discussing the demerits of certain opinions of certain monks. I don't happen to think that it's a big deal to question the views of monks, and so I'm like, 'I don't worship monks.' And I still maintain that I never did say that. What internet? Scott. #119481 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:49 am Subject: The Zombie... bhikkhu5 Friends: How does Lethargy & Laziness Suppress Mind? A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember even something that has been memorized over a long period & also that which has not been memorized? Brahmin, when mind is retarded by lethargy & laziness, dimmed, detained & dominated by lethargy and laziness, and one does not understand any actual safe escape from this arisen lethargy and laziness, in that very moment, one can neither see, nor understand, what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and others. Consequently, whatever have been memorized, cannot be remembered� Why is this neglect so? Imagine a bowl of water covered with moss, water plants and algae. If a man with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see, nor recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when mind is slowed down by lethargy and laziness, dimmed, detained and handicapped by lethargy & laziness, on such occasions even texts long memorized do not recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events and information, that have not been actively memorized at all� How to cure Laziness: Attention to these 3 elements of: initiative, launching and endurance! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya. Book [V:122-3] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #119482 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:02 pm Subject: RE: Good Ole Scotty dhammasaro Hey Scott, You still deny??? Please refer to message 119320. It shows you are... well, in Christian charity let us say, "You, Scott, are most forgetful in what you wrote???" What say you? ......................................... Please review the full Scott message below. Observe what is written by Scott as "Scott: First of all, I don't worship monks." Hmmm, Scott earlier denied such... his credibility.. his truthfulness... his honesty... his... ................................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ............ Re: Disagreeing w/ Bhikkhu(s) Chuck, <....> Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date ^ #119483 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:45 pm Subject: Re: Good Ole Scotty scottduncan2 Chuck, C: "Hmmm, Scott earlier denied such... his credibility.. his truthfulness... his honesty... his..." Scott: I'm messin' with you. What's your quesion? Scott. #119484 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:21 pm Subject: Chuck: I Do Not Worship Monks!!! dhammasaro Good friends all, I do not worship monks!!!! Yep, I do not not!!! You can quote me!!! Unlike good friend Scott... He denies ever writting such... however, it is all over the Internet... Since Scott denies such; does it follow? Does it follow Scott does worship monks???? I write again, does it follow Scott worship monks??? Geee.... is Scott a closet Druid???? a closet... Oh horrors of horrors... just in tyme for Halloween... [veril beeg, beeg Texican grins] eni alli en jes... as always, der irreverent Texican, Chuck Post script: Aren't you glad you are not one of my ajahns? #119485 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Chuck: : Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Hey Scotty, ole doggie Hey, I do not worship monks!!! I have no problem writing such!!! As you wrote, I once was one. Monks are sentient beings as you... yep!!! Why do you deny writing the same??? Logically and psychologically says, since you so vehemently deny writing such; a psycho medico would certainly state, "You do worship monks"!!! True???? For real???? Wow!!! An Internet first... as ever, Chuck #119486 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:15 pm Subject: Re: Chuck: : Scott on Worshipping Monks scottduncan2 Tex, C: "Hey, I do not worship monks!!! Scott: That makes two of us. See? Consensus. C: "Why do you deny writing the same???" Scott: Just messin' with you, as I said now for the third time. C: "Logically and psychologically says, since you so vehemently deny writing such; a psycho medico would certainly state, 'You do worship monks'!!!..." Scott: I so totally messed with you. And, even when I tell you, you're like still so totally messed with. Anyways, when you were a monk, did anyone worship you? I hope not. While it is a great thing to do, I doubt you would have encouraged anyone to take you too seriously. Or did you... Scott. #119487 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E Well, I think your official position is that you are interested in Abh and comm, but you let slip your true feeling the other day ( Atthasaliini is "weird") and in that post to Scott I commented on. Yes, true, indeed it's up to other people if they want to spend such a large portion of their Dhamma discussion time on roundabouts with a partner who will never be on the same page. None of my business. I have an idea. From now on I will stick to transcribing the focussed and productive Dhamma discussions I am so keen on these days, that would be best. Carry on. Try reading Atth again, maybe it wasn't the right time. Over and out. Metta, Phil #119488 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:41 pm Subject: FW: On an ole Vital Message dhammasaro Sent to good friend Scoot first, so she can present a cogent reply... From: dhammasaro@... To: scduncan@... Subject: On an ole Vital Message Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:32:01 -0400 Good friends all, Please review message 119320. Do you observe a statement which states, "I do not worship Monks" or similar written words... 1. Please respond here on DSG the author of that message. 2. Please, what do you understand from that sentence in among the other sentences? Sincere warm thanks... Peace to all honest in heart/mind... as always, yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119489 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:44 pm Subject: 31 Planes; was: Are Buddhists Atheists? dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Do you agree? Chuck: Hence, in conventional language, Buddhist being atheist depend on the agreed definition of "atheists" and the agreed concept of "31 Planes." Thanks. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119490 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:46 pm Subject: Now: No Woman Arahants? dhammasaro Good friends all, How many women were arahants and not monks? Seriously asked. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119491 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: Parochial Buddhiam dhammasaro Good friends all, Are you sometimes exposed to parochial Buddhism? I ask, as I am somewhat infrequently. Especially, when discussing, in depth, Buddhist topics with my myriad ajahns... I have learned not to quote a source from another Thai Buddhist sect within the Thai Theravada Tradition!!! [bummers] In fact, my translation from Thai to English by my friend, His Holiness, the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, was suspect!!! Once, my senior ajahn did not believe the translation from Thai to English. To date, he has not provided a different teaching based on the Tipitaka. No, I do not remind him... I fully respect him as I do all sentient beings... plus, he is my personal senior ajahn... why argue on a minor point? Plus he has "walked the talk" many, many more years than I... just relating real life... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119492 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:08 pm Subject: The late Steve Jobs, a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friends all, The late Steve Jobs and his wife were Buddhist monks for two weeks... as I understand... can anyone confirm or deny? peace... Steve Jobs' Mantra Rooted in Buddhism: Focus and SimplicitySee: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/steve-jobs-buddhism-guided-life-mantra-focus-simpli\ city/story?id=14682458 Is this for real? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUYiQCvpv8 Warm thanks for you help. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119493 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:02 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Scott on Worshipping Monks dhammasaro Smoothie scoothie scottie, You wrote: C: "...As usual; you, Scott, are non-responsive to a simple question..." Scott: You've lost track of the conversation. You were like all upset because Phil and I were discussing the demerits of certain opinions of certain monks. I don't happen to think that it's a big deal to question the views of monks, and so I'm like, 'I don't worship monks.' And I still maintain that I never did say that. What internet? Scott. ..................... Well, again after many, many times and, perhaps, days, I have asked!!! 1. Please provide substantiation of your very negative writing: "demerits of certain opinions of certain monks" Why smear???? Why??? 2. Were you raped by a monk in your youth??? Just asking... No need to reply... I know it may be very sensitive to you... 3. On, what you claim you never wrote, "'I don't worship monks.' And I still maintain that I never did say that..." Unfortunately DSG message 119320 reveals you again lie... as usual, Scott? Chuck Post script: You may delete it; but, be assured multitude copies are available for you and others to peruse!!! [verily beeg Texican smiles] #119494 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:27 pm Subject: Re: 31 Planes; was: Are Buddhists Atheists? sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > Do you agree? > > > Chuck: Hence, in conventional language, Buddhist being atheist depend on the > agreed definition of "atheists" and the agreed concept of "31 Planes." .... S: To me, it's meaningless to label Buddhists as such and such, so I can't help. The Buddha doesn't teach theism or atheism, so I'm more interested in studying what the Buddha did teach with regard to present moment realities. Metta Sarah ----- #119495 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:37 pm Subject: Re: An Antagonist and This Ole Sentient Being sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > you repied with "beginner citta." > > What is "beginner citta." .... S: As I recall, you had referred to us all as "experts" and I had been pointing out that we're all just beginners on the path. There is an opportunity now to begin again, to study the reality appearing now. Even the ariyan disciples prior to arahantship are "trainees" (sekha). For the non-sekha, the worldlings, we are "mad men". Wrong view has not yet been eradicated even. "Mad men" are beginners, gradually developing right understanding and detachment from what has been conditioned already, including wrong view. (See Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentaries for more on sekha and worldlings.) Metta Sarah p.s As others have requested, out of consideration for everyone, please do not send multiple copies of posts to the list (even if there are long delays) and please do not send copies of posts to personal in-boxes without the permission of the recipients. Thanks in advance. =========== #119496 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: More travels, more delays sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Jon & I are travelling back to Hong Kong tomorrow, so it'll be a couple of days before I'm able to send replies. Speak soon.... Metta Sarah ====== #119497 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:46 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: An Antagonist and This Ole Sentient Being dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, So, what is the Pali word for "beginner citta"? Imho, you "danced around" your coined word... yes/no? I still do not have the Pali word for your, "beginner citta." [bummer] [An aside: An imagined mix of English and Pali???? Horrors....] Please be specific with your Pali word, as yoy are the Dhamma expert on this DSG Forum. yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119498 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:53 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] More travels, more delays dhammasaro Good friend Sarah and Jon, Sincere blessings for a very harmonious and safe trip to Hong Kong [home?]... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... <...> Jon & I are travelling back to Hong Kong tomorrow, so it'll be a couple of days before I'm able to send replies. <...> #119499 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: On Helping a Bhikkhu dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may repeat... A monk is not to ask for something... yes? How ever, you can properly let a monk solicit you for something... In the Thai style, you write what you offer on a piece of paper and give to the monk's steward (temple boy). In western countries; just present to the monk - verbally is okay. I only had it happen to me once. I was in the Bangkok US Embassy. A Thai man gave a piece of paper with the offer to my Thai friend. I remember him and his family in my Loving-kindness meditations... Perhaps, many on this DSG Forum find this practice as silly, stupid, et cetera... so be it... Just relating life... Peace to all... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119500 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: An Antagonist and This Ole Sentient Being sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > So, what is the Pali word for "beginner citta"? ... S: Just checked what I wrote which was: >S: Instead of thinking about "us dhamma/Dhamma experts", what about understanding the "beginner" citta now. Usually there's ignorance all day long. S: I was referring to the understanding of the present citta, the present kind of consciousness. The understanding now is not the developed understanding of a "Dhamma expert" (your words), but of the "beginner", which I used in contrast. I did not suggest this was a translation of a Pali term and have no idea what the Pali would be, so there's no point in asking me for it! Metta Sarah ===== #119501 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Robert, and Scott & Ken & Chuck, and all others) - In a message dated 10/29/2011 1:04:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Rob E Well, I think your official position is that you are interested in Abh and comm, but you let slip your true feeling the other day ( Atthasaliini is "weird") and in that post to Scott I commented on. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: I may well be wrong, Phil, but I seem to recall this was Robert joking with respect to the proper spelling of that commentary. That aside, there's something on my mind that I've finally decided to mention: It seems to me that the list itself has gottena bit "weird," and not in a funny or very pleasant way. It seems to me to be getting awfully combative, with lots of us engaged in opinion battles and the hurling of ad hominem spears. We're all good people here, it seems to me, but we're getting caught up in "I'm right, and you're wrong, and my understanding is THE proper one, and all else is heretical" thinking and expression. Wouldn't an increase of peacefulness and metta here be very welcome? ------------------------------------------------- Yes, true, indeed it's up to other people if they want to spend such a large portion of their Dhamma discussion time on roundabouts with a partner who will never be on the same page. None of my business. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Most especially, it would be good, I think,when the circumstances fit, if we could all come to the position "This is how I'm seeing the matter, it's quite the opposite of how s/he is viewing it, and that's the way it is. There's no need to "win". -------------------------------------------------- I have an idea. From now on I will stick to transcribing the focussed and productive Dhamma discussions I am so keen on these days, that would be best. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: :-) ------------------------------------------------- Carry on. Try reading Atth again, maybe it wasn't the right time. Over and out. Metta, Phil ================================ With metta, Howard P.S. To the moderators - I apologize if I am treading on your turf in writing on this topic. Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #119502 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:17 am Subject: The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.1) (to be continued) philofillet Hi all I think I will stay out of trouble for awhile by offering the best Dhamma I can, transcripts of A. Sujin talking on Dhamma. Q: Khun Sujin, you mention darkness from time to time. And that if there is an object that arises other than seeing then darkness is present? A.S: I think that the world we live with ignorance is quite different from when panna penetrates the true nature of reality. For example right now it seems the world of sight and things in and around oneself, trees and colour...but actually one moment of experiencing an object. And who experiences it? The citta, which is the faculty of experiencing an object. It's now experiencing it, but we do not have the right understanding of citta itself, as it is, when there is no awareness. For example, light now is the object of what? Of seeing itself. of the element which can experience it. And that element is not rupa at all. It brings us to begin to understand, what that reality is. No shape, no form, no light. So it's so dark. So in reality when panna is fully developed the world is oppposite of the world when no panna arising and experiencing it. There must be moment of darkness because you see bhavanga is dark. manodhavara is dark, and the moment of experiencing an object through other doorway besides the eye base must be dark. So at that moment no self, no one at all, only darkness with the quality of experiencing an object, right then. Depending on whatever it is, it can be feeling, it can be hardness, it can be thinking, it can be anything,, in darkness, see. So it's not like this world, it's different world with one object at a time, as different elements. So it's so natural the citta is dark, no matter whenever it arises, no shape, no form, but the faculty of experiencing is there. So that object appears to that citta which experiences it. #119503 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "I may well be wrong...but I seem to recall this was Robert joking with respect to the proper spelling of that commentary." Scott: Yes, he did make the joke in reference to a misspelling. Then, later, I made the suggestion that perhaps Rob E. actually finds the commentaries 'weird.' I did so given that Rob E. does not give much credence to quotes from these texts (and given his use of the word in relation to the misspelling). He later agreed that he considers the suttas to be primarily relevant to him, confirming my guess about his attitude toward the commentarial tradition. H: "...we're getting caught up in 'I'm right, and you're wrong...' Scott: That *is* the reality of how we see things, Howard. Do you want to establish some sort of pretence about that? And then discuss what? If I'm discussing, say, the function of a given mental factor, and you agree with something I say about that mental factor, am I supposed to forget that, for you, all is convention and the only reality is Nibbaana? One, I don't care that you believe this, but, two, it would be impossible for me to accept your 'agreement' about something in relation to a mental factor I consider to be a paramattha dhamma and you consider to be 'convention.' And, I assume, you think you are right about that, disclaimers aside, since this view hasn't altered for years. Politeness is one thing, and I've discussed how I see that recently. Pretending we agree? Pretending we are capable of 'safeguarding the truth? I'll discuss the given sutta in another post. As a preliminary statement, I'd say that this and the one to the Kalamas are mostly misunderstood to mean that either anything could be true if someone finds it to be so, teachings aside; or nothing is actually true. Scott. #119504 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Now: No Woman Arahants? nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 29-okt-2011, om 5:46 heeft Maipenrai Dhammasaro het volgende geschreven: > How many women were arahants and not monks? Seriously asked. > > --------- Women arahats were ordained bhikkhunis. ------ Nina. #119505 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara was Khandhas and samsara nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 28-okt-2011, om 18:06 heeft Maipenrai Dhammasaro het volgende geschreven: > A partial quote: > Then Mra the evil one thought: Sister Sel knows me, and sad and > sorrowful he vanished there and then. > > Question: What is your teaching on, "Mara"? ------ N: Not my teaching on Maara, it is in the Tipi.taka. Maara is represented as an evil person, he visited the Bodhisatta to tempt him, and later on also when the Bodhisatta had become the Buddha. Also, everything that is dukkha is also called maara: kilesa maara, all defilements. Death is maara. The cycle of birth and death is Maara. Nina. #119506 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet HI Howard. Rob E, Scott, all Oh I see now, it was a joke on the spelling. Well whatever. Usually I would aplogize for misunderstanding, but the things he wrote about the commentaries this morning were even more dismissive than calling them "weird", well, whatever, honestly. It's all such a fun big game full of ideas... Consider me a transcript guy for awhile, I'll stay out of the way otherwise. Metta. Phil #119507 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Oh I see now, it was a joke on the spelling..." Scott: Not so fast, Phil. I went on to suggest that the joke about the spelling reflected Rob E.'s deeper attitude towards the commentarial tradition in general, which he later confirmed. This is still about the ongoing dismissal of commentarial textual references in favour of neo-commentarial sutta interpretations. Scott. #119508 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:56 am Subject: Canki Sutta scottduncan2 Howard, You've again offered a portion of the Canki Sutta (MN 95 -~Naa.namoli/Bodhi version below) to suggest that no one is right (?), or that truth is relative (?) or some such. I fail to see how you can get around the fact that the Dhamma can only be *one way* and that there is *either* right or wrong in relation to it. Consider the text just prior to the portion you've cited: "...There are five things, Bhaaradvaaja, that may turn out in two different ways here and now. What five? Faith (saddhaa), approval (ruci), oral tradition (anussava), reasoned cogitation (aakaaraparivitakka), and reflective acceptance of a view (di.t.ti-nijjhaanakkhanti). These five things may turn out in two different ways here and now. Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. [Under these conditions] it is not proper for a wise man to who preserves the truth to come to the definite conclusion: 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong...When he has investigated him and has seen that he is purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him; filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives, resolutely striving, he realises with wisdom. In this way, Bhaaradvaaja, there is the discovery of the truth. But as yet there is no final arrival at truth...The final arrival at truth, Bhaaradvaaja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bhaaradvaaja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth..." Scott: There is a truth to be arrived at. There is a way to arrive at that truth. What is your interpretation of this portion of the sutta? Scott. #119509 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:18 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: An Antagonist and This Ole Sentient Being dhammasaro Sarah: ...so there's no point in asking me for it! Chuck: Sigh..._ #119510 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:46 pm Subject: Ajahn Chah dhammasaro Good friends all, When it comes to the Dhamma, we have to understand that our opinions are one thing; the Dhamma is something else. More at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/shapeofacircle.html peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <.....> #119511 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:23 am Subject: In Buddhism, May One Make an Error? dhammasaro Good friends all, Parroting some thoughts... Enlightenment means there is no anger left in your heart. There are no personal desires or delusion left in your heart. In this life that we have; we often forget that it's no great thing to make a mistake. In Buddhism, it's all right to make a mistake. It is all right to be imperfect. Isn't that wonderful? This means that we have the freedom to be a human being, rather than thinking of ourselves as someone wonderful and great who never makes mistakes. It is horrible, isn't it, if we think we are not allowed to make mistakes, because we do make mistakes, then we have to hide and try to cover them up. So the home then is not a place of peace and quiet and comfort. Of course most people who are sceptical say: "Well if you allow people to make mistakes, how will they ever learn? They will just keep on making even more mistakes". But that is not the way it actually works. To illustrate this point, when I was a teenager my father said to me that he would never throw me out or bar the door of his house to me, no matter what I did; I would always be allowed in there, even if I had made the worst mistakes. When I heard that, I understood it as an expression of love, of acceptance. It inspired me and I respected him so much that I did not want to hurt him, I did not want to give him trouble, and so I tried even harder to be worthy of his house. Now if we could try that with the people we live with, we'd see that it gives them the freedom and the space to relax and be peaceful, and it takes away all the tension. In that ease, there comes respect and care for the other person. So I challenge you to try the experiment of allowing people to make mistakes - to say to your mate, your parents or your children: "The door of my house will always be open to you; the door of my heart will always be open to you no matter what you do." Say it to yourself too: "The door of my house is always open to me." Allow yourself to make mistakes too. Can you think of all the mistakes you have made in the last week? Can you let them be, can you still be a friend to yourself? It is only when we allow ourselves to make mistakes that we can finally be at ease. That is what we mean by compassion, by metta, by love. It has to be unconditional. If you only love someone because they do what you like, or because they always live up to your expectations, then of course that love is not worth very much. That's like a business deal love: "I will love you if you give me something back in return." When I first became a monk I thought monks had to be perfect. I thought they should never make mistakes; that when they sit in meditation they must always sit straight. But those of you who have been at the morning sit at 4:30 am, especially after working hard the day before, you will know that you can be quite tired; you can slump, you can even nod. But that is all right. It is all right to make mistakes. Can you feel how easy it feels, how all that tension and stress disappears when you allow yourself to make mistakes? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck Source: Buddhist Society of Western Australia Selected Dhamma Essays: Index On Making a Mistake Ajahn Brahmavamso Ajahn Brahmavamso is the Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia. These Dhamma reflections are extracted from a talk he gave at the Dhammaloka Centre in Perth in 1990. <.....> #119512 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:31 am Subject: Philip, A Sincere Request dhammasaro Good friend Philip, et al Good friend Scott was not responsive in his responses... [bummers] What say you, Philip? Sincere thanks in presenting concrete evidence on your apparent disparaging remarks against certain Bhikkhu(s)? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <....> #119513 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:46 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Howard, et al Perhaps I am too dense... and, perhaps I am the target of your most recent message [bummer, unless it is good - a rarity!!!] Would you re-written fer en ole ancient Texican? u noe, soo ah kin noe u'r en'tent... tanks... u mai git en les dan 24 hours... chunky #119514 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:04 am Subject: Conventional vs Dhamma Language dhammasaro Good friends all, Do you all agree? In conventional language, a Buddhist being atheist depends on the agreed definition of "atheists" and the agreed concept of "31 Planes." However, Dhamma language would very much more restrictive, yes? Dhamma definitions have to be very strictly observed, no? Discussion? Thanks. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119515 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:24 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Now: No Woman Arahants? dhammasaro Fine!!! Most of my Thai monk teachers say only men are arahants!!! So???? That and two dollars may buy me a cup of coffee... get my drift??? Please provide Tipitaka references!!! To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: vangorko@... <....> #119516 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Now: No Woman Arahants? nichiconn hi Chuck, > > Fine!!! Most of my Thai monk teachers say only men are arahants!!! So???? > > That and two dollars may buy me a cup of coffee... get my drift??? > > Please provide Tipitaka references!!! > There is the whole book of the Theriigaathaa - story after story of female arahants!!! It's hard to imagine the Thai monks have never heard of this book / these arahants, so !! I have to think maybe there is some confusion over the terms 'arahant' and 'buddha' - as you know, a lot of people don't make a distinction but use the two terms interchangeably, but you will not find a single reference to a supremely enlightened female buddha in the "Old School" tradition. My own argument is with people who say we all possess something called 'buddha nature' or talk about 'the buddha within' each of us. Good luck coming to an understanding with your friends, connie #119517 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.1) (to be continued) nilovg Dear Phil, Thank you very much. A good talk on darkness. Nina. Op 29-okt-2011, om 15:17 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I think I will stay out of trouble for awhile by offering the best > Dhamma I can, transcripts of A. Sujin talking on Dhamma. > > Q: Khun Sujin, you mention darkness from time to time. And that if > there is an object that arises other than seeing then darkness is > present? > > A.S: I think that the world we live with ignorance is quite > different from when panna penetrates the true nature of reality. > For example right now it seems the world of sight and things in and > around oneself, trees and colour...but actually one moment of > experiencing an object. And who experiences it? The citta, which is > the faculty of experiencing an object. #119518 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:03 am Subject: Re: Off-topic: It is Snowing!!! Major Dukkha!!! upasaka_howard Snowing here too, on Long Island! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/29/2011 11:16:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Durn, it is snowing just outside Philadelphia.... not Halloween nor Thanksgiving has past!!! and, I am not home in warm south Texas!!! 6u3k... #119519 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 10/29/2011 9:46:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friend Howard, et al Perhaps I am too dense... and, perhaps I am the target of your most recent message [bummer, unless it is good - a rarity!!!] ------------------------------------------------ HCW: No, Chuck, what I wrote wasn't particularly aimed at you, though it included you a bit. I was mainly addressing the atmosphere of the list recently, at least as it seems to me, and it doesn't seem to be an atmosphere of ease. Perhaps this is just in the eye of the beholder; i.e., in my eye. Who knows! ------------------------------------------------- Would you re-written fer en ole ancient Texican? u noe, soo ah kin noe u'r en'tent... ------------------------------------------------- HCW: :-) Please see what I wrote above. -------------------------------------------------- tanks... u mai git en les dan 24 hours... chunky ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119520 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canki Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/29/2011 11:56:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, You've again offered a portion of the Canki Sutta (MN 95 -~Naa.namoli/Bodhi version below) to suggest that no one is right (?), or that truth is relative (?) or some such. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: No, that is not my point at all. That is not what I take from the material I quoted. I take it to distinguish truth from belief/opinion and to emphasize that knowing that one might be in error as regards one's belief and expressing that protects the truth. That being what I meant makes the rest of your post not actually relevant, as I see no need to deal with a straw man. ------------------------------------------------- I fail to see how you can get around the fact that the Dhamma can only be *one way* and that there is *either* right or wrong in relation to it. Consider the text just prior to the portion you've cited: "...There are five things, Bhaaradvaaja, that may turn out in two different ways here and now. What five? Faith (saddhaa), approval (ruci), oral tradition (anussava), reasoned cogitation (aakaaraparivitakka), and reflective acceptance of a view (di.t.ti-nijjhaanakkhanti). These five things may turn out in two different ways here and now. Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. [Under these conditions] it is not proper for a wise man to who preserves the truth to come to the definite conclusion: 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong...When he has investigated him and has seen that he is purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him; filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives, resolutely striving, he realises with wisdom. In this way, Bhaaradvaaja, there is the discovery of the truth. But as yet there is no final arrival at truth...The final arrival at truth, Bhaaradvaaja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bhaaradvaaja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth..." Scott: There is a truth to be arrived at. There is a way to arrive at that truth. What is your interpretation of this portion of the sutta? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Some other time perhaps. -------------------------------------------------- Scott. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119521 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canki Sutta scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "No, that is not my point at all. That is not what I take from the material I quoted. I take it to distinguish truth from belief/opinion and to emphasize that knowing that one might be in error as regards one's belief and expressing that protects the truth..." Scott: The sutta is referring to something else completely, Howard, and it is rather beside the point to use a particularly obtuse interpretation of a portion of a sutta simply to chide all of the discussants on a discussion list and remind them that they are all expressing opinions. I mean, I know I'm right and you are wrong but if you can't sort of think somewhere in the back of your mind that this is my opinion, then I can't imagine what you've been thinking. Scott. #119522 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I am fully on board with anatta, but draw a different conclusion from it about activities than you do..." > > Scott: You definitely do draw a different conclusion. The conclusion I draw, and this will be no surprise to you, is that you are *not* fully on board with anatta. As long as you claim that you 'meditate' you have obviously become a neo-commentator with his own take on anatta. You can directly ask Jon, Nina, or Sarah whether or not they think you understand anatta properly while maintaining an allegiance to the modern notion of 'meditation.' I'd bet, if they chose to answer, they'd have to say no. I agree that they would take your side on this issue, but that is to be expected, since that is the conflict in the first place. The idea that meditation is not a valid part of the path is the radical view, not the other way around. But really, the point is that you have no interest in discussing the issue, only to reassert the rightness of your view over and over again. Not useful. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #119523 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:07 am Subject: Re: Philip, A Sincere Request philofillet Hi Chuck See 119371. Thanks. Metta, Phil #119524 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.1) (to be continued) philofillet Hi Nina - A good talk on darkness. I remember when I heard this talk I understood the nature of citta better. Metta, Phil #119525 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Well, I think your official position is that you are interested in Abh and comm, but you let slip your true feeling the other day ( Atthasaliini is "weird") Please don't be dimwitted. That was a joke about the misspelling -- Atthasalaani -- pure and simple. If you want to attack me, go ahead, but please don't grasp at straws. >...and in that post to Scott I commented on. ? I've had thirty or more posts from Scott and many comments from you, so have no idea what you're referring to. > Yes, true, indeed it's up to other people if they want to spend such a large portion of their Dhamma discussion time on roundabouts with a partner who will never be on the same page. None of my business. Your characterization of this is very prejudiced as well, but who cares? > I have an idea. From now on I will stick to transcribing the focused and productive Dhamma discussions I am so keen on these days, that would be best. I would be one of those who would happily read them, whether you believe that or not. I hope you'll post them to the group. > Carry on. Try reading Atth again, maybe it wasn't the right time. I have nothing bad to say about the real Atthasaliini, and am happy to read it and other scriptural material as I am able, due to various conditions, if you don't mind me using that word. Once again, that comment was a joke on a misspelling - a chance to say something lighthearted to Scott inbetween all the vitriol. I reserve the right to lighten the atmosphere around here with a little humor now and then. God knows it's needed. You seem to have lost your sense of humor completely, for instance, which is fine, but please take it out on someone else. I know, I know, there's very little time, and you want to save your nonexistent soul as efficiently as possible, but if you can't engage in good fellowship and have a sense of tolerance and appreciation of others, it's really worthless, isn't it? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #119526 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...But really, the point is that you have no interest in discussing the issue, only to reassert the rightness of your view over and over again. Not useful." Scott: Pot, kettle, black, Rob. You think you've got it right, I think I do. So what? Of course I'm interested in discussing the issue. If you are stopping, fine. I've got nothing from you but repetition either. You've not addressed the crux of matter, that is, that your version of anatta includes the notion that certain dhammas are under a person's control, while the rest are not. You think that 'bringing mindfulness to the fore' is something that you can do at will. Do you say otherwise? Scott. #119527 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E Yes, I misunderstood your joke about the misspelling, sorry. The post to Scott I was referring to is when you told him he was alone with the comnentaries, good luck with that. What it comes down to for you, and Howard, and Alex, and so many others, is that you somehow believe that you understand suttas better than the commentaries. One day, perhaps, something will click and you'll see how deluded that notion is. Until that day comes I honestly ( and without hostility at all) fail to understand the value of discussing Dhamma with you. Or maybe a day will come when I understand the value, obviously others do! Again, no hostility, nor to H or A, but panna is putting my priorities in a firmer order, nothing personal! :) Metta, Phil #119528 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...Until that day comes I honestly ( and without hostility at all) fail to understand the value of discussing Dhamma with you..." Scott: The value for me is that it structures an almost constant daily search through various texts and a lot of thinking about this or that aspect of the Dhamma. And, it's fun to sort of debate and fool around and stuff like that, but it's the Dhamma part that counts. I have no interest in changing someone's mind or anything - can't be done. It reminds me of how much I appreciate the way I understand the Dhamma - isomorphic to the general, albeit minority, understanding of fellow 'dsg'ers. Saves me the price of a magic meditation cushion and 'buddha ruupa.' Keeps me from getting lost in awesomely cool and mystical nonsense. I read sci-fi for that. Scott. #119529 From: "connie" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:02 am Subject: in poor taste nichiconn friend, if you're not sure salami's to your liking, maybe you'd like to try the condensed soup: http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Guide-through-the-Abhidhamma-Pitaka.\ pdf don't be afraid to tip generously, connie #119530 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canki Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/29/2011 5:34:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "No, that is not my point at all. That is not what I take from the material I quoted. I take it to distinguish truth from belief/opinion and to emphasize that knowing that one might be in error as regards one's belief and expressing that protects the truth..." Scott: The sutta is referring to something else completely, Howard, and it is rather beside the point to use a particularly obtuse interpretation of a portion of a sutta simply to chide all of the discussants on a discussion list and remind them that they are all expressing opinions. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Hmm, so, you KNOW what's what! Congratulations. ----------------------------------------------- I mean, I know I'm right and you are wrong ------------------------------------------------ HCW: You say you KNOW this? Then unless you are joking I congratulate you even further. However, I see no basis, then for us to discuss much of anything at all. ----------------------------------------------------- but if you can't sort of think somewhere in the back of your mind that this is my opinion, then I can't imagine what you've been thinking. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: I've been perfectly clear in what I've been saying, and it expresses exactly what I've been thinking. -------------------------------------------------- Scott. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119531 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Canki Sutta scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "...I've been perfectly clear in what I've been saying, and it expresses exactly what I've been thinking." Scott: And I have absolutely no doubt that it is all merely your opinion! If you actually think that any assertion that I make is other than an opinion then you are super mixed up. It is silly to think that anyone here is offering anything but opinions, yet you seem to have to somehow make this point *and* back it up with a sutta, as if that somehow imbues your mundane and self-evident point with a sheen of authority. Why don't we just keep discussing. You make no bones about disagreeing, and why should you? Spare us the self-righteousness. Your particular set of opinions happen to go contrary to the direction of opinions flowing on the list but who cares? I'll bet you any money, though, that you actually think you are right. You don't fool me. Scott. #119532 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Scott Don't you find that when understanding is so nascent pulling it out for use in debate risks snuffing it out before it has a chance to get on its feet? Tge conventional thinking is understanding is developed through debate but for me it feels lije it is all about opinions getting hardened by overuse. In language teaching there is a concept of fossilized errors , eventually they can't be corrected. Of cpurse not expressing one's understanding at all won't give it a chance to stretch its legs, but is there any risk of understanding becoming distorted by exploitation in debate? I guess not, just me looking for a cool-sounding excuse not to bother! :) Metta, Phil p.s definitely kusala virya and dana and other "patience" related factors do develop through the kind of discussing you are doing wirg Rob, that's great. I'll get my khanti workout at work! Oh no, the gym simile!!!! #119533 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Don't you find that when understanding is so nascent pulling it out for use in debate risks snuffing it out before it has a chance to get on its feet?..." Scott: Not at all, Phil. What sort of 'understanding' are you talking about above? I think that whole notion of 'nascent understanding getting snuffed out' is a bit - I don't know - nervous. I don't think it works that way. Reading and studying is maybe something like 'intellectual understanding' and this is simply too robust to worry about. And I never think I'm finished with learning intellectually. Ph: "The conventional thinking is understanding is developed through debate but for me it feels lije it is all about opinions getting hardened by overuse. In language teaching there is a concept of fossilized errors , eventually they can't be corrected. Of course not expressing one's understanding at all won't give it a chance to stretch its legs, but is there any risk of understanding becoming distorted by exploitation in debate? I guess not, just me looking for a cool-sounding excuse not to bother!" Scott: Maybe but yeah, it's just discussion, right? I simply don't worry about stuff like the above. I don't think it works that way. View (di.t.thi) might be another thing but that is so under the radar that the opinions one has that are 'structured' by view are not consciously changeable, if you know what I mean (anatta) - but then we'd have to discuss it and argue about it and maybe sort it out. Ph: "p.s definitely kusala virya and dana and other 'patience' related factors do develop through the kind of discussing you are doing with Rob, that's great. I'll get my khanti workout at work! Oh no, the gym simile!!!!" Scott: Yeah, you and Alex. This is another thing altogether. Dhamma as part of daily life. Sure there is mostly akusala, as you mentioned, but what is doing the noticing? Is this not development? Scott. #119534 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Phil, > > Ph: "Oh I see now, it was a joke on the spelling..." > > Scott: Not so fast, Phil. I went on to suggest that the joke about the spelling reflected Rob E.'s deeper attitude towards the commentarial tradition in general, Hm...now that is truly incisive psychiatry. Talk about insight - that is really deep. [Translation: can't take a joke.] > ...which he later confirmed. I doubt I confirmed that since I don't agree with it. Hey! Maybe I'm schizophrenic - part of me is dismissive of the commentaries, and the other part is jealous and angry at the commentaries. That's it! I have "commentary envy." I'll take two Athasaliinis and call you in the morning. > This is still about the ongoing dismissal of commentarial textual references in favour of neo-commentarial sutta interpretations. Yes, yes, "neo-commentarial sutta interpretations," also known as: actually reading the sutta instead of putting it through a meat grinder! You boys have so much fun, covering your eyes and playing with your brains. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119535 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:36 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Scott Nice catch re "nascent", very few monenrs when dev'p of understanding is not all about $my$ baby panna and wanting it to grow up to be a doctor so it can take care of me in my old age! Metta, Phil #119536 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ...Until that day comes I honestly ( and without hostility at all) fail to understand the value of discussing Dhamma with you. Or maybe a day will come when I understand the value, obviously others do! Again, no hostility, nor to H or A, but panna is putting my priorities in a firmer order, nothing personal! :) Then you are alone with your panna, good luck with that! Just kidding. :-) Actually, panna is alone with its object, but never mind. Seriously, good luck. I hope you can manage without me! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119537 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., "'neo-commentarial sutta interpretations,' also known as: actually reading the sutta..." Scott: Well, I'm interested in how you see this. So if we consider that Buddhagosa, the great commentator, read the suttas (well, he also translated some other stuff that was written by others who had read the suttas before he did) and he was living so much earlier than you or I, and he was so immersed in the culture and was, I think, a monk, and very versed in the Dhamma, and all that. If we consider all this contextual stuff - even for like a minute or two - can you suggest what on earth would qualify you or me to even dare to make up our own interpretations? I mean you literally do it all the time. What qualifies you? And I'm not trying to get you to freak out (although this is a common occurrence) - I'm really asking this. Do you actually think you have what it takes to interpret the suttas correctly without a shred of guidance? Scott. #119538 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Nice catch re 'nascent', very few monents when dev'p of understanding is not all about $my$ baby panna and wanting it to grow up to be a doctor so it can take care of me in my old age!" Scott: Bwaha ha ha. Good one. But, yeah. As far as I understand it, this 'pa~n~naa' does it's own thing no matter what we think. Grow up and be a doctor - Phil, you kill me... Scott. #119539 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:27 pm Subject: Re: in poor taste epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > friend, > if you're not sure salami's to your liking, maybe you'd like to try the condensed soup: > > http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Guide-through-the-Abhidhamma-Pitaka.\ pdf > > don't be afraid to tip generously, > connie Consider yourself tipped! That is a good-looking book to have in pdf. Should come in handy for someone like me who doesn't have easy access to the Abhidhamma. Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #119540 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > "'neo-commentarial sutta interpretations,' also known as: actually reading the sutta..." > > Scott: Well, I'm interested in how you see this. So if we consider that Buddhagosa, the great commentator, read the suttas (well, he also translated some other stuff that was written by others who had read the suttas before he did) and he was living so much earlier than you or I, and he was so immersed in the culture and was, I think, a monk, and very versed in the Dhamma, and all that. If we consider all this contextual stuff - even for like a minute or two - can you suggest what on earth would qualify you or me to even dare to make up our own interpretations? > > I mean you literally do it all the time. What qualifies you? And I'm not trying to get you to freak out (although this is a common occurrence) - I'm really asking this. Do you actually think you have what it takes to interpret the suttas correctly without a shred of guidance? What makes you think I don't have a shred of guidance? I have the suttas, I have whatever analysis and commentary is available to me; I have Buddhaghosa, and the writings of many of the Buddhist masters of various traditions; I have the advice of my friends here and in a few other places, and I have the ongoing discussions here which I've been following for a decade or more. But of course to construct your straw man you will characterize it as if I take absolutely nothing from all the time I spend here, don't believe a single word of any of the wise teachers whose works I've read or heard referenced, and am just in my own little pool of drool making up my own interpretations in my head. Like I said, this is a useless discussion, because your aim is just to dismiss whatever I may say or think in order to bolster the sense of righteousness which supports your self-view, not to investigate anything. Seriously, why bother? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119541 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:43 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...But really, the point is that you have no interest in discussing the issue, only to reassert the rightness of your view over and over again. Not useful." > > Scott: Pot, kettle, black, Rob. You think you've got it right, I think I do. So what? Of course I'm interested in discussing the issue. If you are stopping, fine. I've got nothing from you but repetition either. You've not addressed the crux of matter, that is, that your version of anatta includes the notion that certain dhammas are under a person's control, while the rest are not. You think that 'bringing mindfulness to the fore' is something that you can do at will. Do you say otherwise? Yes, I do say otherwise, and have never subscribed to your prefabrication of my view. But go ahead and make stuff up. The combination of what I actually do believe is too subtle for you. Everything to you is black and white, kettle. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119542 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo glenjohnann Dear Nina and Phil On reading the conversation below about akusala at the same time as panna - I have to wonder if Nina's response, es, correct" is to the second part of Phil's question (ie. kusala is the object of panna, the citta is kusala, isn't it?". My understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong here) is that after akusala arises, there can then be, in subsequent process of cittas, awareness and understanding of such, the awareness and understanding being kusala with the preceeding akusala citta as object, which has already fallen away. A small point - however, some interest in clarification - as I may have misunderstood somewhere along the line. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Ph: Can there ever be akusala at the same time as panna? I mean, if > > akusala is the object of panna, the citta is kusala, isn't it? > ------ > N: Yes, correct. Pa~n~naa sees akusala dhammas as it is, only a kind > of naama, conditioned. If sati is not mindful of akusala and pa~n~naa > does not understand the akusala that appears it can never, never be > eradicated. > I want to add that, if I remember correctly, Kh Sujin also said that > one has to be very brave to face the nature of anattaa. > We have to be heroes, don't we? > > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #119543 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., I'm sure that if you were able to be less reactionary, the discussion wouldn't be so painful to you. I'm holding out hope that of all the current cast of discussants who hold 'opposing views' you might prove to be up to the task... R: "...your aim is just to dismiss whatever I may say or think..." Scott: You've read here long enough, then, right Rob? So, since you still claim that you believe in the efficacy of actually sitting yourself down on a cushion and imagining that in so doing you are, on purpose, creating conditions for kusala to arise (which you do believe, right?), I *am* dismissive of what you claim. You are no less dismissive when you discuss things with Jon or Phil or Sarah - you just act more polite (sometimes - you were rather brusque with Jon last time out - and he's so very patient). So yeah, as long as you claim to have a 'practice' I'll continue to dismiss your view since 'practice' is self-view. You haven't shown anything of substance about your own 'practice' to demonstrate that it is anything but just wishful thinking and postures. So tell me: How do you put mindfulness to the fore? What do you do when you are 'being mindful?' Scott. #119544 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:28 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...The combination of what I actually do believe is too subtle for you..." Scott: What? Have you been holding back? That is so not fair. If there is more subtlety to your arguments then why are you not sharing it? I am holding out hope that you, of all the current interlocutors on the list who hold opposing views can give me a discussion that isn't just petulant, or preachy, or so perseveratively repetitive that it numbs the mind. Come on, Moriarty. I'm counting on you. Please lay some of that subtlety on me and let's discuss. How do you bring mindfulness to the fore? What do you actually do? Scott. #119545 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:17 pm Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? kenhowardau Hi Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Good friend to KenH, et al > > Warm thanks for responding... > > Well, I respect your opinion. As you have Buddhist meditate some six more than I have I do not have anything to add... > > FWIW, I have meditated since the 1960's using a non-Buddhist form... > ---------- KH: As you will have gathered by now, I regard all meditation as non-Buddhist, but I am curious about specifically non-Buddhist meditation. Some people at DSG have mentioned it in an off-topic way - forms of yoga meditation, for example - but I don't know much about it. What is its purpose? Would non-Buddhist meditation be for health and relaxation, or would it be for communicating with God? I have heard that the word yoga means to yoke (link) the soul with God. So I am confused. :-) Ken H #119546 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > I think you've got it wrong. It is often the loud and abrasive anti-meditation voices that bring this subject up for debate and insist on debating > > Not only meditation, all forms of wrong view, such as believing dhammas are not real, with sabhava. Well, I think there are going to be issues about what is correct no matter who you are talking to. Sabhava is an issue, but I guess there is a group that adopts all the necessary components and just accepts them as factual. Based on what? I keep asking - but no answer so far. I assume it is commentary and that those involved just adhere to whatever is said in commentary. Well, great I guess if that defines the group understanding. > Fine, fair enough. But what is the value of discussing dhammas when such an unbridgeable gap exists. The value is not apparent in those arguments, but certainly is apparent in many other discussions that have explored the nature of dhammas. It's possible that those who don't accept every letter of the commentaries have something to contribute to the discussion of dhammas, not just side issues, and that is why we are here. I hope so, it seems that way to me. The other reason is that I am here to learn about dhammas, even if I don't accept everything automatically as some do. It's another way of participating. ... > Thanks Rob, take a few deep breaths, Scott's posts are conditioning some overly excited speech for you, it must be tiring, take care, be well, I say that sincerely. Well as usual I don't agree with the characterization. I think there has been cause to be unhappy with some of the things that have been said, but I appreciate the sentiment in any case. Be well too. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #119547 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? philofillet Hi Rob E (and Howard and Alex) > > Not only meditation, all forms of wrong view, such as believing dhammas are not real, with sabhava. > > Well, I think there are going to be issues about what is correct no matter who you are talking to. Sabhava is an issue, but I guess there is a group that adopts all the necessary components and just accepts them as factual. Based on what? I keep asking - but no answer so far. I assume it is commentary and that those involved just adhere to whatever is said in commentary. Well, great I guess if that defines the group understanding. Ph: Quite possible or even probable that I'll come to see things differently, but for now it feels logical to stick to learning from a millenia old interpretation of the suttas rather than paying serious attention to what modern teachers with weird practices (and here the word applies, see Mahasi's slow walking for one example) or guys on the internet influenced by those teachers and/or their own interpretations have to say. This sounds unfriendly and very un p.c, but why would I want to dig through your posts looking for grains of recognizably right understanding when I could choose to stick to the posts of people who have "right understanding" as defined by understanding Dhamma in light of Abhidhamma and the commentaries. I'm not concerned about being duped, or brainwashed. I've seen tgrough wrong understanding befire, and if there is some big flaw in what I'm learning from A Sujin and her students, I'm confident I'll come to see through it. So for the time being I won't be discussing with you or Howard or Alex or anyone else who comes along with clearly rooted, unlikely-to-budge views very different from mine. I'm always hoping to cut down my time on the internet, just don't have time to be the generous, outreach type poster that Scott (yes, Scott) and others are. Again, please understand, nothing personal. My previous harsh speech outburst came from my irritation about being online so much! Metta, Phil #119548 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo nilovg Dear Ann, Op 30-okt-2011, om 4:45 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > On reading the conversation below about akusala at the same time as > panna - I have to wonder if Nina's response, es, correct" is to > the second part of Phil's question (ie. kusala is the object of > panna, the citta is kusala, isn't it?". ------ N: Yes Ann, you got it right. There is no problem. Nina. #119549 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... nilovg Dear Scott, Op 29-okt-2011, om 2:46 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Rob E., > ..... You can directly ask Jon, Nina, or Sarah whether or not they > think you understand anatta properly while maintaining an > allegiance to the modern notion of 'meditation.' I'd bet, if they > chose to answer, they'd have to say no. > ------- N: I would not answer, because I do not see the use of getting personal, just want to look at Dhamma issues. Scott, I like your posts on texts and your comments, and also when you ask questions for us to consider. You are very precise and I appreciate this. When it comes to personal remarks, well, this is more complicated. As you know, cittas change so quickly and right understanding can alternate with view of self. I remember the many times Kh Sujin said: this is still you who are angry, or who thinks. It is so difficult to know precisely our own cittas, and so, even more difficult to know others' cittas. Who am I to say that someone else has wrong view? I better mind my own business. ------- Nina. #119550 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.1) (to be continued) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 30-okt-2011, om 0:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > N: A good talk on darkness. > > I remember when I heard this talk I understood the nature of citta > better. ------- N: I had some trouble understanding at first. But this is amazing: It seems that the world as we look at it is light all the time. In fact, all those moments when there are cittas other than seeing, there is darkness. No visible object to be seen! Yet, it seems so. ------- Nina. #119551 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.1) (to be continued) philofillet Hi Nina, > N: I had some trouble understanding at first. But this is amazing: It > seems that the world as we look at it is light all the time. In fact, > all those moments when there are cittas other than seeing, there is > darkness. No visible object to be (oops, snipped by mistake..) ph: It really is amazing, but it makes perfect sense. I personally feel this subject of dark citta might be better for helping to get deep Dhamma across to people than "no Nina", at least it is much easier for me to understand, but still represents a very revolutionary deepening from the way we "saw things" (i.e understood) before hearing about the dark citta. But, again, as we said before, different accumulations, so different teaching are helpful for each of us... Metta, Phil #119552 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:37 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Now: No Woman Arahants? dhammasaro Good friend Connie, et al 1. Many Thai monks believe only men can be arahants!!! Not being derogatory toward these Thai monks; they are more knowledgeable in "rites and rituals" for their lay supporters. 2. Yes, "buddha-nature", "buddhahood" and "the Buddha within us" are primarily Mahayana terms. 3. Unfortunately, many Thai Theravada monks trained in Indian return with such terms and Mahayana notions. 4. Having a PhD does not prove an in-depth knowledge of the Theravada Tipitaka. 5. Many Thai monks consider themselves as Administrative Monks and other such titles. And, yes, they are kept very busy in their mundane duties. For while, I was busy being an English lecturer!!! [my poor students - they had to forget the Queen's English and had to learn Texican English!!!] Warm thanks for your comments. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck hi Chuck, > Please provide Tipitaka references!!! .... There is the whole book of the Theriigaathaa - story after story of female arahants!!! <...> #119553 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:48 am Subject: Lethargy & Laziness Ruins any Life! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to cure Heavy Lethargy and Laziness! Lethargy-&-Laziness may often be induced by self-destructive behaviour such as: Alcohol, drugs, dope, pills, marihuana, sniffing, over-eating, excessive masturbation and night-living. Such often life-long chemical or behavioural causes of Lethargy-&-Laziness should be eradicated. As long as this is not achieved one remains a phlegmatic & apathetic zombie, drifting downwards due to inability to initiate advantageous behaviour. Noticing Lethargy-&-Laziness (thna-middha) emerge can make it evaporate: Herein, Bhikkhus, when Lethargy-&-Laziness is present in him, the bhikkhu notes & understands: There is Lethargy-&-Laziness in me, and when this Lethargy-&-Laziness is absent, he notes & understands: Now there is no Lethargy-&-Laziness in me. He indeed also understands how not yet arisen Lethargy-&-Laziness arises. He understands how to leave behind any arisen Lethargy-&-Laziness, and he understands how left Lethargy-&-Laziness will not arise again in the future. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness arise? There are boredom, apathy, tiredness, lazy stretching of the body, heavy drowsiness after too big meals, and mental sluggishness. Frequently giving irrational and unwise attention to these mental states, this is the feeding cause of the arising of Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the feeding cause of worsening and deepening of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness cease? There is the quality of initiative. There is the quality of launching action. There is the quality of tenaciously enduring persistence. Frequently giving rational & wise attention to these three mental elements, is the starving cause for the non-arising of Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the starving cause for the arousing and stirring of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 The Supreme Ideal: Before the Buddha sat down to meditate in order to attain enlightenment, he made this determination: May just all flesh and blood of this body dry up into a stiff frame of only bones, tendons and skin... Not a second before having achieved, what can be achieved by male strength, power, and energy, will I rise from this seat... MN 70 How to stimulate the mind: How does one stimulate the mind at a time when it needs stimulation? If due to slowness of understanding or due to not having yet reached the happiness of tranquillity, one's mind is dull, then one should rouse it through reflecting on the eight objects stirring urgency. These 8 objects are: birth, decay, disease & death; the suffering in hell, demon, ghost & animal world! The suffering in the past and the future rooted in Samsara. The suffering of the present rooted in the pursuit for food and living. Vism. IV,63 Perceiving the suffering in impermanence: In a Bhikkhu, who is used to see the suffering in impermanence and who frequently reflects on this, there will be established in him such an acute sense of the danger in laziness, apathy, inactivity and lethargy, just as if he was threatened by a mad murderer with drawn sword! AN 7:46 Lethargy-&-Laziness is an inner mental Prison: Just as when a man has been forced into prison is Lethargy-&-Laziness, but later when he gets released from this (inner) prison, then he is safe, fearing no loss of property. And at that good he rejoices glad at heart... Such is the breaking out of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Another person has been kept in jail during a festival day, and so could see none of the shows. When people say: Oh! This Festival was so much fun! He will remain shy, mute and silent because he did not enjoy any festival himself... Similarly is the prison of Lethargy-&-Laziness. Another person that once had been in jail on a festival day. But, when freed and celebrating the festival on a later occasion, he looks back: Before, due to my own careless laziness, I was in prison on that day & could not enjoy this fine festival. Now I shall therefore be alert and careful. Since he remains thus alert and careful no detrimental state can overcome his mind. Having fully enjoyed the festival, he exclaims: What a fun festival! Good is absence of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Whoever lives only to satisfy his search & urge for pleasure and beauty, unguarded in senses, immoderately indulging in eating, lazy, lethargic, inactive, dulled into apathy. Such ones Mara sweeps away like breaking a branch of a tiny bush ... Dhammapada 7 Even if one should live a hundred years, if lazy, slack and idle, better it would be to live but just a single day striving with all one has. Dhammapada 112 Easy is the shameless life now. Easy is it to be bold, retaliating, lazy, uninformed and wrong-viewed. Dhammapada 244 Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, see you lazy, and thereby lead you astray and dominate you. Sutta Nipta II, 10 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #119554 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "I would not answer, because I do not see the use of getting personal, just want to look at Dhamma issues. Scott, I like your posts on texts and your comments, and also when you ask questions for us to consider. You are very precise and I appreciate this." Scott: Thanks. And not that I mistake being 'precise' or enjoying the intellectual challenge of so-called 'book learning' for the impersonal learning abaout dhammas that is actual pariyatti. N: "When it comes to personal remarks, well, this is more complicated. As you know, cittas change so quickly and right understanding can alternate with view of self..." Scott: Of course. The heated discussions occur most, as you know, between 'meditators' and 'non-meditators.' Sure I daydream about others as we all do. Rob E. thinks, for example, I'm a surfer who has meditated wrongly for years. He can't know that the North Saskatchewan River is frozen over for 5 months of the year and produces no gnarly waves at all, nor that I've been saved from years of 'meditating' by the views presented on this list. I think 'personal remarks' have been the give and take of the list since I arrived. In the day, it seemed to be, and was my experience, that 'meditators' held the fort with vigourous debate and forthright opinions about others. That sort of culture seemed encouraged on the list since I arrived, at least I found myself having to learn how to engage on this basis when discussing with those who seem very attached to 'meditating.' This hasn't seemed to change over the years. I just gathered that the culture of the list allowed for the rough-and-tumble style of 'meditators' who found the views here to be wrong. I suppose they are needed in order to have views to contrast and compare. Such a vigourous style, it turns out, is one I can employ, but I just happen to agree with the views that are foundational on the list, rather than find myself in opposition to them. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or all's fair in love and war, or it just seems to go on, you know, within reason. N: "... I remember the many times Kh Sujin said: this is still you who are angry, or who thinks. It is so difficult to know precisely our own cittas, and so, even more difficult to know others' cittas. Who am I to say that someone else has wrong view? I better mind my own business." Scott: Yes, the dhammas that arise and can be known by 'me' are 'mine,' so to speak. Anger is not that hard to know, actually. I was advised once by you *not* to stop posting just because of annoyance. If I play around with, say Rob E., it is not always dosa. Any post that composes itself from that source usually is deleted or at least altered. I actually imagine that Rob E. could distinguish himself as an interlocutor if he'd only shift off of the sort of things I keep poking him about. I don't think it's a terrible thing. Since it's the 'real world' then strong opinions can be expressed. Who are you to say anything about wrong view? Well, someone, for sure in my opinion. I don't think you are super-human, but you do have a good intellectual sense of what a right view is versus a wrong view. It's at that level that discussion go on here - views not persons. I think that given what can be observed in the stated views of 'meditators' on this list, the 'meditation' being attempted cannot possibly go right. I think that it is a generic opinion on the list that such 'meditation' founders due to being wrongly considered in the first place. I don't think I say otherwise from what has been stated over and over for years. The way in which something is stated may differ, but the essential message is the same. I don't advocate all-out harshness by any means, but a little give-and-take is just fine. There is little to discuss when an argument is presented in the form of a rote, mystical, new-age 'meditator-speak' and so, a little pushing seems required so at least I can get a sense of what someone really is talking about. At any rate, Nina, thanks for your patience. Scott. #119555 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:36 am Subject: Further Discussions in India, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, One should know ones own limitations and to what extent one can understand reality. We cannot understand the latent tendencies, anusayas, to the same extent as the Buddha, but we know that there are anusayas so long as lokuttara citta does not arise. Is it not sufficient to be aware and to develop the understanding of realities as not self? No matter how much we read and consider, we should understand that realities are not self. Pa~n~naa is developed in order to become detached. The postures of the body If we think of the body as being somewhere, there is an idea of my body that is sitting, lying down, standing or walking. When the true nature of realities will appear, their arising and falling away, there will not be an idea of posture. The idea of a collection of realities, of a group, a whole will be eliminated. The idea of a whole hinders the experience of the arising and falling away of realities. Even when closing ones eyes one may think of oneself as sitting, standing, walking or lying down. Even when no ruupa is appearing sa~n~naa remembers postures. It conceals the arising and falling of dhammas in succession, it takes them as a whole. Realities arise and fall away so fast but sa~n~naa is the condition to stay in the ocean of concepts. ***** Nina. #119556 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:36 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Jon, (Rob E.), J: "...Recently on the list there have been some sutta texts quoted that make reference to the progressive development of the path. For example, in the Jivaka Sutta AN 8:26 quoted by Dieter to Connie (see extract below) the following progression is set out: (a) being consummate in conviction (b) being consummate in virtue (c) being consummate in generosity (d) desiring to see the monks (e) wanting to hear the true Dhamma (f) habitually remembering the Dhamma that has been heard (g) exploring the meaning of the Dhamma that has been heard (h) knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma..." Scott: Jon, here's the Paa.li, should you wish to consider it. 6. Jiivakasutta.m "...'Kittaavataa pana, bhante, upaasako attahitaaya ca pa.tipanno hoti parahitaaya caa''ti? ''Yato kho, jiivaka, upaasako attanaa ca saddhaasampanno hoti, para~nca saddhaasampadaaya samaadapeti; attanaa ca siilasampanno hoti, para~nca siilasampadaaya samaadapeti; attanaa ca caagasampanno hoti, para~nca caagasampadaaya samaadapeti; attanaa ca bhikkhuuna.m dassanakaamo hoti, para~nca bhikkhuuna.m dassane samaadapeti; attanaa ca saddhamma.m sotukaamo hoti, para~nca saddhammassavane samaadapeti; attanaa ca sutaana.m dhammaana.m dhaara.najaatiko hoti, para~nca dhammadhaara.naaya samaadapeti; attanaa ca sutaana.m dhammaana.m atthuupaparikkhitaa hoti, para~nca atthuupaparikkhaaya samaadapeti; attanaa ca atthama~n~naaya dhammama~n~naaya dhammaanudhammappa.tipanno hoti, para~nca dhammaanudhammappa.tipattiyaa samaadapeti. Ettaavataa kho, jiivaka, upaasako attahitaaya ca pa.tipanno hoti parahitaaya caa''ti. Cha.t.tha.m." J: "All of these factors are part of the training. They all refer to kusala states." Scott: The Paa.li terms for these states are in the above. Scott. #119557 From: Lukas Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:42 am Subject: In need of Dhamma books szmicio Dear friends, I am in need of a printed books or texts from Nina and Acharn Sujin. Especially I need Abhidhamma in daily life, Perfections leading to enlightenment and Survey of Paramattha Dhamma. I am asking cause I dont have an internet access here where I now live. The only option for me if I want to read Dhamma books, is that I need a paper edition. If anyone decide to send a book, pls write me a private message, cause I've got different postal adress now. Best wishes Lukas #119558 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "...I like this: 'which states are training?' This demonstrates the way of considering 'training' and it is much the same as the way to consider 'development' (bhaavanaa); that is, training is when any of the profitable states in the four planes arise. And, to be consistent, these states, having the characteristic of anatta, are not subject to control." R: "While this statement is in full accord with your 'arising dhammas' way of looking at all activities, it has absolutely nothing in common with the way in which the sutta actually discusses practice, and so is at odds with it. Practice is not spoken of in the sutta as applying to the arising of kusala states, which is a stretched meaning of 'practice' in any case. It is discussed as an activity to be fully pursued and perfected..." Scott: Conventional versus ultimate truth: Same truth, different modes of expression. It is only 'arising dhammas.' Concrete, literal-minded interpretations miss the mark. Scott. #119559 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:48 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... philofillet Hi Scott, Nina and all > the impersonal learning abaout dhammas that is actual pariyatti. Ph: Nice expression! > N: "... Who am I to say that someone else has wrong view? I better mind my own business." Ph: Sometimes I feel there is something double-faced going on here because during the discussions I listen to it is immediately stated, without dispute, that anyone who neditates is completely misguided, with wrong view, but here on the list there is a kind of pretending that their opinions should be considered seriously in a way that they never are (except when a forceful proponent of meditation is present, like Erik that one time) during the discussions I have heard. So "who am I to say someone else has wrong view?" sounds a little dishonest, to tell the truth. It is true I once heard you speak like this, quoting Lodewijk, who wondered what was wrong about wanting to go to the quiet place. etc. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil Metta, Phil > Scott: Yes, the dhammas that arise and can be known by 'me' are 'mine,' so to speak. Anger is not that hard to know, actually. I was advised once by you *not* to stop posting just because of annoyance. If I play around with, say Rob E., it is not always dosa. Any post that composes itself from that source usually is deleted or at least altered. I actually imagine that Rob E. could distinguish himself as an interlocutor if he'd only shift off of the sort of things I keep poking him about. I don't think it's a terrible thing. Since it's the 'real world' then strong opinions can be expressed. > > Who are you to say anything about wrong view? Well, someone, for sure in my opinion. I don't think you are super-human, but you do have a good intellectual sense of what a right view is versus a wrong view. It's at that level that discussion go on here - views not persons. I think that given what can be observed in the stated views of 'meditators' on this list, the 'meditation' being attempted cannot possibly go right. > > I think that it is a generic opinion on the list that such 'meditation' founders due to being wrongly considered in the first place. I don't think I say otherwise from what has been stated over and over for years. The way in which something is stated may differ, but the essential message is the same. I don't advocate all-out harshness by any means, but a little give-and-take is just fine. There is little to discuss when an argument is presented in the form of a rote, mystical, new-age 'meditator-speak' and so, a little pushing seems required so at least I can get a sense of what someone really is talking about. At any rate, Nina, thanks for your patience. > > Scott. > #119560 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:57 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... philofillet Hi again > > So "who am I to say someone else has wrong view?" sounds a little dishonest, to tell the truth. It is true I once heard you speak like this, quoting Lodewijk, who wondered what was wrong about wanting to go to the quiet place etc" > > Metta, > Phil > > Metta, > Phil > > Metta, > Phil Ph: I Triple Radiated Metta again!!!!! I forget North, and Up, and Down! Damn!!!! Metta, Phil #119561 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:41 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... scottduncan2 Phil, (Nina), Ph: "Sometimes I feel there is something double-faced going on here because during the discussions I listen to it is immediately stated, without dispute, that anyone who meditates is completely misguided, with wrong view, but here on the list there is a kind of pretending that their opinions should be considered seriously in a way that they never are (except when a forceful proponent of meditation is present, like Erik that one time) during the discussions I have heard. So 'who am I to say someone else has wrong view?' sounds a little dishonest, to tell the truth..." Scott: I know what you mean. I'd step back from saying 'double-faced' or 'dishonest' to noting that there must be a need to regulate the vigour with which one argues for the list's 'prevalent' view against the detractors of the view. I don't doubt that, given the 'prevalent' view, this whole thing about 'formal meditation' is considered to be guided by wrong view. I think it's more about politics and, as pt likes to say, diplomacy. And I for one hate being caught up in politics, while having to live in 'political' systems - such as the list. I'd imagine that the proponents of say, 'meditation,' or 'sutta-only,' or what have you, need a sort of space on the list to operate within; a space which seems to require attempts to regulate at least a desired level of so-called force of argument from the list's proponents. It would seem that a little lee-way has been given detractors, likely to preserve them on the list as purveyors of opposing views to discuss - and fair enough, lee-way that allows for more vigour and rough-and-tumble (and, in my opinion, more whining sometimes - although I'm a cry-baby too). This apparent lee-way, when proponents must somehow be less vigourous (?) might smack of double standard. But so what? I don't think that these purveyors of opposing views are like a persecuted people or anything by a long shot. I mean, seriously, this is a Dhamma discussion list. Scott. #119562 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:05 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... philofillet Hi Scott (Nina) > > Scott: I know what you mean. I'd step back from saying 'double-faced' or 'dishonest' to noting that there must be a need to regulate the vigour with which one argues for the list's 'prevalent' view against the detractors of the view. I don't doubt that, given the 'prevalent' view, this whole thing about 'formal meditation' is considered to be guided by wrong view. I think it's more about politics and, as pt likes to say, diplomacy. And I for one hate being caught up in politics, while having to live in 'political' systems - such as the list. Ph: Yes, double-faced is a bit too much. I think it's lije here in Japan where two concepts called "tatemae" and "honne" are always at work. I was thinking of them the other day when I wrote to Rob about his "official policy" about being interested ib tge commentaries to what I suspected (maybe unfairly and incorrectly) was his "true feeling" about them. Tatemae is the thing one says in public to naintain garmony, honne is the true feeling that, famoysly in Japan, must be hidden a lot of the time or sacrificed for social harmony/group goal purposes. I guess it goes on a lot here. In Japan it often leads to an inability to get things done, because people with strong ideas that could cut through to solutions don't dare to speak out. Well, anyways, yes, diplomacy. Maybe it's during the live discussions that people should ask each other "who are we to say they have wrong view" a little more often. Though I'm glad they don't. Metta, Phil #119563 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:12 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... philofillet Hi again Typo mess clarification: > Ph: Yes, double-faced is a bit too much. I think it's lije here in Japan where two concepts called "tatemae" and "honne" are always at work. I was thinking of them the other day when I wrote to Rob about his "official policy" about being interested ib tge commentaries to what I suspected (maybe unfairly and incorrectly) was his "true feeling" about them. I meant to write "as compared to what I suspected..." Metta (times 6) Phil #119564 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:43 am Subject: Re: personal remarks. was: Khandhas... scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Yes, double-faced is a bit too much. I think it's like here in Japan where two concepts called 'tatemae' and 'honne' are always at work. I was thinking of them the other day when I wrote to Rob about his 'official policy' about being interested is the commentaries to what I suspected (maybe unfairly and incorrectly) was his 'true feeling' about them. Tatemae is the thing one says in public to maintain harmony, honne is the true feeling that, famously in Japan, must be hidden a lot of the time or sacrificed for social harmony/group goal purposes. I guess it goes on a lot here. In Japan it often leads to an inability to get things done, because people with strong ideas that could cut through to solutions don't dare to speak out. Well, anyways, yes, diplomacy. Maybe it's during the live discussions that people should ask each other 'who are we to say they have wrong view' a little more often. Though I'm glad they don't." Scott: Well said. And yeah, that's it, isn't it? I simply happen to be more or less unable to function well within an overly 'tatemae'-influenced social structure - read: I'm poorly socialized. So I think you've hit the nail on the head. But what about the Dhamma? I've discussed with Sarah and shared my no doubt annoying ideas about how I hate to fake anything and how just because it looks all polite (tatemae) doesn't mean it always is (honne), and vice versa. Is it a shock to know that one of my favourite stories is The Emperor's Clothes? I prefer to try to discuss, to cut through to what the essential view seems to be and to try to work things out from that basis, rather than 'wasting time' on superficialities (of either social convention or of what only looks like 'Dhamma' on the surface. It may not be politically correct but I prefer to at least work from the premise that I am correct - at least for the purposes of discussion. Scott. #119565 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:33 am Subject: Perfection is Possible! bhikkhu5 Friends: The are 10 Perfect Mental Qualities! Contemplation of the Ten Perfecting Qualities (Dasa Parami ): 1: May I be generous and always helpfully giving service (Dāna parami). 2: May I be morally pure, virtuous and well-disciplined (Sīla parami). 3: May I be modest and withdrawing into simple living (Nekkhamma parami). 4: May I be wise by understanding what should be known (Paññā parami). 5: May I be enthusiastic, energetic, & never giving up the good (Viriya parami). 6: May I be patient, tolerant, and forgive other's wrongs (Khanti parami ). 7: May I be honest, trustworthy, scrupulous, and truthful (Sacca parami ). 8: May I be firm, resolute, determined, and immovable (Adhitthāna parami). 9: May I be kind, gentle, compassionate and friendly (Mettā parami). 10: May I be calm, balanced, serene and imperturbable (Upekkhā parami). May I train to be mentally perfect. May I be perfect to keep training! <.....> Source: BPS Wheel no 54 (Edited Excerpt): The Mirror of the Dhamma. A Manual of Buddhist Devotional Texts. By Nārada Thera and Bhikkhu Kassapa. Revised By Bhikkhu Khantipālo: http://www.bps.lk/wh054-u.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #119566 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., "'Kindred Sayings'(I, Sagaathaa-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, 9), in the 'Selaa-sutta', we read that at Saavatth Maara addressed Sister Selaa: 'Who was it that made the human puppet's form? Where is the maker of the human doll? Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? Where will the puppet cease and pass away?' Selaa answered: 'Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense -- even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away. Then Maara the evil one thought: `Sister Selaa knows me', and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then.'" R: "...I follow Buddha, you follow the commentaries and use them as a guide to translate Buddha's talks about activities into arising cittas..." Scott: The above is from the suttas, right? Is that 'Buddha' enough for you to follow and consider the message? Clearly 'abhidhamma' in the suttas. Khandas, elements, six spheres of consciousness, arising and falling away of dhammas - it's all right there. And, given that this ultimate versus conventional message is clear, and given that it is part of the body of the suttas, does it not stand to reason that it is not merely a commentarial artifact but rather is a coherent part of the suttas. If you do not see it this way, why not? How do you explain such textual evidence? Scott. #119567 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Howard Thank you for your thoughts, but currently I'm hoping to get as close as possible to what the Abhidhamma texts say. (Reading them would help, I should buy the Dhmmasanghini(?)) Metta, Phil #119568 From: "connie" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:23 am Subject: Bhanga nichiconn Hi again, Alex. 'What is called "permanent" is what is lasting, eternal, like nibbana. What is called "impermanent" is what is not permanent, and is possessed of rise and fall. He said "The five aggregates are 'the impermanent'", signifying that they are formed dhammas as to meaning. Why? "Because their essence is rise and fall and change"; the meaning is that their individual essences have rise and fall and change. Herein, formed dhammas' arising owing to cause and condition, their coming to be after non-existence, their acquisition of an individual self (atta-laabha), is "rise". Their momentary cessation when arisen is "fall". Their changedness due to ageing is "change". For just as when the occasion of arising dissolves and the occasion of dissolution [succeeds it] there is no break in the object (vatthu), so also there is no break in the object on the occasion facing dissolution, in other words, presence, which is what the term of common usage "ageing" refers to. So it is proper that the ageing of a single dhamma is meant, which is called "momentary ageing". And without any reservation there must be no break in the object between the occasions of arising and dissolution, otherwise it follows that one thing arises and another dissolves' (Pm.280). 1) What exactly is atta-laabha? How isn't it a notion of a self being sneaked into these dhammas? Atta-laabha is an arising to the occasion of a distinctive "state (of affairs)." The way i see it, the two sides of the term are more or less intertwining synonyms. In a way, any naming is a recognition of a sort of it(self)-ness but when we say something like "it rains", I don't think most of us imagine that (self) to be more than a figure of speech - the same way the 'self' in atta-laabha is "assumed". 2) How can there be aging of a single dhamma at a single moment? Aging is a process in time, just like motion is. It requires multiple moments, and we know what that entails... Like motion, time is also not ultimately real. The instants of an instance of citta are the basis of 'time'. Past, present and future refer, not so much to moments of 'time' (itself) but of citta-s or dhamma-s (themselves). connie #119569 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Howard Strange, this message never appeared about two weeks ago, and finally did. It's redundant by now...but. extra thanks doesn't do any harm...:) Metta, Phil > Thank you for your thoughts, but currently I'm hoping to get as close as possible to what the Abhidhamma texts > #119570 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > I'm sure that if you were able to be less reactionary, the discussion wouldn't be so painful to you. I'm holding out hope that of all the current cast of discussants who hold 'opposing views' you might prove to be up to the task... > > R: "...your aim is just to dismiss whatever I may say or think..." > > Scott: You've read here long enough, then, right Rob? So, since you still claim that you believe in the efficacy of actually sitting yourself down on a cushion and imagining that in so doing you are, on purpose, creating conditions for kusala to arise (which you do believe, right?), I *am* dismissive of what you claim. I don't mind you having a dismissive attitude. I just think that if you're not open to entertaining anything I say, the discussion is a waste of time. And vice versa. If there are points to clarify or progress in understanding, it's worth talking, even if from polar opposite views. But not if the only intention is to shoot down whatever is said. It's not personal, just a matter of whether anything useful is developing or not. What do you think? > You are no less dismissive when you discuss things with Jon or Phil or Sarah - you just act more polite (sometimes - you were rather brusque with Jon last time out - and he's so very patient). Not true, but supports you better to say so, so why not? There is much discussed that I am not dismissive of. If you want an example, look up 'ayatanas' and the struggle I went through with Sarah's help to try to understand what they were and how they worked. Your idea about me that I don't care about anything that is discussed here or the views of those here, and that I am as dismissive as you are of opposing views, is a convenient stereotype, based on ignorance of what actually takes place in many of the communications here. > So yeah, as long as you claim to have a 'practice' I'll continue to dismiss your view since 'practice' is self-view. That's your view, part of your self-view. Otherwise you could demonstrate it more directly through scripture, rather than merely asserting it. You have shown how wrong views are developed, how they are promoted, but nothing to show that activities fit that description or that meditation is in that category. That is pure assertion on your part, not backed up by anything but the culture you are part of, a very modern radical culture which so far is not reflected in anything you can quote or even derive from Abhidhamma or commentary. Saying something over and over again will not make it true, but it will hypnotize you into thinking you are saying something. > You haven't shown anything of substance about your own 'practice' to demonstrate that it is anything but just wishful thinking and postures. Not interested at this point. I've seen what you did with the prelims. Talk about your personal Dhamma study and how your understanding has progressed, and I'll consider it. > So tell me: How do you put mindfulness to the fore? What do you do when you are 'being mindful?' Avoid these conversations. But it's hit and miss. Best, Rob E. = = = = = #119571 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:31 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...The combination of what I actually do believe is too subtle for you..." > > Scott: What? Have you been holding back? That is so not fair. If there is more subtlety to your arguments then why are you not sharing it? I am holding out hope that you, of all the current interlocutors on the list who hold opposing views can give me a discussion that isn't just petulant, or preachy, or so perseveratively repetitive that it numbs the mind. Come on, Moriarty. I'm counting on you. Please lay some of that subtlety on me and let's discuss. Nope, already laid it out a number of times. Nothing new. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119572 From: "connie" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory nichiconn Hi Phil, Rob, >...currently I'm hoping to get as close as possible to what the Abhidhamma texts say. (Reading them would help, I should buy the Dhmmasanghini(?)) Dhammasa"nga.ni You should also be able to download a copy of Caroline Rhys-Davids translation from either books.google.com or archive.org - search for "Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics" connie #119573 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > "'Kindred Sayings'(I, Sagaathaa-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, > 9), in the 'Selaa-sutta', we read that at Saavatth Maara addressed > Sister Selaa: > > 'Who was it that made the human puppet's form? > Where is the maker of the human doll? > Whence, tell me, has the puppet come to be? > Where will the puppet cease and pass away?' > > Selaa answered: > > 'Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet > By other wrought is this ill-plighted thing. > By reason of a cause it came to be, > By rupture of a cause it dies away. > Like a certain seed sown in the field, > Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, > And moisture likewise, by these two grows, > So the five khandhas, the elements, > And the six spheres of sense > -- even all these, > By reason of a cause they came to be; > By rupture of a cause they die away. > > Then Maara the evil one thought: `Sister Selaa knows me', and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then.'" > > R: "...I follow Buddha, you follow the commentaries and use them as a guide to translate Buddha's talks about activities into arising cittas..." > > Scott: The above is from the suttas, right? Is that 'Buddha' enough for you to follow and consider the message? Clearly 'abhidhamma' in the suttas. Khandas, elements, six spheres of consciousness, arising and falling away of dhammas - it's all right there. And, given that this ultimate versus conventional message is clear, and given that it is part of the body of the suttas, does it not stand to reason that it is not merely a commentarial artifact but rather is a coherent part of the suttas. > > If you do not see it this way, why not? How do you explain such textual evidence? I agree with the sutta, I agree that the kandhas arise and fall away from causes as part of conditionality. I never disagreed with any of that. But most Buddhists through all of history, including most commentators and great teachers do not draw the radical conclusion that you do that activities, bodies and objects do not exist and have nothing to do with the path. The idea that kandhas break down to individual cittas and dhammas in such a way that there is no continuity or action involved in the path is a radical view that is not reflected in the above. Again, I don't disagree with conditionality of all things. I don't believe that a self exists. I don't believe dhammas can be controlled. I do believe that within and because of conditions and tendencies, activities do take place and that they cause results of action. That is where we diverge, not in the basic idea of anatta and conditions. You keep going back to basic conditionality and anatta and accuse me of not accepting them, and in that you are wrong. But I may not subscribe to your version of such. There is nothing in basic conditionality that necessitates the view that cittas arise in separate monadic moments that are only connected to each other by a magic trick of a handoff as one falls away, or that conditions and elements are discrete tiny units that all line up like clockwork to have a definite micro-effect. That is a separate and additional philosophy that necessitates a number of additional beliefs. It is also additional and not reflected in this sutta or any others that activities and objects do not exist. All that is stated is that self does not exist, and that objects are in a constant state of flux, and are not controllable, on which we all agree. I am not even dismissing the single-citta, single-dhamma monads that you believe in, with the clockwork arrangement of cetasikas according to micro-conditions; but I don't accept it with the same immediacy that I do the basic teachings, and they require further investigation on my part to keep understanding how those really work. Fair enough? Or eye-rollingly out of touch with your religious beliefs? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #119574 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I agree with the sutta, I agree that the kandhas arise and fall away from causes as part of conditionality...The idea that kandhas break down to individual cittas and dhammas in such a way that there is no continuity or action involved in the path is a radical view that is not reflected in the above...I don't disagree with conditionality of all things. I don't believe that a self exists. I don't believe dhammas can be controlled. I do believe that within and because of conditions and tendencies, activities do take place and that they cause results of action. That is where we diverge, not in the basic idea of anatta and conditions..." Scott: Your paraphrase 'kandhas break down to individual cittas and dhammas in such a way that there is no continuity or action involved in the path' shows that you've not yet understood the basics here. Since this is basic Abhidhamma, and since this is hardly 'radical,' could you explain the misconception you've elucidated above when you suggest 'there is no continuity or action involved in the path.' This is not being said, and since conditionality is explained in mind-boggling detail in Pa.t.thaana, this claim that there is no continuity or action involved in the path' is spurious. I can see it being made, however, since you need to defend 'action' as referring to conscious will and to a series of postures and actions done by a person. And again, since this is never addressed, you believe that you can sit down and bring mindfulness to the fore. How can you cause this to happen? Is it the posture? Is it the wish? Conditionality refers to dhammas. 'Sitting' is not a dhamma. 'Wishing' is not a dhamma. Scott. #119575 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...If you want an example, look up 'ayatanas' and the struggle I went through with Sarah's help to try to understand what they were and how they worked..." Scott: And, what are you left with? 'Ayatanas' consist of citta, cetasika, and ruupa - elements you reject, as far as I can tell, labelling them 'monads' - and that would be a derisive label, right? Like, you don't believe in 'monads,' right? You find that 'breaking down the khandas' into citta, cetasika, ruupa is simply wrong, as far as I can tell. Scott. #119576 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:21 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Nope, already laid it out a number of times. Nothing new." Scott: You disappoint me, Moriarty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pd_moriarty_by_Signey_Paget.gif Scott. #119577 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna and memory upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/30/2011 5:50:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Thank you for your thoughts, but currently I'm hoping to get as close as possible to what the Abhidhamma texts say. (Reading them would help, I should buy the Dhmmasanghini(?)) --------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I think that would make sense - perhaps that and also it's variously spelled (LOL!) commentary. If you haven't read it, maybe the Abhidhammatha Sangaha would be an even better first read. Actually, I should give that one a rereading. (I think I may well do that! And also study Nina's book on the conditionality of life.) ----------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119578 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:08 pm Subject: Re: Sanna and memory epsteinrob Hi Connie. This is great, thanks for the link! Some links on the archive site did not work for me, such as the .doc format, but I downloaded it as a text file, and it worked fine with formatting. I also created pdf and .doc versions, the latter by cutting and pasting the text into a Word doc. In Word it runs around 585 pages. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi Phil, Rob, > Dhammasa"nga.ni > > You should also be able to download a copy of Caroline Rhys-Davids translation from either books.google.com or archive.org - search for "Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics" > > connie > #119579 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:15 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "...I like this: 'which states are training?' This demonstrates the way of considering 'training' and it is much the same as the way to consider 'development' (bhaavanaa); that is, training is when any of the profitable states in the four planes arise. And, to be consistent, these states, having the characteristic of anatta, are not subject to control." > > R: "While this statement is in full accord with your 'arising dhammas' way of looking at all activities, it has absolutely nothing in common with the way in which the sutta actually discusses practice, and so is at odds with it. Practice is not spoken of in the sutta as applying to the arising of kusala states, which is a stretched meaning of 'practice' in any case. It is discussed as an activity to be fully pursued and perfected..." > > Scott: Conventional versus ultimate truth: Same truth, different modes of expression. It is only 'arising dhammas.' Concrete, literal-minded interpretations miss the mark. I understand that you will think that. However, denying the literal meaning of something is an easy way to change the meaning, isn't it? It means you don't have to accept what is actually said. Unless you have a specific justification for taking someone's words other than literally, the literal meaning is the actual meaning of what is said. When Buddha makes specific statements that refer to the doing of conventional activities, it is on someone else's authority, not his, that you translate that into arising dhammas rather than the activity he is speaking about. On some occasions Buddha does not use the passive "there is the case where..." but instead directly tells someone to "go sit under a tree and focus your mind on X" or the equivalent, and in such a case you need to know on whose authority you are saying that this literal understanding is incorrect. So I would ask you, who states directly that the Buddha's words are not to be taken literally. On whose authority do you do so? I would seriously like to know. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #119580 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I agree with the sutta, I agree that the kandhas arise and fall away from causes as part of conditionality...The idea that kandhas break down to individual cittas and dhammas in such a way that there is no continuity or action involved in the path is a radical view that is not reflected in the above...I don't disagree with conditionality of all things. I don't believe that a self exists. I don't believe dhammas can be controlled. I do believe that within and because of conditions and tendencies, activities do take place and that they cause results of action. That is where we diverge, not in the basic idea of anatta and conditions..." > > Scott: Your paraphrase 'kandhas break down to individual cittas and dhammas in such a way that there is no continuity or action involved in the path' shows that you've not yet understood the basics here. No, I am reading back to you what you said about each individual citta being separate. It doesn't represent what I think. In fact, I have told you that I don't think the Abhidhamma, as far as I can see, says what you say, and that the idea above is a radical view. It's not that I don't understand the basics of Abhidhamma, at least up to to a point; it's that I am suggesting that your version of dhamma theory, which emphasizes the sole reality of the citta, and underemphasizes the accumulations and tendencies that are passed on, and which form a "process" which allows qualities to accumulate and change over cittas, not just within a single citta, is short-sighted and doesn't really account for the way in which accumulations take place. So, instead of saying "Well that's not what I think," and correcting your own record, you attribute it to me and say I don't know what I'm talking about. I am attributing this to you, so if it is not what you think, the correct the record. > Since this is basic Abhidhamma, and since this is hardly 'radical,' could you explain the misconception you've elucidated above when you suggest 'there is no continuity or action involved in the path.' This is not being said, and since conditionality is explained in mind-boggling detail in Pa.t.thaana, this claim that there is no continuity or action involved in the path' is spurious. I can see it being made, however, since you need to defend 'action' as referring to conscious will and to a series of postures and actions done by a person. I am not denying conditionality; I am saying that the idea that activities do not exist is radical. The fine breakdown of the conditionality in the Patthana is fine with me, and I would love to see it - if I could find a handy translation. You always accuse me of the wrong things, because you have trouble reading what I actually say with objectivity. That is not what I think - I don't deny conditionality. What I deny is that activities are not part of conditionality. I think they are the outcome of conditionality, and that activities can also be the reflection and vehicle of conditionality, rather than being nonexistent concepts. > And again, since this is never addressed, you believe that you can sit down and bring mindfulness to the fore. How can you cause this to happen? Is it the posture? Is it the wish? Conditionality refers to dhammas. 'Sitting' is not a dhamma. 'Wishing' is not a dhamma. When sitting and being aware of experience, awareness develops. This can also take place in everyday life, but meditation is a focused environment. The fact that someone sits down to meditate reflects conditions also - it doesn't happen by itself. And once one is sitting with the intention to meditate, that arouses whatever mindfulness is aroused by that. It may not be any or much or in any particular moment, but that intention and environment has conditions and tendencies associated with it, just like every other experience is associated with conditions and tendencies that arise in the moment. After that, whatever happens happens. There's no one that thinks that they can will dhammas to arise or insight to develop, but certain activities will tend to support certain kinds of development. At least this is what the Buddha suggested. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119581 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:03 pm Subject: Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... szmicio Dear Sarah, What is patience? Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Nina, Phil, (Lukas & all) > > Just came across an old post with the following great extract from Perfections with a great quote from the texts inn a discussion you were both having: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > >".... Patience is "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel > > closing off the door to the plane of misery." > > Many people are afraid of unhappy planes and they perform kusala so > > that they will not be born there. However, if someone does not want > > to be reborn in an unhappy plane, he should be patient and refrain > > from akusala, because patience is "a panel closing off the door to > > the plane of misery." > .... > S: No one wants to be miserable, to have endless unhappy experiences, and yet we forget about patience as "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door of the plane of misery." > > Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #119582 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:33 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...When Buddha makes specific statements that refer to the doing of conventional activities..." Scott: Rob, the suttas are one of the three baskets. Everyone knows that, for the most part, the suttas use conventional language to describe ultimate truth. The Abhidhamma describes ultimate truth - paramattha dhammas. These texts together combine to explicate the deep teaching found in the Dhamma. You are absolutely and totally missing the vast majority of the complexity of the Dhamma by resorting to your own ideas about it. And I don't mean that we can understand it now but you talk like it's so easy and so straightforward and seem so glib and sure about it that it leaves me with the strong impression that you have totally missed the boat. The Buddha wasn't teaching something like the drivel that spews out of the mouths and pens of modern-day commentators - he was teaching the Dhamma - something only a fully enlightened one could teach. Scott. #119583 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...If you want an example, look up 'ayatanas' and the struggle I went through with Sarah's help to try to understand what they were and how they worked..." > > Scott: And, what are you left with? 'Ayatanas' consist of citta, cetasika, and ruupa - elements you reject, as far as I can tell, labelling them 'monads' - and that would be a derisive label, right? Like, you don't believe in 'monads,' right? You find that 'breaking down the khandas' into citta, cetasika, ruupa is simply wrong, as far as I can tell. Not what I said. Cittas, cetasikas and rupas are useful understandings of the components of reality. When they are seen as clockwork or monadic, I have some doubt about that version of them. I don't know to what extent they are as precise and definite as they are sometimes described, so that requires further study on my part. Your way of looking at them, which emphasizes their isolation and singleness rather than the accumulations and qualities that they pass on and which develop, I think is unbalanced to that degree. And I disagree with the idea that activities are merely concepts and don't actually take place. I know - hard to keep straight what someone actually thinks, and easier to break it down into black and white straw men, but that which I think, and that which I attribute to you, and that which I am unsure about and which requires further study, are not all the same thing. How about talking about the specifics as they come along, and skip the personal attacks? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119584 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:40 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Nope, already laid it out a number of times. Nothing new." > > Scott: You disappoint me, Moriarty. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pd_moriarty_by_Signey_Paget.gif There's a limit to how much time I can spend repeating the same defenses for things you don't agree with or re-explaining what I mean by common words or non-common words to satisfy your sense of technical superiority. I'm happy to discuss the issues in a way that may lead to edification, but not just for the sake of your "practicing being right," or playing grand inquisitor. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119585 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...When Buddha makes specific statements that refer to the doing of conventional activities..." > > Scott: Rob, the suttas are one of the three baskets. Everyone knows that, for the most part, the suttas use conventional language to describe ultimate truth. The Abhidhamma describes ultimate truth - paramattha dhammas. These texts together combine to explicate the deep teaching found in the Dhamma. You are absolutely and totally missing the vast majority of the complexity of the Dhamma by resorting to your own ideas about it. And I don't mean that we can understand it now but you talk like it's so easy and so straightforward and seem so glib and sure about it that it leaves me with the strong impression that you have totally missed the boat. The Buddha wasn't teaching something like the drivel that spews out of the mouths and pens of modern-day commentators - he was teaching the Dhamma - something only a fully enlightened one could teach. I'm still waiting for your citations or source of authority for assuming that the suttas automatically devolve to the paramatha level, rather than representing a valid part of the teaching in their own right. It's my view, based on the extent that I know, which is not as great as I'd like, that the different levels of the Dhamma are not interchangeable, but represent different parts of the same vehicle, and that conventional activities and literal practices are as important a part of the path as study and right understanding, and for some factors moreso. That does not deny the full breadth of the Dhamma, it just defends part of it as being what it is. If this turns out to be wrong I'll correct it, but so far you haven't cited anything nor given a logical step-by-step argument that in any way defends the translation of sutta descriptions of meditation and other actions to be taken into pure arising dhamma terms, or anything that suggests that meditation or other kusala actiivities are unnecessary or undesirable. When it comes to this point it is always your interpretation of commentary, or your interpretation or opinion regarding sutta. So my conclusion to date is that this interpretation of sutta comes from a selective modern interpretation of commentary and subcommentary, and the modern teachings of K. Sujin. Please let me know if you have any other direct authority for the view that sutta is not to be taken literally and in tandem with Abhidhamma, rather than interchangeably. Evidence of a high authority for this, and what exactly it is, not opinion. If the authority for this view is K. Sujin, we can discuss the merits on that basis. I have no doubt she is a highly developed teacher and a valid source of understanding; or if there are citations in ancient commentary that directly states that meditation is not to be undertaken or that meditation in sutta is not meant to be actually undertaken, cite them, and I will read them. Otherwise, admit that your view is an opinion as part of a modern Buddhist subculture that you are a participant in, and we can discuss the merits on that basis, without making believe that such a view is directly espoused in either Abhidhamma or ancient commentary. I just want to know what the basis is, so we know whose authority is being invoked here, other than yours and "the Dhamma" in general. "Everyone knows" won't do it, as the greater portion of the Buddhist world disagrees with your view on meditation and other activities. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119586 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara - Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) jonoabb Hi Rob E (118229) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > Here's another one, in plain English [from the plain Pali of course:] > > THE JHANA SUTTA > "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. > > "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana. [A monk] turns his mind away from ... phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > > [Continues for the other jhanas and formless attainments] > > "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. > > I don't know, Jon, what do you call that, an equivocal statement, subject to much interpretation or re-interpretation? Or is it pretty clear from the Master's own mouth? > =============== J: Thanks for the sutta quote. It is always useful to look at the text rather than to exchange paraphrases ;-)) I suppose you are placing reliance on the opening sentence "the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana" as implying that jhana plays a pivotal role in eradicating defilements and, accordingly, in attaining enlightenment. However I think a closer study of the sutta discloses another possible reading. In his translation of the sutta (in 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha', Text 181 'The Destruction of the Taints'), Bhikkhu Bodhi makes the following general comment at the end of the first paragraph quoted by you: "In what follows the Buddha will show the attainment of arahantship (or the state of non-returning) through a method that employs tranquillity as a basis for insight. "The method described seems to correspond to 'insight preceded by tranquillity', though it might also be interpreted as 'tranquillity and insight joined in pairs' (Text 83 [J: This is a reference to the Yuganaddha Sutta])." In other words, on Ven. Bodhi's reading, the sutta is about developing insight with jhana as basis. Here now is the complete version of the 2nd para of your quote (I have numbered the paragraphs for ease of reference): *********************** From AN 9.36 "[1] 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. [2] In reference to what was it said? [3] There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. [4] He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. [5] He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html] *********************** Note particularly sentences No. 3 and 4. In discussing this part of the sutta BB, citing the commentary ("AA"), explains: "The attainment of jhaana is samatha or tranquillity; the contemplation of the constituent phenomena as impermanent, etc., is vipassana or insight, according to AA, 'powerful insight-wisdom'." On this reading, then, sentence No. 3 refers to the attainment of jhana, while sentence No 4 refers to the development of insight having as object the dhammas ("phenomena") associated with the attainment of jhana. Ven. Bodhi's note continues: "In this passage the Buddha explains how the meditator develops insight using the jhaana as the basis for contemplation. "The meditator dissects the experience of jhaana into the five aggregates (form, feeling, etc.), and then examines the aggregates by way of eleven qualities. "These eleven qualities are elaborations of the three general characteristics: - two terms - inconstant and a disintegration - fall under the characteristic of impermanence; - three - alien, an emptiness and non-self - under the characteristic of non-self; - and the remaining six - stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction - under the characteristic of suffering." [J: In the description of the eleven qualities, I have used the terminology of the ATI translation in place of BB's where they differ.] What is being said here is that some or all of the dhammas (as the 5 khandhas) that constitute jhana consciousness are seen by panna of the insight variety as being anicca. dukkha and anatta. On that interpretation, rather than being a sutta that recommends the attainment of jhana for the purpose of gaining a deeper level of insight, it is a sutta that shows how the person who has already developed both samatha and insight to very advanced levels (that is, to the point where the attainment of both jhana (if not already attained) and enlightenment are imminent) can attain enlightenment with jhana as basis. Wondering if you would see this interpretation as reasonably being open on the text. Jon #119587 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:30 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara - Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (118229) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > Here's another one, in plain English [from the plain Pali of course:] > > > > THE JHANA SUTTA > > "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. > > > > "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana. [A monk] turns his mind away from ... phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > > > > [Continues for the other jhanas and formless attainments] > > > > "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. > > > > I don't know, Jon, what do you call that, an equivocal statement, subject to much interpretation or re-interpretation? Or is it pretty clear from the Master's own mouth? > > =============== > > J: Thanks for the sutta quote. It is always useful to look at the text rather than to exchange paraphrases ;-)) > > I suppose you are placing reliance on the opening sentence "the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana" as implying that jhana plays a pivotal role in eradicating defilements and, accordingly, in attaining enlightenment. > > However I think a closer study of the sutta discloses another possible reading. > > In his translation of the sutta (in 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha', Text 181 'The Destruction of the Taints'), Bhikkhu Bodhi makes the following general comment at the end of the first paragraph quoted by you: > "In what follows the Buddha will show the attainment of arahantship (or the state of non-returning) through a method that employs tranquillity as a basis for insight. > "The method described seems to correspond to 'insight preceded by tranquillity', though it might also be interpreted as 'tranquillity and insight joined in pairs' (Text 83 [J: This is a reference to the Yuganaddha Sutta])." > > In other words, on Ven. Bodhi's reading, the sutta is about developing insight with jhana as basis. > > Here now is the complete version of the 2nd para of your quote (I have numbered the paragraphs for ease of reference): > > *********************** > From AN 9.36 > > "[1] 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. > [2] In reference to what was it said? > [3] There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. > [4] He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. > [5] He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > > [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html] > *********************** > > Note particularly sentences No. 3 and 4. In discussing this part of the sutta BB, citing the commentary ("AA"), explains: > "The attainment of jhaana is samatha or tranquillity; the contemplation of the constituent phenomena as impermanent, etc., is vipassana or insight, according to AA, 'powerful insight-wisdom'." > > On this reading, then, sentence No. 3 refers to the attainment of jhana, while sentence No 4 refers to the development of insight having as object the dhammas ("phenomena") associated with the attainment of jhana. > > Ven. Bodhi's note continues: > "In this passage the Buddha explains how the meditator develops insight using the jhaana as the basis for contemplation. > "The meditator dissects the experience of jhaana into the five aggregates (form, feeling, etc.), and then examines the aggregates by way of eleven qualities. > "These eleven qualities are elaborations of the three general characteristics: > - two terms - inconstant and a disintegration - fall under the characteristic of impermanence; > - three - alien, an emptiness and non-self - under the characteristic of non-self; > - and the remaining six - stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction - under the characteristic of suffering." > > [J: In the description of the eleven qualities, I have used the terminology of the ATI translation in place of BB's where they differ.] > > What is being said here is that some or all of the dhammas (as the 5 khandhas) that constitute jhana consciousness are seen by panna of the insight variety as being anicca. dukkha and anatta. > > On that interpretation, rather than being a sutta that recommends the attainment of jhana for the purpose of gaining a deeper level of insight, it is a sutta that shows how the person who has already developed both samatha and insight to very advanced levels (that is, to the point where the attainment of both jhana (if not already attained) and enlightenment are imminent) can attain enlightenment with jhana as basis. > > Wondering if you would see this interpretation as reasonably being open on the text. Thanks, Jon, for your clear laying out and insightful description of the text and comments in the B. Bodhi manuscript. Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the specifics laid out of how the different elements of the jhana-associated dhammas are characterized in order to use them as objects of insight. The ten ways in which the dhammas are regarded and how they break down into various properties of the three major characteristics is really great material, and for me, very exciting; so thanks for noting those details. Second, I agree with you that at least this aspect of the sutta is about how the jhana-related elements are regarded with understanding in order to develop insight and move towards enlightenment. I have always understood this as being the process, but you have shown it in somewhat greater detail than I have usually seen it, and I appreciate that. The question is whether jhana creates or constitutes special conditions or is a special object for the development of insight, and Buddha's statement in "[1:] 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' suggests that this is the case. The term "depends on," if it is an accurate representation of the Pali, highly suggests that jhana is a condition for the development of insight, rather than merely an object of insight for those already versed in it. So on that point I think we would still disagree, and to me it seems that the sutta bears out my view on that point. Each of the verses goes through the succeeding jhanas with that "dependent" relationship invoked as the introduction to the discussion of each jhana. And the formless meditations seem to be discussed as actual precursors to enlightenment, as they verge on the enlightened state more and more. So it seems to me that the jhanas are part of the development towards cessation, and that the insight into each successive stage of jhana is an insight into a stiller and more subtle area of awareness, until all dependent phenomena cease. This movement back and forth between an increasingly still and subtle state of jhana, with less and less form presented to awareness, and the development of deeper and subtler insight moving towards complete realization, seem to me to be part of a two-step process of coming to cessation and coming to full understanding. That seems to be reflected in the sutta, and not contradicted by any of your observations or Bikkhu Bodhi's notes. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119588 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Borers in framework of roof sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro > Even monks kill when they sweep the grounds of the temple... I am sure I have when sweeping the grounds when I was a monk at Bangkok's Wat Bowon... > > Even, in washing one's face, one kills... > > Where does one draw the line, heh? .... S: Is there any intention to kill or harm at these times? It is the intention that counts. Metta Sarah ===== #119589 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Sanna and memory sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I just heard that every time sanna arises it makes a sign, nimitta karana (?) and this is the same nimitta we talk about each reality having. .... S: Yes, sanna is the "nimitta kara.na", "the sign-maker". At each moment, sanna arises with the citta and marks the object experienced, making a sign like the wood-cutter which can be recalled later. The letter "a" is remembered as "a", because over and over again, sanna has "marked" the visible objects which are interpreted as "a" by subsequent mind-door cittas. If sanna didn't perform this task, no visible objects would be recognisable in any way. ... P:> guess that this is related to sanna vipalassa that makes us believe in permanence of things. nicca sanna? Could I ask you, when you have time, to write a few thoughts on that? Thanks. Only when you have time, I hope to be away for a week or so. .... S: Thx for the questions and consideration. It's very much related as you suggest. If sanna didn't mark the objects in the first place, there'd be no idea of "a", "computer" or "people". There is sanna vipalassa whenever any akusala cittas arises - so not always with wrong view. It is on account of the ditthi which arises with sanna at moments of thinking about "a", "computer" or "people", taking them as lasting, as you suggest, that wrong view arises. People think there is no idea of "nicca" and certainly no idea of "eternalism" (sasata ditthi), but is there any idea now of a computer lasting an instant? Ask further, if anything more comes to mind. Metta Sarah ===== #119590 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Sanna and memory sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > S: Just briefly, as you know, sanna has two functions: remembering and marking. It arises with every single citta, remembering and marking the object of citta. > > Ph: Recently I heard someone say that it is difficult to know the characteristic of sanna, compared to knowing the characteristic of vedana, for example. The characteristic seems hidden. A.Sujin just asked "do you know me?" .... S: That's a good one. Without sanna, no recognising of anything or anyone. Is there not recognising now? .... > > S: What is meant is that sanna marks the particular characteristic of an object, such as visible object. It marks and remembers not only that it's seen, but just how this visible object is, never to be forgotten. This is how it knows that this is what we call a computer or a sea-scape. Even concepts - sanna marks and remembers each time a concept is thought about. For example, it's because of sanna that we remember that this is called a computer and so on. > > > Ph: I find this difficult. If there is a "particular characteristc of an object, such as visible object", what is the object? .... S: The object is just that which is seen, that which is experienced by seeing. Now, what is seen is different from a moment ago. Each visible object that appears is never experienced again. If each visible object were the same, there'd be nothing to recognise in it at all! So, citta experiences exactly what is seen in all its detail and sanna marks that object precisely. What is seen and marked is the exact characteristic of that particular visible object. This is just how it's always been before we ever heard of the Dhamma. ... >If there are no objects, in reality, are there not only kalapas arising? .... S: Of course there are objects - visible objects which are seen. Each visible object (rupa) arises and falls away in a kalapa with at least seven other rupas, as you know. It depends on kamma as to what visible object is seen (if any) at that moment. What is seen is marked, attended to, contacted, felt and so on. ... > I can understand that a pencil can't be seen, a pencil can't be touched, only visible object, hardness, but I can't understand that there is no object that is called a pencil. .... S: Seeing sees visible object, touching experiences hardness, so which doorway is 'the object that is called a pencil" experienced? Only though the mind door as an idea. Exactly the same applies to the idea of "Phil" or "Sarah". To the wise, i.e. to panna, there is no idea of any existing "internal" and "external" object - just dhammas appearing through the 6 door-ways and thought about. .... >I heard difficult things about atta ditthi and sakkaya ditthi again today, you said dhammasanhini says they are synonymous, A.Sujin said differently, but I couldn't follow. .... S: In the texts, such as Dhammasanganii, we read that atta ditthi and sakkaya ditthi are the same. This is true, but atta ditthi is wider and also includes wrong views of "things" not included in sakkaya ditthi. This was AS's point. See more under "attanu ditthi" if interested. However, the discussion above is more important to be clear on with regard to visible object, so no need to get distracted by the "icing on the cake" quibble issues for now, although any points that helps us understand dhammas as anatta are useful and this may be one for some. ... >Not to get frustrated, this is just beyond me. That's ok, when I first came to DSG, I coulnd't understand why people were talking about such things as concept and reality, and sabhava of realities, now I at least understand why it is important. Understanding will have to grow gradually. No need to comment or explain further, this is just over my head now. .... Metta Sarah ===== #119591 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... nilovg Dear Lukas (Sarah, Phil, Scott), Op 19-okt-2011, om 11:03 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > What is patience? > ----- > N: Another word is endurance. It does not matter to be insulted by > someone else. There are conditions to experience unpleasant objects > through the senses. The Bodhisatta said that if there are no > contrarious people there would not be an opportunity to develop > patience. > But to be honest, this is not easy to apply, we may have aversion, but it is good not to speak out. As Sarah wrote: > S: No one wants to be miserable, to have endless unhappy experiences, and yet we forget about patience as "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door of the plane of misery." > > > > > Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now > through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. N: I discussed with Lodewijk diplomatic language which some people do not appreciate. They think it is not sincere not to speak out straight what one thinks. Lodewijk, who has a lot of experience in this field, says that it is absolutely necessary to be diplomatic in one's dealings with others, not insulting them. He said that one has to have respect for other people. This fits in with the Brahma Vihaaras I just read to Lodewijk last night. The connection of mettaa with respect for others. I read: < Acharn Sujin stressed the connection between sla and mett. Sla includes not only abstention from akusala kamma, it also includes paying respect to those who deserve it and helping others, rendering service. I quote from Acharn Sujins Wholesome Deeds: The citta can be respectful by abstaining from hurting or harming others through body, speech or mind. When there is mett we do not disturb the happiness of others or cause them to be in trouble. We do not think of ourselves expecting friendship from others. Mett or friendship arises with the citta, and if we expect something for ourselves there is no true mett. Thus, we need truthfulness, sincerity at all times. The near ennemy of mett is attachment. We may take for mett what is selfish love. If someone sees another person as object of attachment he has no respect for that person, he does not help him to have kusala citta. He harms himself and the other person. He also lacks respect of the Buddha who taught the way leading to the elimination of akusala and the development of right understanding. > -------- As Sarah wrote: patience in the development of understanding. We read about a long way of development: see the simile of the Adze handle one holds each day and does not notice the wearing away, since it goes so slowly. The expression 'a long way of development' (Cira kala bhaavana) is used in the commentaries. Quoting more from the "Perfections": < In daily life we need a great deal of patience, because apart from endurance with regard to our environment or living conditions, we have to be patient and tolerant towards people with different characters and habits. People are in the habit of doing everything quickly should be patient with people who are slow in their actions. We may meet someone who is of contrarious behaviour, but we should be patient and tolerant towards him and not complain about him. If sati- sampajaa arises there are conditions to refrain from critizing or blaming such a person, to have mett and give him guidance, support and advice at the appropriate occasion. Thus we see that the perfection of khanti should not be lacking in our daily life. > Support and advice is good, but it is important to know the cittas which motivate this: is there conceit or aversion while doing so? Or is there pure mettaa, not expecting approval of what one says? Or expecting someone else to agree. As Sarah said, one should mind one's own cittas. Then one sees the amount of akusala one has. ******** Nina. > #119592 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Scott), ------------ <. . .> > RE: I'm still waiting for your citations or source of authority for assuming that the suttas automatically devolve to the paramatha level, rather than representing a valid part of the teaching in their own right. ------------ KH: I'd like to suggest a conventional story that is a teaching in its own right: Over the course of many lifetimes a person hears the Dhamma without understanding it. People patiently explain it to him, but he repeatedly rejects it sometimes even ridiculing them. Eventually, there is a lifetime in which he accepts the Dhamma, but - would you believe it - he is surrounded by people who reject it. No matter how many times he explains the true Dhamma they mock him. Him and his ideas about "no control"! Would you agree that is a conventional kamma-and-vipakka story that contains a teaching in its own right? But my point is: where does that story get us? It is about a sentient being who is reborn and experiences the fruits of his kamma. It makes no mention of conditioned dhammas over which there is no control. So how does it teach us anything new? How could it be the teaching of a self-enlightened Buddha? Conventional stories might sound nice but, as teachings in their own right, they offer nothing but wrong-view. Ken H #119593 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:42 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Alex in passing), Good discussion, as you say. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: <....> > I'm suggesting that a some elements of acorrect apprehension of textual concepts and the here-and-now apprehension of dhammas are part of the same 'package' of conditioned and conditioning dhammas which lead to 'right understanding' in the wild, as it were. And yeah, 'maybe in a few words of the texts' but there has to be reading and studying in order for this to happen. And these 'few words', I'm speculating, would be like the 'hearing' that one reads about in the suttas - a hearing that seems to lead quickly to the arising of the Path to various degrees. ..... S: Yes.... I think the danger is when we get hung up on the words or the text and take the reciting or clarifying of these to be pariyatti rather than the understanding now, at a considering level, of the actual dhammas appearing. Some people think they have to read or recommend the Patthana, for example, for pariyatti to develop. I don't agree with any idea that suggests that scholarly knowledge/Pali expertise/equates with pariyatti in anyway. So I would rather stress an understanding now of seeing, visible object, pleasant, unpleasant feeling as dhammas (not atta), than urge anyone to go to the library if they weren't interested to do so. ... > >Scott: The conventional descriptions of a person hearing the words of the Buddha and attaining to some level of the Path are just a conventional way of describing a very complex 'cascade' of dhammas. I don't even have a clue how the actual words are condition, except to imagine that they somehow serve to condition the apprehension of that particular reality which then is then object of supramundane consciousness (and that would be Nibbaana in the case of the Path). .... S: It is not the words, but the understanding of those particular words that is the condition for enlightenment, for direct realisation of the very dhammas being discussed. Many, many other beings would hear just the same words, but without the accumulations for such insight to arise. ... <...> >Scott: It is likely a complex thing to suggest that 'reading the Dhamma' can be like 'hearing the Dhamma.' I agree with your point that 'there has to be hearing in some way.' I'm suggesting that 'reading' can be 'hearing.' .... S: Of course, but whether 'reading' or 'hearing', it is the understanding of dhammas at such times, as now, that counts. ... >> Sarah: "...You are talking about the necessity of 'mundane discussing and using texts and scholarship' in the development of pariyatti leading to patipatti...'Mundane discussing and using texts and scholarship' may be undertaken with kusala or akusala cittas with panna or lack of panna. Again, it may be driven by lobha conditioned by an idea of some 'rule' in this regard..." > > Scott: Yes, hence 'mundane' I suppose. I'm not sure I'm referring to 'necessity.' I might be. I am saying that the texts are all we have, in a way - all we have as a substitute for 'hearing' the Dhamma. We also have the 'hearing' that can come up in mundane discussion, but one would have to hear Dhamma expressed 'correctly.' .... Sarah: Again, what is important is the understanding of realities now. We all have different inclinations, but whatever the inclinations, the path comes down to understanding what appears at this very moment. Thinking that we (or anyone else) should read a text now is just thinking which can be known too. .... > >Scott: Whether appropriate or inappropriate, from a 'political correctness' standpoint, it seems to me that those of us who are like-minded on the list are by one means or another convinced that we are 'correct' and that there are views that are to varying degrees 'incorrect,' and when discussing the Dhamma with those we consider to have an 'incorrect' version of the Dhamma, we are, with varying styles, pointing out that this or that person is 'wrong' about a given aspect of the conceptual Dhamma. .... Sarah: Like Nina, I find it more helpful to consider and discuss dhammas, rather than think in terms of people who are "like-minded", "correct", "incorrect" and so on. As she said, different cittas, different moments. I think the business of "camps", "dojos" and so on, just leads to animosity. There is a nice sutta in MN about how the Buddha encouraged his listeners to reflect on the good qualities of others, such as the morality or generosity or wisdom. If there really are no good qualities, then it's an opportunity to reflect on equanimity and kamma. (Alex, would you kindly find the link for me). .... > >> Sarah: "...I am saying that the only conditions for pariyatti leading to patipatti are the hearing and wise considering about present dhammas." > > Scott: Does 'hearing about present dhammas' mean mundane discussion or mundande study of texts? Does 'wise considering' mean 'thinking about?' I know the mental factor is yoniso manisikaara and I understand this to be arising in relation to dhammas but is not equivalent to 'thinking wisely.' ... Sarah: Hearing and considering wisely about present dhammas anytime. I don't know where you get the expressions "mundane discussion" and "mundane study of texts". There can be discussion and study of texts with or without kusala cittas, with or without panna. There can be considering wisely now, whilst cooking, whilst travelling to work, anytime. Hearing may be just remembering a few words that the Buddha has taught. "dhamma" - one word, "heard" and reflected on wisely or unwisely. Suta-maya pa~n~naa - understanding based on hearing, cinta-maya pa~n~naa, understanding based on thinking wisely. There is yoniso manasikaara whenever kusala cittas arise. Usually it refers in context to the arising of p~an~naa. If there is thinking wisely, there must be yoniso manasikaara with pa~n~naa arising. ... >> Sarah: "do we have the idea that when we open a dhamma book or listen to a good dhamma recording that there will be pariyatti? I think the lobha creeps in often and that misunderstandings arise more often that we might acknowledge..." > > Scott: I don't have that idea. Maybe some do. That is the common straw-man that is hoisted onto the field of discussion on the list all the time. I am considering the extent to which certain aspect of the sort of reading or listening that is simply that is or is not pariyatti. .... Sarah: Yes, but I'm saying we can never 'think' our way through to determining which aspects of reading or listening is pariyatti, because it is only pa~n~naa that knows when pa~n~naa (of any kind) appears and it is only pa~n~naa which is the determining factor for this, not the activity at any time. So now, whilst we are reading and discussing Dhamma, is there pariyatti now? Or patipatti now? Unless pa~n~naa arises right now, no dhamma can be known. .... > >> S: "'we should understand more about present dhammas'..." > > Scott: Agreed. The above is a re-statement of the view that others who don't share that view oppose in various ways. I'm setting it aside by agreement (with you) and discussing related aspects. I see how this may be offered just there near the end for other readers and reflects the 'message' which the list consistently (and correctly in my view) puts out there. I don't think that I'm missing that particular point. .... Sarah: I'm saying, never mind about the "others", the "opposing views" and so on. What's important for all of us, whether in agreement or not, is the understanding now of what appears. I don't think we can emphasise the present dhammas too much. Metta Sarah ==== #119594 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: >> Sarah: "...Sikkhati - you asked Alex about. As he said, it's just the simple present tense, 3rd person, meaning 'he studies'. What can be studied at this moment? Only the sound, the thinking, the like, the dislike, the reality which appears. How is it studied? Just through the development of panna now. No being involved." > > Scott: I think Alex adds a lot of as yet unclarified grammatical stuff about 'imperative' and suggests that this means it is an instruction to do. Alex does not agree with what you have written above. I agree that it means 'he studies' and that this means 'the study that in that moment is.' No one studies. > >> Sarah: "...Sikkhitabba.m - should be studied, to be studied or trained. How? Just through the development of sati and panna now again. Never by a 'should' as in 'you should look up the Pali or study the book' in an absolute sense, though I appreciate that you're just encouraging others to consider the terms, consider the commentary meanings and so on and not suggesting that this is the Path..." > > Scott: Correct. As I say, you and I seem to agree on the correct way in which to understand a word like 'should' in this context. Others, however, clearly and consistently comprehend 'should' through the lens of sakkaaya di.t.thi. As controversial as it seems to say such a thing directly. .... Sarah: I agree with you too and also your last comment. As you suggest, 'should' is usually taken to mean Someone Should Do Something. I just couldn't understand why you were asking Alex (more than once) to get out a Pali grammar (and I don't think he could either), but a very minor issue! Thanks, Scott Sarah ===== #119595 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 19-okt-2011, om 16:30 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Whenever the suttas talk about effort, "crushing mind with mind", > "effort as ardently as one would put out head on fire", "two strong > people subduing a man" , "trying to the point the body is > emaciated" etc I don't see how the Buddha could be even more clear > and vivid in getting the point of putting in strong energy. ----- N: THis reminds me of the "Removal of Unwholesome Thoughts" I studied with the co. You may find this in U.P. or so. < The clenching of the teeth shows the Bodhisattas supreme effort, but this was accompanied by paaa of a high degree. The bhikkhu referred to in the who has to abandon his unwholesome thoughts is on the way to arahatship. This cannot be attained without right effort which has to be accompanied by paaa. As we read in this sutta, quoted above, he should restrain, subdue and beat down the (evil) mind by the (good) mind. If someone just clenches his teeth with dispair or fear because he does not want to have unwholesome thoughts, it is not the right effort that must be accompanied by paaa. > ***** No 12. Sutta: When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavouring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. ------- Nina. #119596 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? scottduncan2 Chuck, C: "...I fully agree..." Scott: Thanks, but let's not discuss because then we might see that we actually fully disagree when it comes down to what we both might actually mean when we say the same words. Yeah, I know, I'm annoying... Scott. #119597 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Nina I remember your series on this sutta! > < The clenching of the teeth shows the Bodhisatta's supreme effort, > but this was accompanied by paaa of a high degree. The bhikkhu > referred to in the who > has to abandon his unwholesome thoughts is on the way to arahatship. Why do you say "on his way to arahatship?" Because the sutta says "noble disciple" or because of something to this point in the commentary? Thanks Metta, Phil #119598 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:02 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > If the suttas and/or commentaries such as VsM were clear on "live daily life, do not practice, do not strive just study" then I would have no problem. But when there are suttas after sutta talking about "strive!" etc, it is hard to twist them to mean the exact opposite of what they say. Please understand my concern. This is my problem with these explanations as well. I agree with you. So far I have seen no direct evidence that real meditation practice "in the world" was ever discouraged - even by the commentaries. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119599 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:48 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. Nice to hear from you. You're like "Scott lite." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (and Scott), > > ------------ > <. . .> > > RE: I'm still waiting for your citations or source of authority for assuming that the suttas automatically devolve to the paramatha level, rather than representing a valid part of the teaching in their own right. > ------------ > > KH: I'd like to suggest a conventional story that is a teaching in its own right: Yippee... > Over the course of many lifetimes a person hears the Dhamma without understanding it. People patiently explain it to him, but he repeatedly rejects it sometimes even ridiculing them. Eventually, there is a lifetime in which he accepts the Dhamma, but - would you believe it - he is surrounded by people who reject it. No matter how many times he explains the true Dhamma they mock him. Him and his ideas about "no control"! > > Would you agree that is a conventional kamma-and-vipakka story that contains a teaching in its own right? No. > But my point is: where does that story get us? Nowhere. > It is about a sentient being who is reborn and experiences the fruits of his kamma. It makes no mention of conditioned dhammas over which there is no control. So how does it teach us anything new? How could it be the teaching of a self-enlightened Buddha? > > Conventional stories might sound nice but, as teachings in their own right, they offer nothing but wrong-view. Your teaching above is an awful lot lighter than the Buddha's. Buddha's teachings are not all about intellectual understanding, so the fact that they sometimes do not have detailed intellectual formulations that you can add to your dhamma formula collection may make them seem unimpressive to someone who is on a totally intellectual path. Buddha's conventional teachings are about how to live and do things in order to promote understanding and wholesomeness/skillfulness. In order to realize the profundity of that part of the teaching you have to do what Buddha advises, not just think about it. Buddha offers not just a breakdown of reality, but also a way of life, as well as specific things to do in order to promote kusala conditions and support the path. Complaining that those teachings are "nice stories" or are "conventional" is like complaining that reading about penicillin does not cure your infection. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = =