#121800 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:37 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. Nice to see you again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hello Rob E (and Scott), > > > I've read only two or three posts of your conversation and since Alex hasn't responded to my last post as yet, and because I feel like writing something, hope you don't mind that I butt in here. Happy to hear from you. > Rob E wrote: > How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career and did not teach Abhidhamma? > > Sukin: I of course can only speculate based on my own understanding about the Dhamma in general. But let me know whether it makes sense or not. > > The Abhidhamma as the particular exposition i.e. the Seven Books and the commentaries comes after the fact that it is the same Dhamma as in the Suttas and the Vinaya. Everything that is taught in the latter two baskets is covered in the former, only much more precisely. Where in the Suttas the Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus and the Paticcasamuppada are taught, this is expressed no differently in the Abhidhamma. From this perspective, the Buddha did in fact teach the Abhidhamma during his entire career! There are passages when the discussion is definitely on the units of reality in various suttas, no doubt. But there are many other passages that are about conventional objects and activities. That is more of the problem in my view. > For those with weak understanding, the Abhidhamma as in the particular exposition allows for the reality / concept distinction to be made more easily. The Suttas where the teachings are conventional requires a more firm understanding on the part of the listener so as not to end up taking concepts for reality. Those who were taught directly by the Buddha were mostly, if not all of them, with much accumulated wisdom. Many of them already were aware of what constituted wrong view and wrong teachings as taught by other teachers. The Buddha therefore had no reason to lay out the details of the Abhidhamma to these people; indeed even we do not have to refer to the Abhidhamma each time that we make a Dhamma point, do we? It is not just a question of the details but of the topic itself and of the consistency of the statements. If a sutta says "all dhammas are anatta" that is obviously consistent with Abhidhamma, just more general, so for those sorts of passages I agree with your point. But when it comes to the more conventional teachings, such as non-killing of people and animals, specific rebirths in particular circumstances, right livelihood, rules for monks, and the details of meditation, among many other topics, the level of discourse is not just more general but is inconsistent with the theory of dhammas-only. Why would Buddha define Right Concentration as jhana and not mention that concentration of the level of 1st jhana can arise through dry insight path? Why would Buddha say that the act of killing causes rebirth in one case as a bird that is shot down over and over again, rather than talking about specific dhammas involved. Why would he talk about specific rules for monks, rather than talking about mental factors? If commentary says that seclusion really means mental seclusion, why would Buddha talk about finding a quiet place away from noise, etc., which is a fully conventional description? If bhavana is a freely arising form of development as a pure mental factor and is not involved with meditation, why would the Buddha talk about sitting in a quiet place cross-legged and following breath to calm bodily and mental formations, etc., and say that such practice would lead to enlightenment? The Buddha's own words here are at odds with Abhidhamma interpretation, and it is only be reinterpreting the Buddha's words that they are made to reconcile. If Buddha says to refrain from taking alcohol, but that the amount of alcohol necessary for a medical tincture is permissible, this has nothing to do with dhammas per se, it is a fully conventional description and it is said to be either kusala or akusala to do such things, in full contradiction to the commentary position that kusala and akusala do not refer to worldly objects at all, but are only arising mental factors due to accumulations. It is these sorts of passages that are at issue, not those which talk about, as you say, Abhidhamma sorts of descriptions but only more generally. > ======= > Rob E: > And what is the scriptural authority for you to say not to take the suttas literally? > > > Sukin: This is not reasonable is it? > If the Buddha taught the way he did and this bore fruit, why would he need to add a remark regarding how this should be interpreted? Well, my contention is that if the Buddha's words had a certain effect, then such speech is not merely conventional but is setting conditions for certain sorts of dhammas to arise. If this is not the case, then we could not say that such speech was effective, or bore fruit. So how is it that conventional activity, such as conceptual communication, can "bear fruit," but you would say that conventional action and meditation cannot? And if such speech does bear fruit, why would anyone say that it is "merely conventional" speech, and that we should not act on it, even though it "bore fruit" as you say for those who heard it in the past? Are we authorized to meddle with the Buddha's speech and reinterpret it, second-guessing the Buddha's understanding of the fruit that such speech would bear? > Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? Well that is my point exactly - he spoke about both. I would never say that the paramatha level was not a concern of his or that he never mentioned it. I have said that judging by the way the Buddha actually presented his material teachings, that there is a continuum between right conventional action and speech and right understanding of paramatha dhammas and that one has to be aware of both levels of understanding to follow the full path. If we ignore the conventional level and do all sorts of conventional akusala, thinking it unimportant, fail to guard the senses or worry about conventional wrong speech and action, then we are creating akusala dhammas in doing so. Those who say that such a level is "only literal" and can be ignored in favor of paramatha understanding don't care if they live in an ordinary way without any regard for development of awareness, and this idea that the awareness is going to develop all by itself and they don't have to do anything is ignoring all the conventional teachings of the Buddha. In my opinion, that is a big mistake. It is picking and choosing instead of following the teachings. Now I am not proselytizing. I am perfectly terrible at following the conventional rules for kusala and I thus realize that I'm far away from being ready to do so. But I don't ignore the importance of what the Buddha actually said and make believe that it's all great, and I can do whatever, think whatever, say whatever, and it has no importance. All levels of the teachings should be understood, not just the technical appearance and disappearance of those pesky little dhammas that none of us ever really see. Meanwhile, we surf, watch tv, enjoy sloth and torpor with a good beer, fantasize and have a fine time while ignoring the teachings, treat people however we please, etc. And because we know what a cetasika is, or can talk about bhavanga cittas, we think we must be on the path and we're doing just great! > Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. Well, I agree with you that there is more than one level and we can look at both, but at least several people here do not agree that old age, death, etc., in the conventional sense are part of the teachings at all! > This validity however is determined not by the reference points, but the understanding behind them. For some of us the decay of a dead body for example, points to the fact of the fleeting nature of rupa. You on the other hand, have suggested that even without referring to rupa, there can be development of understanding about impermanence and so on. And this is where we disagree and I see yours as being wrong understanding at the level of both pariyatti as well as patipatti. Yes, I think you have put this well and there is some confusion and genuine disagreement. I do think there is value in seeing the nature of the "conventional dead body" as Buddha described it in great detail - there is a reason why he did so. And there is also great value in seeing the rupas involved, and that gives greater specificity to the understanding. There is an impact though to our conventional self-view in seeing the nature of the corpse in conventional terms that I don't think should be ignored. It is a shock to the system, it shows the impermanent nature of that which we think conceptually is lasting, and it has an impact on consciousness and self-view. I agree that one has to go further, go behind this to the changing nature of the rupas, to see the ultimate understanding of the anicca involved, but I do think there is a continuum between these levels, and that we should not ignore or bypass the conventional, as well as the paramatha. I think our conventional self-view and concepts sometime have to be shaken up before the more precise level can be entertained. When Buddha saw the emptiness of the way people were living at the royal court, when he suffered some of the experiences he had there, disenchantment and disgust arose within him. This was before he understood the specific dhammas involved, but it directed him towards the path of detachment. It started him on a road that led to the paramatha dhammas. Conventional events do shake us up - the death of a loved one, etc. - and they start us contemplating alternatives to our current view of life and self. This leads to the search that can put us on the path. That is my view. > And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? It is not different or the same. It is starting from what we are attached to, what is familiar and habitual, and then shaking that up, looking at those things and then that leads us to a deeper investigation. It seems to me that the path that is sometimes discussed here - from conventional understanding to correct conceptual understanding to beginning to see dhammas in terms of nimittas, to more precise understanding and more clear nimittas, and finally to paramatha dhammas discerned more directly, is not very different from what I am describing. But usually the conventional level is seen as useless and having no role. I see it as being the doorway to the dhammas that are involved when one begins to look at conventional objects and attachments more closely. I also see the Buddha's teaching in correcting our way of living and acting to set conditions for better understanding and the beginning of discernment and detachment. You may not agree with that, but it makes sense of his teachings in these areas, and it provides a continuum from waking up in a conventional way, beginning to be mindful and guard the senses, working with right effort to develop better understanding and greater mindfulness and then beginning to see the nature of dhammas. > ========= > Rob E: > It is your own inference, not Dhamma, that Buddha only spoke conventionally and should not be taken literally, and that meditation is wrong practice. > > > Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? I do not think that conclusion has been fully justified or ever fully explained. Of course we have been arguing about this for a long time, with no resolution. Anatta means that there is no control of arising dhammas true. So that is not the question. The question is whether right practices as defined by the Buddha can promote kusala conditions for greater awareness. I don't see anything in the analysis of the nature of dhammas that prevents the right actions, settings and conditions from helping to develop kusala understanding through right practice. The Buddha explicitly explains how these practices will have such a kusala effect, so to me it is there in the suttas. There are no statements that I know of in commentary to contradict this, and the logic of this seems to me to be an inference by those who make it, not a clearly shown principle. > In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? I don't understand why you say "other than the suttas" where he discussed meditation. Those are indeed the suttas that lay out the basis of meditation as right practice, along with the corresponding sections of the Visudhimagga and even, as I recall, some sections of the Abhidhamma. So that's where the basis lies. If the Buddha had never spoken about sitting and breathing as a basis for satipatthana, if he had not mentioned the development of the jhanas any number of times, I would not be mentioning it either. It comes from the Buddha's own teachings, not from me. > [I see that Ken H has responded and said the same thing in just a few words. But I spent much time on this and therefore don't feel like throwing it away.] Well I don't see it as redundant in any case. Your post has its own flavor and details and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #121801 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 8:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2012, om 20:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for the following. It seems from what you say that uddhacca > is inattention. Would that be a good rendering in your opinion? ------- N: My example was a coarse one. When there is no attention, there may also be daydreaming with lobha accompanied by indifferent feeling. When the citta is akusala, and there is no lobha, no dosa, no doubt, there is moha-muulacitta accompanied by uddhacca. But it is not possible to catch it. Also when we think of it or talk about it, it has fallen away already. If sati can be aware of it when it appears, understanding is more precise. But this cannot be on command. Inattention can comprise many realities. Best is to use the Pali and to try to understand its characteristic. ------ Nina. #121802 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 3-jan-2012, om 17:20 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > which indicates that the statment : uddhacca is 'present in every > unwholesome consciousness' may be orginated by the > Abhidhammatthasangaha, i.e.commentarial not canonical ( ?) ------- N: It can be concluded from the explanation by the Visuddhimagga, see the text I quoted. The Abhidhammatthasangaha is based on the ancient commentaries. I cannot see any contradiction with reference to the fact that uddhacca is present in every akusala citta. I read the sutta text about the moss. The quote you gave at the end is fine, it is what I read in the Expositor. Nina #121803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, When answering your other mail, I did not see this one. Op 3-jan-2012, om 22:12 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Now whoever should speak thus: 'Setting aside this All I will > proclaim another All,' it would be mere talk on his part and on > being questioned he would be unable to proceed and in addition, > vexation will befall him. For what reason? It would not be within > his scope, bhikkhus. > > It is interesting to note that the synonym German word for the > universe (or multiverse) is (Welt-/World-) All , no correspondence > in English for the noun, although > the adjective 'all' , German : 'alles ', is (nearly) identícal. . > (Dutch?) -------- N: Same: in Dutch: alles. ------ > > D: to use the niravana simile : the hindrances are disturbances of > the water (citta) , so that we are not able to see the ground (panna). > Uddhacca as defilement is the wind agitating the water . Moss in > the water (sloth and topor ) counters this defilement. ----- N: I would not say that sloth and torpor counters this defilement. We should not go too far in the interpretation of similes, I think. A simile is merely a simile that tries to explain certain points. ------ Nina. #121804 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 11:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/4/2012 4:40:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2012, om 20:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for the following. It seems from what you say that uddhacca > is inattention. Would that be a good rendering in your opinion? ------- N: My example was a coarse one. When there is no attention, there may also be daydreaming with lobha accompanied by indifferent feeling. When the citta is akusala, and there is no lobha, no dosa, no doubt, there is moha-muulacitta accompanied by uddhacca. But it is not possible to catch it. Also when we think of it or talk about it, it has fallen away already. If sati can be aware of it when it appears, understanding is more precise. But this cannot be on command. Inattention can comprise many realities. Best is to use the Pali and to try to understand its characteristic. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: But that is the point, Nina: The Pali word, unless one is a native speaker of Pali (and none exist today), is just a sequence of sounds. Exactly what IS the characteristic? I can understand inattention and distraction. What else is one to understand this cetasika to be. It must be observable. I know anger and fear and joy when they are present. No problem. So, what about *this* cetasika? -------------------------------------------------------- ------ Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121805 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 1:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: (D: which indicates that the statment : uddhacca is 'present in every > unwholesome consciousness' may be orginated by the > Abhidhammatthasangaha, i.e.commentarial not canonical ( ?) ) N: It can be concluded from the explanation by the Visuddhimagga, see the text I quoted. The Abhidhammatthasangaha is based on the ancient commentaries. I cannot see any contradiction with reference to the fact that uddhacca is present in every akusala citta. I read the sutta text about the moss. The quote you gave at the end is fine, it is what I read in the Expositor D: I think, we agree that that all commentarial material is interpretation as far as the canonical wording isn't repeated. That doesn't mean it is wrong , but in case of doubt it is of secondary importance, isn't it? with Metta Dieter. #121806 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina (and Howard) you wrote: ( D: It is interesting to note that the synonym German word for the > universe (or multiverse) is (Welt-/World-) All , no correspondence > in English for the noun, although > the adjective 'all' , German : 'alles ', is (nearly) identícal. . > (Dutch?) -------- N: Same: in Dutch: alles. ------ D: yes , 'alles ' is common , but how about (Welt) All ? N: ( D: to use the niravana simile : the hindrances are disturbances of > the water (citta) , so that we are not able to see the ground (panna). > Uddhacca as defilement is the wind agitating the water . Moss in > the water (sloth and topor ) counters this defilement. ----- N: I would not say that sloth and torpor counters this defilement. D: well , I think that both can be considered a counterforce of agitation /uddhacca ( similar Howard's question). Sloth and topor have an effect (to the mind) like mud (similar moss) which is sluggish , its movement far more difficult to initiate than clear water. N: We should not go too far in the interpretation of similes, I think. A simile is merely a simile that tries to explain certain points. D: well , I can comprehend this simile . It fits to my observation. You didn't not comment my suggestion: (But , and that may be a solution to Howards question and my doubt : the power of the wind will have at least a minimum of effect to the water , turned slothfully by the moss, i.e. the terms must be understood broadly in a sense of a minimum up to a maximum of intensity ( however not in respect to its meanings /characteristics , which would question the Abh. claim of exactitude). So using the Beaufort Scale for the wind force from 1-12 , uddhacca is always present in unwholesome mental states, at least with an intensity of 1. ;-) i.e. besides the simile, in general we may say " the terms must be understood broadly in a sense of a minimum up to a maximum of intensity ( however not in respect to its meanings /characteristics , which would question the Abh. claim of exactitude)." Even a minimum of effect is still an effect , and more is not said by uddhacca is present in all unwholesome states. No assertion of the impact/intensity is made. with Metta Dieter #121807 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:20 am Subject: Practice in Commentary on DN2 truth_aerator Hello RobertK, Sukin, All interested, Do you have Commentary to Samannaphala sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi? Check page 114, story of Elder Mahaphussadeva. He was walking mindfully and if he was unmindful he would go back to the place and walk again. On page 115 Commentary states: "He walked along raising his feet with his mind devoted to his meditation subject. If he raised his feet with a mind disassociated from the subject, HE TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK." This is very similar to what I was taught at Mahasi retreat. If you do move un-mindfully, do it again with mindfulness. And there is passage about monks determined not to talk until Arhatship, filling their mouth with water and walking with their mouth full on their almsround - pg 116. On page 102 it says that "household life is still "crowded" in the sense that it involves obstacles [such as lust, etc.] and impediments [such as fields, land, etc.]. It is "a path of dust," a path for the arising of the dust of lust, etc. "Further, household life is crowded because it gives little opportunity for wholesome activity... Going forth is like the open air in that it gives opportunity for wholesome activity as much as one pleases" . Even the authoritative Theravada, Buddhaghosa, etc commentaries tell us that there are better places for wholesome activity. These passages are other examples of deliberate, mindful practice in proper place and at proper time. With best wishes, Alex #121808 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! colette_aube Hi Sarah, Sorry for taking so long to reply to your reply. I can see this is just getting into one of "howard" type of debates where we should just AGREE TO DISAGREE right now. > S: There is a continuum or continuity of cittas (consciousness) - like an electric current, each one triggering off the next one - no gaps at all. Each citta falls away as soon as it has arisen, therefore each one is transient. The hearing, seeing and thinking that occurred a moment ago have gone, never to return. At the end of this life, the last citta (the death consciousness) is followed immediately by the next citta (the birth consciousness) of the new life. No gap, no "bardo", no corpse which experiences anything, no beings at all. > .... colette: you said it: "no 'bardo'", that's enough. AS LONG AS YOU ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT A BARDO CANNOT AND DOES NOT EXIST, THEN, our debate can nevere ever reach a conclusion. Your rationale is based on the NON-EXISTENCE of a bardo and my rationale is based on the EXISTENCE of a bardo state of consciousness. I admit that the individual that used to inhabit a corpse, IS NO LONGER PART OF THE CORPSE but RESIDUE attaches the former consciousness to the former body, the former vessel, the former amphora, vehicle, etc. That's the only point I was going to attempt at other than trying to go deeper into the Chan or YOGACARA psychology of MIND-ONLY. --------------------------------------------------- > ... > S: No, not at all. Namas - the dhammas which experience objects - only arise in living beings. They need life-force mentality to arise with them. Trees and corpses have no life-force mentality or any other kind of mentality. colette: namas are nothing more than CONCEPTIONS, they are created by the mind, for the mind. I do not believe that DHARMAS have the ability to experience the "Indidivual" NAMA (this is one of those times when words are the worst thing to use trying to explain this concept, which is what it is, what it's entirety is, A CONCEPT, so please do not bother focusing on the contradiction of a "self" i.e. individual, and ANATTA). THE MIND DOES NOT CONTROL THE PRANA of "life force". THE MIND and the PRANA are two separate things. Are they utterly separate or do they have a dependence upon one another, IS ANOTHER QUESTION. The mind cannot and FORCE THE PRANA TO EXIST. here we touch upon my focus for the last several months on the connection of the MIND-BODY-SPIRIT so that a SINGULARITY exists in it's entirety where it can be examined as relating to INDIVIDUAL-PLANET-UNIVERSE, where we find ourselves rustling the feathers of LOA TZE and his TOAISM. Please, don't think it, DO NOT PUT ME IN THE CESPOOL OF A PIGEON HOLE CALLED "THE UNIFICATION CHURCH" aka Sun Yung Moon! Ya might as well start stock piling SERIN GAS to release of subway trains when ya bring those Republicans of the Washington Times into this. GOOD SPEAKING WITH YOU THIS YEAR. HAPPY NEW YEAR! toodles, colette #121809 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:59 am Subject: The Joys beyond this World! bhikkhu5 Friends: Joys neither of this world, nor even Beyond!!! The Blessed Buddha once said: And what, Bhikkhus, is the Joy not of this world? Aloof and above any lust, quite secluded from any sense desire, protected from any disadvantageous mental state, one enters & dwells in the 1st jhâna mental absorption; full of joy & pleasure born of solitude, joined with directed & sustained thought... With the stilling of directed & sustained thought, one later enters & dwells in the 2nd jhâna of calmed assurance & unification of mind devoid of any thought & thinking, joined with joy & pleasure now born of concentration! These are called the joys not of this world! And what, Bhikkhus, is the joy beyond that joy, which is not of this world? When a bhikkhu, whose mental fermentations are eliminated, reviews his mind liberated from lust, freed from hatred, and released from confusion, there arises a transcendental joy. This is called Joy quite beyond that joy, that is not of this world... <....> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya. Book IV [235-7] section 36:11 On Feeling: Vedanâ. Joys beyond this world ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Joys beyond this World! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #121810 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:45 am Subject: Re: Practice in Commentary on DN2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertK, Sukin, All interested, > > Do you have Commentary to Samannaphala sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi? Check page 114, story of Elder Mahaphussadeva. > > He was walking mindfully and if he was unmindful he would go back to the place and walk again. On page 115 Commentary states: > > "He walked along raising his feet with his mind devoted to his meditation subject. If he raised his feet with a mind disassociated from the subject, HE TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK." > > +++++++ Dear Alex do you see any difference between Buddhaghosa describing ONE monk behaviour and then taking that as a practice to apply to anyone? There ws also teh case of the monks in the time of Buddha kassapa who went to a mountain, pushed off the ladders and vowed not to leave- they would die or attain. Some of them attaned and flew off teh mountain and offered to bring food for the others- who refused and died. One of the starved ones became Bahiya under our Buddha. The diligent- but deluded person now might read that and think to copy also. They would go wrong. Robert #121811 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: Practice in Commentary on DN2 truth_aerator Dear RobertK, > > +++++++ > Dear Alex > do you see any difference between Buddhaghosa describing ONE monk >behaviour and then taking that as a practice to apply to anyone? >================= Of course this doesn't apply to Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu, two highest types of individuals who can attain awakening through listening and considering. I also believe that practice is no longer required for those who are already Arahants. The point is the Commentaries DO NOT REBUKE INTENTIONAL PRACTICE, done with right views of course. > There ws also teh case of the monks in the time of Buddha kassapa >who went to a mountain, pushed off the ladders and vowed not to >leave- they would die or attain. Some of them attaned and flew off >teh mountain and offered to bring food for the others- who refused >and died. One of the starved ones became Bahiya under our Buddha. >The diligent- but deluded person now might read that and think to >copy also. They would go wrong. > Robert >===================== A person touched hot stove, got burned and decided never to use the stove again and tell others not to use it because "it is too dangerous." Development needs to be done properly. Just because someone misused something is no excuse not to do it, just do it properly. With best wishes, Alex #121812 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:10 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > Well, there are many many suttas in which the Buddha is explicitly talking about worldly activity and choices - such as not drinking alcohol, A sensible answer, please. > > > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > Hi Rob > How about someone is told by their revered teacher to satd on one leg all day for as long as they can (seriously their are people in india who do this) and they avoid alcohol and killing etc. > There s no kusala however as that is all done with lobha assocaited wityh wrong view. > The Abhidhamma lets us see what is really underlying actions > Robert A few things: 1. The Buddha's instructions, though sometimes conventional, are sensible and it is easy to see what they accomplish, in conventional terms, eg, not drinking alcohol, not killing, etc. Sitting on one leg all day is of another type. With any action, one should be able to understand the justification. 2. I think we'd agree that the Buddha's instructions are different than the run-of-the-mill swami, at least for Buddhists. 3. Doing "good deeds" with akusala intention is obviously not great. But that does not settle the status of improper actions, the efficacy of right practice, or why the Buddha taught all that stuff. Any ideas? 4. I agree that Abhidhamma gives a deeper level of understanding of what underlies actions. That does not in itself show that action is meaningless or that practice is fruitless. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121813 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:14 pm Subject: A year off (yeah, really this time.) philofillet Hi Sarah, Jon, Nina, all. Happy New year. Per my usual custom I spent a week or so away from the internet and i-phone except for checking e-mail and most importantly BASEBALL TRADE AND FREE AGENT SIGNING NEWS and as is always the case after these periods I feel fantastic and productive and focussed and all those other great workings of the lobha-rooted mind. This year there seems to be an even stronger move towards working on my writing projects, so instead of the annual effort at gradually working my way back into limited internet use which always ends up in UP TO MY ASS IN IT AGAIN, I think I will try a full year break from online Dhamma discussion. We all know by know how fast a year flies by, so before we know it 2013 will be here and maybe I'll have another go at DSG. I'll be styding Dhs. with Atth, and no doubt there will be lots of questions and unclear points, but I find that when I put a question mark in the margin, the next time I come across it I might understand it better now, or know that it is not worth asking. The ??? that stick after a few encounters I will follow up on, maybe off list or Skyping or something. Nina, I feel a little regrettable about this towards you, because I know you appreciate and benefit from questions, so perhaps I can ask you questions off-list sometime. Your books and translations have and continue to be such a boon to my understanding of Dhamma, I just fnished re-reading SPD and am now back on your book on Rupa. Thank you sincerely for the wonderful work you have done in making the true Dhamma available and more easily comprehensible to readers, I celebrate your great kusala! Sarah, Jon and others, see you in a couple of weeks in Thailand! Looking forward to it rather intensely, needless to say. Phil #121814 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 3:47 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 Dear Rob Its like the novice monk Pandita who asked Sariputta to go out on alms round and bring him back redfish : he attained arahatship on that very day. Should we eat redfish in emulation? For the bhikkhus all they are permitted to do is study and contemplate. of course they are often at the roots of trees contemplating Dhamma, that is their life. http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh335-p.html Having seen all these things, the novice said to the elder, "Reverend sir, if you will be so good as to take your bowl and robe, I should like to turn back." The elder, not allowing himself to think, "This young novice who has just gone forth addresses me thus!" said, "Bring them, novice," and took his bowl and robe. The novice paid obeisance to the elder and turned back, saying, "Reverend sir, when you bring me food, be kind enough to bring me only the choicest portions of redfish." – "Where shall we get them, friend?" – "Reverend sir, if you cannot obtain them through your own merit, you will succeed in obtaining them through my merit." Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > > > Well, there are many many suttas in which the Buddha is explicitly talking about worldly activity and choices - such as not drinking alcohol, A sensible answer, please. > > > > > > Best, > > > Rob E. > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Hi Rob > > How about someone is told by their revered teacher to satd on one leg all day for as long as they can (seriously their are people in india who do this) and they avoid alcohol and killing etc. > > There s no kusala however as that is all done with lobha assocaited wityh wrong view. > > The Abhidhamma lets us see what is really underlying actions > > Robert > > A few things: > > 1. The Buddha's instructions, though sometimes conventional, are sensible and it is easy to see what they accomplish, in conventional terms, eg, not drinking alcohol, not killing, etc. Sitting on one leg all day is of another type. With any action, one should be able to understand the justification. > > 2. I think we'd agree that the Buddha's instructions are different than the run-of-the-mill swami, at least for Buddhists. > > 3. Doing "good deeds" with akusala intention is obviously not great. But that does not settle the status of improper actions, the efficacy of right practice, or why the Buddha taught all that stuff. Any ideas? > > 4. I agree that Abhidhamma gives a deeper level of understanding of what underlies actions. That does not in itself show that action is meaningless or that practice is fruitless. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = > #121815 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A year off (yeah, really this time.) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 5-jan-2012, om 4:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Nina, I feel a little regrettable about this towards you, because I > know you appreciate and benefit from questions, so perhaps I can > ask you questions off-list sometime. ------ N: O.K. if you allow me to repeat your good questions on dsg for the benefit of others. One still standing out here I shall answer soon. Good you go to K.K. and that means that there will be good questions over there touching on all the essential points. I shall try to transcribe some. Appreciating, Nina. #121816 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:44 pm Subject: catching up soon....! sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, We travelled back to Hong Kong on Monday and I've been very busy the last couple of days, so hope to catch up with replies soon. I visited Sharon this morning. It seems her condition had been deteriorating but her husband has now followed my strong suggestion for her to have acupuncture treatment and it seems she's responding rather well to this and other stimulation. Each time I visit, I try to give her and the various staff members some encouragement and some very basic dhamma reminders when I can. Another friend went with me this morning because she wanted to chat to me - her brother is in another hospital and she's so anxious and nervous about his condition. We talked about how the problem comes back to the worry, anxiety, attachment and lack of wisdom now - always thinking about long stories about people, usually with expectations. It doesn't help at all. Talking to someone in a coma who has minimal interest in the Dhamma is not easy and leaving Sydney, I wasn't sure how things would be on return. However, an encouter with "Little Emily" on the flight home which encouraged me to keep trying my best. Our flight was full, as usual. In the seats next to us, there was a family with a small baby and two little girls aged four and six. The baby and older girl were really quiet, but nearly-four year old Emily, started having non-stop tantrums from the very start. First of all there was a big tantrum about her having to sit down with a seat-belt and it went on and on from there. Her parents were clearly at their wits' end and it seems Emily had had non-stop tantrums on their holiday too. I got up from my seat and went over to talk to her in spite of her parents' resistance to my doing so. At first, as with Sharon, I really got no reaction, but I persisted. I explained to her that she was making her family and all the people on the plane unhappy with the noise and tantrums and how lovely it would be if she would smile and colour some pictures to show us instead. She could make everyone very happy. I had a small chocolate bar and told her that if there were no more horrible noises until we arrived in Hong Kong, I'd give her the chocolate bar which would be sitting on my table for her to see until then. Amazingly, there was not another tantrum and I'd have a little chat and smile every time I got up from my seat. At the end of the flight, when I was giving her the chocolate bar, I explained a little more to her about how happy she'd made her family and everyone on the flight. She was all smiles and asked her father why I had to leave! Of course, there were many different motives on my part, as Phil would say - lots of attachment to having a quiet flight, but also concern for the poor parents and little Emily with such troubled accumulations, crying all the time. However, it was an encouragement to just keep writing, saying the best we can at the time - whether on the list, when talking to neighbours, in the hospital or on a plane. We never know when it may have some effect, according to the accumulations of the listener. It's never too early to start giving simple dhamma reminders - even if they are 'chocolate-coated' ones! Metta Sarah ====== #121817 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 4-jan-2012, om 15:22 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: I think, we agree that that all commentarial material is > interpretation as far as the canonical wording isn't repeated. > That doesn't mean it is wrong , but in case of doubt it is of > secondary importance, isn't it? ------- N: I would not put it this way. The oldest commentaries were also recited at the First Council, but these got lost. Buddhaghosa translated into Pali the oldest commentaries he found in Sri Lanka in Singhalese and he edited them. He seldom gave his own opinion and if he did he would mention this. Or when there were more explanations he would state: some (keci) say... Here is a link about the commentaries to the Abhidhamma and Buddhaghosa Han gave me. http://atbu.org/node/12 See also in UP: commentaries. Best of all is reading them, as many as one can and then one can see that these are perfectly faithful to the Tipi.taka texts. We cannot say that they are just an interpretation. It helps to compare them with cross references of notions in the Tipi.taka texts. Sometimes we overlook things or we are the ones who interprete wrongly. ------ Nina. #121818 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] catching up soon....! nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 5-jan-2012, om 8:44 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Another friend went with me this morning because she wanted to chat > to me - her brother is in another hospital and she's so anxious and > nervous about his condition. We talked about how the problem comes > back to the worry, anxiety, attachment and lack of wisdom now - > always thinking about long stories about people, usually with > expectations. It doesn't help at all. ------ N: Yes, the expectations, and when these do not come true we are sad. What a wonderful story about Emily. Not easy to give Dhamma reminders to people who do not know anything, but it all depends on the kusala citta. I was so glad to hear about Sharon, that she begins to respond. Thank you for this lovely Dhamma letter, the Dhamma applied in daily life, Nina. #121819 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca moellerdieter Dear Nina , thanks for the link , an interesting source for studies. By secondary material I do not mean to question the quality , certainly the commentaries can be a good support for understanding. However ,and that I intended to point out , in case of doubt we have to proceed according to Maha Padesa. with Metta Dieter . ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca Dear Dieter, Op 4-jan-2012, om 15:22 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: I think, we agree that that all commentarial material is > interpretation as far as the canonical wording isn't repeated. > That doesn't mean it is wrong , but in case of doubt it is of > secondary importance, isn't it? ------- N: I would not put it this way. The oldest commentaries were also recited at the First Council, but these got lost. Buddhaghosa translated into Pali the oldest commentaries he found in Sri Lanka in Singhalese and he edited them. He seldom gave his own opinion and if he did he would mention this. Or when there were more explanations he would state: some (keci) say... Here is a link about the commentaries to the Abhidhamma and Buddhaghosa Han gave me. http://atbu.org/node/12 See also in UP: commentaries. Best of all is reading them, as many as one can and then one can see that these are perfectly faithful to the Tipi.taka texts. We cannot say that they are just an interpretation. It helps to compare them with cross references of notions in the Tipi.taka texts. Sometimes we overlook things or we are the ones who interprete wrongly. ------ Nina. #121820 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Hi Howard, Op 4-jan-2012, om 13:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ------- > N: Best is to use the Pali and > to try to understand its characteristic. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > But that is the point, Nina: The Pali word, unless one is a native > speaker of Pali (and none exist today), is just a sequence of sounds. > ------ N: I see your point. Still, it is useful to learn some basic Pali terms. It is very confusing that in different Dhamma books the same Pali term is rendered by different translations. We can use the Pali in brackets so that we remember what reality is dealt with. ------ > > H: Exactly > what IS the characteristic? I can understand inattention and > distraction. > What else is one to understand this cetasika to be. It must be > observable. I > know anger and fear and joy when they are present. No problem. So, > what > about *this* cetasika? > -------------------------------------------------------- > N: When there is anger, there is also uddhacca, but anger and unpleasant feeling are more evident and uddhacca is concealed, althout it is there, since it accompanies each and every akusala citta. When infatuated there is lobha, and there is also uddhacca, but lobha is more evident and uddhacca is concealed. When there is no lobha, no dosa, no doubt, no jealousy, but the citta is still akusala citta, there is uddhacca. That is why I mentioned the type of moha- muulacitta, citta rooted in ignorance, that is called associated with uddhacca. It is the weakest citta. This gives you some idea of its nature. Cittas arise and fall away so fast and in between cittas rooted in lobha and dosa there are countless moha-muulacittas associated with uddhacca. The Buddha did a difficult thing, differentiating between citta and all these cetasikas, like separating the waters of the Jamuna, Aciravati etc which stream into the Ganges. Only when there is sati and pa~n~naa and sati is aware of udhacca its nature can be known directly. But, as you know, there are stages of insight and first the difference between naama and ruupa has to be directly realized. Before that stage the difference between cetasikas cannot be clearly known. It seems that it is no problem to know anger and joy, but there true nature as naama, non-self, cannot be known before the first stage of insight. Yes, they can be 'observed', but that is not the same as pa~n~naa that knowns them directly as only types of naama. I am well aware that I did not give you a satisfactory answer, but this is not possible. Also translations are unsatisfactory, like distraction. It can be used, but we should remember that is is not infatuation and dreaming with lobha. -------- Nina. #121821 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 4-jan-2012, om 16:06 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > ( D: It is interesting to note that the synonym German word for the > > universe (or multiverse) is (Welt-/World-) All , no correspondence > > in English for the noun, although > the adjective 'all' , > German : 'alles ', is (nearly) identícal. . > > (Dutch?) > -------- > N: Same: in Dutch: alles. > ------ > > D: yes , 'alles ' is common , but how about (Welt) All ? > ----- N: Universe: Heelal, 'heel' means the whole. The Pali Loka, world, has different meanings depending on the context, but often it stands for all conditioned realities or the five khandhas. ------ > > N: ( D: to use the niravana simile : the hindrances are > disturbances of > the water (citta) , so that we are not able to > see the ground (panna). > > Uddhacca as defilement is the wind agitating the water . Moss in > > the water (sloth and topor ) counters this defilement. > ----- > N: I would not say that sloth and torpor counters this defilement. > > D: well , I think that both can be considered a counterforce of > agitation /uddhacca ( similar Howard's question). > Sloth and topor have an effect (to the mind) like mud (similar > moss) which is sluggish , its movement far more difficult to > initiate than clear water. > -------- N: when reading this simile, we should not take it that all these factors (the hindrances) act on the water at the same time. The simile merely shows for each hindrance how it affects the clarity of the water (the clarity of kusala). At one moment the wind may act on the water, at another moment the mosses make it muddy. I see no contradiction. Besides, the hindrance of sensuous desire cannot arise at the same time as anger. Hindrances do not always arise at the same time. ------- > > D: i.e. besides the simile, in general we may say " the terms must > be understood broadly in a sense of a minimum up to a maximum of > intensity ( however not in respect to its meanings / > characteristics , which would question the Abh. claim of exactitude)." > Even a minimum of effect is still an effect , and more is not said > by uddhacca is present in all unwholesome states. No assertion of > the impact/intensity is made. > ------ N: You speak of intensity 1, very weak, and this can refer to moha- muulacitta associated with uddhacca, which is the weakest citta. However, uddhacca is only eradicated by the arahat. ------ Nina. > #121822 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 4:09 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Rob K., R: "...Should we eat redfish in emulation?..." Scott: I was reading in Visuddhimagga, in the chapter on 'What Is and What Is Not the Path,' (XX, 103): "The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to condition owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and that their existence depends upon conditions..." Checking this out further, there is reference to this lack of curiosity [ihaka], XVIII, 31: "Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combinations of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: 'The mental and material are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll - Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks'." Scott: The 'observation' of the 'meditator' is only apparent. Scott. #121823 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] catching up soon....! upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and all) - In a message dated 1/5/2012 2:44:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: I visited Sharon this morning. It seems her condition had been deteriorating but her husband has now followed my strong suggestion for her to have acupuncture treatment and it seems she's responding rather well to this and other stimulation. ============================= I'm very sorry to read of her deterioration. With regard to stimulation, years ago a relative of Rita's was in a deep coma resulting from a bad traffic accident. The doctors gave little to no encouragement of her ever getting out of the coma. But her husband constantly talked to her, and more importantly than that, I think, he obtained many vials of various substances with a variety of strong fragrances, some quite pungent, which he put under her nose repeatedly. She eventually seemed to react to this, and, finally she DID come out of the coma, and then, with rehabilitation, regained many of her abilities, especially in the cognitive area! I would strongly encourage all possible sensory stimulation - touch, light, sounds, and especially odors. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121824 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: (D: well , I think that both can be considered a counterforce of > agitation /uddhacca ( similar Howard's question). Sloth and topor have an effect (to the mind) like mud (similar > moss) which is sluggish , its movement far more difficult to > initiate than clear water.) > -------- N: when reading this simile, we should not take it that all these factors (the hindrances) act on the water at the same time.The simile merely shows for each hindrance how it affects the clarity of the water (the clarity of kusala). At one moment the wind may act on the water, at another moment the mosses make it muddy. I see no contradiction.Besides, the hindrance of sensuous desire cannot arise at the same time as anger. Hindrances do not always arise at the same time. D: The cetasika uddhacca it is claimed (I understand :commentarial) to be present in all 14 unwholesome states (universal) , hence whenever sloth and torpor appear (occasional) there is restlessness too...influencing the citta the same time . One may question why two seemingly contradicting forces ( moss = curbing the water movement and wind =agitating the water) are stated to influence the water (citta) at the same time. In the case of sensual desire (lobha ) and hate/anger (dosa) one may comprehend exclusivity for each, but , as both are categorized occasional there isn't any contradiction. > ( D: i.e. besides the simile, in general we may say " the terms must > be understood broadly in a sense of a minimum up to a maximum of > intensity ( however not in respect to its meanings / > characteristics , which would question the Abh. claim of exactitude)."> Even a minimum of effect is still an effect , and more is not said > by uddhacca is present in all unwholesome states. No assertion of > the impact/intensity is made. > ------ N: You speak of intensity 1, very weak, and this can refer to moha- muulacitta associated with uddhacca, which is the weakest citta. D: I was looking for a compromise .. ;-) frankly speaking I still do not see the reason why uddhacca is unversal in all unwholesome states (as mentioned above) N: However, uddhacca is only eradicated by the arahat. D: yes ,only eradicted by the Arahat .. and before it is (only ) potential in wholesome states... with Metta Dieter #121825 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Thank you for the following, Nina. With metta, Howard P. S. One more thought: I suspect that 'turmoil' captures an aspect of uddhacca. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/5/2012 10:32:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: When there is anger, there is also uddhacca, but anger and unpleasant feeling are more evident and uddhacca is concealed, althout it is there, since it accompanies each and every akusala citta. When infatuated there is lobha, and there is also uddhacca, but lobha is more evident and uddhacca is concealed. When there is no lobha, no dosa, no doubt, no jealousy, but the citta is still akusala citta, there is uddhacca. That is why I mentioned the type of moha- muulacitta, citta rooted in ignorance, that is called associated with uddhacca. It is the weakest citta. This gives you some idea of its nature. Cittas arise and fall away so fast and in between cittas rooted in lobha and dosa there are countless moha-muulacittas associated with uddhacca. The Buddha did a difficult thing, differentiating between citta and all these cetasikas, like separating the waters of the Jamuna, Aciravati etc which stream into the Ganges. Only when there is sati and pa~n~naa and sati is aware of udhacca its nature can be known directly. But, as you know, there are stages of insight and first the difference between naama and ruupa has to be directly realized. Before that stage the difference between cetasikas cannot be clearly known. It seems that it is no problem to know anger and joy, but there true nature as naama, non-self, cannot be known before the first stage of insight. Yes, they can be 'observed', but that is not the same as pa~n~naa that knowns them directly as only types of naama. I am well aware that I did not give you a satisfactory answer, but this is not possible. Also translations are unsatisfactory, like distraction. It can be used, but we should remember that is is not infatuation and dreaming with lobha. -------- Nina. #121826 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:07 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 The Paa.li: "The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to condition owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and that their existence depends upon conditions..." "Paccayato cassa udayadassanena anattalakkha.na.m paaka.ta.m hoti dhammaana.m niriihakattapaccayapa.tibaddhavuttitaavabodhato" Scott. #121827 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 1:17 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Rob > Its like the novice monk Pandita who asked Sariputta to go out on alms round and bring him back redfish : he attained arahatship on that very day. > > Should we eat redfish in emulation? Hm. I don't see how this applies to anything - once again you pick an example of foolish behavior rather than "conventional instruction of the Buddha" which is what is under scrutiny. Why would someone emulate a fool, and what does that have to do with Dhamma? The question was why the Buddha taught conventional teachings, and what is the purpose of teaching in that way, if indeed conventional teachings are not Dhamma? > For the bhikkhus all they are permitted to do is study and contemplate. of course they are often at the roots of trees contemplating Dhamma, that is their life. That is one way of explaining why Buddha spoke of such things. But in context it seems more likely that he was describing the setup for meditation practice, particularly when all the description that follows is about mindfulness of breathing or areas of satipatthana. > http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh335-p.html > Having seen all these things, the novice said to the elder, "Reverend sir, if you will be so good as to take your bowl and robe, I should like to turn back." The elder, not allowing himself to think, "This young novice who has just gone forth addresses me thus!" said, "Bring them, novice," and took his bowl and robe. The novice paid obeisance to the elder and turned back, saying, "Reverend sir, when you bring me food, be kind enough to bring me only the choicest portions of redfish." – "Where shall we get them, friend?" – "Reverend sir, if you cannot obtain them through your own merit, you will succeed in obtaining them through my merit." The story of a fool doesn't address any of the questions that have been raised. Neither did the story of the yogis instructed to sit on one leg all day. Emulating fools and swamis has nothing to do with why the Buddha taught conventionally or whether his words on practice are meant to be acted on. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - > > A few things: > > > > 1. The Buddha's instructions, though sometimes conventional, are sensible and it is easy to see what they accomplish, in conventional terms, eg, not drinking alcohol, not killing, etc. Sitting on one leg all day is of another type. With any action, one should be able to understand the justification. > > > > 2. I think we'd agree that the Buddha's instructions are different than the run-of-the-mill swami, at least for Buddhists. > > > > 3. Doing "good deeds" with akusala intention is obviously not great. But that does not settle the status of improper actions, the efficacy of right practice, or why the Buddha taught all that stuff. Any ideas? > > > > 4. I agree that Abhidhamma gives a deeper level of understanding of what underlies actions. That does not in itself show that action is meaningless or that practice is fruitless. ===================== #121828 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 11:05 am Subject: Re: A year off (yeah, really this time.) philofillet Hi Nina > N: O.K. if you allow me to repeat your good questions on dsg for the > benefit of others. Ph: Of course, Nina, that was my meaning, please pass on any questions to the list. > One still standing out here I shall answer soon. > Good you go to K.K. and that means that there will be good questions > over there touching on all the essential points. I shall try to > transcribe some. > Appreciating, Ph: Great, if I could ask you or anyone who posts transcripts of A. Sujin talking on Dhamma to pass them along to me by e-mail in case I miss them here, I would be grateful. Yesterday I heard about how we talk of such things as ditthi, but unless there is awareness of characteristic of ditthi, just talking. It is easy for people to say as Howard did in a post I saw, "I know when there is anger, and fear, and joy" (paraphrase) but there is unlikely to be awareness of cetasikas until there is first knowing the characteristic of nama as nama and rupa as rupa ( but of course people are so sure they know that too, seems so easy and obvious) until then it is just thinking, we need to first come to understand that we don't know as much as we think we do, that must come first. My dhs. is arriving by courrier this morning. I will ask any questions, eventually, thank you. Phil #121829 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 3:21 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob > > Its like the novice monk Pandita who asked Sariputta to go out on alms round and bring him back redfish : he attained arahatship on that very day. > > > > Should we eat redfish in emulation? > > Hm. I don't see how this applies to anything - once again you pick an example of foolish behavior rather than "conventional instruction of the Buddha" which is what is under scrutiny. Why would someone emulate a fool, and what does that have to do with Dhamma? > +++++++++++++ Dear Rob good you tell me where on any of the recent posts I made there were any examples of foolish behaviour? Did you read teh full story of the venerable Pandita(I did supply the link)redfish was a food that supported his concentration due to past lives of eating it. Sariputta, the right hand of Buddha , certainly didn't think he was foolish for asking and obtained the needed fish for him. Moreover Pandita became an arahat on that day. If you mean the bhikkhus who starved rather than come down from teh mountain, they all attained in future lives: hardly fool. robert #121830 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob, Rob E: > There are passages when the discussion is definitely on the units of reality in various suttas, no doubt. But there are many other passages that are about conventional objects and activities. That is more of the problem in my view. Suk: Can you explain why there must be both and what is lacking in one which the other has? ===== Rob E: > It is not just a question of the details but of the topic itself and of the consistency of the statements. If a sutta says "all dhammas are anatta" that is obviously consistent with Abhidhamma, just more general, so for those sorts of passages I agree with your point. But when it comes to the more conventional teachings, such as non-killing of people and animals, …………… Suk: You've had much discussion with some of us about all this. But I am not so clear as to your position, therefore if you don't mind repeating them please give your response to the following questions: What is the basis for your not believing that in truth, any reference to good / bad, right / wrong must come down to being characteristics, functions, manifestation and proximate cause of ultimate realities? After all, like now, different realities rise and fall away through the different sense and mind and it would be a mistake to think that typing this post is either kusala or akusala. What according to you then, is the process whereby the moral value of a particular conventional activity comes to be determined? What is the basis for your reading the Buddha as recommending meditation other than the fact of the descriptions in the Texts? ============ > > Sukin: This is not reasonable is it? > > If the Buddha taught the way he did and this bore fruit, why would he need to add a remark regarding how this should be interpreted? Rob E: > Well, my contention is that if the Buddha's words had a certain effect, then such speech is not merely conventional but is setting conditions for certain sorts of dhammas to arise. If this is not the case, then we could not say that such speech was effective, or bore fruit. So how is it that conventional activity, such as conceptual communication, can "bear fruit," but you would say that conventional action and meditation cannot? Suk: Of course the Buddha's words were condition for particular set of dhammas to arise. This includes path consciousness for many of his audiences without any of them needing to do anything other than what they were doing at the time, namely listening. This is because conditionality exists between dhammas only. You however are suggesting that certain conventional actions deliberately performed also constitute cause and act as condition for particular results in the form of "dhammas". I find it unreasonable that you do not agree with the idea that the moral value of any conventional action must come down to as referring to particular mental states, but believe at the same time that a conventional action is cause for particular *dhammas* as result? Why do you even believe that results are in the form of dhammas, how have you come to accept this? Why not believe that there exists only the world of conventional actions and conventional results? ======== Rob E: > And if such speech does bear fruit, why would anyone say that it is "merely conventional" speech, and that we should not act on it, even though it "bore fruit" as you say for those who heard it in the past? Suk: If someone went back home and decided to make a big donation to the sangha, this is not about "following" the Buddha's suggestion, but seeing the value of giving and having the energy and zeal to do what they did. But what about those who instead of ending up performing the particular deed, became enlightened there and then? Should the cause and effect relationship not be seen as between dhammas instead of thinking that conventional actions are the cause? ======= Rob E: Are we authorized to meddle with the Buddha's speech and reinterpret it, second-guessing the Buddha's understanding of the fruit that such speech would bear? Suk: Why do you make such kind of accusation? Do you not believe that the Dhamma is deep and difficult to understand and therefore require careful study? What you consider as "reinterpretation" on the part of some members here, may in fact be a result of recognizing the danger of reading the Suttas motivated by attachment and self-view! In interpreting references to conventional activities in terms of paramatha dhammas, this is a movement away from taking the experiences through the five senses and the mind as `self'. Should you not be accused then, of being motivated by `self' and `attachment to results' in your own interpretation of the Teachings? ======= > > Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? Rob E: > Well that is my point exactly - he spoke about both. Suk: He made reference to both, but the objects of understanding were dhammas only. ==== Rob E: I would never say that the paramatha level was not a concern of his or that he never mentioned it. I have said that judging by the way the Buddha actually presented his material teachings, that there is a continuum between right conventional action and speech and right understanding of paramatha dhammas and that one has to be aware of both levels of understanding to follow the full path. Suk: A paramatha dhamma is understood by way of experiencing its particular and general characteristics, please explain to me how a concept can be understood? While giving, if I understand the nature of paramatha dhammas, what do I need to understand about the conventional action in addition to this, in order that the path is optimized? ======= Rob E: If we ignore the conventional level and do all sorts of conventional akusala, thinking it unimportant, fail to guard the senses or worry about conventional wrong speech and action, then we are creating akusala dhammas in doing so. Those who say that such a level is "only literal" and can be ignored in favor of paramatha understanding don't care if they live in an ordinary way …….. Suk: Are you imagining things about us in an attempt to justify your own chosen path? How according to you is the understanding that dhammas have arisen and already fallen away by the time it is known, encouraging of akusala actions? You are one of the oldest members of this group and I'm sure you won't deny that this is *the* group most committed to the Dhamma with no other coming anywhere near. Do you think that this could have been possible without confidence in all kinds of kusala? Indeed although some members here like to remind us about the prime importance of panna, have not reminders about all other kinds of kusala also been made and much more than other places? My turn to imagine now and I say that you are seeking evidence in the form of call to deliberate actions with regard to dana, sila and bhavana, the kind which is motivated by self-view. ======= Rob E: All levels of the teachings should be understood, not just the technical appearance and disappearance of those pesky little dhammas that none of us ever really see. Suk: Why do you reduce what some talk about as mere "technical"? This is your own perception and because you do not understand. There is nothing technical about the understanding that seeing now experiences visible object. And if that was merely repeating what one has heard, there is nothing technical about understanding thinking as function of a particular dhamma and conditioned. The fact that realities appear all the time makes the study about them the *only* practical teaching. Indeed following conventional actions is to be moved by ideas and when there is no understanding about realities; this is not practical at all! ====== Rob E: > Meanwhile, we surf, watch tv, enjoy sloth and torpor with a good beer, fantasize and have a fine time while ignoring the teachings, treat people however we please, etc. And because we know what a cetasika is, or can talk about bhavanga cittas, we think we must be on the path and we're doing just great! Suk: And you mischaracterize, meanwhile ignorance and other akusala dhammas have arisen and fallen away. But the real danger is in the wrong view which suggests that these can't be known and instead to follow some wrong practice. But the fact is the ignorance now accumulates and to think that there will be mindfulness and wisdom at some chosen time, place and in a particular posture is therefore only wishful thinking. ====== > > Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. Rob E: > Well, I agree with you that there is more than one level and we can look at both, but at least several people here do not agree that old age, death, etc., in the conventional sense are part of the teachings at all! Suk: I think what they are saying, is that those are to be understood as reflections of what paramatha dhammas are, hence the need to study these. The concepts of old age and death for example, if not understood according to this, can at best be a condition for calm but not for insight. And the Buddha's teachings are all about the latter. ====== Rob E: > Yes, I think you have put this well and there is some confusion and genuine disagreement. I do think there is value in seeing the nature of the "conventional dead body" as Buddha described it in great detail - there is a reason why he did so.……………..I think our conventional self-view and concepts sometime have to be shaken up before the more precise level can be entertained. Suk: The problem with us is that we take dhammas for `self', the solution therefore is to understand dhammas as dhammas. What you describe sounds like applying philosophical ideas that one accepts as true on to a situation. Therefore if there is no understanding of thinking as thinking, this easily leads to taking the thinking and other realities involved, for "self". In other words, there is no other way than understanding realities as non-self in order that self-view is lessened. ====== Rob E: > When Buddha saw the emptiness of the way people were living at the royal court, when he suffered some of the experiences he had there, disenchantment and disgust arose within him. This was before he understood the specific dhammas involved, but it directed him towards the path of detachment. It started him on a road that led to the paramatha dhammas. Conventional events do shake us up - the death of a loved one, etc. - and they start us contemplating alternatives to our current view of life and self. This leads to the search that can put us on the path. That is my view. Suk: Taking into consideration the nature of different dhammas and how dhammas work in general, all we can say with regard to the Buddha is that he accumulated maximum panna and other parami in previous lives. This formed the basis for his attitudes with regard to the different circumstances, and I think that we should not read too much into anything. Why would someone who is shown the Path by the Great Teacher, think to follow his actions that proceeded the time which enlightenment to the Noble Eightfold Path happened? But what I see you as doing is projecting your own ideas about practice onto the Buddha's situation. ========== > > And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? > Rob E: > It is not different or the same. It is starting from what we are attached to, what is familiar and habitual, and then shaking that up, looking at those things and then that leads us to a deeper investigation. Suk: Are you imagining a situation where there is only ignorance and attachment and no possibility of wisdom of any level? Why do you picture the beginning of the Path as motivated by attachment? Does not attachment accumulate each time that it arises? Can wisdom arise as a result of attachment? Is it not in fact that wisdom arises in spite of attachment and other akusala and this is because there was wisdom in the past? ====== Rob E: It seems to me that the path that is sometimes discussed here - from conventional understanding to correct conceptual understanding to beginning to see dhammas in terms of nimittas, to more precise understanding and more clear nimittas, and finally to paramatha dhammas discerned more directly, is not very different from what I am describing. But usually the conventional level is seen as useless and having no role. I see it as being the doorway to the dhammas that are involved when one begins to look at conventional objects and attachments more closely. Sukin: You got it all wrong. There is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (realization) and no such thing as `conventional understanding'. Intellectual understanding has the same object as that of practice and of realization, namely ultimate realities, only in this case, it is as concept. And while you think that understanding begins with taking conventional reality as object of study, ours from the very beginning involve understanding that conventional reality being concept is different from ultimate realities and that it is only the latter which constitute the Four Foundations of Mindfulness or Satipatthana. When it is said that wisdom develops and understands more deeply, I think that you should not imagine this as akin to looking through a microscope and trying to focus. Even the Buddha would have experienced nimittas, but it is the *understanding* which made the difference. You imagine your own practice as involving a certain kind of progression beginning with having conventional realities as object and somehow this changes to the experience of nimittas and on to dhammas. Ours however is *all* about dhammas. And dhammas *are experienced all the time*, only we do not understand them and therefore need to slowly develop the understanding. ========= Rob E: > I also see the Buddha's teaching in correcting our way of living and acting to set conditions for better understanding and the beginning of discernment and detachment. You may not agree with that, but it makes sense of his teachings in these areas, and it provides a continuum from waking up in a conventional way, beginning to be mindful and guard the senses, working with right effort to develop better understanding and greater mindfulness and then beginning to see the nature of dhammas. Suk: The cause doesn't match the result projected. How can the study of concepts which must involve taking them for real lead to the understanding that in fact *only* dhammas are real? And why do you think that understanding conventional reality as unreal will lead to improper conduct? Indeed when there is understanding dhamma as dhamma, this is the stuff of purification of sila, not otherwise. And when someone wants to act morally but is not aware of `self-view', this is not following the Buddha's teachings and in the long run increases akusala of all kinds. ====== > > Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? Rob E: > I do not think that conclusion has been fully justified or ever fully explained. Of course we have been arguing about this for a long time, with no resolution. Anatta means that there is no control of arising dhammas true. So that is not the question. The question is whether right practices as defined by the Buddha can promote kusala conditions for greater awareness. Suk: No the question is, is right practice a reference to particular mental reality or is it about the intention to follow some conventional practice and doing it? It is the former, and this means that there is practice only when there is mindfulness and wisdom. The intention to practice is not the practice and neither is sitting down at a chosen time and place in order to try and concentrate on some object or simply to be aware. Such ideas as far as I can see, can come only as a result of self-view, attachment to result and belief in control. Therefore it can't be that the Buddha intended this of his followers. You are reading his teachings wrong. ======== Rob E: > I don't see anything in the analysis of the nature of dhammas that prevents the right actions, settings and conditions from helping to develop kusala understanding through right practice. The Buddha explicitly explains how these practices will have such a kusala effect, so to me it is there in the suttas. There are no statements that I know of in commentary to contradict this, and the logic of this seems to me to be an inference by those who make it, not a clearly shown principle. Suk: Something else will likely become explicit to you on reading those same passages once a minimal right understanding has arisen. As of now, to say that there is no control over dhammas and yet believe that by following a particular set activity is "setting conditions to help kusala understanding arise" *is* belief in control and reflection of wrong understanding. The Buddha talked about how kusala develops and how one kusala supports other kinds of kusala and right understanding the most influential of all. These are references to mental realities and not to conventional activities. And again, I don't understand why you believe in the existence of dhammas and their uncontrollability but refuse to acknowledge that no matter what conventional activity is being performed, in reality only dhammas roll on in performing their specific functions. ========== > > In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? Rob E: > I don't understand why you say "other than the suttas" where he discussed meditation. Suk: You misunderstood what I said. As you have done below, you cite the texts and insist that it be interpreted a particular way. What I wanted for a change, was for you to give a basis in terms of a theory about the way things are, which explains why you choose to interpret those suttas the way you do. So far you're citing has come across more as appeal to authority rather than expressing a particular understanding. ========== Rob E: Those are indeed the suttas that lay out the basis of meditation as right practice, along with the corresponding sections of the Visudhimagga and even, as I recall, some sections of the Abhidhamma. So that's where the basis lies. If the Buddha had never spoken about sitting and breathing as a basis for satipatthana, if he had not mentioned the development of the jhanas any number of times, I would not be mentioning it either. It comes from the Buddha's own teachings, not from me. Suk: That of course would only cause you to argue less ;-) but not change your understanding. Yes the Buddha talked about all those things that you say he did, and we are all thankful for this. ========== Rob E: > Well I don't see it as redundant in any case. Your post has its own flavor and details and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points. Suk: And thank you for your efforts and giving me the chance to express myself. But I must tell you that I don't know how long the enthusiasm will last. ;-) Metta, Sukin PS: This was a super marathon post. I'm in a rush, no time to divide it up. But perhaps you would like to? But of course you don't have to answer to every point or even at all if you think that we are going in circles. I'll follow your lead then. #121831 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 4:48 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob K. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rob > > > Its like the novice monk Pandita who asked Sariputta to go out on alms round and bring him back redfish : he attained arahatship on that very day. > > > > > > Should we eat redfish in emulation? > > > > Hm. I don't see how this applies to anything - once again you pick an example of foolish behavior rather than "conventional instruction of the Buddha" which is what is under scrutiny. Why would someone emulate a fool, and what does that have to do with Dhamma? > > > +++++++++++++ > Dear Rob > good you tell me where on any of the recent posts I made there were any examples of foolish behaviour? > Did you read teh full story of the venerable Pandita(I did supply the link)redfish was a food that supported his concentration due to past lives of eating it. Sariputta, the right hand of Buddha , certainly didn't think he was foolish for asking and obtained the needed fish for him. Moreover Pandita became an arahat on that day. > If you mean the bhikkhus who starved rather than come down from teh mountain, they all attained in future lives: hardly fool. My mistake. I did not read the full story, but drew the wrong conclusion from the quoted section. I will read it when I have time; thanks for pointing that out. In any case, sure there are cases where advice for one person might not apply to another. Certainly though the Buddha taught anapansati and satipatthana not to one individual but to large groups and said that if practiced this way would lead to enlightenment. It was not individual advice. When he said do not kill or do not drink alchohol except medicinally, this was not advice for one individual either - it was for everyone. The rules for monks were not individually tailored either, they were for the body of monks in general. So I think we can distinguish to a decent extent between a peculiar situation where one person has a particular need or lesson, or they attain under unusual circumstances, and the general teachings that the Buddha gave to the body of followers. Why not talk about these general dictates and practices that the Buddha gave, rather than picking out odd examples of what this or that person did in a special case? That is of course what I am talking about. Now I understand what you meant about the redfish - no we should not emulate the odd circumstance of an individual, but the examples I gave above are not in that category, and yes, I do think they are meant to be emulated, just as you would probably say that the Abhidhamma applies to everyone, not just to this or that individual. Sure, one person may not understand a scripture and another may understand. Maybe one explanation or one part of the teachings will right for an individual at one time and not another. But this does not affect the efficacy of the teachings, nor does it settle the question of whether conventional issues, practices and teachings, which redfish is part of as well, are part of the path. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #121832 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:07 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. I may take this in sections, and may not finish right away. January is a crazy month for me, conventionally speaking. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > Rob E: > > There are passages when the discussion is definitely on the units of reality in various suttas, no doubt. But there are many other passages that are about conventional objects and activities. That is more of the problem in my view. > > Suk: Can you explain why there must be both and what is lacking in one which the other has? > > ===== > Rob E: > > It is not just a question of the details but of the topic itself and of the consistency of the statements. If a sutta says "all dhammas are anatta" that is obviously consistent with Abhidhamma, just more general, so for those sorts of passages I agree with your point. But when it comes to the more conventional teachings, such as non-killing of people and animals, …………… > > > Suk: You've had much discussion with some of us about all this. But I am not so clear as to your position, therefore if you don't mind repeating them please give your response to the following questions: > > What is the basis for your not believing that in truth, any reference to good / bad, right / wrong must come down to being characteristics, functions, manifestation and proximate cause of ultimate realities? After all, like now, different realities rise and fall away through the different sense and mind and it would be a mistake to think that typing this post is either kusala or akusala. What according to you then, is the process whereby the moral value of a particular conventional activity comes to be determined? What is the basis for your reading the Buddha as recommending meditation other than the fact of the descriptions in the Texts? It's not a question of what it comes down to, but what is the vehicle? Why does the Buddha teach in conventional language if that does not bear any fruit or is not part of the path? I can't seem to get an answer to that question. Any ideas? After all, there is nothing that doesn't come down to dhammas, so why didn't the Buddha just cut to the chase and teach about those dhammas? Why does he say 'do this, do that,' if one follows anapasati in this way one will develop the enlightenment factors...' etc. Why? Why not speak the way the Abhidhamma does? I would really appreciate an answer to that question. What that conventional language makes me think is that the Buddha taught that way because his words, his concepts, would cause certain arousings of cittas and cetasikas because of what they represented. If that is the case, it does not take away from the cittas and cetasikas, but it says that when we listen to those concepts, when we develop intention to do good actions in life, when we sit to practice mindfulness under the influence of the Buddha's words, then the enactment of those intentions causes development. Of course it all takes place through conditioned cittas and dhammas, but do we really understand the relation between the conventional teaching, conventionally motivated activities, and the development of kusala? It is my sense from the suttas that this connection is being lost when we ignore these teachings and say that they are just a desription of arising dhammas rather than a creating of conditions by the Buddha to do, think and intend in certain ways. We don't do it, but the Buddha's teachings do cause those things to be set in motion, and practice, consideration, action in life, etc., are part of that action. > ============ > > > Sukin: This is not reasonable is it? > > > If the Buddha taught the way he did and this bore fruit, why would he need to add a remark regarding how this should be interpreted? > > Rob E: > > Well, my contention is that if the Buddha's words had a certain effect, then such speech is not merely conventional but is setting conditions for certain sorts of dhammas to arise. If this is not the case, then we could not say that such speech was effective, or bore fruit. So how is it that conventional activity, such as conceptual communication, can "bear fruit," but you would say that conventional action and meditation cannot? > > > Suk: Of course the Buddha's words were condition for particular set of dhammas to arise. Well then why should we resist this and not do what he says? > This includes path consciousness for many of his audiences without any of them needing to do anything other than what they were doing at the time, namely listening. This is because conditionality exists between dhammas only. You however are suggesting that certain conventional actions deliberately performed also constitute cause and act as condition for particular results in the form of "dhammas". Yes, and it is based on the description of the suttas, that hundreds or thousands of monks listened to the talk on anapanasati, and then what did they do? The advanced senior monks were teaching groups of hundreds of monks to do that form of meditation, and others were teaching other groups. They were taking the Buddha's teaching on this and practicing it. It's in the sutta. That's not a metaphor, it's a description of their action. I think it's unreasonable to think that every time you see a description like this you ignore what it says and say it is not saying that. That is not right. > I find it unreasonable that you do not agree with the idea that the moral value of any conventional action must come down to as referring to particular mental states, but believe at the same time that a conventional action is cause for particular *dhammas* as result? Why do you even believe that results are in the form of dhammas, how have you come to accept this? Why not believe that there exists only the world of conventional actions and conventional results? Buddha gave this continuum. It is not that we will a particular dhamma and it arises. It is that in doing an intentional action that has a particular operation, over time certain factors will develop, because it is right practice. We don't control it, but there are certain principles of practice that the Buddha taught and in following them, the results eventually will develop, despite our inability to control anything. After all, he gave that teaching. It's all ultimately in the world of dhammas. It comes down to whether you believe that action and conventional objects exist at all, or are just plain, straight-out illusions. It seems to me that they are approximations or distortions of the arisings of dhammas and their groupings, which of course also exist. In Abhidhammatha Sangaha it says that as awareness gets clearer that the nimittas that we experience are distorted shadown approximations of the actual dhammas that are arising. It gets closer as mindfulness and panna develop. I believe the practices given by the Buddha move the understanding in that directionm, as they are composed of rupas and namas too. But if you believe that conventional actions are straight-out illusions, then of course you will not think they have any relation to dhammas. I think this view is too extreme, and that there is a continuum between what we experience in a gross, incorrect way, and what is really happening. Therefore practice can sharpen the understanding over time. > ======== > Rob E: > > And if such speech does bear fruit, why would anyone say that it is "merely conventional" speech, and that we should not act on it, even though it "bore fruit" as you say for those who heard it in the past? > > Suk: If someone went back home and decided to make a big donation to the sangha, this is not about "following" the Buddha's suggestion, but seeing the value of giving and having the energy and zeal to do what they did. But what about those who instead of ending up performing the particular deed, became enlightened there and then? Should the cause and effect relationship not be seen as between dhammas instead of thinking that conventional actions are the cause? I see all of those events as having relation to dhammas, not just one or the other. Of course, one person will awaken from hearing Dhamma because they have that accumulated propensity, and another though many have to practice to build those accumulations. This is a normal view and understanding of the Buddhist path, but I know that folks around here don't see it that way. It's not a new idea however; meditation and other forms of Buddhist practice have been engaged continuously since the time of the Buddha. Buddhaghosa talks about such practices in detail, says to find a teacher to learn these techniques, but folks here will insist on seeing that as not really referring to what it refers to, but somehow it is a veiled description of dhammas. Sure, it ALL represents dhammas arising. The question is how does kusala arise and how does understanding arise, an whether practice is part of the path, and that question is not answered by the mere existence of dhammas. That will have to be the end of part I for me - I will come back to the next part of your post as soon as I can. Best wishes to you! I will have to leave the rest of the post below to keep track of where I am. Apologies to Sarah and Jon... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = > ======= > Rob E: > Are we authorized to meddle with the Buddha's speech and reinterpret it, second-guessing the Buddha's understanding of the fruit that such speech would bear? > > > Suk: Why do you make such kind of accusation? Do you not believe that the Dhamma is deep and difficult to understand and therefore require careful study? What you consider as "reinterpretation" on the part of some members here, may in fact be a result of recognizing the danger of reading the Suttas motivated by attachment and self-view! In interpreting references to conventional activities in terms of paramatha dhammas, this is a movement away from taking the experiences through the five senses and the mind as `self'. Should you not be accused then, of being motivated by `self' and `attachment to results' in your own interpretation of the Teachings? > > ======= > > > Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? > > Rob E: > > Well that is my point exactly - he spoke about both. > > Suk: He made reference to both, but the objects of understanding were dhammas only. > > ==== > Rob E: > I would never say that the paramatha level was not a concern of his or that he never mentioned it. I have said that judging by the way the Buddha actually presented his material teachings, that there is a continuum between right conventional action and speech and right understanding of paramatha dhammas and that one has to be aware of both levels of understanding to follow the full path. > > Suk: A paramatha dhamma is understood by way of experiencing its particular and general characteristics, please explain to me how a concept can be understood? > While giving, if I understand the nature of paramatha dhammas, what do I need to understand about the conventional action in addition to this, in order that the path is optimized? > > ======= > Rob E: > If we ignore the conventional level and do all sorts of conventional akusala, thinking it unimportant, fail to guard the senses or worry about conventional wrong speech and action, then we are creating akusala dhammas in doing so. Those who say that such a level is "only literal" and can be ignored in favor of paramatha understanding don't care if they live in an ordinary way …….. > > > Suk: Are you imagining things about us in an attempt to justify your own chosen path? > How according to you is the understanding that dhammas have arisen and already fallen away by the time it is known, encouraging of akusala actions? You are one of the oldest members of this group and I'm sure you won't deny that this is *the* group most committed to the Dhamma with no other coming anywhere near. Do you think that this could have been possible without confidence in all kinds of kusala? Indeed although some members here like to remind us about the prime importance of panna, have not reminders about all other kinds of kusala also been made and much more than other places? > > My turn to imagine now and I say that you are seeking evidence in the form of call to deliberate actions with regard to dana, sila and bhavana, the kind which is motivated by self-view. > > ======= > Rob E: > All levels of the teachings should be understood, not just the technical appearance and disappearance of those pesky little dhammas that none of us ever really see. > > Suk: Why do you reduce what some talk about as mere "technical"? This is your own perception and because you do not understand. > > There is nothing technical about the understanding that seeing now experiences visible object. And if that was merely repeating what one has heard, there is nothing technical about understanding thinking as function of a particular dhamma and conditioned. > > The fact that realities appear all the time makes the study about them the *only* practical teaching. Indeed following conventional actions is to be moved by ideas and when there is no understanding about realities; this is not practical at all! > > ====== > Rob E: > > Meanwhile, we surf, watch tv, enjoy sloth and torpor with a good beer, fantasize and have a fine time while ignoring the teachings, treat people however we please, etc. And because we know what a cetasika is, or can talk about bhavanga cittas, we think we must be on the path and we're doing just great! > > Suk: And you mischaracterize, meanwhile ignorance and other akusala dhammas have arisen and fallen away. But the real danger is in the wrong view which suggests that these can't be known and instead to follow some wrong practice. But the fact is the ignorance now accumulates and to think that there will be mindfulness and wisdom at some chosen time, place and in a particular posture is therefore only wishful thinking. > > ====== > > > Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. > > > Rob E: > > Well, I agree with you that there is more than one level and we can look at both, but at least several people here do not agree that old age, death, etc., in the conventional sense are part of the teachings at all! > > Suk: I think what they are saying, is that those are to be understood as reflections of what paramatha dhammas are, hence the need to study these. The concepts of old age and death for example, if not understood according to this, can at best be a condition for calm but not for insight. And the Buddha's teachings are all about the latter. > > ====== > Rob E: > > Yes, I think you have put this well and there is some confusion and genuine disagreement. I do think there is value in seeing the nature of the "conventional dead body" as Buddha described it in great detail - there is a reason why he did so.……………..I think our conventional self-view and concepts sometime have to be shaken up before the more precise level can be entertained. > > > Suk: The problem with us is that we take dhammas for `self', the solution therefore is to understand dhammas as dhammas. What you describe sounds like applying philosophical ideas that one accepts as true on to a situation. Therefore if there is no understanding of thinking as thinking, this easily leads to taking the thinking and other realities involved, for "self". In other words, there is no other way than understanding realities as non-self in order that self-view is lessened. > > ====== > Rob E: > > When Buddha saw the emptiness of the way people were living at the royal court, when he suffered some of the experiences he had there, disenchantment and disgust arose within him. This was before he understood the specific dhammas involved, but it directed him towards the path of detachment. It started him on a road that led to the paramatha dhammas. Conventional events do shake us up - the death of a loved one, etc. - and they start us contemplating alternatives to our current view of life and self. This leads to the search that can put us on the path. That is my view. > > > Suk: Taking into consideration the nature of different dhammas and how dhammas work in general, all we can say with regard to the Buddha is that he accumulated maximum panna and other parami in previous lives. This formed the basis for his attitudes with regard to the different circumstances, and I think that we should not read too much into anything. Why would someone who is shown the Path by the Great Teacher, think to follow his actions that proceeded the time which enlightenment to the Noble Eightfold Path happened? But what I see you as doing is projecting your own ideas about practice onto the Buddha's situation. > > ========== > > > And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? > > > Rob E: > > It is not different or the same. It is starting from what we are attached to, what is familiar and habitual, and then shaking that up, looking at those things and then that leads us to a deeper investigation. > > > Suk: Are you imagining a situation where there is only ignorance and attachment and no possibility of wisdom of any level? Why do you picture the beginning of the Path as motivated by attachment? Does not attachment accumulate each time that it arises? Can wisdom arise as a result of attachment? Is it not in fact that wisdom arises in spite of attachment and other akusala and this is because there was wisdom in the past? > > ====== > Rob E: > It seems to me that the path that is sometimes discussed here - from conventional understanding to correct conceptual understanding to beginning to see dhammas in terms of nimittas, to more precise understanding and more clear nimittas, and finally to paramatha dhammas discerned more directly, is not very different from what I am describing. But usually the conventional level is seen as useless and having no role. I see it as being the doorway to the dhammas that are involved when one begins to look at conventional objects and attachments more closely. > > Sukin: You got it all wrong. > There is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (realization) and no such thing as `conventional understanding'. Intellectual understanding has the same object as that of practice and of realization, namely ultimate realities, only in this case, it is as concept. And while you think that understanding begins with taking conventional reality as object of study, ours from the very beginning involve understanding that conventional reality being concept is different from ultimate realities and that it is only the latter which constitute the Four Foundations of Mindfulness or Satipatthana. > > When it is said that wisdom develops and understands more deeply, I think that you should not imagine this as akin to looking through a microscope and trying to focus. Even the Buddha would have experienced nimittas, but it is the *understanding* which made the difference. You imagine your own practice as involving a certain kind of progression beginning with having conventional realities as object and somehow this changes to the experience of nimittas and on to dhammas. Ours however is *all* about dhammas. And dhammas *are experienced all the time*, only we do not understand them and therefore need to slowly develop the understanding. > > ========= > Rob E: > > I also see the Buddha's teaching in correcting our way of living and acting to set conditions for better understanding and the beginning of discernment and detachment. You may not agree with that, but it makes sense of his teachings in these areas, and it provides a continuum from waking up in a conventional way, beginning to be mindful and guard the senses, working with right effort to develop better understanding and greater mindfulness and then beginning to see the nature of dhammas. > > > Suk: The cause doesn't match the result projected. How can the study of concepts which must involve taking them for real lead to the understanding that in fact *only* dhammas are real? And why do you think that understanding conventional reality as unreal will lead to improper conduct? Indeed when there is understanding dhamma as dhamma, this is the stuff of purification of sila, not otherwise. And when someone wants to act morally but is not aware of `self-view', this is not following the Buddha's teachings and in the long run increases akusala of all kinds. > > ====== > > > Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? > > Rob E: > > I do not think that conclusion has been fully justified or ever fully explained. Of course we have been arguing about this for a long time, with no resolution. Anatta means that there is no control of arising dhammas true. So that is not the question. The question is whether right practices as defined by the Buddha can promote kusala conditions for greater awareness. > > Suk: No the question is, is right practice a reference to particular mental reality or is it about the intention to follow some conventional practice and doing it? > > It is the former, and this means that there is practice only when there is mindfulness and wisdom. The intention to practice is not the practice and neither is sitting down at a chosen time and place in order to try and concentrate on some object or simply to be aware. Such ideas as far as I can see, can come only as a result of self-view, attachment to result and belief in control. Therefore it can't be that the Buddha intended this of his followers. You are reading his teachings wrong. > > ======== > Rob E: > > I don't see anything in the analysis of the nature of dhammas that prevents the right actions, settings and conditions from helping to develop kusala understanding through right practice. The Buddha explicitly explains how these practices will have such a kusala effect, so to me it is there in the suttas. There are no statements that I know of in commentary to contradict this, and the logic of this seems to me to be an inference by those who make it, not a clearly shown principle. > > > Suk: Something else will likely become explicit to you on reading those same passages once a minimal right understanding has arisen. As of now, to say that there is no control over dhammas and yet believe that by following a particular set activity is "setting conditions to help kusala understanding arise" *is* belief in control and reflection of wrong understanding. > > The Buddha talked about how kusala develops and how one kusala supports other kinds of kusala and right understanding the most influential of all. These are references to mental realities and not to conventional activities. And again, I don't understand why you believe in the existence of dhammas and their uncontrollability but refuse to acknowledge that no matter what conventional activity is being performed, in reality only dhammas roll on in performing their specific functions. > > ========== > > > In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? > > Rob E: > > I don't understand why you say "other than the suttas" where he discussed meditation. > > > Suk: You misunderstood what I said. > As you have done below, you cite the texts and insist that it be interpreted a particular way. What I wanted for a change, was for you to give a basis in terms of a theory about the way things are, which explains why you choose to interpret those suttas the way you do. So far you're citing has come across more as appeal to authority rather than expressing a particular understanding. > > ========== > Rob E: > Those are indeed the suttas that lay out the basis of meditation as right practice, along with the corresponding sections of the Visudhimagga and even, as I recall, some sections of the Abhidhamma. So that's where the basis lies. If the Buddha had never spoken about sitting and breathing as a basis for satipatthana, if he had not mentioned the development of the jhanas any number of times, I would not be mentioning it either. It comes from the Buddha's own teachings, not from me. > > > Suk: That of course would only cause you to argue less ;-) but not change your understanding. Yes the Buddha talked about all those things that you say he did, and we are all thankful for this. > > ========== > Rob E: > > Well I don't see it as redundant in any case. Your post has its own flavor and details and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points. > > Suk: And thank you for your efforts and giving me the chance to express myself. But I must tell you that I don't know how long the enthusiasm will last. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukin > > PS: This was a super marathon post. I'm in a rush, no time to divide it up. But perhaps you would like to? But of course you don't have to answer to every point or even at all if you think that we are going in circles. I'll follow your lead then. > #121833 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Barnes wrote: > >>azita: if visible object, sounds, flavours etc are relative reality, what do you call absolute reality? .. > >Andy: 'Ultimate reality' - I guess I'm meaning that which is without the perceiver. This may be a wrong-view. Is there anything at all without the perceiver (except everything, with no seperateness)? .... S: (In case Azita didn't see this response) There is never a perceiver - just dhammas, i.e cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. These are 'ultimate realities' (paramattha dhammas). See the beginning of Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ... > >Andy: To clarify (for my own benefit) - citta is a consciousness (of an object) and cetasika is the perception or knowledge of that object. Right or wrong? .... S: At each instant, a citta arises and experiences an object, such as seeing consciousness, hearing consciousness or thinking. Each citta is accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas which experience the same object. Each cetasika has a particular characteristic, such as vedana (feeling), sanna (perception) or ekaggata (concentration). .... > >If the above is correct, then rather than 'develop' then, a citta passes as another arises. Yes? So I should have been thinking in terms of a new citta arising that is of a wiser kind. .... S: Some cittas and cetasikas are 'result' of kamma, vipaka cittas, such as seeing and hearing. Some cittas and cetasikas are 'cause' and arise with javana cittas in a sense door or mind door process. These javana cittas 'accumulate' and may 'develop' - they are kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome) cittas and cetasikas. Then there are kiriya (inoperative ) cittas which are neither cause or result. It's true as you indicate, that as one citta passes away, another citta arises. Pls ask if any of this is not clear. Btw, you asked Rob K why "constantly watching..." could be considered as wrong practice. I think the point being stressed was that as soon as there is the idea of "I" doing anything or of any watching or observing, then it's Self again - not understanding of dhammas as anatta at such times. You suggest that it is "morality that forms the backbone...", but with respect, I think that the Buddha taught that in order for wrong view and atta-belief to be eradicated, it is right understanding that is the forerunner, "the backbone" of the path. Metta Sarah ===== #121834 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Barnes wrote: > > Hi Sarah, and a very warm wish for a good new year to all. Metta. ... S: Likewise! .. > Yes. I live in Britain, near Gloucester. Where are you living now? .... S: Thanks for your interesting introduction to your background interest in the Dhamma. For the last 28 years, Jon and I have been living in Hong Kong. Now, in semi-retirement mode, we live between Sydney and Hong Kong. (Jon comes from Australia originally). ... > A: I have noticed the emphasis from most, as you mention, on the understanding of dhammas when speaking of meditation. I read, therefore, vipassana when most say meditation. Might I suggest to the community generally that it may be helpful to be more specific as to which type of practice they refer. Metta meditation, for instance, is completely different. .... S: I agree that we need to be more specific. For example, take the word 'vipassana'. Vipassana is panna (pa~n~naa) cetasika as in the stages of insight, beginning with the first vipassanaa ~naa.na (stage of insight) which clearly differentiates nama from rupa. It has nothing to do with sitting in a quiet place and focussing/observing anything. There has to be a very clear understanding of what namas and rupas are at this moment and a clear understanding of these dhammas as anatta. What do you mean by "metta meditation"? Again, we have to be very specific about what metta is and to clearly understand whether metta is arising now or not. Do we wish to have/attempt to have more metta? If so, it's not metta meditation as taught by the Buddha as I understand it. ... > A: Expect more questions than answers or opinions. Unknowledgable opinion would be of no use. ... S: Looking forward to questions, answers or opinions!! ... > A: This is my current objective. I am fairly well versed in the theory, and I'm sure the DSG will help towards the understanding. .... S: You had referred to pariyatti. Yes, before there can be the development of any patipatti, any vipassana, the pariyatti has to be very firm - a clear understanding of dhammas as anatta with no interest in special actions/practises/kinds of meditation to bring particular results. .... > A:>Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near-perfect. > .... > S:> I'd say this is an illusion and what does it mean to say "when our right-mindfulness is near perfect"? > > A: Please explain more your meaning of illusion here. .... S: I meant, the idea that "it requires a certain amount of time to be perceived". When there is awareness or right understanding of a reality, there is no idea of time. As others have explained, dhammas arise and fall away far to fast for that. .... >When I refer to 'mindfulness' I am referring to awareness of things as they really are. ... S: What exactly are these "things" now and how is "as they really are"? As you say, we need to be very precise. ... >As we are therefore 'aware' that a perception, at these moments, is just that, a perception, and therefore only fleeting, we must also, surely, be aware that it is also only a representation of that which has past. .... S: Firstly, of course "we" are not aware of anyting. What is this perception? Awareness is just aware of realities. Metta Sarah ===== #121835 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Barnes wrote: One who practices right speech, the Buddha expalined, > > 'speaks the truth and is steadfast in truthfulness, trustworthy, dependable, straightforward with others. He reconciles the quarreling and encourages the united. He delights in harmony, seeks after harmony, rejoices in harmony, and creates harmony by his words. His speech is gentle, pleasing to the ear, kindly, heart-warming, courteous, agreeable, and enjoyable to many. He speaks at the proper time, according to the facts, according to what is helpful, according to the Darma and the Code of Conduct. His words are worth remembering, timely, well-reasoned, well-chosen and constructive. ... S: I always appreciate the reminders in this quote. Thank you for posting it. More in 'useful posts' in the files under 'Speech -right'. Metta Sarah ==== #121836 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths sarahprocter... Hi Dieter & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > HCW: What I have been hoping for in this series is to gain a practical understanding of what the dhammas discussed in Abhidhamma correspond to in > experience, in order to better understand the notions presented in Abhidhamma and to then see how such understanding can shed light on what we think we > experience and what we actually experience. ... > D: I am pondering about what Abhidhamma is aiming at .. > there is a strong relation with satipatthana, in particular due to the emphases is on the citta , the momentary consciousness. > Seen this way , Abhidhamma extends the framework provided by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. > Its goal the same : to provide, lay down a matrix , a schedule for insight/vipassana . A schedule in that respect , that re-cognition(awareness) can take place, when the element (state) of the matrix is met by actual experience . .... S: The Abhidhamma just refers to the "practical understanding" of the dhammas arising and falling away in our life now. I don't see the Abhidhamma as a 'framework' or 'matrix', but the actual dhammas to be directly understood now as we read. For example, seeing now is Abhidhamma, visible object is Abhidhamma, thinking about what is seen is Abhidhamma, attachment, restlessness, ignorance - not something in a list or a text, but the dhammas which can be directly known at this very moment. Take uddhacca, restlessness. We know in theory that it arises with every akusala citta. Now, when the citta is rooted in lobha, there's no calm at all. The citta is agitated, disturbed, wanting more. We look at the sunset and it seems calm or we sit quietly and feel peaceful, but right understanding can gradually become more and more familiar with the different characteristics of attachment, restlessness or true calm by carefully considering and developing more and more precise understanding of these dhammas when they arise. When we wish to know the difference between them or wish to be aware of uddhacca, again it's attachment, lobha, for sure. Metta Sarah ===== > We may have the possibility to link a mentioned state with our memory of life events and by penetrating each classification of the table, installation or memory of the framework /matrix could be achieved (i.e.towards 'skillful mindfulness, samma sati) > > So far my idea and its relation to practise..comments wellcome > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > > > #121837 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 6:59 pm Subject: Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > [a beautiful evening in Sydney, just stepped out onto the balcony to watch some local fireworks - lots of 'observing', marking and thinking of the colours and shapes. Of course, there can be awareness and understanding slipping in anytime, but at such moments, no idea of shape or colour, just a reality such as visible object or seeing appearing for a moment as they are.] > >R: Nice description. Being able to see that there is observing, marking, thinking as well as seeing visual object, does give you an edge in developing and noticing moments of understanding or direct awareness, I am sure. Where it comes from is of course accumulations of understanding, I would agree with that. ... S: I think that as understanding begins to develop, it becomes more and more apparent that most of what we had thought of as being seeing or hearing is actually thinking - thinking about shapes, colours, designs and then long, long stories about kinds of fireworks, birds or whatever, according to accumulated sanna (perception) and thinking. .... > > S: We can say there are 'multiple streams of cittas' each citta arising according to accumulated tendencies. However, in truth, at this moment, there is only ever one citta arising, experiencing its object and then falling away. Any ideas of 'multiple streams' are just ideas. The teachings always come back to the reality experienced now, otherwise it's just thinking about different streams, different people and so on and again we get lost in concepts, scientific ideas and so on that don't lead to the understanding of the Truths. > > That may be the case, but I think it's sometimes good to understand and dispense with these issues. It may make other things more clear, and perhaps keep the mind from dwelling on things that are distractions. And then back to "now" which is already in progress... > > Happy New Year! > And Happy Birthday dsg. .... S: Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Hope you and your family enjoyed the holiday. Must be pretty cold in Washington D.C. now. Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! Metta Sarah ===== #121838 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 9:54 pm Subject: What I heard. (attention Lukas) nilovg Dear Lukas and all, I heard on a Thai recording this morning: Kh Sujin spoke about the Sa.laayatana vagga, Ch 2, the pairs (Yamaka), § 15 and its commentary. This sutta deals with the inner aayatanas of the senses and the mind. In the sutta we read about the satisfaction, the misery and the way of escape from the eye. The commentary uses a simile to show the amount of attachment we have to the eye and the other senses. The inward aayatanas are like the house of humans they have an extraordinarily strong attachment to (chanda- raagassa adhimatta-balavataaya). It is like a house that is full of family members, possessions, food, and nobody is allowed to take any of these away. (N: think of the saying: my house is my castle.) To what is just outside one’s house, in the neighbourhood, there is less attachment. Evenso, there is not as much attachment to visible object etc. in the same way as the attachment to the inner aayatanas. Kh Sujin explained that the senses are ruupas produced by kamma and in each unit of ruupas produced by kamma life-faculty is present. In ruupas ourside which are produced by temperature, there is no life- faculty. We have a very strong attachment to the eye and the other senses. When there is an ailment or even a small handicap in one of the senses, we attach great importance to this. We are extraordinarily attached as the commentary repeats. But what is produced by kamma is beyond control. N: When we just read in the sutta about the satisfaction there is with the inner aayatanas, we may not realize that there is exceedingly strong attachment to these. We may just read and forget about this. The commentary reminds us with the simile of our own home that at this moment there is such a strong attachment to all the senses. We can notice this when we suffer from an ailment of the eye, the ears or the bodysense. ---------- Nina. #121839 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Andy) - In a message dated 1/6/2012 2:41:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: What do you mean by "metta meditation"? Again, we have to be very specific about what metta is and to clearly understand whether metta is arising now or not. Do we wish to have/attempt to have more metta? If so, it's not metta meditation as taught by the Buddha as I understand it. ... ======================================== Here is a part of what the Buddha taught about cultivation of metta. Is no "attempt to have more metta" involved? With metta, Howard ________________________ Snp 1.8 PTS: _Sn 143-152_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/Sn_utf8.html#v.143) Karaniya Metta Sutta: Loving-Kindness translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera _© 1995–2012_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.nymo.html#F_termsOfUse) Alternate translations: _Amaravati_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html) | _Buddharakkhita_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.budd.html) | _Piyadassi_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.piya.html) | _Thanissaro_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html) This sutta also appears at _Khp 9_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.9.nymo.html) What should be done by one skillful in good So as to gain the State of Peace is this: Let him be able, and upright and straight, Easy to speak to, gentle, and not proud, Contented too, supported easily, With few tasks, and living very lightly; His faculties serene, prudent, and modest, Unswayed by the emotions of the clans; And let him never do the slightest thing That other wise men might hold blamable. (And let him think:) "In safety and in bliss May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Whatever breathing beings there may be. No matter whether they are frail or firm, With none excepted, be they long or big Or middle-sized, or be they short or small Or thick, as well as those seen or unseen, Or whether they are dwelling far or near, Existing or yet seeking to exist. May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Let no one work another one's undoing Or even slight him at all anywhere: And never let them wish each other ill Through provocation or resentful thought." And just as might a mother with her life Protect the son that was her only child, So let him then for every living thing Maintain unbounded consciousness in being; And let him too with love for all the world Maintain unbounded consciousness in being Above, below, and all round in between, Untroubled, with no enemy or foe. And while he stands or walks or while he sits Or while he lies down, free from drowsiness, Let him resolve upon this mindfulness: This is Divine Abiding here, they say. But when he has no trafficking with views, Is virtuous, and has perfected seeing, And purges greed for sensual desires, He surely comes no more to any womb. ___________________________ And from MN 21: "Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. __________________________ #121840 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi Sarah, (and Howard) you wrote: (D: I am pondering about what Abhidhamma is aiming at .. > there is a strong relation with satipatthana, in particular due to the emphases is on the citta , the momentary consciousness. > Seen this way , Abhidhamma extends the framework provided by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. > Its goal the same : to provide, lay down a matrix , a schedule for insight/vipassana . A schedule in that respect , that re-cognition(awareness) can take place, when the element (state) of the matrix is met by actual experience ) S: The Abhidhamma just refers to the "practical understanding" of the dhammas arising and falling away in our life now. I don't see the Abhidhamma as a 'framework' or 'matrix', but the actual dhammas to be directly understood now as we read. For example, seeing now is Abhidhamma, visible object is Abhidhamma, thinking about what is seen is Abhidhamma, attachment, restlessness, ignorance - not something in a list or a text, but the dhammas which can be directly known at this very moment. D: well , I wrote extends the framework of the Satipatthana ( i.e. the 4 great frameworks), to provide you with more information about the ' matrix ' following: Ven. Nyanatiloka in 'Guide through the Abhidhamma': in all editions of the Abhidhamma Pitaka , the first book , the Dhammasangani, is preceded by a list of terms , called matika in Pali. A close examination reveals as embracing the entire universe, classifying it under a great number of psychological , ethical and doctrinal aspects...this list is not, as it sometimes assumed merely a part of the analytical Dhammsangani, but it is the basic of the whole Abhidhamma, serving as the explicit framework...it may be compared to a mould , or matrix for casting metal, which is why that very term matrix has been choosen here for rendering the cognate Pali word matika Ven Nyanaponika in Abh. Studies: ' so it is quite possible that the Buddha transmitted the gist of his knowledge to such individuals as he knew to be capable of elaborating and applying the briefly indicated by their own penetrative intellect, as for example , in the case of Ven. Sariputta. This theory of ours agrees with the commentarial statement, that the Buddha transmitted to the Ven. Sariputta only the Matika , that is , the schedule of Abhidhamma.' Bhikkhu Bodhi : "The 22 Tika Matikas (Triplets) and the 100 Duka-Matikas (Couplets), which comprise the quintessence of the Abhidhamma, are explained in this book" Bhikkhu Narada : " ..Opening with the matika, the schedule of categories which serves as the framework for the whole Abhidhamma, with Metta Dieter #121841 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Dieter) - Sarah I'm in agreement with what you say in the following, at least if I follow it correctly. Among other things, you emphasize that dhammas are available to be actually experienced and not merely theoretical, obscure, and unknowable. I make a couple more brief comments in context below. In a message dated 1/6/2012 2:53:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Dieter & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > HCW: What I have been hoping for in this series is to gain a practical understanding of what the dhammas discussed in Abhidhamma correspond to in > experience, in order to better understand the notions presented in Abhidhamma and to then see how such understanding can shed light on what we think we > experience and what we actually experience. ... > D: I am pondering about what Abhidhamma is aiming at .. > there is a strong relation with satipatthana, in particular due to the emphases is on the citta , the momentary consciousness. > Seen this way , Abhidhamma extends the framework provided by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. > Its goal the same : to provide, lay down a matrix , a schedule for insight/vipassana . A schedule in that respect , that re-cognition(awareness) can take place, when the element (state) of the matrix is met by actual experience . .... S: The Abhidhamma just refers to the "practical understanding" of the dhammas arising and falling away in our life now. I don't see the Abhidhamma as a 'framework' or 'matrix', but the actual dhammas to be directly understood now as we read. For example, seeing now is Abhidhamma, visible object is Abhidhamma, thinking about what is seen is Abhidhamma, attachment, restlessness, ignorance - not something in a list or a text, but the dhammas which can be directly known at this very moment. ------------------------------------------ HCW: Yes!! -------------------------------------------- Take uddhacca, restlessness. We know in theory that it arises with every akusala citta. Now, when the citta is rooted in lobha, there's no calm at all. The citta is agitated, disturbed, wanting more. ----------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, quite so. ---------------------------------------- We look at the sunset and it seems calm or we sit quietly and feel peaceful, but right understanding can gradually become more and more familiar with the different characteristics of attachment, restlessness or true calm by carefully considering and developing more and more precise understanding of these dhammas when they arise. When we wish to know the difference between them or wish to be aware of uddhacca, again it's attachment, lobha, for sure. ------------------------------------------ HCW: Yes. Whenever we wish, as opposed to merely see as useful, things to be other than as they are, that is tanha, and with tanha there is restlessness/turmoil/disturbance to at least some degree, and consequently there is suffering. (A related Hasidic saying: "Who is wealthy? Whoever is satisfied with what he has.") --------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121842 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: Sarah I'm in agreement with what you say in the following, at least if I follow it correctly. Among other things, you emphasize that dhammas are available to be actually experienced and not merely theoretical, obscure, and unknowable D: do I say something different ? The framework of Abhidhamma as layed down by the matrix/schedule ( matika) is available to be actually experienced as it is by the four frameworks (body,feeling,mind and mind objects) of the Sati patthana . with Metta Dieter #121843 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A year off (yeah, really this time.) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 6-jan-2012, om 1:05 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: Great, if I could ask you or anyone who posts transcripts of A. > Sujin talking on Dhamma to pass them along to me by e-mail in case > I miss them here, I would be grateful. ------ N: I try to remember. It is always so good to hear from you. ---- Nina. #121844 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Hi Howard, Op 5-jan-2012, om 19:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > P. S. One more thought: I suspect that 'turmoil' captures an aspect of > uddhacca. ------- N: Turmoil: agitation, disturbance. The citta is not calm when there is uddhacca. But as Sarah said, no use trying to be aware of uddhacca. Nina. #121845 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 5-jan-2012, om 19:09 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > frankly speaking I still do not see the reason why uddhacca is > unversal in all unwholesome states (as mentioned above) -------- N:It is a disturbing element. But, it is not so obvious. When lobha- muulacitta arises, lobha is more to the fore. ----- > > > N: However, uddhacca is only eradicated by the arahat. > > D: yes ,only eradicted by the Arahat .. and before it is (only ) > potential in wholesome states... ------- N: It has nothing to do with kusala cittas which are always accompanied by calm and sati. ------- Nina. #121846 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: D: yes ,only eradicted by the Arahat .. and before it is (only ) > potential in wholesome states... ------- N: It has nothing to do with kusala cittas which are always accompanied by calm and sati. D: by potential I mean possible arising, when the wholesome state changes to unwholesome with Metta Dieter #121847 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina (Howard and Sarah), you wrote: Turmoil: agitation, disturbance. The citta is not calm when there is uddhacca. But as Sarah said, no use trying to be aware of uddhacca. D: sorry to interfere ;-) Maha Satitpatthana D 22 , says differently: [1] "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.) with Metta Dieter Nina ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project Hi Howard, Op 5-jan-2012, om 19:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > P. S. One more thought: I suspect that 'turmoil' captures an aspect of > uddhacca. ------- N: Turmoil: agitation, disturbance. The citta is not calm when there is uddhacca. But as Sarah said, no use trying to be aware of uddhacca. Nina. #121848 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:33 am Subject: Fwd: Mad person nilovg Dear friends, Fwd from the Dhamma stujdygroup in Indonesia, Bogor. > Van: Nina van Gorkom > Datum: 6 januari 2012 16:31:33 GMT+01:00 > Aan: nana_palo@... > Onderwerp: Antw.: Mad person > > Dear Selamat > Thank you for your good wishes. I wish you and the whole group all > happiness and a lot of Dhamma discussions. > You addressed the question offlist, but I know that dsg members are > very interested in what you are doing in Bogor. So I shall repeat > your question on dsg list if you do not mind. > Op 6-jan-2012, om 5:42 heeft nana_palo@... het volgende > geschreven: >> >> One of my discussion in our Dhamma Study Group was related to Mad >> Persons. When they do something, there was a debate between one >> side that hold argument that mad person doesn't have sati, and the >> other group said that mad person has a wrong perception (sanna), >> so doing something as not worthy.. >> >> Could you please give us some insight related your opinion on this >> case? >> --------- > N: When speaking about madness, we think of a whole situation, of > conventional truth. It seems that madness can stay. The Abhidhamma > teaches us absolute realities: citta, cetasika and ruupa. I do not > speak now of nibbaana that is the unconditioned paramattha dhamma. > In truth, citta arises and falls away, there is nothing static. > Cittas are akusala, kusala vipaaka or kiriya (inoperative). > The field of medical science or any other science, or in general > the field of conventional truth deals with concepts we can think > of. In daily life we work with concepts, with science, we do not > deny their usefulness. When someone is what we call mentally > diseased, it is true that ruupa conditions citta, that there is > disturbance of the elements. But if we want to know the truth of > our life we turn to the Abhidhamma. We learn the truth about > dhammas from moment to moment, we do not consider a particular > situation. > So long as we have not become ariyans we all are foolish, mad. > There are countless moment with forgetfulness of realities, no > sati, and also, we have perversion of sa~n~naa, perception. We take > for permanent what is impermanent, we take for happiness what is > dukkha, we take for beautiful what is foul, we take for self what > is non-self. > Thus, the point of view of Dhamma is different from conventional > truth. It is more valuable to study and understand the dhamma > appearing at this moment, this is the only way to know the truth. > Otherwise we are only thinking, thinking about concepts, about > stories, situations, that are different from realities. Thinking > leads to a great deal of worries. > ------ > Nina. > > #121849 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 6-jan-2012, om 16:33 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Turmoil: agitation, disturbance. The citta is not calm when there > is uddhacca. But as Sarah said, no use trying to be aware of uddhacca. > > D: sorry to interfere ;-) > Maha Satitpatthana D 22 , says differently: > [1] "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental > qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. > And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of > themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case > where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns > that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' > ------ N: I understand your point. When a reality appears he can be aware of it and understand it. This is different from someone who with lobha tries to catch a particular reality like uddhacca. ------ Nina. #121850 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: N: I understand your point. When a reality appears he can be aware of it and understand it. This is different from someone who with lobha tries to catch a particular reality like uddhacca. D: this is an important point in our discussion concerning 'daily life', Nina . I assume you mean ,one's thirst (tanha) for sensous desire (lobha) effects attachment in such way that restlessness (uddhacca ) is hardly recognizable ? Isn't that a question of Sati? Craving for (action directed to ) the desired object involves certainly restlessness , and if no direct approach is possible , this restlessness shows as 'doing things for the sake of doing things ' (if I got that right). Similarly one may note restlessness in a state of aversion or anger . But for those without training it is different, I agree . Otherwise recognition of all hindrances is possible and requested as it said by the Maha Satipatthana , and likewise its temporary suspension: 'Regarding the temporary suspension of the 5 hindrances on entering the first absorption, the stereotype Sutta text (e g. A. IX, 40) runs as follows:"He has cast away sensuous desire; he dwells with a heart free from sensuous desire; from desire he cleanses his heart."He has cast away ill-will; he dwells with a heart free from ill-will, cherishing love and compassion toward all living beings, he cleanses his heart from ill-will."He has cast away sloth and torpor; he dwells free from sloth and torpor; loving the light, with watchful mind, with clear consciousness, he cleanses his mind from sloth and torpor."He has cast away restlessness and scruples; dwelling with mind undisturbed, with heart full of peace, he cleanses his mind from restlessness and scruples."He has cast away skeptical doubt; dwelling free from doubt, full of confidence in the good, he cleanses his heart from doubt' " with Metta Dieter #121851 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/6/2012 8:43:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: Sarah I'm in agreement with what you say in the following, at least if I follow it correctly. Among other things, you emphasize that dhammas are available to be actually experienced and not merely theoretical, obscure, and unknowable D: do I say something different ? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: No. I didn't say so, and I didn't intend to imply it. ------------------------------------------------- The framework of Abhidhamma as layed down by the matrix/schedule ( matika) is available to be actually experienced as it is by the four frameworks (body,feeling,mind and mind objects) of the Sati patthana . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, of course. The matrix presentation doesn't appeal to me very much, but that is just a matter of taste. -------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121852 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: No. I didn't say so, and I didn't intend to imply it D: sorry, I misunderstood your message as 'matrix' / 'framework' being connected to theoretical nature .. H: Yes, of course. The matrix presentation doesn't appeal to me very much, but that is just a matter of taste. -------------------------------------------- D: that of course is up to you ;-) with Metta Dieter : ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/6/2012 8:43:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: Sarah I'm in agreement with what you say in the following, at least if I follow it correctly. Among other things, you emphasize that dhammas are available to be actually experienced and not merely theoretical, obscure, and unknowable D: do I say something different ? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: No. I didn't say so, and I didn't intend to imply it. ------------------------------------------------- The framework of Abhidhamma as layed down by the matrix/schedule ( matika) is available to be actually experienced as it is by the four frameworks (body,feeling,mind and mind objects) of the Sati patthana . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, of course. The matrix presentation doesn't appeal to me very much, but that is just a matter of taste. -------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================ With metta, Howard #121853 From: "azita" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 8:59 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Mad person gazita2002 Hallo Nina, Thank you for all yr hard work at the computor and sending great snippets of past dhamma discussions, so valuable in this mad world. I truly appreciate your efforts Nina. Patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > N: When speaking about madness, we think of a whole situation, of > > conventional truth. It seems that madness can stay. The Abhidhamma > > teaches us absolute realities: citta, cetasika and ruupa. I do not > > speak now of nibbaana that is the unconditioned paramattha dhamma. > > In truth, citta arises and falls away, there is nothing static. > > Cittas are akusala, kusala vipaaka or kiriya (inoperative). > > The field of medical science or any other science, or in general > > the field of conventional truth deals with concepts we can think > > of. In daily life we work with concepts, with science, we do not > > deny their usefulness. When someone is what we call mentally > > diseased, it is true that ruupa conditions citta, that there is > > disturbance of the elements. But if we want to know the truth of > > our life we turn to the Abhidhamma. We learn the truth about > > dhammas from moment to moment, we do not consider a particular > > situation. > > So long as we have not become ariyans we all are foolish, mad. > > There are countless moment with forgetfulness of realities, no > > sati, and also, we have perversion of sa~n~naa, perception. We take > > for permanent what is impermanent, we take for happiness what is > > dukkha, we take for beautiful what is foul, we take for self what > > is non-self. > > Thus, the point of view of Dhamma is different from conventional > > truth. It is more valuable to study and understand the dhamma > > appearing at this moment, this is the only way to know the truth. > > Otherwise we are only thinking, thinking about concepts, about > > stories, situations, that are different from realities. Thinking > > leads to a great deal of worries. #121854 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 10:03 am Subject: Setting out the Way! bhikkhu5 Friends: How can one ever Succeed, when Never having Started? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, those who have neglected to begin this Noble 8-fold Way, have failed to develop the Noble Method, which destroys Suffering! While those who having indeed begun this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also initiated the Noble Method, which destroys all Suffering! And what, Bhikkhus, is this Noble 8-fold Way? It is simply this: 1: Right View (sammā-ditthi) 2: Right Motivation (sammā-sankappa) 3: Right Speech (sammā-vācā) 4: Right Action (sammā-kammanta) 5: Right Livelihood (sammā-ājÄ«va) 6: Right Effort (sammā-vāyāma) 7: Right Awareness (sammā-sati) 8: Right Concentration (sammā-samādhi) Bhikkhus, those who have failed even to start on this Noble 8-fold Way, have failed to cultivate that Noble Method, which destroys all Suffering! While those, who have really started on this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also made the first move capable of destroying all Suffering! Walking the Noble 8-fold Way! <....> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V:23-4] section 45:33 Failed ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html This Noble 8-fold Way ends in the Deathless NibbĂŁna! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #121855 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 5:46 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. Pt. II. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Rob E: > > Are we authorized to meddle with the Buddha's speech and reinterpret it, second-guessing the Buddha's understanding of the fruit that such speech would bear? > > > > > > Suk: Why do you make such kind of accusation? Do you not believe that the Dhamma is deep and difficult to understand and therefore require careful study? It depends on what it says. Some of it is very deep and subtle and requires further study and some of it is clear, straightforward speech. I don't think it's right when straightforward, clear statements of the Buddha are given a convoluted or unrelated meaning, as does sometimes happen, based on the idea that its not reflecting what the reader already knows to be the case. For instance, it's fine and understandable that if the Buddha talks about inventorying the body parts to say that we know that breaks down into rupas and we should understand the individual rupas and patterns that make up that object; but it's not reasonable and not fine in my view to say that the Buddha is just using the body part as a stand-in for rupas and that there is no purpose in looking at the body part at all, because we can't control rupas and therefore why look at a particular body part, which is just a conceptual object? To me, that is wrong. Buddha went through the body parts, the fluids, etc., because he wanted us to look at those areas of the body, THEN break them down into rupas, not replace them with our own philosophy of rupas, that since their arising can't be controlled, there is no such thing as any systematic study being part of the path. Meanwhile, while everyone is saying that there's no way to systematically study or practice anything, what are they busy doing? They are busy systematically and purposely and intently studying the Abhidhamma and commentaries, sometimes very meticulously. So why do we control those Dhamma concepts and try to learn them systematically, but all other aspects of systematic study and practice that the Buddha espoused are supposedly reflecting self-view and should be avoided? How come we don't avoid studying the Abhidhamma systematically - aren't we trying to control the development of our understanding by doing that? Isn't that total self-view, thinking we can enlighten ourselves? It's not consistent, and it makes it seem that it is much more a matter of studying that which the person finds an agreeable area of study -- that is, NOT meditation -- than it is a real sense that there is nothing to do, nothing to study and nothing to practice, and no one to control it. > What you consider as "reinterpretation" on the part of some members here, may in fact be a result of recognizing the danger of reading the Suttas motivated by attachment and self-view! Okay, fine, but what is the danger that nobody seems to care about that we will make up interpretations in trying to avoid self-view that are not the right ones? If you jump away from what the Buddha literally says without understanding IT first on its own literal terms, then you can easily substitute an alternate philosophy without really knowing whether it is justified or not, especially when we're willing to ignore the obvious and turn statements into their opposites. I mean, in the anapanasati sutta, the Buddha talks about developing and pursuing anapanasati and that this yields great fruit. But there are people who will say that we can't pursue any form of development - this is self-view, so the Buddha couldn't have meant that. It's just code for arising dhammas. The question is: how do the dhammas of development arise? And we assume we already know the answer, so Buddha couldn't have meant to actually "pursue" something like he said. These are straightforward statements, but we only believe the parts we agree with. This idea that we know what self-view is doing to us is pretty funny, since self-view will hide what it is doing, so we don't really investigate whether self-view is tricking us into avoiding meditation for instance, or something else that doesn't haappen to be part of our cherished philosophy. I mean, how far do we really look beyond what is already part of our group way of thinking, handed to us by our modern teachers or by our current spiritual friends? Not far at all, if at all, ever. That's all for tonight! See you in Part III. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > In interpreting references to conventional activities in terms of paramatha dhammas, this is a movement away from taking the experiences through the five senses and the mind as `self'. Should you not be accused then, of being motivated by `self' and `attachment to results' in your own interpretation of the Teachings? > > > > ======= > > > > Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? > > > > Rob E: > > > Well that is my point exactly - he spoke about both. > > > > Suk: He made reference to both, but the objects of understanding were dhammas only. > > > > ==== > > Rob E: > > I would never say that the paramatha level was not a concern of his or that he never mentioned it. I have said that judging by the way the Buddha actually presented his material teachings, that there is a continuum between right conventional action and speech and right understanding of paramatha dhammas and that one has to be aware of both levels of understanding to follow the full path. > > > > Suk: A paramatha dhamma is understood by way of experiencing its particular and general characteristics, please explain to me how a concept can be understood? > > While giving, if I understand the nature of paramatha dhammas, what do I need to understand about the conventional action in addition to this, in order that the path is optimized? > > > > ======= > > Rob E: > > If we ignore the conventional level and do all sorts of conventional akusala, thinking it unimportant, fail to guard the senses or worry about conventional wrong speech and action, then we are creating akusala dhammas in doing so. Those who say that such a level is "only literal" and can be ignored in favor of paramatha understanding don't care if they live in an ordinary way …….. > > > > > > Suk: Are you imagining things about us in an attempt to justify your own chosen path? > > How according to you is the understanding that dhammas have arisen and already fallen away by the time it is known, encouraging of akusala actions? You are one of the oldest members of this group and I'm sure you won't deny that this is *the* group most committed to the Dhamma with no other coming anywhere near. Do you think that this could have been possible without confidence in all kinds of kusala? Indeed although some members here like to remind us about the prime importance of panna, have not reminders about all other kinds of kusala also been made and much more than other places? > > > > My turn to imagine now and I say that you are seeking evidence in the form of call to deliberate actions with regard to dana, sila and bhavana, the kind which is motivated by self-view. > > > > ======= > > Rob E: > > All levels of the teachings should be understood, not just the technical appearance and disappearance of those pesky little dhammas that none of us ever really see. > > > > Suk: Why do you reduce what some talk about as mere "technical"? This is your own perception and because you do not understand. > > > > There is nothing technical about the understanding that seeing now experiences visible object. And if that was merely repeating what one has heard, there is nothing technical about understanding thinking as function of a particular dhamma and conditioned. > > > > The fact that realities appear all the time makes the study about them the *only* practical teaching. Indeed following conventional actions is to be moved by ideas and when there is no understanding about realities; this is not practical at all! > > > > ====== > > Rob E: > > > Meanwhile, we surf, watch tv, enjoy sloth and torpor with a good beer, fantasize and have a fine time while ignoring the teachings, treat people however we please, etc. And because we know what a cetasika is, or can talk about bhavanga cittas, we think we must be on the path and we're doing just great! > > > > Suk: And you mischaracterize, meanwhile ignorance and other akusala dhammas have arisen and fallen away. But the real danger is in the wrong view which suggests that these can't be known and instead to follow some wrong practice. But the fact is the ignorance now accumulates and to think that there will be mindfulness and wisdom at some chosen time, place and in a particular posture is therefore only wishful thinking. > > > > ====== > > > > Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. > > > > > > Rob E: > > > Well, I agree with you that there is more than one level and we can look at both, but at least several people here do not agree that old age, death, etc., in the conventional sense are part of the teachings at all! > > > > Suk: I think what they are saying, is that those are to be understood as reflections of what paramatha dhammas are, hence the need to study these. The concepts of old age and death for example, if not understood according to this, can at best be a condition for calm but not for insight. And the Buddha's teachings are all about the latter. > > > > ====== > > Rob E: > > > Yes, I think you have put this well and there is some confusion and genuine disagreement. I do think there is value in seeing the nature of the "conventional dead body" as Buddha described it in great detail - there is a reason why he did so.……………..I think our conventional self-view and concepts sometime have to be shaken up before the more precise level can be entertained. > > > > > > Suk: The problem with us is that we take dhammas for `self', the solution therefore is to understand dhammas as dhammas. What you describe sounds like applying philosophical ideas that one accepts as true on to a situation. Therefore if there is no understanding of thinking as thinking, this easily leads to taking the thinking and other realities involved, for "self". In other words, there is no other way than understanding realities as non-self in order that self-view is lessened. > > > > ====== > > Rob E: > > > When Buddha saw the emptiness of the way people were living at the royal court, when he suffered some of the experiences he had there, disenchantment and disgust arose within him. This was before he understood the specific dhammas involved, but it directed him towards the path of detachment. It started him on a road that led to the paramatha dhammas. Conventional events do shake us up - the death of a loved one, etc. - and they start us contemplating alternatives to our current view of life and self. This leads to the search that can put us on the path. That is my view. > > > > > > Suk: Taking into consideration the nature of different dhammas and how dhammas work in general, all we can say with regard to the Buddha is that he accumulated maximum panna and other parami in previous lives. This formed the basis for his attitudes with regard to the different circumstances, and I think that we should not read too much into anything. Why would someone who is shown the Path by the Great Teacher, think to follow his actions that proceeded the time which enlightenment to the Noble Eightfold Path happened? But what I see you as doing is projecting your own ideas about practice onto the Buddha's situation. > > > > ========== > > > > And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? > > > > > Rob E: > > > It is not different or the same. It is starting from what we are attached to, what is familiar and habitual, and then shaking that up, looking at those things and then that leads us to a deeper investigation. > > > > > > Suk: Are you imagining a situation where there is only ignorance and attachment and no possibility of wisdom of any level? Why do you picture the beginning of the Path as motivated by attachment? Does not attachment accumulate each time that it arises? Can wisdom arise as a result of attachment? Is it not in fact that wisdom arises in spite of attachment and other akusala and this is because there was wisdom in the past? > > > > ====== > > Rob E: > > It seems to me that the path that is sometimes discussed here - from conventional understanding to correct conceptual understanding to beginning to see dhammas in terms of nimittas, to more precise understanding and more clear nimittas, and finally to paramatha dhammas discerned more directly, is not very different from what I am describing. But usually the conventional level is seen as useless and having no role. I see it as being the doorway to the dhammas that are involved when one begins to look at conventional objects and attachments more closely. > > > > Sukin: You got it all wrong. > > There is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (realization) and no such thing as `conventional understanding'. Intellectual understanding has the same object as that of practice and of realization, namely ultimate realities, only in this case, it is as concept. And while you think that understanding begins with taking conventional reality as object of study, ours from the very beginning involve understanding that conventional reality being concept is different from ultimate realities and that it is only the latter which constitute the Four Foundations of Mindfulness or Satipatthana. > > > > When it is said that wisdom develops and understands more deeply, I think that you should not imagine this as akin to looking through a microscope and trying to focus. Even the Buddha would have experienced nimittas, but it is the *understanding* which made the difference. You imagine your own practice as involving a certain kind of progression beginning with having conventional realities as object and somehow this changes to the experience of nimittas and on to dhammas. Ours however is *all* about dhammas. And dhammas *are experienced all the time*, only we do not understand them and therefore need to slowly develop the understanding. > > > > ========= > > Rob E: > > > I also see the Buddha's teaching in correcting our way of living and acting to set conditions for better understanding and the beginning of discernment and detachment. You may not agree with that, but it makes sense of his teachings in these areas, and it provides a continuum from waking up in a conventional way, beginning to be mindful and guard the senses, working with right effort to develop better understanding and greater mindfulness and then beginning to see the nature of dhammas. > > > > > > Suk: The cause doesn't match the result projected. How can the study of concepts which must involve taking them for real lead to the understanding that in fact *only* dhammas are real? And why do you think that understanding conventional reality as unreal will lead to improper conduct? Indeed when there is understanding dhamma as dhamma, this is the stuff of purification of sila, not otherwise. And when someone wants to act morally but is not aware of `self-view', this is not following the Buddha's teachings and in the long run increases akusala of all kinds. > > > > ====== > > > > Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? > > > > Rob E: > > > I do not think that conclusion has been fully justified or ever fully explained. Of course we have been arguing about this for a long time, with no resolution. Anatta means that there is no control of arising dhammas true. So that is not the question. The question is whether right practices as defined by the Buddha can promote kusala conditions for greater awareness. > > > > Suk: No the question is, is right practice a reference to particular mental reality or is it about the intention to follow some conventional practice and doing it? > > > > It is the former, and this means that there is practice only when there is mindfulness and wisdom. The intention to practice is not the practice and neither is sitting down at a chosen time and place in order to try and concentrate on some object or simply to be aware. Such ideas as far as I can see, can come only as a result of self-view, attachment to result and belief in control. Therefore it can't be that the Buddha intended this of his followers. You are reading his teachings wrong. > > > > ======== > > Rob E: > > > I don't see anything in the analysis of the nature of dhammas that prevents the right actions, settings and conditions from helping to develop kusala understanding through right practice. The Buddha explicitly explains how these practices will have such a kusala effect, so to me it is there in the suttas. There are no statements that I know of in commentary to contradict this, and the logic of this seems to me to be an inference by those who make it, not a clearly shown principle. > > > > > > Suk: Something else will likely become explicit to you on reading those same passages once a minimal right understanding has arisen. As of now, to say that there is no control over dhammas and yet believe that by following a particular set activity is "setting conditions to help kusala understanding arise" *is* belief in control and reflection of wrong understanding. > > > > The Buddha talked about how kusala develops and how one kusala supports other kinds of kusala and right understanding the most influential of all. These are references to mental realities and not to conventional activities. And again, I don't understand why you believe in the existence of dhammas and their uncontrollability but refuse to acknowledge that no matter what conventional activity is being performed, in reality only dhammas roll on in performing their specific functions. > > > > ========== > > > > In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? > > > > Rob E: > > > I don't understand why you say "other than the suttas" where he discussed meditation. > > > > > > Suk: You misunderstood what I said. > > As you have done below, you cite the texts and insist that it be interpreted a particular way. What I wanted for a change, was for you to give a basis in terms of a theory about the way things are, which explains why you choose to interpret those suttas the way you do. So far you're citing has come across more as appeal to authority rather than expressing a particular understanding. > > > > ========== > > Rob E: > > Those are indeed the suttas that lay out the basis of meditation as right practice, along with the corresponding sections of the Visudhimagga and even, as I recall, some sections of the Abhidhamma. So that's where the basis lies. If the Buddha had never spoken about sitting and breathing as a basis for satipatthana, if he had not mentioned the development of the jhanas any number of times, I would not be mentioning it either. It comes from the Buddha's own teachings, not from me. > > > > > > Suk: That of course would only cause you to argue less ;-) but not change your understanding. Yes the Buddha talked about all those things that you say he did, and we are all thankful for this. > > > > ========== > > Rob E: > > > Well I don't see it as redundant in any case. Your post has its own flavor and details and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points. > > > > Suk: And thank you for your efforts and giving me the chance to express myself. But I must tell you that I don't know how long the enthusiasm will last. ;-) > > > > Metta, > > > > Sukin > > > > PS: This was a super marathon post. I'm in a rush, no time to divide it up. But perhaps you would like to? But of course you don't have to answer to every point or even at all if you think that we are going in circles. I'll follow your lead then. > > > #121856 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: I think that as understanding begins to develop, it becomes more and more apparent that most of what we had thought of as being seeing or hearing is actually thinking - thinking about shapes, colours, designs and then long, long stories about kinds of fireworks, birds or whatever, according to accumulated sanna (perception) and thinking. > .... That is very interesting to contemplate - how much of what we see is formed by thinking. ... > > Happy New Year! > > And Happy Birthday dsg. > .... > S: Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Hope you and your family enjoyed the holiday. Must be pretty cold in Washington D.C. now. Yes, it is really cold. > Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! The thought that there is no "cold" and no "Washington" is pretty nice. I guess it is not a bad idea to have a break from those concepts. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121857 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 6-jan-2012, om 17:56 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > D: this is an important point in our discussion concerning 'daily > life', Nina . > I assume you mean ,one's thirst (tanha) for sensous desire (lobha) > effects attachment in such way that restlessness (uddhacca ) is > hardly recognizable ? Isn't that a question of Sati? > -------- N: It is possible to directly understand uddhacca, otherwise the Buddha would not have taught this. But for us now it is difficult when insight has not been developed. IT is a matter of pa~n~naa. ------- > > Craving for (action directed to ) the desired object involves > certainly restlessness , and if no direct approach is possible , > this restlessness > shows as 'doing things for the sake of doing things ' (if I got > that right). Similarly one may note restlessness in a state of > aversion or anger . > -------- N: It all depends on sati and pa~n~naa. ------- > > D: But for those without training it is different, I agree . > Otherwise recognition of all hindrances is possible and requested > as it said by the Maha Satipatthana , and likewise its temporary > suspension: > > 'Regarding the temporary suspension of the 5 hindrances on entering > the first absorption, the stereotype Sutta text (e g. A. IX, 40) > runs as follows: > -------- N: Your remarks and reference to the sutta reminds me of something important. The jhaanafactors have to be developed for the attainment of jhaana and each of these factors goes counter to a hindrance. I read in "Topics of the Abhidhamma and Commentary: This shows all the more that a great deal of pa~n~naa is needed to develop the jhaanafactors. It is not an easy task to descern the different jhaanafactors, such as vitakka and vicaara and others and also the hindrances. We have seen now how hard it is to understand uddhacca, struggling with different translations that come close to its characteristic. ------- Nina. > "He has cast away sensuous desire; he dwells with a heart free from > sensuous desire; from desire he cleanses his heart."He has cast > away ill-will; he dwells with a heart free from ill-will, > cherishing love and compassion toward all living beings, he > cleanses his heart from ill-will."He has cast away sloth and > torpor; he dwells free from sloth and torpor; loving the light, > with watchful mind, with clear consciousness, he cleanses his mind > from sloth and torpor."He has cast away restlessness and scruples; > dwelling with mind undisturbed, with heart full of peace, he > cleanses his mind from restlessness and scruples."He has cast away > skeptical doubt; dwelling free from doubt, full of confidence in > the good, he cleanses his heart from doubt' " > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > #121858 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 10:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 1 moellerdieter Hi all, following the unwholesome cetasika lLobha , usually translated by greed , one of the 10 Akusala Pakinnaka ( 0ccasionals), in a group together with ditthi (wrong view) and mana (conceit) . Lobha is as well the first of a list of 10 defilements (kilesa). I could not find a convincing distinction in respect to raga (lust,greed) , kama tanha (sensual craving ) , abhijja (covetousness), it is even used as a synonym of tanha and sometimes attachment is included, besides the term samudaya within the classification of the 4 Noble Truths. Fortunately these synonyms are not involved in our list of the cetasikas , we only have to consider the difference to chanda , belonging to the group of the ( occasional ) ethically variable factors Due to the general importance of greed , I can't avoid a long posting .. in the second part I will refer to sutta sources. with Metta Dieter 　 Definitions: PTS Lobha Lobha [cp. Vedic & Epic Sk. lobha; fr. lubh: see lub- bhati] covetousness, greed. Defined at Vism 468 as "lubbhanti tena, sayaƋ vā lubbhati, lubbhana -- mattam eva vā taƋ," with several comparisons following. <-> Often found in triad of lobha, dosa, moha (greed, anger, bewilderment, forming the three principles of demerit: see kusala -- mĆ«la), e. g. at A iv.96; It 83, 84; Vism 116; Dukp 9, 18 sq. See dosa & moha. -- D iii.214, 275; S i.16, 43, 63, 123 (bhava˚); v.88; A i.64 (˚kkhaya), 160 (visama˚), cp. D iii.70 sq.; ii.67; Sn 367, 371, 537 (˚kodha), 663, 706, 864, 941 (˚pāpa); Nd1 15, 16, 261; J iv.11 (kodha, dosa, l.); Dhs 982, 1059; Vbh 208, 341, 381, 402; Nett 13, 27; Vism 103; VbhA 18; PvA 7, 13, 17, 89 (+dosa), 102; VvA 14; Sdhp 52 (˚moha), 266. -- alobha disinterestedness D iii.214; Dhs 32. -- dhammā (pl.) affection of greed, things belonging to greed; (adj.) (of) greedy character M i.91; iii.37; D i.224, 230; S iv.111; A iii.350; J iv.11. -- mĆ«la the root of greed Vism 454 (eightfold; with dosa -- mĆ«la & moha -- mĆ«la). Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary lobha: 'greed', is one of the 3 unwholesome roots (mĆ«la, q.v.) and a synonym of rāga (q.v.) and taáč‡hā (q.v.). rāga: 'lust', 'greed', is a synonym of lobha (s. mĆ«la), taáč‡hā (q.v.) and abhijjhā (s. kammapatha). For kāma-, rĆ«pa-, arĆ«pa-rāga, s. saáčƒyojana.taáč‡hā: (lit. 'thirst'): 'craving', is the chief root of suffering, and of the ever-continuing cycle of rebirths. "What, o monks, is the origin of suffering? It is that craving which gives rise to ever-fresh rebirth and, bound up with pleasure and lust, now here, now there, finds ever fresh delight. It is the sensual craving (kāma-taáč‡hā), the craving for existence (bhava-taáč‡hā), the craving for non-existence (vibhava-taáč‡hā)'' (D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the dependent origination (paáč­iccasamuppāda, q.v.). Cf. sacca.Corresponding to the 6 sense-objects, there are 6 kinds of craving craving for visible objects, for sounds, odours, tastes, bodily impressions, mental impressions (rĆ«pa-, sadda-, gandha-, rasa-, phoáč­áč­habba-, dhamma-taáč‡hā). (M. 9; D. 15) ( D: Definition of Tanha in D.O. S.N.12,2)Corresponding to the 3-fold existence, there are 3 kinds: craving for sensual existence (kāma-taáč‡hā), for fine-material existence (rĆ«pa-taáč‡hā), for immaterial existence (arĆ«pa-taáč‡hā). (D. 33)There are 18 'thought-channels of craving' (taáč‡hā-vicarita) induced internally, and 18 induced externally; and as occurring in past, present and future, they total 108; see A. IV, 199; Vibh., Ch. 17 (Khuddakavatthu-vibhaáč…ga).According to the dependent origination, craving is conditioned by feeling; on this see D. 22 (section on the 2nd Truth).Of craving for existence (bhava-taáč‡hā ) it is said (A. X, 62): "No first beginning of the craving for existence can be perceived, o monks, before which it was not and after which it came to be. But it can he perceived that craving for existence has its specific condition. I say, o monks, that also craving for existence has its condition that feeds it (sāhāraáčƒ) and is not without it. And what is it? 'Ignorance', one has to reply." - Craving for existence and ignorance are called "the outstanding causes that lead to happy and unhappy destinies (courses of existence)" (s. Vis.M. XVII, 36-42).The most frequent synonyms of taáč‡hā are rāga (q.v.) and lobha (s. mĆ«la). " Vibhanga provides a long list of references for lobha:: (What are the 3 fold unskilful roots: Greed , Illwill and Delusion) It is passion, infatuation, seduction, compliance , rejoicing in, rejoicing in passion, infatuation of consciousness, wanting (iccha) ,yearning , clinging, greed, excessive greed, attachment, impurity, distraction , deceit, production, seeking of production, seamstress, ensnarer, river, clinging, a spreading river, pursuit, connected with resolve (panidhi), guide to renewed existence, jungle, undergrowth, intimacy, (sticky) affection, regard (opekkha), a relative, wish (asa), wishing, state of wishing, wishing for visible objects (audible ,odorus,flavoursome,tangible) wishing for gains, for wealth, for sons, for life, desire, excessive desire, act of desiring, covetousness, being covetous, state of covetous , agitation , desire for piety , wrong passion , lawless greed, longing after, state of longing after etc. etc. .. .. from http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/An-Analysis-of-the-Abhidhammatthasao\ gaha.pdf : KNOWN AS (nĂĄma) Factorial CONSCIOUSNESS ACCOMPANIED BY GREED (lobha-sahagatacittĂĄni).GREED (lobha). 69. Within these eight types of greedy integral states it can be seen that greed is the one quality which each individual state has in common with the others; which is the root from which all stem; which supports and nourishes them and is the cause of their becoming great and producing plentiful fruit. In what way therefore can greed itself be described? In DhammasaĂłgaóÏ13 the basic description is very simple and straightforward:"Greed, being greedy, state of being greedy, infatuation, being infatuated, state of being infatuated, covetousness, the bad root of greed."This, however, gives a rather unsubtle view of a very important root condition, in as much as from the terms used it would appear to describe only its baser aspects. Later in the same work, though,14 and in VibhaĂČga,15 a much more extensive list is given wherein there are more than one hundred synonyms, thereby clearly demonstrating the wide range of meaning to be included within that single word. Here are some extracts from that list: "Greed is that which is seduction, yearning, hankering, wishing, imploring, clinging, intimacy, fondness, wanting sights, sounds, odours, savours, tangibles, wanting sons, wanting life, self-indulgence, desire for the nicer, liking, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming 
"70. That is a statement of allied qualities, all of which in an ultimate sense are greed. What the list does not show, though, is that each separate item is able to be exerted from the slightest,most tentative degree, to the most overwhelming flood of lust, passion, and avarice, sweeping all before it to gain its greedy goal. The words "greed" and "lust" have a connotation suggesting nothing but power and violence; this is so, but it should at all times be appreciated that this same greed and lust can appear in an utterly different guise. It can be subtle, pleasing, delicate, tender, refined and gentle, it can appear sympathetic and compassionate, but beneath its external form striving always, in one way or another, to satisfy its fundamentally grasping nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism) Chanda (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: ‘dun pa) - is translated as "intention", "interest", or "desire to act". It is defined as trying to possess a certain object–an interest or desire that supports the application of exertion.[1] It is one of the fifty-one or fifty-two mental states (saáč…khāra) within the Abhidharma teachings. In this context, it is regarded as a variable mental factor; one that can have positive or negative result depending upon the mental factors that it is co-joined with. Ajahn Sucitto states: Desire as an eagerness to offer, to commit, to apply oneself to meditation, is called chanda. It’s a psychological "yes," a choice, not a pathology. In fact, you could summarize Dhamma training as the transformation of taáč‡hā into chanda. [2] In the Abhidammatta Sangaha, the mental factors that are neither wholesome nor unwholesome are called "Ethically Variable." The Abhidammatta Sangaha states: "Chanda here means desire to act (kattu-kamata), that is to perform an action or achieve some result. This kind of desire must be distinguished from desire in the reprehensible sense, that is, from lobha, greed and raga, lust. Whereas the latter terms are invariably unwholesome, chanda is an ethically variable factor which, when conjoined with wholesome concomitants, can function as the virtuous desire to achieve a worthy goal. The characteristic of chanda is desire to act, its function is searching for an object, its manifestation is need for an object and that same object is its proximate cause. It should be regarding as the stretching forth of the mind's hand towards the object." Tanha versus chanda http://www.wifa.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/itvwl-vwl/MIKRO/Papers/Wies\ e/buddhisthouseholdtheory_socio_economics_website.pdf Payutto (1994) develops Buddhist household theory around the concepts of tanha versus chanda. In chapter 2 (pp. 29), he explains these two words (this subsection) while chapter 3 is devoted to particular aspects of preference and household theory (section 4). Tanha is "blind craving", "wanting to have", or "seeking of objects which pander to self interests and is supported and nourished by ignorance". Marketing departments all over the world try to address the "five sense pleasures" sought by tanha: sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and bodily feelings. In short, tanha is the "desire for pleasure objects".In contrast, chanda is "directed toward benefit, it leads to effort and action, and is founded on intelligent reflection." The short translation is "desire for well-being". For those who like more details , " The Philosophy of desire in the Buddhist Pali Canon by David Webster " may offer additional information , see: http://books.google.de/books?id=GLPGFoLED7sC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Buddhism+Gree\ d+lobha&source=bl&ots=5QrjVFfh67&sig=6qRXdrNfrVaQIteuAyDJr5-3uXQ&hl=de&sa=X&ei=d\ fkHT_32EojSswaOn5mBDw&sqi=2&ved=0CHgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Buddhism%20Greed%20lobha\ &f=false 　 #121859 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 7, 2012 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Sarah) - In a message dated 1/7/2012 1:51:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: I think that as understanding begins to develop, it becomes more and more apparent that most of what we had thought of as being seeing or hearing is actually thinking - thinking about shapes, colours, designs and then long, long stories about kinds of fireworks, birds or whatever, according to accumulated sanna (perception) and thinking. > .... That is very interesting to contemplate - how much of what we see is formed by thinking. ... > > Happy New Year! > > And Happy Birthday dsg. > .... > S: Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Hope you and your family enjoyed the holiday. Must be pretty cold in Washington D.C. now. Yes, it is really cold. > Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! The thought that there is no "cold" and no "Washington" is pretty nice. I guess it is not a bad idea to have a break from those concepts. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, indeed, pleasant. Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as "cold" are plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our " intentionally walking to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, without any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, and especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas start arising. ;-) ---------------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121860 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 2:06 am Subject: Two jokes scottduncan2 Howard, H: "...Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as 'cold' are plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our 'intentionally walking to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, without any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, and especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas start arising..." Scott: As with your 'meditating,' Howard, you see Self in 'ordinary' activities as well. At least you're consistent - you consistently misunderstand 'intentional' and see it as 'your intention.' When you can see that 'intentionally walking to the thermostat' is equally as ineffective as 'intentionally meditating' when it comes to the actual impersonal development of kusala, you'll be getting somewhere. Scott. #121861 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:04 am Subject: Sangiitisutta Tens #6 and Ending nichiconn Dear Friends, the final sutta installment for DN33: CSCD <>nti. Walshe 'These are the [sets of] ten things which have been perfectly set forth by the Lord who knows and sees, the fully-enlightened Buddha. So we should all recite them together without disagreement, so that this holy life may be long-lasting and established for a long time to come, thus to be for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, welfare and happiness of devas and humans.' Olds These then, friends, are those ten-part Dhammas consummately taught by the Bhagava, that #1-Consummately-Awakened-One, an Arahant who knows and sees. In this situation, let us all gather to gether as one, undivided, so that this Best of Lives will stay on track and stand for a long time as a benefit to the many, as a pleasure for the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit and pleasure of gods and man. RDs These Tens in the Doctrine, friends, have been perfectly set forth by the Exalted One, who knows, who sees. Here should there be chanting by all in concord, not wrangling, in order that the holy life may live and be long established. Thus will it be for the welfare, for the happiness of multitudes, a kindness to the world, for the good, the welfare, the happiness of devas and men. CSCD 349. Atha kho bhagavaa u.t.thahitvaa aayasmanta.m saariputta.m aamantesi - ti. Idamavocaayasmaa saariputto, samanu~n~no satthaa ahosi. Attamanaa te bhikkhuu aayasmato saariputtassa bhaasita.m abhinandunti. Walshe DN 33.3.4. And when the Lord had stood up, he said to the Venerable Saariputta: 'Good, good, Saariputta! Well indeed have you proclaimed the way of chanting together for the monks!' These things were said by the Venerable Saariputta, and the Teacher confirmed them. The monks were delighted and rejoiced at the Venerable Saariputta's words. RDs [4] Now when the Exalted One had arisen he addressed the venerable Saariputta saying: 'Excellent, Saariputta, excellent! Excellently, Saariputta, have you uttered the scheme of chanting together for the brethren.' These things were spoken by the venerable Saariputta. The Master signified his assent. The brethren were pleased and delighted with the venerable Saariputta's discourse. CSCD Sa'ngiitisutta.m ni.t.thita.m dasama.m. RDs HERE ENDETH THE SUTTANTA OF THE CHANTING IN CONCORD ============ reference: *Suttapi.taka: Diigha Nikaaya, Paatikavaggapaa.li, 10. Sa'ngiitisutta.m CSCD _http://tipitaka.org/romn/_ * The Long Discourses of the Buddha: #33, The Chanting Together - Walshe, WP 1995 * The Compilation - An Outline, taken from Digha Nikaya III.33: Sangiti Suttanta - Michael Olds & XXXIII: Sangiiti Suttanta - The Recital; T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids http://halfsmile.org/buddhadust/www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/give_ear/dn33_sang\ iti.htm RhysDavids: bookofdiscipline04hornuoft_bw.pdf http://www.archive.org/details/dialoguesofbuddh03davi Commentaries: Nina van Gorkom. Thank you! == best wishes, connie / Scott. #121862 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two jokes upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/7/2012 10:06:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, H: "...Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as 'cold' are plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our 'intentionally walking to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, without any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, and especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas start arising..." Scott: As with your 'meditating,' Howard, you see Self in 'ordinary' activities as well. At least you're consistent - you consistently misunderstand 'intentional' and see it as 'your intention.' ------------------------------------------------ HCW: You know nothing of what I do and what I think, and your arrogance seems to know no bounds. I was not addressing you, Scott, and you should know by now that I have no interest in conversing with you so long as you continue in your hostile and arrogant ways. -------------------------------------------------- When you can see that 'intentionally walking to the thermostat' is equally as ineffective as 'intentionally meditating' when it comes to the actual impersonal development of kusala, you'll be getting somewhere. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: This is utter nonsense. Of course adjusting a thermostat is effective, and so is meditation. For sure you intentionally and successfully walk to and adjust the thermostat all the time, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so. What those intentional actions reduce to is a different matter, but you refuse to look at this and would rather present short pronouncements of belief as fact. Moreover, your personal ignorance of meditating doesn't stop you from your continued harassment of those who do take seriously the Buddha's teachings about it. I am replying to you, because you wrote me, and I read your post, and out of politeness I am responding. But please do not write me further. If you do, I will simply not read the post. -------------------------------------------- Scott. ======================== Howard #121863 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 4:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: N: It is possible to directly understand uddhacca, otherwise the Buddha would not have taught this. But for us now it is difficult when insight has not been developed. IT is a matter of pa~n~naa. D: you may perhaps agree to following adding ( ? ;-) ): it is a matter of panna insofar as there must be insight of what means uddhacca in one's daily life . That is contemplation within the framework of Sati Patthana, reference to mind objects ( in particular the beginning of the last chapter). Aim is to see whether restlessness is present or absent , knowing there is "wind blowing " stirring up the water ( citta) , making one in a certain way blind (similes :doesn't see anymore the ground/one's face ) . You stated already that Uddhaca is always associated with another unwholesome cetasika ( leaving aside sloth and torpor for the moment ) and gave the example of lobha . Assumed there is a strong urge for a sensual object , which draws full attention , the accompanying restlessness will hardly be noted, as it appears like an aspect of lobha. But in fact uddhacca accompanies quite a lot of other states too (e.g. lobha's counterpart dosa), and seeing that we proceeds with our work on mindfulness (in order to abolish this unwholesome state, i.e.panna) An interesting contemplation is to see uddhacca in connection with one of the situations mentioned in the First Noble Truth. (D: Craving for (action directed to ) the desired object involves > certainly restlessness , and if no direct approach is possible , > this restlessness > shows as 'doing things for the sake of doing things ' > (if I got > that right). Similarly one may note restlessness in a state > of > aversion or anger .) -------- N: It all depends on sati and pa~n~naa. D: yes, to see it (knowing absent or present) and to do something about it as we are told.. N: Your remarks and reference to the sutta reminds me of something important. The jhaanafactors have to be developed for the attainment of jhaana and each of these factors goes counter to a hindrance. I read in "Topics of the Abhidhamma and Commentary: This shows all the more that a great deal of pa~n~naa is needed to develop the jhaanafactors. It is not an easy task to descern the different jhaanafactors, such as vitakka and vicaara and others and also the hindrances. We have seen now how hard it is to understand uddhacca, struggling with different translations that come close to its characteristic. D: I am looking forward to an interesting discussion when we take up the cetasikas vitakka and vicara with Metta Dieter #121864 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two jokes scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "...This is utter nonsense. Of course adjusting a thermostat is effective, and so is meditation..." Scott: Ah, last word to me then. Self, Howard. You think it is you who adjusts the thermostat. You think it is you who sets conditions by 'meditating.' You believe in stories. You amuse yourself joking about the perspective accepted by many on the list but can't take a joke directed at your own precious perspective. 'Meditation' must not have been particularly calming today. Maybe you could adjust the 'calmostat.' Scott. #121865 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 5:26 am Subject: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) scottduncan2 Jokers, HCW: "...This is utter nonsense. Of course adjusting a thermostat is effective, and so is meditation..." Visuddhimagga XIV, 3: "...It is understanding (pa~n~naa) in the sense of act of understanding (pajaanana). What is this act of understanding? It is knowing (jaanana) in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving (ss~njaanana) and cognizing (vijaanana). For though the state of knowing (jaanana-bhaava) is equally present in perception (sa~n~naa), in consciousness (vi~n~naa.na), and in understanding (pa~n~naa), nevertheless perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful, and not self. Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the [supramundane] path. Understanding knows the object in the way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path (Pa~n~naa vuttanayavasena aaramma.na~nca jaanaati, lakkha.napa.tivedha~nca paapeti, ussakkitvaa maggapaatubhaava~nca paapeti)." Scott: At best your meditation is vi~n~naana and sa~n~naa. And don't get all carried away when you see the word 'endeavour' in the text. That doesn't mean 'you,' it refers to mental factors conascent with pa~n~naa. Scott. #121866 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 6:28 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: At best your meditation is vi~n~naana and sa~n~naa. And don't >get all carried away when you see the word 'endeavour' in the text. >That doesn't mean 'you,' it refers to mental factors conascent with >pa~n~naa. >==================================================== Are you omniscient mind-reader, Scott? Can you read Howard's mind even before he thinks of some idea that he had not thought before? VsM and suttas are clear that energetic development is a must. Bhavana won't come and save one like Jesus. Alex #121867 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 6:34 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Are you omniscient mind-reader, Scott?..." Scott: I've always thought of myself as omnivorous, actually. A: "VsM and suttas are clear that energetic development is a must. Bhavana won't come and save one like Jesus." Scott: Jesus will save us? What are you getting at exactly? Actually I knew (omvivorously) that you'd show up with some of your effluence. That's why I wrote: "...And don't get all carried away when you see the word 'endeavour' in the text. That doesn't mean 'you,' it refers to mental factors conascent with pa~n~naa." But you got all carried away anyway. Ignored the reference, didn't you? Scott. #121868 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 6:37 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) truth_aerator Scott, >But you got all carried away anyway. Ignored the reference, didn't >you? >================ A big portion of VsM describes intentional development. There is no going around it, and what is more, it does tell us that there is such a thing as intentional development. ~ 2/3 of the VsM talk about intentional development. Alex #121869 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 6:43 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) scottduncan2 Alex, A: "A big portion of VsM describes intentional development....~ 2/3 of the VsM talk about intentional development." Scott: In the same text, Buddhaghosa writes: Visuddhimagga (XX, 103): "The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to condition owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and that their existence depends upon conditions..." XVIII, 31: "Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combinations of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: 'The mental and material are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll - Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks'." Scott: Now, you can explain this away with your 'meditation sect' mumbo jumbo, but the same guy who writes this about anatta, unless he is completely internally inconsistent, would not believe in the junk you believe in. Scott. #121870 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 7:14 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) truth_aerator Scott, all, a) What is the pali word that Venerable used to translate "curiosity"? b) Meditation is fully conditioned. So what? If it is cold, you switch on the heating, put more cloth on, etc. Conditionality does not make any action impossible. If one doesn't put in conditions for awakening, awakening will never happen. When the Buddha talked about anatta, we need to understand what He denied. He denied atta that is constant, happy, and not-subject to affliction/disease. (SN22.59) By affliction/disease he talked about aging, sickness and death. He NEVER negated idea of intentional action, see attakari sutta, it is what someone else taught. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html One shouldn't blame god, no-cause, or what was done in the past. AN3.61 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html Alex #121871 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 8:50 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) nichiconn dear Alex, > > If one doesn't put in conditions for awakening, awakening will never happen. > I'm wondering whether we mean the same thing/s by "conditions". Would you mind describing "awakening" in terms of a series of cittas? If you would just list them in order, then we could move on to discuss the conditions in play at each step. thank you in advance, connie #121872 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > S: Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Hope you and your family enjoyed the > holiday. Must be pretty cold in Washington D.C. now. > > Yes, it is really cold. > > > Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no > 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! > > The thought that there is no "cold" and no "Washington" is pretty nice. I > guess it is not a bad idea to have a break from those concepts. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, indeed, pleasant. > Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as "cold" are > plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our "intentionally walking > to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, without > any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, and > especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas start > arising. ;-) That is quite miraculous. I seriously think that you are close to the dhamma explanation of what occurs: the namas and rupas associated with what we think of as "walking" and "raising the thermostat" have some relation to the heat rupas arising. Too complicated for me... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #121873 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:36 am Subject: Re: awakening truth_aerator Dear Connie, >I'm wondering whether we mean the same thing/s by "conditions". For example: Wisdom that sees drawbacks of 5 aggregates and peace of non-arising. One contemplates conditionality, anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta, and 4NT. One applies this understanding to the fact that all khandhas of all times have to share these properties like triangle has to have three angles to be tri-angle. Then with more and more contemplations, one naturally feels nibbida, then viraga, and eventually vimutti occurs whether "one wants it or not". With best wishes, Alex #121874 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:37 am Subject: Durutu Poya Day! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Durutu Poya day is the full-moon of January. This holy day celebrates the first visit of the Buddha to Sri Lanka. The Buddha visited the very place, where the present magnificent Mahiyangana Stupa was built to enshrine the Buddha's hair relics and the collar bone. For Details see: http://www.buddhanet.net/sacred-island/mahiyangana.html and http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/ma/mahiyangana.htm Mahiyangana Stupa On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards Nibbâna: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town, & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! The New Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift, and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html Poya-Uposatha-Observance Day Calendar in 2012: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/various/Poya.Uposatha.Observance_days.2012.htm Durutu Poya Day! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #121875 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) scottduncan2 Alex, "a) What is the pali word that Venerable used to translate 'curiosity'?..." Scott: Ihaka. I already gave this: The Paa.li: "The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to condition owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and that their existence depends upon conditions..." "Paccayato cassa udayadassanena anattalakkha.na.m paaka.ta.m hoti dhammaana.m niriihakattapaccayapa.tibaddhavuttitaavabodhato" Scott: I ignored the rest of your repetitive stuff. Scott. #121876 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:22 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Rob E & Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > RE: How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career > --------- > > KH: Have a look at the Three Jokes thread (especially message 121697) in which Phil and Sarah are talking about conventional language. I think Sarah was telling Phil to take the training wheels off his Dhamma bike. When both parties to a Dhamma discussion know there are only the presently arisen realities, it is perfectly safe for them to use conventional language. > > Even more so, it was safe for the Buddha to use conventional language when he chose to. ... S: Yes, the training wheels needs to come off the bike! When there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, it doesn't matter what language is used, what is read or what is suggested - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. No conflicts, no misunderstanding. ... > > ------------ > > RE: and did not teach Abhidhamma? > ------------ > > KH: I think we all know the Buddha did teach Abhidhamma! Sometimes he used Abhidhamma language and other times conventional language, but when we listen properly to a sutta - any sutta - it's *all* Abhidhamma. .... S: Yes, exactly so as you and Sukin have said. Rob E, just because conventional language is being used, it doesn't mean that anything other than conditioned dhammas are being referred to. Metta Sarah #121877 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:38 pm Subject: Re: Two jokes (Another textual refererence to ignore) scottduncan2 Puggalavadins, Regarding: "The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to condition owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and that their existence depends upon conditions..." "Paccayato cassa udayadassanena anattalakkha.na.m paaka.ta.m hoti dhammaana.m niriihakattapaccayapa.tibaddhavuttitaavabodhato" Scott: Clearly, when Buddhaghosa writes the above, he is making his own views on the fundamental and unimpeachable meaning of anatta clear. Not only is the characteristic of anatta which accompanies each and every arising dhamma that of not being subject to control, it is additionally, that states, or dhammaa, are not curious or interested. This is in reference to the momentary arising of citta and accompanying mental factors. In the moment, which is all there is, there is no interest, curiosity, nor amenability to control. This means that you meditators, with your ongoing insistence on the effectiveness of Self, are absolutely ignoring the basic, fundamental, and undeniable aspect of each and every dhamma - the fact that it's characterisitic is anatta. When you try to force your meditator agenda onto the words of Buddhaghosa, suggesting that he was describing a 'practice' and giving 'steps to follow,' you are totally ignoring the fact that he had made clear his position on anatta. This clear rendering of his view of anatta makes it impossible that he says what you claim he does. When you suggest that 'meditation' is 'observation' you are only suggesting that it is your own self-related, ego-dominated 'curiosity' and 'interest' that is predominant. Your 'observation' is only the self-directed 'curiosity' and 'interest' that Buddhaghosa shows is merely a function of proliferation. 'Meditation' is nothing more than self trying to achieve something that will never be achieved. This is the paradox that you fail to accept. And a paradox is merely the way in which ego or self experiences the depth of the Dhamma. There is no doubt that 'meditation' is a modern invention, is the catch-phrase of a sect that has taken it's own view of self and imposed it upon what is the depth and complexity of the Dhamma. You have all made your points on this list ad infinitum. And you are all absolutely wrong. You are members of a sect, based on the Dhamma, but contravening the basic teaching of the Buddha in favour of a need to believe in the efficacy of the Self - which does not and never has had existence. Scott. #121878 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:40 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, You wrote to Scott: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Why did the Buddha teach meditation and all the other conventional subjects he addressed in sutta? Why didn't he just teach Abhidhamma? > > And: can you give me a quote from Buddhist scripture that states that meditation is wrong practice, from *any* legitimate source including commentary and subcommentary. .... S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or "meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising. The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka, comes down to the understanding of this moment. For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: (Ananda speaking): "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust (kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. "While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation." We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas, are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. Only the development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice". SN 55:55: "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view to having that consciousness occur." Metta Sarah ===== #121879 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Dieter & Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >A: Thank-you Dieter. I just sent reply to Robert along the same vein. Of > course I am conscious of working towards anatta, but as you say, to do > so at the expense of cultivating right conduct of the 'I', to my mind, > would be counter-productive. As I understand it, the suttas point out > that we shouldn't ever deny the presence of the 'I' but rather to, as > noted, train it towards anatta. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Andy, mental and physical phenomena (the so-called namas and rupas) > arise interrelatedly in streams that are distinguishable one from another, > and all cases of speaking and thinking within a stream of "I" - for example > as in "I like him" or "I dislike radishes" - is with reference to that > stream. However, there is nothing within any psychophysical stream that endures, > there is no core of identity, and there is no agent of action. So, to > speak of "the I" is to speak of a fiction. Now, people do speak of fictions all > the time, but it isn't useful to do so, because as we habitually speak, so > do we tend to think. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard, I think you put this well. There is never "a presence of the 'I'" no matter how much delusion and wrong view might think otherwise - just namas and rupas as you say. Metta Sarah ===== #121880 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project sarahprocter... Hi Howard & Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Akusala sabbacitta sadharana â€" 4 > > These are common to all akusala consciousness. > > 1. Moha â€" Delusion This is also known as avijja or ignorance. It is the > root of all that is unwholesome preventing us from seeing the true nature of > existence, kamma and the 4 Noble Truths. > > 2. Ahirika â€" Shamelessness This is the absence of disgust at bodily and > verbal misconduct. > > 3. Anottappa â€" Fearlessness of wrong This causes us not to shrink away > from evil. > > 4. Uddhacca â€" Restlessness This causes the mind to be agitated and in > turmoil so that confusion can arise > ====================================== >H: One question occurs to me about this: When sloth & torpor is present, > is it possible that there not be restlessness? (It seems to me that any > state in which there is sloth & torpor is akusala yet it is possible that > restlessness be absent. In fact, strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike > me as possibly incompatible.) .... S: When sloth and torpor arise, there is no calm, no tranquillity, the cittas and cetasikas are not kusala. When they are not kusala, they are akusala, when there is no calm, there is disturbance, even when it's not obviously apparent. All the fine details we read about in the texts were known to the Buddha and his key disciples. I think we can have confidence in this! Metta Sarah ===== #121881 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] catching up soon....! sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > With regard to stimulation, years ago a relative of Rita's was in a > deep coma resulting from a bad traffic accident. The doctors gave little to > no encouragement of her ever getting out of the coma. But her husband > constantly talked to her, and more importantly than that, I think, he obtained > many vials of various substances with a variety of strong fragrances, some > quite pungent, which he put under her nose repeatedly. She eventually seemed > to react to this, and, finally she DID come out of the coma, and then, with > rehabilitation, regained many of her abilities, especially in the > cognitive area! I would strongly encourage all possible sensory stimulation - > touch, light, sounds, and especially odors. ... S: I appreciate the encouragement and helpful suggestions. I just got back from an early Sunday morning visit (her husband's in England, so I try to visit most days). I took along some 'white flower' essence for her to smell, massaged her, talked gently and for the first time (as it was quiet), plugged in an ipod with some dhamma discussion for her to listen to! I'll do this again anytime I'm there on my own! I get some quite good responses from the eyes. One can see whether she's happy or not from some facial grimacing too. I'll try to pass your suggestions on to her husband too if I have a chance later. Not easy. Again, back to this moment - we do what we can that is helpful, develop understanding and leave the rest to conditions.... Metta Sarah ===== #121882 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > The problem I disagree with is the idea that: > > Intentional action always equals growing Self View thus bringing further from awakening. Meditation is intentional action, thus wrong > > Reading and studying Abhidhamma & Co. is intentional action. Stretching the arm to get food from the fridge is also intentional action. > > So should one STOP reading Abhidhamma & Co. , stop eating food and thus stop doing any actions, wait for conditions to work themselves out, and die of starvation? > > Of course not. The problem is with WRONG VIEWS and lack of understanding. I believe that wisdom is a must. One can have as much Self View doing Taxes as studying Abhidhamma. .... S: Sudying Abhidhamma, eating food, sitting cross-legged - all ideas only. There are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas arising and falling away by conditions. As you say "wisdom is a must". The wrong view is the idea that any of these 'activities' or 'situations' exist in actuality or that 'doing' anything to develop insight is the way to go, instead of understanding the dhamma appearing now. Metta Sarah ======= > > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #121883 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) epsteinrob Hi Sukin! Part III. Renamed the thread title for a little more relevance... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > In interpreting references to conventional activities in terms of paramatha dhammas, this is a movement away from taking the experiences through the five senses and the mind as `self'. Should you not be accused then, of being motivated by `self' and `attachment to results' in your own interpretation of the Teachings? I don't think so. What's at issue is whether the Buddha's teachings should be followed as he instructed, and understood as he taught. I am still waiting for an answer to the question as to why he taught in terms of conventional actions and objects *at all.* Why would he mention alcohol or meat if they are not to be dealt with in some way? It just doesn't make sense. If you were to take the conventional writing of some other author who wrote about people and bodies and good deeds in terms of spirituality, and if you were to say "Well this person didn't know about dhammas, but we can see what he is talking about in terms of dhammas," then I would understand the idea that you would want to take the dhammas involved and understand the causal relations involved to take it away from conceptual objects. But this is the Buddha we're talking about. He didn't have a problem talking in exactly the way he thought was most effective, and there must be a reason why he dealt with all these "everyday" conventional issues, such as playing dice. After all, he didn't need to mention them at all. And he could have explained everything in terms of dhammas. So why didn't he? It is my contention that he wanted to point out the dhammas involved in specific areas of life, which are denoted by the things he talked about, such as thought, speech, behavior, actions, and what types of things involved kusala, what kinds of things involved the development of understanding etc. If you say, as you do later, that understanding reality more closely does not involve looking more closely at conventional realities to break them down into dhammas as one would do with a microscope, then why does Buddha point directly to these different areas of conventional living? I don't think you have a good explanation for this without acknowledging that the Buddha wanted to direct us to the dhammas that are associated with a, with b, and with c, not just objects in general. In other words, if you drink alcohol, which clouds the mind, what is the cetana, thought, actions involved that cause this to happen, what dhammas are involved in such a chain of causation, and what dhammas arise when someone is "drunk?" In this way of looking at it, conventional objects are organized generalized ways of looking at the patterns of dhammas that arise, but without acknowledging what is really at play. If Buddha says 'look at what is the nature of these body parts' he is asking you to see what understandings and insights arise when you focus on a specific location and see what dhammas are involved in that. If it is useful to contemplate the disgusting qualities of the physical form to detach from sensuality, then Buddha is asking us to contemplate the dhammas of understanding that arise when we focus in the way he has directed. I think it is difficult to claim that he is directing us to look at all these areas but he really does not want us to focus on anything, because that would be self-view. This is just not in line with all the different very specific things that he did teach about. Contemplation of corpses does involve a variety of namas and rupas and none of them are controlled, but in doing such a contemplation those rupas of the rotting corpse will cause certain types of understandings and insights to arise. Otherwise he would not say to do these contemplations. So I do see a "microscopic" nature to the relation of dhammas and what we take for conceptual entities. The entities don't exist but the dhammas that we mistake for them are organized into certain sorts of experiential objects. We know that rupas arise in groupings and that various causal factors cause accumulations. So there is a kind of organization that occurs when certain kinds of areas of living are contemplated. > ======= > > > Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? Yes, and he clearly makes the relation between them. He will say old age, birth and death, and then he will point out that ultimately these are references really to the kandhas. So it directs the person to look at this area of living and instead of seeing the concept, see the dhammas. But the concept is a placeholder for the dhammas that he wants us to look into. > Rob E: > > Well that is my point exactly - he spoke about both. > > Suk: He made reference to both, but the objects of understanding were dhammas only. Well that is the question - is it what he talked about, which is then broken down into dhammas, or is it "dhammas only" despite the fact that he talked about all these many and varied specific subjects. > ==== > Rob E: > I would never say that the paramatha level was not a concern of his or that he never mentioned it. I have said that judging by the way the Buddha actually presented his material teachings, that there is a continuum between right conventional action and speech and right understanding of paramatha dhammas and that one has to be aware of both levels of understanding to follow the full path. > > Suk: A paramatha dhamma is understood by way of experiencing its particular and general characteristics, please explain to me how a concept can be understood? Well if you say that in general it is like an equation, but if you look at daily life and the various areas in which dhammas arise, you have a different picture. You have people, walking, talking, eating, reading books like the Athasalini, and Buddha seemed to be interested in what was being experienced and done in all those areas, then seeing the dhammas that were really involved. Sure, there is a limit to what you can say about a concept, but when you start looking at the dhammas, there's a lot more to say. But should we talk about dhammas in general all the time, just go around saying they are 'anatta,' or should we look at what rupas and namas are involved in different situations? The Buddha seemed to think we should do the latter judging by the many areas of living he talked about, but you are saying not to do this, that there is no correspondency between the idea of a "table" and the experience of hardness. Isn't it true that we start with the ordinary idea of a table and we are then told to look at the specific qualities of the rupas, such as hardness, etc.? That is the same as breaking down a conceptual area into dhammas. And how is that hearing the Dhamma causes the path to arise? Why does understanding the concepts of language in the Dhamma have any relation to dhammas arising? Why does panna somehow respond to reading and language about Dhamma, which is all conceptual? Obviously there are certain kinds of conceptual understandings that do relate to understanding dhammas, so why be so selective and say only reading and studying concepts are relevant? Why isn't experiencing other areas of life and seeing them as dhammas not relevant? > While giving, if I understand the nature of paramatha dhammas, what do I need to understand about the conventional action in addition to this, in order that the path is optimized? I don't know. The question is, if I am talking about "giving" as we are here, we are talking about a "conventional area" to identify a certain kind of action, and then when we talk about the dhammas involved we are talking about specific types of dhammas, for instance, metta, or perhaps lobha, if it is with attachment. So if we talk about "giving with metta" or "giving with lobha" we are still using the placeholder concept to identify the area we aer talking about, so it makes sense. Isn't that what the Buddha did? If he teaches about corpse contemplation, and then the commentary points us to the rupas involved, then it is the corpse concept that leads us to identify that particular group of rupas and to contemplate their nature. Without the "corpse" we wouldn't know what we were talking about, except in a very abstract way. Invariably, if we talk about "hardness," we give the example of a table or some other hard conventional object, because that is where we have the experience, though we confuse it with the concept. So we say "Well it's not really a table, it's hardness and this and that..." but we are talking about those rupas that are ordinarily taken as a table, and that is the placeholder that identifies that area of rupas. Same with visible object or sound. We say there's not really music, just heard object, but we use the music as a reference point to point to what's really arising. Okay, that's more than enough for now! See you in Part IV. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > ======= > Rob E: > If we ignore the conventional level and do all sorts of conventional akusala, thinking it unimportant, fail to guard the senses or worry about conventional wrong speech and action, then we are creating akusala dhammas in doing so. Those who say that such a level is "only literal" and can be ignored in favor of paramatha understanding don't care if they live in an ordinary way …….. > > > Suk: Are you imagining things about us in an attempt to justify your own chosen path? > How according to you is the understanding that dhammas have arisen and already fallen away by the time it is known, encouraging of akusala actions? You are one of the oldest members of this group and I'm sure you won't deny that this is *the* group most committed to the Dhamma with no other coming anywhere near. Do you think that this could have been possible without confidence in all kinds of kusala? Indeed although some members here like to remind us about the prime importance of panna, have not reminders about all other kinds of kusala also been made and much more than other places? > > My turn to imagine now and I say that you are seeking evidence in the form of call to deliberate actions with regard to dana, sila and bhavana, the kind which is motivated by self-view. > > ======= > Rob E: > All levels of the teachings should be understood, not just the technical appearance and disappearance of those pesky little dhammas that none of us ever really see. > > Suk: Why do you reduce what some talk about as mere "technical"? This is your own perception and because you do not understand. > > There is nothing technical about the understanding that seeing now experiences visible object. And if that was merely repeating what one has heard, there is nothing technical about understanding thinking as function of a particular dhamma and conditioned. > > The fact that realities appear all the time makes the study about them the *only* practical teaching. Indeed following conventional actions is to be moved by ideas and when there is no understanding about realities; this is not practical at all! > > ====== > Rob E: > > Meanwhile, we surf, watch tv, enjoy sloth and torpor with a good beer, fantasize and have a fine time while ignoring the teachings, treat people however we please, etc. And because we know what a cetasika is, or can talk about bhavanga cittas, we think we must be on the path and we're doing just great! > > Suk: And you mischaracterize, meanwhile ignorance and other akusala dhammas have arisen and fallen away. But the real danger is in the wrong view which suggests that these can't be known and instead to follow some wrong practice. But the fact is the ignorance now accumulates and to think that there will be mindfulness and wisdom at some chosen time, place and in a particular posture is therefore only wishful thinking. > > ====== > > > Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. > > > Rob E: > > Well, I agree with you that there is more than one level and we can look at both, but at least several people here do not agree that old age, death, etc., in the conventional sense are part of the teachings at all! > > Suk: I think what they are saying, is that those are to be understood as reflections of what paramatha dhammas are, hence the need to study these. The concepts of old age and death for example, if not understood according to this, can at best be a condition for calm but not for insight. And the Buddha's teachings are all about the latter. > > ====== > Rob E: > > Yes, I think you have put this well and there is some confusion and genuine disagreement. I do think there is value in seeing the nature of the "conventional dead body" as Buddha described it in great detail - there is a reason why he did so.……………..I think our conventional self-view and concepts sometime have to be shaken up before the more precise level can be entertained. > > > Suk: The problem with us is that we take dhammas for `self', the solution therefore is to understand dhammas as dhammas. What you describe sounds like applying philosophical ideas that one accepts as true on to a situation. Therefore if there is no understanding of thinking as thinking, this easily leads to taking the thinking and other realities involved, for "self". In other words, there is no other way than understanding realities as non-self in order that self-view is lessened. > > ====== > Rob E: > > When Buddha saw the emptiness of the way people were living at the royal court, when he suffered some of the experiences he had there, disenchantment and disgust arose within him. This was before he understood the specific dhammas involved, but it directed him towards the path of detachment. It started him on a road that led to the paramatha dhammas. Conventional events do shake us up - the death of a loved one, etc. - and they start us contemplating alternatives to our current view of life and self. This leads to the search that can put us on the path. That is my view. > > > Suk: Taking into consideration the nature of different dhammas and how dhammas work in general, all we can say with regard to the Buddha is that he accumulated maximum panna and other parami in previous lives. This formed the basis for his attitudes with regard to the different circumstances, and I think that we should not read too much into anything. Why would someone who is shown the Path by the Great Teacher, think to follow his actions that proceeded the time which enlightenment to the Noble Eightfold Path happened? But what I see you as doing is projecting your own ideas about practice onto the Buddha's situation. > > ========== > > > And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? > > > Rob E: > > It is not different or the same. It is starting from what we are attached to, what is familiar and habitual, and then shaking that up, looking at those things and then that leads us to a deeper investigation. > > > Suk: Are you imagining a situation where there is only ignorance and attachment and no possibility of wisdom of any level? Why do you picture the beginning of the Path as motivated by attachment? Does not attachment accumulate each time that it arises? Can wisdom arise as a result of attachment? Is it not in fact that wisdom arises in spite of attachment and other akusala and this is because there was wisdom in the past? > > ====== > Rob E: > It seems to me that the path that is sometimes discussed here - from conventional understanding to correct conceptual understanding to beginning to see dhammas in terms of nimittas, to more precise understanding and more clear nimittas, and finally to paramatha dhammas discerned more directly, is not very different from what I am describing. But usually the conventional level is seen as useless and having no role. I see it as being the doorway to the dhammas that are involved when one begins to look at conventional objects and attachments more closely. > > Sukin: You got it all wrong. > There is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (realization) and no such thing as `conventional understanding'. Intellectual understanding has the same object as that of practice and of realization, namely ultimate realities, only in this case, it is as concept. And while you think that understanding begins with taking conventional reality as object of study, ours from the very beginning involve understanding that conventional reality being concept is different from ultimate realities and that it is only the latter which constitute the Four Foundations of Mindfulness or Satipatthana. > > When it is said that wisdom develops and understands more deeply, I think that you should not imagine this as akin to looking through a microscope and trying to focus. Even the Buddha would have experienced nimittas, but it is the *understanding* which made the difference. You imagine your own practice as involving a certain kind of progression beginning with having conventional realities as object and somehow this changes to the experience of nimittas and on to dhammas. Ours however is *all* about dhammas. And dhammas *are experienced all the time*, only we do not understand them and therefore need to slowly develop the understanding. > > ========= > Rob E: > > I also see the Buddha's teaching in correcting our way of living and acting to set conditions for better understanding and the beginning of discernment and detachment. You may not agree with that, but it makes sense of his teachings in these areas, and it provides a continuum from waking up in a conventional way, beginning to be mindful and guard the senses, working with right effort to develop better understanding and greater mindfulness and then beginning to see the nature of dhammas. > > > Suk: The cause doesn't match the result projected. How can the study of concepts which must involve taking them for real lead to the understanding that in fact *only* dhammas are real? And why do you think that understanding conventional reality as unreal will lead to improper conduct? Indeed when there is understanding dhamma as dhamma, this is the stuff of purification of sila, not otherwise. And when someone wants to act morally but is not aware of `self-view', this is not following the Buddha's teachings and in the long run increases akusala of all kinds. > > ====== > > > Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? > > Rob E: > > I do not think that conclusion has been fully justified or ever fully explained. Of course we have been arguing about this for a long time, with no resolution. Anatta means that there is no control of arising dhammas true. So that is not the question. The question is whether right practices as defined by the Buddha can promote kusala conditions for greater awareness. > > Suk: No the question is, is right practice a reference to particular mental reality or is it about the intention to follow some conventional practice and doing it? > > It is the former, and this means that there is practice only when there is mindfulness and wisdom. The intention to practice is not the practice and neither is sitting down at a chosen time and place in order to try and concentrate on some object or simply to be aware. Such ideas as far as I can see, can come only as a result of self-view, attachment to result and belief in control. Therefore it can't be that the Buddha intended this of his followers. You are reading his teachings wrong. > > ======== > Rob E: > > I don't see anything in the analysis of the nature of dhammas that prevents the right actions, settings and conditions from helping to develop kusala understanding through right practice. The Buddha explicitly explains how these practices will have such a kusala effect, so to me it is there in the suttas. There are no statements that I know of in commentary to contradict this, and the logic of this seems to me to be an inference by those who make it, not a clearly shown principle. > > > Suk: Something else will likely become explicit to you on reading those same passages once a minimal right understanding has arisen. As of now, to say that there is no control over dhammas and yet believe that by following a particular set activity is "setting conditions to help kusala understanding arise" *is* belief in control and reflection of wrong understanding. > > The Buddha talked about how kusala develops and how one kusala supports other kinds of kusala and right understanding the most influential of all. These are references to mental realities and not to conventional activities. And again, I don't understand why you believe in the existence of dhammas and their uncontrollability but refuse to acknowledge that no matter what conventional activity is being performed, in reality only dhammas roll on in performing their specific functions. > > ========== > > > In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? > > Rob E: > > I don't understand why you say "other than the suttas" where he discussed meditation. > > > Suk: You misunderstood what I said. > As you have done below, you cite the texts and insist that it be interpreted a particular way. What I wanted for a change, was for you to give a basis in terms of a theory about the way things are, which explains why you choose to interpret those suttas the way you do. So far you're citing has come across more as appeal to authority rather than expressing a particular understanding. > > ========== > Rob E: > Those are indeed the suttas that lay out the basis of meditation as right practice, along with the corresponding sections of the Visudhimagga and even, as I recall, some sections of the Abhidhamma. So that's where the basis lies. If the Buddha had never spoken about sitting and breathing as a basis for satipatthana, if he had not mentioned the development of the jhanas any number of times, I would not be mentioning it either. It comes from the Buddha's own teachings, not from me. > > > Suk: That of course would only cause you to argue less ;-) but not change your understanding. Yes the Buddha talked about all those things that you say he did, and we are all thankful for this. > > ========== > Rob E: > > Well I don't see it as redundant in any case. Your post has its own flavor and details and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your points. > > Suk: And thank you for your efforts and giving me the chance to express myself. But I must tell you that I don't know how long the enthusiasm will last. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukin > > PS: This was a super marathon post. I'm in a rush, no time to divide it up. But perhaps you would like to? But of course you don't have to answer to every point or even at all if you think that we are going in circles. I'll follow your lead then. > #121884 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:18 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Sarah and Phil, ---------- <. . .> S: Yes, the training wheels needs to come off the bike! When there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, it doesn't matter what language is used, what is read or what is suggested - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. No conflicts, no misunderstanding. --------- KH: I can remember some occasions when I needed to take off the training wheels. When I was at the Foundation in Bangkok people were talking about walking through the streets during the water festival; some of them had copped a thorough drenching while others were let off with a light sprinkling. I was shocked to hear Ajahn Sujin jokingly say, "You see, different vipaka!" With my strict `Abhidhamma language only' rule I wanted to protest that vipaka was not a story, but a fleeting conditioned dhamma. On another occasion at the Foundation I was disturbed to hear people talking about `seeing now' `hearing now' and `touching now.' According to my understanding, all five senses are regularly operating (one at a time) even though some of them may not be giving rise to thoughts (about what is being experienced). So, despite my habitual shyness, I put up my hand and asked, "Is there smelling now?" and Ajahn Sujin answered "Can you smell anything?" Had I been brave enough to take off the training wheels I might have understood what she meant. I now think she wanted me to see how citta took only one object at a time. (If there is seeing now, there is no smelling now.) The same with the vipaka example; without the training wheels we can talk conventionally and understand vividly how different vipakas are arising all the time, dependent on different kammas. Ken H #121885 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:22 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Yes, exactly so as you and Sukin have said. Rob E, just because conventional language is being used, it doesn't mean that anything other than conditioned dhammas are being referred to. I agree that conventional language points to the underlying dhammas when there is understanding of that reality. However, the question is whether those conventional references point to specific dhammas or are just general. If specific, there is a relation then between that which is taken for conventional realities and the underlying dhammas that are really there. My main point has been that there is a relation between the specific areas of conventional understanding that the Buddha talked about, and the underlying dhammas that he was pointing toward, and that he selected those areas of living as a way of organizing the types of realities he was talking about. Rather than ignore the conventional references, we can look at them as placeholders for the realities that are involved and look more deeply into those areas, the dhammas involved, how they are conditioned and ow they arise. I don't know if what I am saying about this makes sense in any technical terms, but perhaps you will see what I am trying to say. I just don't see the dhamma references as taking the place of Buddha's conventional references. Instead I see them as explaining and elucidating what is really happening when we talk about this or that area of life. For instance, you have said that the act of murder as kamma patha can be traced back to the mental factors involved that lead to that act. In the same way, any conventional action or object can be traced back to see what dhammas are involved in that area of experience. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121886 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:58 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Rob E. > > Why did the Buddha teach meditation and all the other conventional subjects he addressed in sutta? Why didn't he just teach Abhidhamma? > > > > And: can you give me a quote from Buddhist scripture that states that meditation is wrong practice, from *any* legitimate source including commentary and subcommentary. > .... > S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or "meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising. Well I would definitely agree with that, but I would not agree with the further extrapolation that is sometimes made that this means that most meditation is akusala, and that it one unlikely to notice any akusala states that are present, making most meditation wrong development. On the other hand, I take the caution that one must expect a lot of akusala to arise and not take it for kusala. > The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka, comes down to the understanding of this moment. Meditation also is worthless if it is not understood in terms of understanding of this moment. > For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: > > (Ananda speaking): > "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. I would note that he also did not condemn every type of meditation, as many do in these discussions. > What kind of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust > (kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. > > "While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by > restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation." Good warnings regarding akusala states, but not a condemnation of meditation as an accepted activity that is part of the path. > We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas, are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. The Buddha himself does not seem to have held this view. He did not say that jhana was wrong practice, but praised it as a stepping-stone to enlightenment. I would agree that without insight, jhana could be a trap that would not lead to enlightenment, but the Buddha stated that with the development of insight, jhana was of great value. > Only the development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice". The question is what promotes, supports and develops satipatthana. > SN 55:55: > "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the > realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? > Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, > practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." > > As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the > Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness > accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently > arising dhamma. What about a moment when there is the arising of the right kind of volition, or right effort, that hasn't yet led to the arising of panna? Would something like that qualify as well? It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view > to having that consciousness occur." I have not seen any reference that denies the potential for such a moment to arise within the meditation activity, and there are many references to engaging in such action, both in sutta and Visuddhimagga. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121887 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 rjkjp1 Dear Sarah say the man in India who has spent over 12 years holding his hand in the air: he belives that is the path, needs patience etc. For me that is representative of wrong view. Sure he might have some moments of kusala but the whole activity is done with wrong view as a condition. I am not quite so clear that the person who studies Abhidhamma is necessarily of the same order of wrong view. Or is it a fully identical process- assuming the person who studies ABhidhamma believes that doing study of Abhidhamma is part of what shoud be done to develop insight. robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > The problem I disagree with is the idea that: > > > > Intentional action always equals growing Self View thus bringing further from awakening. Meditation is intentional action, thus wrong > > > > Reading and studying Abhidhamma & Co. is intentional action. Stretching the arm to get food from the fridge is also intentional action. > > > > So should one STOP reading Abhidhamma & Co. , stop eating food and thus stop doing any actions, wait for conditions to work themselves out, and die of starvation? > > > > Of course not. The problem is with WRONG VIEWS and lack of understanding. I believe that wisdom is a must. One can have as much Self View doing Taxes as studying Abhidhamma. > .... > S: Sudying Abhidhamma, eating food, sitting cross-legged - all ideas only. There are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas arising and falling away by conditions. As you say "wisdom is a must". The wrong view is the idea that any of these 'activities' or 'situations' exist in actuality or that 'doing' anything to develop insight is the way to go, instead of understanding the dhamma appearing now. > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= > > > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Alex > > > #121888 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 scottduncan2 Dear Rob K., R: "...I am not quite so clear that the person who studies Abhidhamma is necessarily of the same order of wrong view. Or is it a fully identical process- assuming the person who studies ABhidhamma believes that doing study of Abhidhamma is part of what shoud be done to develop insight." Scott: I think that when anything is done with the idea that it 'should' be done in order for something else to happen, then it is simply wrong view. Even if it has what appears to be some semblance of correctness, when done in order for something else to happen, then it is wrong. Abhidhamma seems either to be understood or not. It is very easy to see when 'meditators' appear to go along with Abhidhamma-like verbiage to justify wrong view - i.e. 'practice' - that this is merely lip-service and is patently false in the end. Is one order of wrong view better than another? Scott. #121889 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 here is the guy I was thinking of BTW>: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nygus/4570828844/ ""Amar Bharti Baba. He is holding hand in the air since 1973. This one of the tapasya, rites or vows that sadhus take, some for just a period of time, some for 12 years and some even longer. They might vow never to sit down, even sleeping in standing position, or not to speak. Raising hand like this causes serious changes and damage to muscle structure as well as helps growing nice long fingernails. Juno Akhara, Haridwar."" #121890 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 5:19 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 An even better photo. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess. http://www.worldhum.com/photos/photo/photo-you-must-see-the-sadhus-hand-20100211\ / --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > here is the guy I was thinking of BTW>: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nygus/4570828844/ > > ""Amar Bharti Baba. He is holding hand in the air since 1973. This one of the tapasya, rites or vows that sadhus take, some for just a period of time, some for 12 years and some even longer. They might vow never to sit down, even sleeping in standing position, or not to speak. Raising hand like this causes serious changes and damage to muscle structure as well as helps growing nice long fingernails. Juno Akhara, Haridwar."" > #121891 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 dear Kenh Could you expalin. Do you believe that all the senses are taking an object (however briefly) at about the same frequecny of arising. So in a day we could expect a few trillion visible obejcts, about the same number of sound objects, smell objects, tangible ojects, / ? robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Phil, > > ---------- > <. . .> > S: Yes, the training wheels needs to come off the bike! When there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, it doesn't matter what language is used, what is read or what is suggested - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. No conflicts, no misunderstanding. > --------- > > KH: I can remember some occasions when I needed to take off the training wheels. When I was at the Foundation in Bangkok people were talking about walking through the streets during the water festival; some of them had copped a thorough drenching while others were let off with a light sprinkling. I was shocked to hear Ajahn Sujin jokingly say, "You see, different vipaka!" > > With my strict `Abhidhamma language only' rule I wanted to protest that vipaka was not a story, but a fleeting conditioned dhamma. > > On another occasion at the Foundation I was disturbed to hear people talking about `seeing now' `hearing now' and `touching now.' According to my understanding, all five senses are regularly operating (one at a time) even though some of them may not be giving rise to thoughts (about what is being experienced). So, despite my habitual shyness, I put up my hand and asked, "Is there smelling now?" and Ajahn Sujin answered "Can you smell anything?" > > Had I been brave enough to take off the training wheels I might have understood what she meant. I now think she wanted me to see how citta took only one object at a time. (If there is seeing now, there is no smelling now.) The same with the vipaka example; without the training wheels we can talk conventionally and understand vividly how different vipakas are arising all the time, dependent on different kammas. > > Ken H > #121892 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 7:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta Tens #6 and Ending, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta 6. Walshe DN 33.3.3(6) 'Ten qualities of the non-learner (asekha): The non- learner's right view, right thought; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration; right knowledge (sammaa-~naa.nam), right liberation (sammaavimutti). (Dasa asekkhaa dhammaa - asekkhaa sammaadi.t.thi, asekkho sammaasa'nkappo, asekkhaa sammaavaacaa, asekkho sammaakammanto, asekkho sammaaaajiivo, asekkho sammaavaayaamo, asekkhaa sammaasati, asekkho sammaasamaadhi, asekkha.m sammaa~naa.na.m, asekkhaa sammaavimutti.) -------- N: The Co states that all these qualities are dhammas that accompany the fruition-consciousness (phalasampayuttadhammaa). Right view (sammaadi.t.thi) and right knowledge (sammaa-~naa.nam) are pa~n~naa but they are pa~n~naa at two different occasions (dviisu.thaanesu). The Tiika adds: right view in the sense of rightly seeing and right knowledge (sammaa-~naa.nam) in the sense of rightly knowing. It explains that there is a difference in the way of occurring with the object as was explained above. N: Sammaadi.t.thi in this context has nibbaana as object. Right knowledge, sammaa -~naa.nam is understanding that he is freed from all defilements, and this arises with the reviewing knowledge. Tiika: As to the dhammas associated with the fruition of the ariyan, these refer to the complete realisation of freedom. Right view ( sammaadi.t.thi) performs the function of seeing (dassana), and right knowledge (sammaa -~naa.nam) performs the function of understanding. N: Understanding that he is freed. The Tiika discerns sammaasamaadhi in the sense of acquiring the concentration of the fruition of the ariyan, and right freedom in the sense of being freed. ---------- Conclusion: Sekha, trainers or learners are the ariyans that have not attained arahatship. However, the Dhammasangani is more precise and considers the cittas: the cittas of the four Paths and three fruits are sekha, and the fruition-consciousness (phalacitta), the lokuttara vipaakacitta of the arahat, is asekha ( Dhs 1016, 1017). The magga- citta of the arahat eradicates all latent tendencies, and at the moment of the phala-citta they have been eradicated. Only then the task has been done and the highest fruit has been attained, the highest calm that is complete freedom from all defilements. This reminds us of the task that lies ahead, it reminds us not to be negligent. We should understand which cause brings which effect: the development of understanding of the present reality leads to the goal. Instead of being discouraged about the long way ahead we should begin to develop understanding of visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, all dhammas presenting themselves in our daily life. ----------- Nina. #121893 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Mad person nilovg Dear Azita, Thank you for your kind, encouraging words. This mad world. This reminds me of the Discussion between Howard and Rob E about a Hassidic saying. When one realizes that one is foolish it is the beginning of understanding. Nina. Op 6-jan-2012, om 22:59 heeft azita het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for all yr hard work at the computor and sending great > snippets of past dhamma discussions, so valuable in this mad world. > I truly appreciate your efforts Nina. #121894 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 8:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 1 nilovg Dear Dieter, Thank you for all your thorough work. We read many definitions here and now it is time to learn the characteristic of lobha when it presents itself now, no matter whether it is subtle of more intense. It is difficult to notice the slight degrees, but it is important, otherwise we go on taking for kusala what is akusala. Op 7-jan-2012, om 12:42 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > In short, tanha is the "desire > for pleasure objects".In contrast, chanda is "directed toward > benefit, it > leads to effort and action, and is founded on intelligent reflection ------- N: Just a remark on lobha and chanda: when there is desire for an object lobha just desires it but could not obtain it. Chanda is needed to obtain the desired object. ------ Nina. #121895 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:52 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert K, > RK: Could you expalin. Do you believe that all the senses are taking an object (however briefly) at about the same frequecny of arising. So in a day we could expect a few trillion visible obejcts, about the same number of sound objects, smell objects, tangible ojects, / ? ------------- KH: I wouldn't say I believed it, but I would assume that to be the case. Air is carrying odour molecules into the nose now, isn't it? From there the olfactory system sends signals to the brain. I will admit: if the same odours are experienced for long enough the brain does seem to ignore them, but does that mean there is no smelling? Or does it mean there is no thinking about the smells that are experienced? I don't know. Someone can walk into a room and notice smells that are not noticed by other people who have been in that room for a longer time. And a smoker will not notice his own foul breath or the foul taste in his mouth. But I would have thought his smell and taste faculties were still working. He will notice any new smells and tastes that come along. So I don't know the answer. You tell me. Ken H #121896 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:01 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Andy, > S: Thanks for your interesting introduction to your background interest in the Dhamma. For the last 28 years, Jon and I have been living in Hong Kong. Now, in semi-retirement mode, we live between Sydney and Hong Kong. (Jon comes from Australia originally). what part of HK are you when there? I lived there as a young teenager for 3 years. We lived in Stanley. > > A: I have noticed the emphasis from most, as you mention, on the understanding of dhammas when speaking of meditation. I read, therefore, vipassana when most say meditation. Might I suggest to the community generally that it may be helpful to be more specific as to which type of practice they refer. Metta meditation, for instance, is completely different. > .... > S: I agree that we need to be more specific. For example, take the word 'vipassana'. Vipassana is panna (pa~n~naa) cetasika as in the stages of insight, beginning with the first vipassanaa ~naa.na (stage of insight) which clearly differentiates nama from rupa. > It has nothing to do with sitting in a quiet place and focussing/observing anything. There has to be a very clear understanding of what namas and rupas are at this moment and a clear understanding of these dhammas as anatta. Definitely. I can have some wonderful moments of pa~n~naa any time. This can often happen when I'm on the bus for some reason. > What do you mean by "metta meditation"? Again, we have to be very specific about what metta is and to clearly understand whether metta is arising now or not. Do we wish to have/attempt to have more metta? If so, it's not metta meditation as taught by the Buddha as I understand it. I'm referring to the intentional process of extending loving-kindness to others. Beginning with ourselves, through mother, then relatives, friends, enemies....humanity...al sentient beings. We were instructed on doing this to conclude each session of vipassana-bahavana at the retreat I attented (see previous post). > >When I refer to 'mindfulness' I am referring to awareness of things as they really are. > ... > S: What exactly are these "things" now and how is "as they really are"? As you say, we need to be very precise. 'Things' - everything. 'As they really are' - impermenant, empty, arising and passing away. metta Andy #121897 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:43 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > RK: Could you expalin. Do you believe that > all the senses are taking an object (however briefly) at about the same > frequecny of arising. > So in a day we could expect a few trillion visible obejcts, about the same > number of sound objects, smell objects, tangible ojects, / > ? > ------------- > > KH: I wouldn't say I believed it, but I would assume that to be the case. Air is carrying odour molecules into the nose now, isn't it? From there the olfactory system sends signals to the brain. +++++++= Dear ken I know nothing about scientific ideas. But I dont beleive there is any regular frequency of sense objects. Visible object is obviously, I would say, a more frequent object than odor in an average day. robert > #121898 From: Lukas Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. (attention Lukas) szmicio Dear Nina, Thank you very much. I had never actually thinks about inner senses and attachement to them. This reminder really helps. I am happy to hear more commentaries on that and not only that. Also hearing about senses more. Best wishes Lukas ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 11:54 AM Subject: [dsg] What I heard. (attention Lukas) Dear Lukas and all, I heard on a Thai recording this morning: Kh Sujin spoke about the Sa.laayatana vagga, Ch 2, the pairs (Yamaka), § 15 and its commentary. This sutta deals with the inner aayatanas of the senses and the mind. In the sutta we read about the satisfaction, the misery and the way of escape from the eye. The commentary uses a simile to show the amount of attachment we have to the eye and the other senses. The inward aayatanas are like the house of humans they have an extraordinarily strong attachment to (chanda- raagassa adhimatta-balavataaya). It is like a house that is full of family members, possessions, food, and nobody is allowed to take any of these away. (N: think of the saying: my house is my castle.) To what is just outside one’s house, in the neighbourhood, there is less attachment. Evenso, there is not as much attachment to visible object etc. in the same way as the attachment to the inner aayatanas. Kh Sujin explained that the senses are ruupas produced by kamma and in each unit of ruupas produced by kamma life-faculty is present. In ruupas ourside which are produced by temperature, there is no life- faculty. We have a very strong attachment to the eye and the other senses. When there is an ailment or even a small handicap in one of the senses, we attach great importance to this. We are extraordinarily attached as the commentary repeats. But what is produced by kamma is beyond control. N: When we just read in the sutta about the satisfaction there is with the inner aayatanas, we may not realize that there is exceedingly strong attachment to these. We may just read and forget about this. The commentary reminds us with the simile of our own home that at this moment there is such a strong attachment to all the senses. We can notice this when we suffer from an ailment of the eye, the ears or the bodysense. ---------- Nina. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #121900 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/7/2012 6:19:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > S: Yes, Happy New Year to you too. Hope you and your family enjoyed the > holiday. Must be pretty cold in Washington D.C. now. > > Yes, it is really cold. > > > Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no > 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! > > The thought that there is no "cold" and no "Washington" is pretty nice. I > guess it is not a bad idea to have a break from those concepts. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, indeed, pleasant. > Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as "cold" are > plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our "intentionally walking > to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, without > any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, and > especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas start > arising. ;-) That is quite miraculous. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Actually, it truly is. In fact, as I see it, there are levels of explanation and understanding, but the underlying mechanisms - the deep (and less ordinary, less conventional) "implementation" levels - are, to put it mildly, unbelievable in complexity and "intelligence," and these elude us. The matter of "implementation" of patterning of phenomena "in the world" is something that I've not seen accounted for in the Dhamma (or elsewhere). What comes to us does so by causes and conditions, with kamma being central. But our kamma, and even the combined kamma of all sentient beings, doesn't seem to account for the detailed implementation at the level of complexity of pattern and behavior observed. There is more than a bit of a mystery to this, it seem to me, waiting, I presume, for full awakening to be revealed. ---------------------------------------------------- I seriously think that you are close to the dhamma explanation of what occurs: the namas and rupas associated with what we think of as "walking" and "raising the thermostat" have some relation to the heat rupas arising. Too complicated for me... ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: It's more than just very complicated: We ... just ... don't ... have ... a ... clue! ---------------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121901 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:51 am Subject: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 I have been quite quiet lately here at DSG compared to my active start. Lots to think about. One of the main pre-occupations I have been struggling with has been anatta. It strikes me that much of the discourse here is from the position of acceptance of no-self and denial of self. This troubled me and I had difficulty in reconciling this perspective with what I had understood Buddha's teaching to be. Or rather, his lack of teaching. I'm lucky enough to have a stream to walk along for part of my walk home. A couple of days ago, in a more contemplative mood than often is the case, I stoppped for a while where the water was bubbling over some small rocks more than usual. We had just had some heavy rain. I got to thinking about what actually is the stream. I know it is a commonly used metaphor and/or illustration but it is none the less engrossing as a subject. Is it the water? Is the channel that the water flows in? Is it the small area of commotion where the watrer is breaking over the small rocks? Is it the energy of the movement of the water? I could see that it is of course all of these and yet none of them alone. So I considered, it is with ourselves. I then continued by some quite extensive reading on the subject and have finally settled (surprise surprise) on the position taken by Buddha. It is not a question worthy of consideration. This begs the question to the community, then, of why there seems to me to be such emphasis on this matter of anatta when Buddha advises against wasting our time with it. The Buddha's aim was not to answer the intricacies of existence, but to teach, in a practical way that could be followed, how to journey along the path to enlightenment. Is it really helpful and beneficial to spend so much time considering the complexities often discussed here rather than to actually live the path. On another board, someone asked whether Buddha's silence with regard certain questions were just a 'cop-out'. I answered with an analogy I'll share here. If you need to be somewhere in an hour and you need to teach someone how to change a sparkplug so that the car will get you there, do spend the hour teaching them the physics of electricity or do you simply teach them howe to change the sparkplug? The Buddha's teachings were concerned with showing the path to enlightenment. Surely this is an experiential path and not an intellectual one. I share a few links to some interesting articles from our friend Thanissaro Bhikkhu on anatta which I found useful in my considerations - The Not-self Strategy http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html No-self or Not-self? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html Questions of Skill http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html and one on the entimology of the term anatta (interesting to get a non-Buddhist perspective) NO INNER CORE - ANATTA by Sayadaw U Silananda http://www.dhammaweb.net/htmlbook/page.php?page=1&id=1 metta Andy #121902 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 moellerdieter Hi all, below a few extracts involving lobha (and other unwholesome cetasikas) , for your kind attention with Metta Dieter — MN 14 Sense objects give little enjoyment, but much pain and much despair; the danger in them prevails Maha Satipatthana Sutta D.N. 22 : b] "And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming."And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells."And what seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world? The eye seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells."The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect... "Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas... "Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness... "Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact... "Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact... "Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas... "Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas... "Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas... "Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas... "Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. "This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress. " — Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta: Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:Learning how to meditate on impure objects;Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure; Guarding the sense doors; Moderation in eating;Noble friendship;Suitable conversation. A.N. X, 51 : The Blessed One said: "Even if a monk is not skilled in the ways of the minds of others.[1] he should train himself: 'I will be skilled in reading my own mind.' "And how is a monk skilled in reading his own mind? Imagine a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, examining the image of her own face in a bright, clean mirror or bowl of clear water: If she saw any dirt or blemish there, she would try to remove it. If she saw no dirt or blemish there, she would be pleased, her resolves fulfilled: 'How fortunate I am! How clean I am!' In the same way, a monk's self-examination is very productive in terms of skillful qualities:[2] 'Do I usually remain covetous or not? With thoughts of ill will or not? Overcome by sloth & drowsiness or not? Restless or not? Uncertain or gone beyond uncertainty? Angry or not? With soiled thoughts or unsoiled thoughts? With my body aroused or unaroused? Lazy or with persistence aroused? Unconcentrated or concentrated?' "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless, uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. — SN 46:55 : If there is water in a pot mixed with red, yellow, blue or orange color, a man with a normal faculty of sight, looking into it, could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by sensual desire, overpowered by sensual desire, one cannot properly see the escape from sensual desire which has arisen; then one does not properly understand and see one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized. — SN 46:51 : There are beautiful objects; frequently giving unwise attention to them — this is the nourishment for the arising of sensual desire that has not arisen, and the nourishment for the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen. There are impure objects (used for meditation); frequently giving wise attention to them — this is the denourishing of the arising of sensual desire that has not yet arisen, and the denourishing of the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen. — SN 35:63 : There are forms perceptible by the eye, which are desirable, lovely, pleasing, agreeable, associated with desire, arousing lust. If the monk does not delight in them, is not attached to them, does not welcome them, then in him thus not delighting in them, not being attached to them and not welcoming them, delight (in these forms) ceases; if delight is absent, there is no bondage. There are sounds perceptible by the ear... odors perceptible by the mind... if delight is absent, there is no bondage. — Udana, 2:8 : The unpleasant overwhelms a thoughtless man in the guise of the pleasant, the disagreeable overwhelms him in the guise of the agreeable, the painful in the guise of pleasure. The Commentary Sensual Desire There is a man who has incurred a debt but has become ruined. Now, if his creditors, when telling him to pay back the debt, speak roughly to him or harass and beat him, he is unable to retaliate but has to bear it all. It is his debt that causes this forbearance. In the same way, if a man is filled with sensual desire for a certain person, he will, full of craving for that object of his desire, be attached to it. Even if spoken to roughly by that person, or harassed or beaten, he will bear it all. It is his sensual desire that causes this forbearance. In that way, sensual desire is like being in debt. The Abandonment of Sensual Desire A man, having taken a loan, uses it for his business and comes to prosperity. He thinks: "This debt is a cause of vexation." He returns the loan together with the interest, and has the promissory note torn up. After that he neither sends a messenger nor a letter to his creditors; and even if he meets them it depends on his wish whether he will get up from his seat to greet them, or not. And why? He is no longer in debt to them or dependent of them. Similarly a monk thinks: "Sensual desire is a cause of obstruction." He then cultivates the six things leading to its abandonment (see p.9), and removes the hindrance of sensual desire. Just as one who has freed himself of debt no longer feels fear or anxiety when meeting his former creditors, so one who has given up sensual desire is no longer attached and bound to the object of his desire; even if he sees divine forms, passions will not assail him. Therefore the Blessed One compared the abandonment of sensual desire to freedom from debt 　 #121903 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 4:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 1 moellerdieter Dear Nina, thanks for your nice appreciation. Food for chanda .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #121904 From: Lukas Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:34 am Subject: Heedless in daily life szmicio Dear friends, I am so heedlees during daily life, even I know that I should be more careless about present experiences. But I still prefer this pleasant dream. I am very heedless. I feel sometimes like wasting my life. Sometimes I feel like i can really be less heedless, and apply to the realites more. Best wishes Lukas #121905 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:06 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. kenhowardau Hi Andy, This is going to sound to you like bad news, but it is actually good news: you have been horribly misled on the subject of anatta. Bhikkhu Thanissaro, by his own admission, invented the teaching of "anatta as strategy." He has formed a cult that calls itself Buddhist but which is actually (and quite openly) an eternity-belief religion. We have quite enough of those religions already, but the saddest thing is the terrible kamma that BT is committing and the terrible vipaka that will ensue from it. The teachings of Thanissaro and the Access To Insight community have been well discussed here and (I believe) on some other responsible forums. Please look in DSG's Useful Posts file under the subheading: "Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take.." This is extremely important! Ken H #121906 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:41 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > This is going to sound to you like bad news, but it is actually good news: you have been horribly misled on the subject of anatta. > > Bhikkhu Thanissaro, by his own admission, invented the teaching of "anatta as strategy." He has formed a cult that calls itself Buddhist but which is actually (and quite openly) an eternity-belief religion. > > We have quite enough of those religions already, but the saddest thing is the terrible kamma that BT is committing and the terrible vipaka that will ensue from it. > > The teachings of Thanissaro and the Access To Insight community have been well discussed here and (I believe) on some other responsible forums. Please look in DSG's Useful Posts file under the subheading: "Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take.." > > This is extremely important! > > Ken H > Thanks for the reply and for directing me to the previous discussions. As for TB, I wasn't aware of the controversy over his translations and commentaries at ATI. As with most all I read, I am reluctant to take anything as authorative until I have spent time 'wearing it' for a while. I'll remain on the fence with regard this one for a time. However, with regard the question of anatta, I must still ask though, what we are to make of Buddha's refusal to be drawn on the question as in Ananda Sutta - "Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" I am still drawn to conclude that Buddha felt it a distraction to spend time on the question and that it is one fraught with danger. It's not that he points to one view or the other. It is that he advises not to spend time on it. metta Andy #121907 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:20 am Subject: Re: awakening nichiconn Thanks, Alex, A: If one doesn't put in conditions for awakening, awakening will never happen. c: I'm wondering whether we mean the same thing/s by "conditions". A: For example: Wisdom that sees drawbacks of 5 aggregates and peace of non-arising. One contemplates conditionality, anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta, and 4NT. One applies this understanding to the fact that all khandhas of all times have to share these properties like triangle has to have three angles to be tri-angle. Then with more and more contemplations, one naturally feels nibbida, then viraga, and eventually vimutti occurs whether "one wants it or not". c: At first I thought you were trying to give me some kind of answer about how you see 'conditions' (paccaya) but since you include 'contemplating conditionality' in your example, decided I was mistaken & have to accept that this "example" is your idea of the 'description of awakening in terms of a series of cittas' that I asked for, even though it seems more like a mixed bag of conventional & (psuedo-) paramattha talk. [Still, it's really nice to see (judging by the omission) that you've finally come around to agreeing that sotaapatti, at least, doesn't require any "(formal) meditation" - unless that’s what you mean by "contemplation"]. I'll leave section a in this chart, but what I'd hoped you'd give me was one of the lines from part b here: -CMA Table 4.4: THE ABSORPTIVE JAVANA PROCESS- a) The Initial Attainment of Jhaana Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B b) Attainment of Path and Fruit Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr} B Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr Fr} B KEY: Avrg = one of average faculties; Keen = one of keen faculties; B = (Stream of) Bhavanga; {} = extent of process; V = Vibrating Bhavanga; A = Arrest Bhavanga; M = Mind-Door Adverting; Pr = Preparation; Ac = Access; Cn = Conformity; Ch = Change-of-Lineage; Jh = Jhaana; Pa = Path; Fr = Fruition. connie #121908 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:52 am Subject: Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes nichiconn Alex, A: Try to contemplate realities when running, vs contemplating realities when sitting down in quite place where you are not disturbed. If you don't understand this, then I can't help you here. c: It's too bad you can't help me (or even pretend to try to answer the question I asked to begin with), but listen: there is no place -quiet or otherwise- where people like you and I aren't disturbed. For one, Lobha is a pretty constant companion. I'm sure you can name other, at least occasional visitors – Anger? Confusion? Regret? And not that it makes any difference, but I i have a knee that doesn't really bend anymore, so both my long distance running and sitting cross legged days are long past. I actually loved running but when I'd reach the "calm" runner’s vision / high I was often after, it was really just more being led to my own idea of a quiet place by our old friend Lobha. There is no special place, posture or time, Alex. There isn't really any "place" at all since this contemplating of realities is citta's, not ours. connie #121909 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:01 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 A: "...However, with regard the question of anatta, I must still ask though, what we are to make of Buddha's refusal to be drawn on the question as in...I am still drawn to conclude that Buddha felt it a distraction to spend time on the question and that it is one fraught with danger. It's not that he points to one view or the other. It is that he advises not to spend time on it." Scott: Dhammapada 279 279. "All things are not-self" â€" when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification." "Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' 'ti, yadaa pa~n~naaya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyaa." Scott: Seems pretty clear here, the statement. No need for superstition. Anatta is taught clearly throughout the Tipi.taka. It is not mysterious, dangerous, or anything of the sort. Scott. #121910 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:21 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Sorry, Andy, I omitted your name: Andy... #121911 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:08 am Subject: Re: awakening truth_aerator Dear Connie, > > I'll leave section a in this chart, but what I'd hoped you'd give me was one of the lines from part b here: > > -CMA Table 4.4: THE ABSORPTIVE JAVANA PROCESS- > > a) The Initial Attainment of Jhaana > Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B > Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B > > b) Attainment of Path and Fruit > Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr} B > Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr Fr} B > >KEY: Avrg = one of average faculties; Keen = one of keen faculties; >B = (Stream of) Bhavanga; {} = extent of process; V = Vibrating >Bhavanga; A = Arrest Bhavanga; M = Mind-Door Adverting; Pr = >Preparation; Ac = Access; Cn = Conformity; Ch = Change-of-Lineage; >Jh = Jhaana; Pa = Path; Fr = Fruition. >=============================================== I've read that before, I have CMA and I've read it multiple times. So what exactly does those things mean IN REAL LIFE. Can you explain exactly what and how occurs? So far it is only text book definitions. Dhamma is not found in the books which only points the way. With best wishes, Alex #121912 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:23 am Subject: There is proper place and posture. VsM VIII truth_aerator Dear Connie, >listen: there is no place -quiet or otherwise- where people >like >you and I aren't disturbed. >========================================= But not all disturbances are equally strong. A beginner with lots of defilements would be much more disturbed in a strip club or a busy shopping mall rather than in secluded place. An Arahant would not, for example, but we aren't Arahants. What was the Buddha's example for us all? Why didn't He reclaim the throne? Why did He praise monasticism and seclusion so much? He didn't say that kitchen was as good as forest! >C:For one, Lobha is a pretty constant companion. Yes, and external things like strippers can really disturb it much stronger and more often than if one was in a quite and more appropriate place. Is this really that tough to understand? >I'm sure you can name other, at least occasional visitors â€" Anger? Certain situations provoke it more than others. Of course until we eliminate it, the defilements can arise. Just don't throw petrol on hot coals... >There is no special place, posture or time, Alex. There isn't really >any "place" at all In Suttas and VsM there is: "And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html Gone to the forest ...or to an empty place: this signifies that he has found an abode favourable to the development of concentration through mindfulness of breathing. For this bhikkhu's mind has long been dissipated among visible data, etc., as its object, and it does not want to mount the object of concentration-through-mindfulness-of-breathing; it runs off the track like a chariot harnessed to a wild ox.41 Now suppose a cowherd [269] wanted to tame a wild calf that had been reared on a wild cow's milk, he would take it away from the cow and tie it up apart with a rope to a stout post dug into the ground; then the calf might dash to and fro, but being unable to get away, it would eventually sit down or lie down by the post. So too, when a bhikkhu wants to tame his own mind which has long been spoilt by being reared on visible data, etc., as object for its food and drink, he should take it away from visible data, etc., as object and bring it into the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty place and tie it up there to the post of in-breaths and out-breaths with the rope of mindfulness. And so his mind may then dash to and fro when it no longer gets the objects it was formerly used to, but being unable to break the rope of mindfulness and get away, it sits down, lies down, by that object under the influence of access and absorption. " - VsM VIII, 153 NO POSTURES???!!! "Herein, crosswise is the sitting position with the thighs fully locked. Folded: having locked. Set his body erect: having placed the upper part of the body erect with the eighteen backbones resting end to end. For when he is seated like this, his skin, flesh and sinews are not twisted, and so the feelings that would arise moment by moment if they were twisted do not arise. That being so, his mind becomes unified, and the meditation subject, instead of collapsing, attains to growth and increase" - VsM VIII,160 Visuddhimagga does teach us that there is right place and there is such a thing as favorable posture. With best wishes, Alex #121913 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:42 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > A: "...However, with regard the question of anatta, I must still ask though, what we are to make of Buddha's refusal to be drawn on the question as in...I am still drawn to conclude that Buddha felt it a distraction to spend time on the question and that it is one fraught with danger. It's not that he points to one view or the other. It is that he advises not to spend time on it." > > Scott: Dhammapada 279 > > 279. "All things are not-self" â€" when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification." > > "Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' 'ti, yadaa pa~n~naaya passati; > Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyaa." > > Scott: Seems pretty clear here, the statement. No need for superstition. Anatta is taught clearly throughout the Tipi.taka. It is not mysterious, dangerous, or anything of the sort. > > Scott. > Valid, but this doesn't invalidate the sutta I quoted. The problem here could be in translation of the term anatta. It's use in the sutta it is fairly certain that it does translate as no-self due to context, but in the Dhammapada, as it only appears in your passage once, it could equally be translated as one of it's interchangeable meanings - no-soul, no-essence, non-reality, for instance. metta Andy #121914 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:16 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Andy, A: "Valid, but this doesn't invalidate the sutta I quoted. The problem here could be in translation of the term anatta. It's use in the sutta it is fairly certain that it does translate as no-self due to context, but in the Dhammapada, as it only appears in your passage once, it could equally be translated as one of it's interchangeable meanings - no-soul, no-essence, non-reality, for instance." Scott: The Dhammapada is a clear, concise, over-arching statement. Is it not Dhamma? Anatta means what it does. Is this to be a discussion that involves the amount of times something appears in a given text? Please consider the meaning anatta. It is a characteristic of all dhammas, the penetration of which by pa~n~naa leads to enlightenment. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, man. Scott. #121915 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:24 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > An even better photo. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess. > > http://www.worldhum.com/photos/photo/photo-you-must-see-the-sadhus-hand-20100211\ / > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > here is the guy I was thinking of BTW>: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nygus/4570828844/ > > > > ""Amar Bharti Baba. He is holding hand in the air since 1973. This one of the tapasya, rites or vows that sadhus take, some for just a period of time, some for 12 years and some even longer. They might vow never to sit down, even sleeping in standing position, or not to speak. Raising hand like this causes serious changes and damage to muscle structure as well as helps growing nice long fingernails. Juno Akhara, Haridwar."" Fascinating... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #121916 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I seriously think that you are close to the dhamma explanation of what > occurs: the namas and rupas associated with what we think of as "walking" and > "raising the thermostat" have some relation to the heat rupas arising. Too > complicated for me... > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It's more than just very complicated: We ... just ... don't > ... have ... a ... clue! > ---------------------------------------------------- Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma and all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #121917 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:54 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Andy, A: "...The problem here could be in translation of the term anatta. It's use in the sutta it is fairly certain that it does translate as no-self due to context ..." Scott: Upon further consideration, you really need to consider the *meaning* of anatta. You are wasting your time thinking about 'translation.' 'Translation' means the spin put on it by the translator. And Ken has already warned you about the nefarious machinations of the Venerable Thanissaro. Be well warned. No, you must do your duty as a student and comprehend the meaning of the term. Clearly you are learning and don't yet know this aspect of the Dhamma. Anatta refers to the characteristic of all dhammas. Dhammas are realities. The meaning of anatta in relation to dhammas is that none of them are subject to control, and that none of them have a capacity for curiosity or interest. These are essential points to glean because until you do, you'll be pursuing the mad course set by the many modern boodists, like yourself, who are mistaken about the Dhamma. What is your own definition of anatta? Let me see what you have come to at this point in your studies. Scott. #121919 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes truth_aerator Hello RobE, all, >Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma >and all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? >========================= If one never tasted a certain exotic food, then how much of a taste would one know by simply reading the ingredient list? If one never lived in a certain city, then how can one really know it through few pictures? Words are words, and experience is experience. Sometimes the experience is much different from what we imagine it to be through reading and thinking. Being able to talk about very subtle complexities and the way things are is one thing, actually seeing it is different. It is one thing to "talk the talk", but what about "walk the talk"? With best wishes, Alex #121920 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:26 pm Subject: Re: awakening nichiconn Dear Alex, > -CMA Table 4.4: THE ABSORPTIVE JAVANA PROCESS- > > a) The Initial Attainment of Jhaana > Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B > Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Jh} B B B > > b) Attainment of Path and Fruit > Avrg: B {V A M Pr Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr} B > Keen: B {V A M Ac Cn Ch Pa Fr Fr Fr} B > >KEY: Avrg = one of average faculties; Keen = one of keen faculties; B = (Stream of) Bhavanga; {} = extent of process; V = Vibrating Bhavanga; A = Arrest Bhavanga; M = Mind-Door Adverting; Pr = Preparation; Ac = Access; Cn = Conformity; Ch = Change-of-Lineage; Jh = Jhaana; Pa = Path; Fr = Fruition. >=============================================== I've read that before, I have CMA and I've read it multiple times. So what exactly does those things mean IN REAL LIFE. Can you explain exactly what and how occurs? So far it is only text book definitions. Dhamma is not found in the books which only points the way. c: Not even "high definition" yet, but still just a quick & exact sketch of the order of events that occur IN REAL LIFE without invoking 'personalities'. No matter how many times we've read it, I sincerely doubt either of us really 'gets it' or is anywhere near familiar enough with the ideas it represents yet that we could point to any one of those process cittas and speak with any confidence (and without looking at a book) about even half a dozen of the paccayas at play. And I'm not saying that's the point - unless that's what it takes before our terribly stubborn belief in self-sufficiency starts breaking down. Maybe that's the point. connie #121921 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes scottduncan2 Alex, A: "If one never tasted a certain exotic food, then how much of a taste would one know by simply reading the ingredient list? If one never lived in a certain city, then how can one really know it through few pictures? Words are words, and experience is experience. Sometimes the experience is much different from what we imagine it to be through reading and thinking. Being able to talk about very subtle complexities and the way things are is one thing, actually seeing it is different. It is one thing to 'talk the talk', but what about 'walk the talk'?" Scott: This is yet more of your repetitive, excited. and misinformed discourse that does nothing but support the view that Self is the most important dhamma. It's the kind of discourse that wants to appear all boodisty but doesn't quite (like at all) ring true. 'Walk the talk.' It's 'walk the walk,' by the way, and, whenever you utter the sentiment, it remains totally ludicrous. Even you, in your misreading of pretty well everything, are at least reduced, as are we all, to *reading* the Dhamma in the form it has come down to us. Then, you pick your own pet translators and so-called 'teachers' and mirror their stuff as well. You didn't come up with your idiosyncratic views all on your own. You had to read and misunderstand what you read in order to come up with them. Then, you appear here and expose everyone else to them. What you exclaim in the above is nothing more than the empty cheers of a cheerleader. While there is truth in what you expostulate - it comes down to 'experience' - you mean 'what I experience' and you go wrong. Anyone who believes, as you do, in the efficacy of the self to 'walk the talk' (or however that is really supposed to be rendered) is wrong from the start. It is only impersonal dhammas, the characteristics of which are to 'experience,' that function at any time, due to conditions (and Self isn't one of these conditions). Scott. #121922 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:29 pm Subject: There is proper place and posture. VsM VIII nichiconn Dear Alex, Most of your post seems rhetorical & repetitious... probably just like mine's going to, but I'll say it anyway: I don't think we're told to run away from the truth, but to face it & “where” isn't important. Neither is whatever else we happen to be doing when dinner's served. And you have to taste the dish, not just read the menu. Defilements have to be known and for that, they have to arise. Not, of course, that you can hide. connie #121923 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:40 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. kenhowardau Hi Andy, ----------- <. . .> > A: I am still drawn to conclude that Buddha felt it a distraction to spend time on the question and that it is one fraught with danger. It's not that he points to one view or the other. It is that he advises not to spend time on it. ------------ KH: The Buddha did want us to contemplate anatta. The only reason he refused to discuss it with Vacchagotta was that Vacchagotta was unwilling to hear about conditioned dhammas. Therefore the correct answer, "There is no self," would have been misinterpreted by him as, "The self I used to have does not now exist." Do you agree with that conclusion reached by the Buddha? Can you think of any other way Vacchagotta – with no knowledge of conditioned dhammas - might have understood the words "There is no self"? Ken H #121924 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 3:30 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. rjkjp1 What two monks say about the sutta and thanissaros "ideas": http://www.forum.websangha.org/viewtopic.p...ro&start=15 Quote: Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply. Bhikkhu Santi:This is simply not true. There are plenty of Sutta passages that either explicitly say that there is NO self in the ultimate sense or clearly imply that. An example that comes to mind is a Dhp. verse: "when even your self is not your own, how can there be sons or cows for you?" (attaa hi attano natthi...). I used to read Aj. Geoff's translations of the Suttas on accesstoinsight for years, since I was twelve years old actually, and I read all his essays and books. Now I don't like his writings any more, and sometimes find his translations in-credible too, because he tends to read the Suttas through his interpretation. His own interpretation comes first, then he tries to fit the Suttas into it. He actually admits this in the intro to his "Mind like fire unbound" when he says that first he took a short, enigmatic statement of LP Fuang (?) and came to a conclusion about the meaning of nibbana, then he went looking for Suttas to prove it. In his latest history book "Buddhist Religions" he presents his idiosyncatic interpretations with virtually no references as usual, and the one reference he did give to support his 'no self strategy' theory there to MN2 simply did not say what he said it says. He says that MN 2 (Sabbaasava Sutta) says that one who believes 'there is no self' is caught in the net of views... etc. Whereas actually it says one who believes "there is no self FOR ME" is caught in the net of views, the tangle of views, the thicket of views etc. That small little "me" in the Pali means that this is the view of the annhilationists not the Buddhists. The Buddhist teaching of anatta and the nature of is very close to annhilationism, that's why you can find so much praise for the annhilationists in the Suttas, the Buddha called them the holders of 'the foremost of outside viewpoints' because: "they already have revulsion towards existence and non revulsion towards the cessation of existence, so when the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence they do not recoil from it". The Four Noble Truths are meant to be challenging, if they're presented as a mundane teaching for being relatively comfortable in Samsara then that's wrong. The difficulty with interpreting and understanding the Four Noble Truths, anatta and the true meaning of nibbana is not that they are intellectually complicated or that there is not enough clear explanations in the Suttas the problem is that as ordinary people we have an extremely strong emotional resistance to accepting what they really mean. When I feel I have had the clearest most peaceful, insightful meditations what I have seen every time so far is how deep the defilements go, that in fact they are normally in complete control of our perceptions without us being aware of that. I also saw how when I tried watching impermanence and extending it to the past and the future with a relatively peaceful mind my mind totally rebelled, got frightened to the very depth of its existence, not on a discursive level or with any conscious intention. I saw how deeply, deeply frightened my mind is of accepting impermanence, even though theoretically I accept it. So it seems to me that this is why 99.99% of books on Buddhism and teachers of Buddhism compromise on the challengingness of the Four Noble Truths in one way or another - because the truth is too terrifying emotionally, not because the Suttas are intellectually hard to understand. By teaching his extremely unique interpretation of nibbana, which is not as he claims supported by the Thai Kruba Ajahns, or at least not all of them by any means, he is effectively setting up one side of a bridge except for the keystone, then by teaching that the Buddha never taught that there is no ultimate self or essence he sets up the other half of the bridge. He leaves it to the extremely fertile imagination of biased ordinary beings to fill in the gap that "nibbaana is the ultimate self", which I've actually heard that he admits he believes in private. He bases this last point on Dhp. "all things are without-self (or, 'not self'), when one sees this with wisdom, then one turns away from suffering, this is the path of purification". So then I've heard that he says that this means that the perception "all dhammas are anatta" is just a part of the path of purification, it's not necessarily a fact that applies to the goal. It's intriguing how his interpretations mirror so closely some of the other contemporary non-Buddhist teachers that are described in "Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge" and also the Puggalavaadins and their theory of a transcendent, ineffable self. He sometimes even uses the same similes. I wonder if there is some influence from past lives here? I know I'm going to get flack for criticising such a popular teacher, and also he does teach a lot of good Dhamma that is not popular, like renunciation and the need for samaadhi (never mind that his interpretation of 'jhaana' is uniquely creative (!) too). However, sometimes I feel you just have to tell it like it is, even if he is famous. I've also benefitted alot from his translations of the Suttas, even if now I prefer Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's (or my own), at least he puts them out there for free, and imperfect as they are they are an entrance to the Suttas for many people, and that's great.++++++++++++==================== http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...33364&st=60 Citing the relevant suttas is unlikely to be persuasive to those who have fallen for Thanissaro's mystical drivel, for Thanissaro would simply interpret them differently or else would translate them differently so as to make them support his view. A good example of this is the following passage from the Alagaddūpamasutta, which is one of the starkest and most uncompromising assertions of the non-existence of self.... until Thanissaro gets his hands on it: attani ca attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne (MN. 22; also cited in the Kathāvatthu's debate on the puggalavāda, Kvu. 68) And here are some extracts from an old article of mine discussing this phrase... First I cite seven translations of it: Dhammanando: "...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..." Ńāṇamoli/Bodhi: "...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..." Thanissaro: "...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..." B.C. Law: "...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..." I.B. Horner: "But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..." Mahāmakut Tipiṭaka: "...meua attā lae borikhān neuang duai attā bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khwām pen khong jing, doey khwām pen khong thae..." Mahāchulalongkorn Tipiṭaka: "...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khwām pen khong jing, doey khwām pen khong thae..." Then my comments: Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law are completely off the map, while the remaining five are more or less defensible so far as purely philological considerations go. There are two key terms in the passage that give rise to disagreement: firstly, the participle "anupalabbhamāne"; secondly, the phrase "saccato thetato". How one conceives the meaning of these will determine how one interprets the passage; and how one interprets the passage will determine how one goes about translating it. The problem, of course, is that every translator's interpretation of the above phrases will be determined - or at least influenced - by his prior assumptions about the Buddha's teaching. Let's start with anupalabbhamāne. This is the present participle of the passive form of the verb upalabhati, inflected in the locative case. In front of it is placed the negative particle na ('not'), which changes to an- in accordance with the rules of euphonic junction. Upalabhati means to obtain, get or find. So in the passive voice it would mean to be obtained, gotten or found. With the addition of the negative particle 'na' the meaning would be "not to be found." Here's one familiar example of the verb, to be found in every Indian logic textbook: vańjhāya putto na upalabbhati. "A son of a barren woman is not to be found." (Or as western philosophers would phrase it, " 'Son of a barren woman' does not obtain."). Elsewhere the same will be predicated of "horns of a hare", "flowers in the sky", etc. And here arises the first point of controversy among translators and interpreters of this sutta: does the phrase "not to be obtained" mean the same as "not exist"? Ńāṇamoli, Bodhi and myself would answer yes. A mystically-inclined monk like Thanissaro would answer no. Unsurprisingly Thanissaro has chosen a rendering ("not pinned down") that stresses the epistemic or cognitive, and would tend to imply that a self does (or at least might) exist, but one that is too inscrutable to say anything about. To continue, when the verb na upalabbhati is made into a present participle, the meaning would be "non-obtaining" (or more precisely, a "not-being-obtained-ness"). When this present participle is inflected in the locative case, then various meanings are possible, and here arises the second point of controversy. What function does the locative have in this context? There are three possibilities: Spatial or situational stipulative: "Where there is a non-obtaining of self..." Temporal stipulative: "When there is a non-obtaining of self...." Causative: "Because there is a non-obtaining of self..." Ńāṇamoli, Bodhi and I of course favour the causative, for the other two would leave a loophole that there might be some time or place where self does obtain. Thanissaro of course favours a reading that will leave his mysticism intact. So here too it's a case of our prior assumptions determining how we translate. Now for "saccato thetato". Sacca means true or a truth; theta means sure, firm, or reliable, or something that has these features. Adding the suffix -to turns these words into adverbs. Here I'm not really sure about the relative merits of the above translations, or even if there is a difference between "X does not obtain as a truth" or "X does not in truth obtain." Not that this matters greatly; the crux of the matter is obviously the word anupalabbhamāne. The difference between my old rendering and the Ńāṇamoli/Bodhi one is that I had taken saccato thetato to be an adverbial qualification of anupalabbhamāne, whereas Ńāṇamoli and Bodhi make it more like an adjectival qualification of "self and what belongs to self." I now think that their rendering is more likely to be correct. At least it seems to accord better with the Ṭīkā to this sutta. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "andyebarnes67" wrote: > > hi Ken, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > This is going to sound to you like bad news, but it is actually good news: you have been horribly misled on the subject of anatta. > > > > Bhikkhu Thanissaro, by his own admission, invented the teaching of "anatta as strategy." He has formed a cult that calls itself Buddhist but which is actually (and quite openly) an eternity-belief religion. > > > > We have quite enough of those religions already, but the saddest thing is the terrible kamma that BT is committing and the terrible vipaka that will ensue from it. > > > > The teachings of Thanissaro and the Access To Insight community have been well discussed here and (I believe) on some other responsible forums. Please look in DSG's Useful Posts file under the subheading: "Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take.." > > > > This is extremely important! > > > > Ken H > > > > Thanks for the reply and for directing me to the previous discussions. As for TB, I wasn't aware of the controversy over his translations and commentaries at ATI. As with most all I read, I am reluctant to take anything as authorative until I have spent time 'wearing it' for a while. I'll remain on the fence with regard this one for a time. > > However, with regard the question of anatta, I must still ask though, what we are to make of Buddha's refusal to be drawn on the question as in > > Ananda Sutta - > "Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" > > When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. > > "Then is there no self?" > > A second time, the Blessed One was silent. > > Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. > > Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" > > "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" > > "No, lord." > > "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" > > I am still drawn to conclude that Buddha felt it a distraction to spend time on the question and that it is one fraught with danger. > It's not that he points to one view or the other. It is that he advises not to spend time on it. > > metta > Andy > #121925 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:35 am Subject: When Not Knowing => Speculation! bhikkhu5 Friends: Not Knowing Nature & Cause causes Speculation to arise: Once the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One & greeted him. Having concluded their compliments, he sat down & asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause, condition & reason why all these various speculative views arise in the world: This Universe is eternal, or This Universe is not eternal. &; This Universe is finite, or This Universe is infinite. &; Vitality & the body are the same, or vitality is one thing, the body is another. &; A Tathagata exists after death, or a Tathagata does not exist after death. Or; The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death. Or; The Tathagata does neither exist, nor does not exist after death? The Blessed Buddha then replied: It is, Vaccha, because of neither knowing form, nor the cause of emergence of form ( rĆ«pa), nor the cause of the ceasing of form, nor the Way to cease form, that those various speculative views, such as: "This Universe is eternal etc..." arise in the world...!!! This ignorance, this not seeing, this not understanding, Vaccha, is the cause, & reason, why those various speculative views keep arising in this world...!!! <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book III 257-8 The Vacchagotta section 33. Thread on Not Knowing: Aññānā Sutta (1) http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Knowledge Defeats Ignorance in the End! When Not Knowing... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #121926 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobE, all, > > >Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma >and all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? > >========================= > > If one never tasted a certain exotic food, then how much of a taste would one know by simply reading the ingredient list? If one never lived in a certain city, then how can one really know it through few pictures? > > Words are words, and experience is experience. Sometimes the experience is much different from what we imagine it to be through reading and thinking. Being able to talk about very subtle complexities and the way things are is one thing, actually seeing it is different. It is one thing to "talk the talk", but what about "walk the talk"? Well...you may have a point. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #121927 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:08 pm Subject: Trim & Salutation Reminders! dsgmods Hi All, Just the usual reminders- When replying to another post, please remember to trim any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you may assume that other members will have seen it. Trimming saves time and work for those who kindly back up the archives and makes it more convenient for all of us to read posts. It also assists those who print out messages, have limited bandwidth or receive messages in digest form. Also, please make it clear at the outset who is being addressed, even if "All". This makes it easier for everyone to see any names at a quick glance. We appreciate your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS The full guidelines can be found in the files section. Comments or questions off-list only. Thanks #121928 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: Re: Wicked is Wrong View... sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, (Han, Nina & all), The following relates to our earlier discussions about sakkaayadi.t.thi and attaanudi.t.thi and whether they are synonyms. You (Ken O) had asked for example in the texts showing any distinction. I was just checking the Pali as used in the suttas translated together here by Ven Samahita (#121786) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Friends: > How to eliminate & leave behind Wrong View? > > Once a certain Bhikkhu approached the Blessed One and asked him: > Venerable Sir, how should one know & see, for leaving any wrong view, > for eliminating any belief in an ego, for overcoming all 'self'-making? > Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees any eye, form, eye-consciousness, > eye-contact, & feeling arised caused by eye-contact as impermanent, > when one sees this is not mine, that wrong view, that belief in an ego, > that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... ...... > Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any mind, thought, mind-consciousness, > mental-contact, & feeling arised caused by mind-contact as momentary, > when one sees this is not 'my self', that wrong view, that belief in an ego, > that making up of a soul, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... > <...> > Source: > The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya. Book IV [147-148] > Section 35: On The 6 Senses. The Overcoming of Wrong View!: 165-167. ..... S: The Suttas can be found (abbreviated) in SN 35: 165-167 in Bodhi's translation of SN under: 1) 165 Abandoning Wrong View 2) 166 Abandoning Identity View 3) 167 Abandoning the View of Self Checking the Pali, for the first sutta, it is micchaadi.t.thi that is referred to: 1) 165 Micchaadi.t.thipahaanasutta.m ".....katha.m nu kho, bhante, jaanato katha.m passato micchaadi.t.thi pahiiyatii'"ti? ``Cakkhu.m kho, bhikkhu, aniccato jaanato passato micchaadi.t.thi pahiiyati. Ruupe aniccato jaanato passato micchaadiṭṭhi pahiiyati......" In the second sutta, it is sakkaayadi.t.thi that is referred to: 2) 166 Sakkaayadi.t.thipahaanasutta.m ``...katha.m nu kho, bhante, jaanato katha.m passato sakkaayadi.t.thi pahiiyatii''ti? ``Cakkhu.m kho, bhikkhu, dukkhato jaanato passato sakkaayadi.t.thi pahiiyati. Ruupe dukkhato jaanato passato sakkaayadi.t.thi pahiiyati....." In the third sutta, it is attaanudi.t.thi that is referred to: 3) 167 Attaanudi.t.thipahaanasutta.m ``...katha.m nu kho , bhante, jaanato katha.m passato attaanudi.t.thi pahiiyatii''ti? ``Cakkhu.m kho, bhikkhu, anattato jaanato passato attaanudi.t.thi pahiiyati. Ruupe anattato jaanato passato attaanudiṭṭhi pahiiyati......" S: In other words, micchaadi.t.thi, sakkaayadi.t.thi and attaanudi.t.thi are not exact synonyms, even though sakkaayadi.t.thi and attaanudi.t.thi are examples of micchaadi.t.thi and sakkaayadi.t.thi are examples of attaanudi.t.thi. Metta Sarah ===== #121929 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > say the man in India who has spent over 12 years holding his hand in the air: he belives that is the path, needs patience etc. > For me that is representative of wrong view. Sure he might have some moments of kusala but the whole activity is done with wrong view as a condition. > I am not quite so clear that the person who studies Abhidhamma is necessarily of the same order of wrong view. Or is it a fully identical process- assuming the person who studies ABhidhamma believes that doing study of Abhidhamma is part of what shoud be done to develop insight. .... S: As Scott said: "I think that when anything is done with the idea that it 'should' be done in order for something else to happen, then it is simply wrong view. Even if it has what appears to be some semblance of correctness, when done in order for something else to happen, then it is wrong." At such moments of thinking in these ways, there is no understanding of present conditioned dhammas. This is why people can study the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka in Pali and still have no basic understanding of Abhdihamma, of pariyatti, let alone patipatti, of dhammas as anatta, appearing now in daily life. This is why K.Sujin always talks about seeing and visible object now, rather than encouraging anyone to study the Pathana in Pali in order to understand "abhidhamma". Metta Sarah ===== #121930 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:04 pm Subject: Re: saturday 3 (jhana) sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, Just came across a couple of old messages of yours which I'd meant to reply to months and months ago! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Someone asked me about the meaning of jhana in different contexts in the texts. > Sujin: we have to study carefully to understand the meaning , it varies.. > > > > I think there have been discussions on this list about this topic. Does anyone have links to these? .... S: Lots and lots in UP under: "Jhana - mundane and supramundane" "Jhana and nibbana" "jhana - two meanings" ...... Look forward to seeing everyone in Bangkok soon! Metta Sarah ===== #121931 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 31-dec-2011, om 2:43 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > N: What else sati is aware of > > but a characteristic of visible object or hardness? > > Ph: Good point, what can it be aware of except a characteristic. > Well, what if it is just sati that remembers what was read about a > characteristic? Is that still awareness of a characteristic? I > guess not. > ------ N: There are many levels of sati, and this is sati of the level of considering and remembering what one heard or read. It is not sammaa sati of the eightfold Path that is directly aware of dhammas. The former can condition the latter. ---- > > > Ph: Usually thinking about what was read or heard, but sometimes > more direct awareness? Is sati of satipatthana always the more > direct awareness rather than remembering what was heard or read > about? (I know the answer to that already, but it is good to ask...) > ------ N: You know the answer. Nobody can plan direct awareness and it will arise if there is no clinging to it. Kh Sujin once said: I guarantee. Always the idea of self who wants to be aware is in the way. ------- > > Ph: . Now there is just wanting wanting wanting not to waste > opportunities. Desire for progress rooted in lobha and moha instead > of the kusala desire for progress accompanied by understanding that > can indeed every so rarely arise and provide a hole in the roof of > lobha. > ------- N: We can see the anattaness of realities. We know wanting does not help, but still.. ------- > > > > Ph: Is the way sati is aware of a characteristic a direct condition > for the way panna is aware of the same characteristic, like > predominant condition of something like that? > ------- N: When they both arise at the same time they each perform their own function: sati being aware of the present reality and pa~n~naa understanding its nature. They condition each other by being conascent and also by way of other conascent conditions. Nina. > #121932 From: Lukas Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:10 pm Subject: To Phil szmicio Hi Phil, I am sorry but I wasnt able to skype with you during Christmas break. Now I have free time for wednesday, so if you want you may call my phone numer, it's back again. The main things bothering me: is what to do in life, still the attraction thing we talked before, and my past addictions, I feel very much like somoke cigarret and miss parties etc. Best wishes Lukas #121933 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Wicked is Wrong View...attention Han. nilovg Dear Sarah and Han, Op 9-jan-2012, om 9:48 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: In other words, micchaadi.t.thi, sakkaayadi.t.thi and > attaanudi.t.thi are not exact synonyms, even though > sakkaayadi.t.thi and attaanudi.t.thi are examples of > micchaadi.t.thi and sakkaayadi.t.thi are examples of attaanudi.t.thi. ------ N: I remember the discussion with Han and these texts make it very clear that there is a distinction. I am glad you looked up the Pali. Nina. #121934 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:14 pm Subject: Re: saturday discussion1 sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, #113842 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > some discussions on saturday. > 1.Are animals missing any cetasikas that humans have? > Sujin: they see, they hear , they have dosa, lobha. > Robert: how about panna cetasika, do animals have that? > Sujin: do humans[these days]. > Robert: ha. Ok but can animals have panna. > Sujin: who can know? > Robert: in the texts some did , like the bats at the time of kassapa Buddha. .... S: More on Frogs and Bats from an earlier tape which I came across in which we were having a discussion with K.Sujin: ***** Rob K: presumably the frog didn't understand the meaning of the words but got something… KS: There must be the kamma which will produce the rebirth consciousness and no one knows which kamma will condition such citta after hearing or listening to the sound. Like now, we don't know, if this moment is cuti (death consciousness), the last moment of this life, the citta before cuti conditions the rebirth of next life instantly by kamma. Who knows, because the sound is the sound. For those who do not die yet and for those who are going to die, depending on kamma. Without kamma, there cannot be anything which can condition the rebirth consciousness. Next moment is untold. No one can know what will happen next, depending on conditions. Even after hearing there can be death consciousness. Before death consciousness there must be kusala citta or akusala citta by one's kamma which will condition the next life, rebirth consciousness. Just from human being in a split second be a fly or deva or hell…no legs or 100 legs! And the term sign is the object of citta of the last moments before death. Kamma nimitta, kamma aramanna, gati nimitta….3 kinds…..and it's not different from this moment at all. When death comes, this is the sign….object or rebirth consciousness of next life….Anything through one of the six doors…not different from this moment because visible object can be one of the objects before death, sound can be one or thinking can be one too. Sarah: produced by janaka kamma.. KS: We call it janaka , but usually it's kamma which will produce the rebirth consciousness. S: So in the case of the frog, the kamma that conditioned that object and those last moments, it could have been kamma from previous lives or anything just conditioning that... R: The Visuddhimagga specifies because he was listening to the Buddha… KS: The sign is but the citta is conditioned by kamma which will condition next life, just the sign cannot condition rebirth consciousness, but the sign is the object of citta before death S: …Conditioned by kamma R: But doesn't that passage in the Visuddhimagga,as I understand it, state or infer that it was because the frog was listening to the discourse by the Buddha that that type of sign arose…that was the reason he became a deva after he died. KS: There is sound, many sounds, it depends on which one is produced by kamma will produce next rebirth consciousness after death. R: But still if the frog had died without… KS: frog or anyone. S: There are many support conditions…. R: Of course, supporting conditions, nevertheless this was one of the supporting conditions to be born as a deva? KS: You mean the sign of the previous kamma which conditioned the citta to be kusala or akusala before death? R: In the Visuddhimagga, the story infers because the Buddha was speaking and the frog was listening.. KS: Like any sound, sound is sound.. R: But if he heard another teacher teaching… KS: Sound …or thinking? The sound of music, the sound of… R: But if he'd listened to the sound of music, he might not have been born as a deva… KS: We don't know at that moment the object is so pleasant, very pleasant…but it can condition kusala citta or lobha by kamma which will produce the rebirth consciousness after death. R: OK, well maybe I've misunderstood that story… KS: Anyway it has to be conditioned by kamma,, Chris: wasn't there a story about 500 bats…. ***** Metta Sarah ===== #121935 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:19 pm Subject: Re: saturday dicussion 2 sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, #113843 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear All > Robert: a friend sent me a question about worldly wisdom. > Are clever scientists , for example, having any panna when they invent something, or if someone is a visionary businessman can that be with panna>? > Sujin, if it is not about dana, or sila, or Dhamma it is just lobha. > Robert: so even Einstein , when he understood the theroy of relativity was just having refined lobha? > Sujin: Nods > Robert: but the fact that he was so intelligent must have been due to past panna developed in past lives.? > Sujin: nods .... S: Due to worldly wisdom with lobha, not kusala panna. Metta Sarah ====== #121936 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-self, Self and the stream. nilovg Dear Andy, Op 9-jan-2012, om 1:42 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > I quoted. The problem here could be in translation of the term > anatta. It's use in the sutta it is fairly certain that it does > translate as no-self due to context, but in the Dhammapada, as it > only appears in your passage once, it could equally be translated > as one of it's interchangeable meanings - no-soul, no-essence, non- > reality, for instance. ------ N: I read your discussions about anattaa. We can talk about texts and translations, but in order to understand what anattaa means it always comes back to this moment. Take seeing: who can cause its arising? Nobody can control it. There are conditions for seeing: eyesense and visible object are conditions: without these there could not be any seeing. Seeing is result of kamma. Eyesense is produced by kamma. We can render anattaa also by: beyond control. Non-reality is no good, anattaa is a characteristic of realities. To return to suttas, see the suttas in the Kindred Sayings IV, Sarah just referred to, they deal with the senses and the sense objects, time and again. What is impermanent is non-self. The Buddha spoke time and again about all these realities that occur in our daily life. Only if we apply the Dhamma just now we shall be able to understand what he taught. Not just by reading, thinking or discussing. We can find out that realities are beyond control when we do not wish to think in this way or that way, when we do not wish to remember something we dislike, when we like or dislike something. They arise because of several conditioning factors, not by our wish. We would like to have mettaa, but we cannot help being irritated by such or such person. Things in life do not go the way we wish them to happen. It is all due to conditions. -------- Nina. #121937 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Do we agree that seeing only sees visible object, so that anything seen other than visible object, such as 'form', 'markings' and so on is in fact thought? An experienced bird-watcher, liked an experienced 'meditation observer' will appear to 'observe' far more detail. Surely this is because there is more thinking (not necessarily in words at all) about the markings, the details, the experiences? > >R: I would not look at it that way. There is observation of detail, and there is thought about it, and they are not the same thing. If I see more details of something, I am seeing it more clearly, more closely. ... S: I agree it seems like that - it seems that the bird-watcher is seeing more details and that the meditator is experiencing more rupas through the body-sense, but actually it's just like usual - seeing of visible object momentarily and then lots of thinking, experiencing of hardness or heat and lots more thinking. The bird-watcher will attend to particular shapes and details and the meditator will attend to particular 'sensations' - particular kinds of thinking and interest. For the one developing (mundane) jhana there is no interest, no thinking about the objects experienced through the senses at all. We think we have an interest in developing jhana, but do we wish to see or experience tangible objects now? .... >In Abhidhamma terms, my guess would be that seeing in more detail would be becoming aware of more of the rupas involved, rather than seeing one here and one there and letting many others pass without any observation or attention. .... S: In "Abhidhamma terms", such "seeing in more detail" is just thinking (not necessarily in words). When awareness and understanding develop, there is no interest in, no wish to see "in more detail". The purpose of the Path is detachment from conditioned dhammas, not attachment to them. ..... > In satipatthana, I understand the Buddha to advise us to be aware of whatever the object is and to identify the type of object it is, from whatever level of experience. In that case one would be attentive to whatever the object is and be aware of it as such. .... S: If there is any attempt to "identify", then again it suggests something like the 'observing' or 'labelling' or 'focussing' - rather than just being aware of what appears by conditions and then gone - history not to be clung onto! ... > > S: Even now as we write, there is remembering, marking, thinking about what is seen, interpreted as particular squiggles, particular letters. Thinking all day in between the sense door processes, usually with lobha, dosa or moha. > >R: Well the question is what is being done with the objects that are discerned? If physical object is seen clearly as physical object, if a thought is seen as a thought, then that is mindful awareness to whatever extent. ... S: Nothing is "done" with the objects that are discerned. Seeing sees visible object, then gone. Hearing hears sound, then gone. Thinking thinks about thoughts - thoughts can never be the object of awareness. If there is any attempt to 'identify', 'discern' or 'see clearly', it cannot be awareness or understanding at such times. Detachment, no self involved - conditioned dhammas, all gone long before there can be any special discerning. Apologies for any misunderstanding of what you've written and for all the cuts. metta Sarah ===== #121938 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (121616) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > Are you saying that you don't think the Buddha meant what he said about going to the root of a tree, sitting and breathing? And that such a situation was efficacious to the development of mindfulness? How would you contextualize the first statement - the going to a secluded location, sitting and breathing; and how would you respond to the second part - that such was efficacious for satipatthana? > =============== J: Happy to respond, but I need to know which passage you have in mind. Are you referring here to the anapanasati section of the Satipatthana Sutta? If you confirm, will respond on that basis. > =============== > [RE:] Well, to me, if it says very directly, "Monks, strive with all your might, practice continuously as if your hair was on fire," that there is not much interpretation needed. It's very direct. Some statements are more ambiguous but there are very direct statements like the above that are not. > > I can't find those quotes right now but I will look for them. I did quote and cite the suttas that say those things in our previous exchanges. > > In my view there are two ways of taking such a direct statement that maintains the integrity of what is said - a direct imperative form, in other words. The second of them is still in line with dhamma theory, though it is a little convoluted. > > The first is that the Buddha meant what he said, ... > =============== J: Yes, but we don't have before us exactly what it was the Buddha said (we have only your summary of what he said). Will be happy to comment further when you've found the passage. Hope you understand. > =============== > [RE:] ... and that there are kusala intentional actions to be taken that will yield kusala results. This would be a very literal interpretation, taking the Buddha at his word, and be in line with ideas such as 'right livelihood' being about what kind of job you have. > =============== J: Here's an example of why we need to have the actual sutta passage in front of us. To my understanding, it's not correct to say that 'right livelihood' is about what kind of job you have. Here are 2 translations, both from the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN.22), of the standard formulation of Right Livelihood as a factor of the NEP: *************************** And, bhikkhus, what is Right Livelihood? Bhikkhus, the ariya disciple following my Teaching completely abstains from a wrong way of livelihood, and makes his living by a right means of livelihood. This, bhikkhus, is called Right Livelihood. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.bpit.html "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html *************************** Neither translation supports the idea that 'right livelihood' is a matter of what kind of job you have. (To my understanding, it’s more a question of restraint from breach of the precepts in the course of one’s livelihood, whatever that may be.) > =============== > [RE:] Let's say that we put aside the super-literal interpretation above, and go to the next one, which is what I think may be correct - that the Buddha understood that by telling people to do certain things, certain conditions would be created, certain dhammas of intention and action would arise, that would lead those who had the correct accumulations to activate other dhammas and that these would lead to the arising and development of the path. > > In other words, the Buddha did mean what he said, but he meant to communicate to the dhammas that would be thus activated, rather than to the "persons" involved. ... > =============== J: Happy to discuss further, but we need to have a specific sutta passage to which we can relate the foregoing. Please choose something that you think is a good example of what you are putting forward here (perhaps the anapanasati section of the Satipatthana Sutta?). Jon #121939 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 8:43 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Intense development of Vipassana is required, and there is nothing to do with Self. If there was any control, development would not be needed. One could just wish to be Awakened and control reality that way. .... S: What is your definition of Vipassana? What do you mean by "Intense development of Vipassana is required"? Reference to the texts below is welcome! [A: "I would have no problem with what you and others say if it was explicit in the suttas and VsM. But when you read what the suttas and VsM say it is clear."] Metta Sarah ==== #121940 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/8/2012 9:47:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I seriously think that you are close to the dhamma explanation of what > occurs: the namas and rupas associated with what we think of as "walking" and > "raising the thermostat" have some relation to the heat rupas arising. Too > complicated for me... > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It's more than just very complicated: We ... just ... don't > ... have ... a ... clue! > ---------------------------------------------------- Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma and all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Well, let me put it this way: I believe I would not. ------------------------------------------------ Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121941 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 1/9/2012 4:37:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: I agree it seems like that - it seems that the bird-watcher is seeing more details and that the meditator is experiencing more rupas through the body-sense, but actually it's just like usual - seeing of visible object momentarily and then lots of thinking, experiencing of hardness or heat and lots more thinking. The bird-watcher will attend to particular shapes and details and the meditator will attend to particular 'sensations' - particular kinds of thinking and interest. ================================ What of the mind state, the cetasikas? What one calls "observing in a more detailed fashion" may come down to an increase in attention and mindfulness (and perhaps even insight), might it not? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121942 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:30 am Subject: Seeing stars. nilovg Dear Andy, When revising Kh Sujin's Survey of Paramattha Dhammas I thought of you. You have been talking about seeing stars: < We can see the colour of the moon, the sun and the stars. Although they are infinitely far away, their colours can contact the eyesense and then they are experienced by the víthi-cittas (process cittas) of the eye- door process. It seems that there is the universe, the world full of beings, people and things. However, in reality there is citta that thinks about the shape and form of the Four Great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They appear in different combinations, they appear as beings, people, the moon, the sun, the stars, as many different things. When we experience things through touch, only cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or pressure appears. If we know dhammas as they are, we realise what the world is: the dhammas that arise and fall away very rapidly, which are transitory. > Seeing only sees what is visible, and there is no need to think of how far stars are away. That is only thinking and it will not help us to understand what seeing and visible object are. Just colour is seen and on account of it we think of stars. Nina. #121943 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma and > all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Well, let me put it this way: I believe I would not. > ------------------------------------------------ Well, I think it's a good idea to approach the Dhamma with that kind of humility. After all, we can be pretty sure that if we think we know something, there's a good chance we're wrong. If we assume we really don't understand yet, it keeps us open to new information, and new insights. My biggest insights so far have been to see how incredibly ignorant I am. It always comes as a shock. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #121944 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 9-jan-2012, om 16:43 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > My biggest insights so far have been to see how incredibly ignorant > I am. It always comes as a shock. ------- N: We all have accumulated ignorance for aeons, no wonder it cannot be eradicated all at once. We need so much patience to develop a little more understanding, and we should not be surprised that we do not notice any result. Nina. #121945 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:52 am Subject: Re: There is proper place and posture. VsM VIII truth_aerator Dear Connie, all, >I don't think we're told to run away from the truth, but to face it >& >“where” isn't important. >=========================================== Right, we have to face the truth. But what happens in daily life is that we are RUNNING away from it through one distraction or another. One can be workaholic and focus on work, rather than one's defilements. Watching TV, having lots of conversations, doing housework, etc, all can be means of escape from facing the truth. When one meditates in seclusion one has far less "escape mechanisms" to distract oneself. Not that it doesn't happen, but less. >Not, of course, that you can hide. Right, you can't hide until they are eradicated. But some situations are more of "throwing petrol into the fire". Some situations are less inflammatory. In the Commentary to Samannaphala sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi: On page 102 it says that: "household life is still "crowded" in the sense that it involves obstacles [such as lust, etc.] and impediments [such as fields, land, etc.]. It is "a path of dust," a path for the arising of the dust of lust, etc. "Further, household life is crowded because it gives little opportunity for wholesome activity... Going forth is like the open air in that it gives opportunity for wholesome activity as much as one pleases" . Even the authoritative Theravada, Buddhaghosa, etc commentaries tell us that there are better places for wholesome activity. With best wishes, Alex #121946 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:58 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Sarah, all, > S: What is your definition of Vipassana? >================== Clear seeing, insight. To be precise it is the result of practice preferebly done in seclusion as commentaries often state. In the Commentary to Samannaphala sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi: On page 102 it says that: "household life is still "crowded" in the sense that it involves obstacles [such as lust, etc.] and impediments [such as fields, land, etc.]. It is "a path of dust," a path for the arising of the dust of lust, etc. "Further, household life is crowded because it gives little opportunity for wholesome activity... Going forth is like the open air in that it gives opportunity for wholesome activity as much as one pleases" . ========================================================= Vipassana is included in wholesome activity and is result of N8P with proximate cause being...samma-samadhi. "In a person of right concentration, right knowledge. In a person of right knowledge, right release" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.103.than.html With best wishes, Alex #121947 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: We all have accumulated ignorance for aeons, no wonder it cannot >be eradicated all at once. >====================================== But haven't we accumulated lots of kusala qualities as well to balance it out? Darkness in a cave can have been for thousands of years, but once one ignites the torch, the darkness is instantly expelled - even though the cave was dark for thousands of years... Same with lokuttara wisdom, perhaps. With best wishes, Alex #121948 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/9/2012 11:18:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Are you saying that even if we read the entire sutta body, Abhidhamma and > all commentaries and subcommentaries we still wouldn't have a clue? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Well, let me put it this way: I believe I would not. > ------------------------------------------------ Well, I think it's a good idea to approach the Dhamma with that kind of humility. After all, we can be pretty sure that if we think we know something, there's a good chance we're wrong. If we assume we really don't understand yet, it keeps us open to new information, and new insights. My biggest insights so far have been to see how incredibly ignorant I am. It always comes as a shock. ------------------------------------------- HCW: Less & less so as time goes by! ;-) -------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121949 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:58 am Subject: All Reality is just Name-and-Form... bhikkhu5 Friends: Reality is Moments of Mentality & Materiality! Nāma-RĆ«pa = Name-and-Form, Naming-and-Forming! The mind is that, which knows the object! The object is that, which is known! These two processes always arise and cease together simultaneously... Neither inside, within, nor apart from, outside these two is any observer agent, person, I, Me, or other assumed entity as a hidden variable, ever involved! The mind is immaterial, formless and invisible. The object may be designated or named 'material', 'physical', 'formed' and even 'visible' only and exactly to the extent and in so far as it is experiencable by the mind! No same, constant, lasting 'real', 'actual' or 'substantial substance' has ever existed 'out there' independently or separable from the mind, that right then momentarily perceived and thereby apprehended, displayed, manifested and designated it! This core dual pair of mentality (nāma) and materiality (rĆ«pa), is thus one united yet dual continuum, like the two ends of the same stick! They do never emerge, nor do they ever exist, nor can they ever be observed separately, in and of themselves, but they can only arise in mutual dependence, like two thin creepers can only arise & stand up if intertwined with each other. Mentality & materiality thus arise and cease simultaneously in each moment! They are thus the most basic, fundamental and primary pair on the bottom of the dynamic ever-changing process of any being in any existence... What is called 'matter' is delimited, defined, characterized, conceptualized, compartmentalized and even named by mind! Therefore can matter never be separated from mind, like if one tries to break the dual-ended stick in order to separate the ends, then one always gets two sticks, still each with 2 ends! Therefore one unambiguously always ends up with observing a pair-wise new event of mentality & materiality! The basic founding, yet often unnoticed, unspoken and maybe even sometimes actively denied assumption underlying all Western science that: The naked, inert, objective observation is possible! 'Matter can be observed and analyzed objectively, independently of mind!' is therefore utterly false, futile and even somewhat childish... No observation can ever be independent of mind! Why not? What is observing IS the mind! The naive physicist who postulates: 'Independently of Mind, "I!" will observe, describe and evaluate matter!' extending out of his range of understanding, thus speaks folly false and is thereby later ultimately enforced to introduce 'mysti-phystical' entities as 'hidden variables' into his explanations, in order to reach completeness, coherence and internal consistence... He seems to be in complete oblivion of the dry fact, that even before one even thinks of, even speaks of, or experiments with any 'matter', mind has indeed been long and hard at work! The basic hidden, yet always present, factor in any observation, is naturally mind itself! However, this factor is not so hidden, that it cannot be observed & analyzed and that even without any laboratory or even a single 'instrument' apart from a pillow to sit on! Everyone, without even a single exception, who sits down with closed eyes, will instantly be overwhelmed by a veritable storm of mentally created distractions: This is the Mind! This is undeniably real mental activity knocking at your door! When this dynamic self-sustaining duality of mentality-materiality, this self- sustaining perpetum mobile, cease to evolve, consciousness thereby ceases to establish itself on an object! This - only this, in and of itself - is the very final End of all Suffering... <...> NĂąma-RĂ»pa = The Core Duality! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu <...> #121950 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:10 pm Subject: Re: There is proper place and posture. VsM VIII scottduncan2 Alex, A:"Right, we have to face the truth. But what happens in daily life is that we are RUNNING away from it through one distraction or another. One can be workaholic and focus on work, rather than one's defilements. Watching TV, having lots of conversations, doing housework, etc, all can be means of escape from facing the truth. When one meditates in seclusion one has far less 'escape mechanisms' to distract oneself. Not that it doesn't happen, but less...you can't hide until they are eradicated. But some situations are more of 'throwing petrol into the fire'. Some situations are less inflammatory..." Scott: This idea of 'running' to 'one distraction or another' to avoid 'defilements' is just so much improperly considered pop-psychology. And, just like pop-psychology, is infused with Self. Who runs, Alex? The premise you are selling here is merely based on a simplistic notion of unconscious motivation expressed behaviourally. You allude to unconscious psychological defense here, not Dhamma. If there is any correspondence between the two incompatible systems of explanation, it would be that there is no 'conscious' manipulation of psychological defense - it is considered to be a process occuring outside of conscious awareness and, therefore, not amenable to conscious choice. So here, just as with the Dhamma, you imagine the ego or self or whatever agency of control you wish to name to be acting consciously. Impersonal dhammas arise and fall away independent of any imagined Self or Ego or Agent. That you imagine your ability to control things has no effect whatsoever on what happens. Since this belief is wrong view, it is wrong view which arises first, unbeknownst to you or I, and the thinking and theorising and being totally wrong about everything comes later and is nothing but thoughts. For us, any situation is inflammatory - including sitting on a cushion; for sati and pa~n~naa conditions can find a confluence conducive to their arising. Haven't you noticed that the mind is capable of distracting itself without the need for external stimulii? Or are you devoid of an imagination? None of us ordinary people can escape this. These ideas of yours are untenable. Scott. #121951 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 9-jan-2012, om 16:43 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > My biggest insights so far have been to see how incredibly ignorant > > I am. It always comes as a shock. > ------- > N: We all have accumulated ignorance for aeons, no wonder it cannot > be eradicated all at once. > We need so much patience to develop a little more understanding, and > we should not be surprised that we do not notice any result. Thanks, Nina. Patience is a very necessary tool. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #121952 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi, Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > My biggest insights so far have been to see how incredibly ignorant I am. > It always comes as a shock. > ------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Less & less so as time goes by! ;-) > -------------------------------------------- :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #121953 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:29 pm Subject: Twins rjkjp1 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text #121954 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:19 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >. > > In any case, sure there are cases where advice for one person might not apply to another. Certainly though the Buddha taught anapansati and satipatthana not to one individual but to large groups and said that if practiced this way would lead to enlightenment. It was not individual advice. When he said do not kill or do not drink alchohol except medicinally, this was not advice for one individual either - it was for everyone. The rules for monks were not individually tailored either, they were for the body of monks in general. So I think we can distinguish to a decent extent between a peculiar situation where one person has a particular need or lesson, or they attain under unusual circumstances, and the general teachings that the Buddha gave to the body of followers. Why not talk about these general dictates and practices that the Buddha gave, rather than picking out odd examples of what this or that person did in a special case? That is of course what I am talking about. > > ___________ Dear Rob anapanasati is not for all, it is for sons of buddhas etc. It needs if one is an advanced beginner (i hope that slips past jon)an erect posture and seclusion before one can even reach first jhana. But mundan jhana is not related to the devlopment of vipassana: that can be even while urinating or defecating (that might irritate pt)- its related to the devlopment of rightview- so that wrongview, that thinks one must be doing something other tahn what is happening now can be eliminated. robert #121955 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 sarahprocter... Hi Dieter & all, Thank you for your many good quotes and research. I particularly appreciated the simile and good reminders in this one comparing the abandoning of sensual desire to freedom from debt: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > â€" Udana, 2:8 : > > The unpleasant overwhelms a thoughtless man in the guise of the pleasant, the disagreeable overwhelms him in the guise of the agreeable, the painful in the guise of pleasure. > > > > The Commentary > Sensual Desire > > There is a man who has incurred a debt but has become ruined. Now, if his creditors, when telling him to pay back the debt, speak roughly to him or harass and beat him, he is unable to retaliate but has to bear it all. It is his debt that causes this forbearance. > > In the same way, if a man is filled with sensual desire for a certain person, he will, full of craving for that object of his desire, be attached to it. Even if spoken to roughly by that person, or harassed or beaten, he will bear it all. It is his sensual desire that causes this forbearance. In that way, sensual desire is like being in debt. > > The Abandonment of Sensual Desire > > A man, having taken a loan, uses it for his business and comes to prosperity. He thinks: "This debt is a cause of vexation." He returns the loan together with the interest, and has the promissory note torn up. After that he neither sends a messenger nor a letter to his creditors; and even if he meets them it depends on his wish whether he will get up from his seat to greet them, or not. And why? He is no longer in debt to them or dependent of them. > > Similarly a monk thinks: "Sensual desire is a cause of obstruction." He then cultivates the six things leading to its abandonment (see p.9), and removes the hindrance of sensual desire. Just as one who has freed himself of debt no longer feels fear or anxiety when meeting his former creditors, so one who has given up sensual desire is no longer attached and bound to the object of his desire; even if he sees divine forms, passions will not assail him. > > Therefore the Blessed One compared the abandonment of sensual desire to freedom from debt .... S: Time to see the danger of accumulating more 'debt' , i.e more attachment to sensuous objects. thanks again for all your input. Metta Sarah ===== #121956 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Heedless in daily life sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > I am so heedlees during daily life, even I know that I should be more careless about present experiences. But I still prefer this pleasant dream. I am very heedless. I feel sometimes like wasting my life. Sometimes I feel like i can really be less heedless, and apply to the realites more. ..... S: It all sounds like "Lukas", "ME", rather than any understanding of dhammas - anatta. Of course, most of the day is bound to be full of "heedless" and "careless" dhammas, clinging to pleasant dreams all the time. Very, very common - you're just pointing to the way of life that the Buddha pointed out. Only at the rare moments of dana, sila or bhavana are there heedful, careful cittas with awareness, guarding the sense doors momentarily. If there is an idea that it is "I" who can be less heedless or who can be aware, these are more "heedless" ways of thinking - thinking with ignorance (and wrong view often) that there is an "I" who can do anything. If heedfulness was easy to develop, if awareness and understanding could be 'switched on', there'd be no need to hear, consider and study the Teachings so very carefully. Why is there so much concern about the lack of heedfulness, about the attachment whilst watching the movie and so on? Lobha! Wishing to be another "Lukas"! Useless!! Are you still in Sweden? What was the retreat centre you were at? Did you start the teaching job? Sorry no time to call these days - I'm only calling my mother! Best wishes Metta Sarah ==== #121957 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Rob E), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > >S: Back to 'now' just dhammas arising and passing away - no 'me', no > > 'others', no 'Washington' for that matter either! > > > > The thought that there is no "cold" and no "Washington" is pretty nice. > I > > guess it is not a bad idea to have a break from those concepts. .... S: At least it's good to know the dream worlds, the worlds of ideas as just that. ... > > --------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Yes, indeed, pleasant. > > Yet, amazingly, when the heat/temperature rupas known as "cold" are > > plentiful, all of us start vividly hallucinating our "intentionally > walking > > to the thermostat, and turning up the heat," and, quite magically, > without > > any walking, without any thermostat, without any raising of anything, > and > > especally entirely without control, cold rupas diminish and heat rupas > start > > arising. ;-) > > That is quite miraculous. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Actually, it truly is. In fact, as I see it, there are levels of > explanation and understanding, but the underlying mechanisms - the deep (and > less ordinary, less conventional) "implementation" levels - are, to put it > mildly, unbelievable in complexity and "intelligence," and these elude us. > The matter of "implementation" of patterning of phenomena "in the > world" is something that I've not seen accounted for in the Dhamma (or > elsewhere). What comes to us does so by causes and conditions, with kamma being > central. But our kamma, and even the combined kamma of all sentient beings, > doesn't seem to account for the detailed implementation at the level of > complexity of pattern and behavior observed. There is more than a bit of a > mystery to this, it seem to me, waiting, I presume, for full awakening to be > revealed. .... S: Lots of thinking, lots of sanna, remembering and marking all the various dhammas, such as heat and cold, and all the various concepts, ideas of thermostat and so on. Cittas conditioning rupas (as well as kamma, temperature and nutriment), leading to what we call the walking and the adjusting of what we call the thermostat and so on. Actually, just cittas, cetasikas and rupas conditioned in various ways! Metta Sarah ==== #121958 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:42 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Dear Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "andyebarnes67" wrote: > what part of HK are you when there? I lived there as a young teenager for 3 years. We lived in Stanley. .... S: That's interesting - a great place for teenagers! Which school did you go to? South Island? We live in Wanchai. ... > > S: I agree that we need to be more specific. For example, take the word 'vipassana'. Vipassana is panna (pa~n~naa) cetasika as in the stages of insight, beginning with the first vipassanaa ~naa.na (stage of insight) which clearly differentiates nama from rupa. > > It has nothing to do with sitting in a quiet place and focussing/observing anything. There has to be a very clear understanding of what namas and rupas are at this moment and a clear understanding of these dhammas as anatta. > > Definitely. I can have some wonderful moments of pa~n~naa any time. This can often happen when I'm on the bus for some reason. .... S: Of course, it's just pa~n~naa arising, no "I" to have anything. .... > > > What do you mean by "metta meditation"? Again, we have to be very specific about what metta is and to clearly understand whether metta is arising now or not. Do we wish to have/attempt to have more metta? If so, it's not metta meditation as taught by the Buddha as I understand it. > > I'm referring to the intentional process of extending loving-kindness to others. Beginning with ourselves, through mother, then relatives, friends, enemies....humanity...al sentient beings. We were instructed on doing this to conclude each session of vipassana-bahavana at the retreat I attented (see previous post). ..... S: Hmmm.... controversial! Can there be metta now, naturally, without an "intentional process"? When there's an intentional process, it seems like a clinging to having metta. "Beginning with ourselves"? I understand the brahma viharas refer to the care and wholesome concern for others' welfare, not for our own. We already have a lot of concern for ourselves - no need to listen to a Buddha to develop self-love! Also, I don't think "vipassana bhavana" has anything to do with "sessions" - more controversy:-). ... > > > >When I refer to 'mindfulness' I am referring to awareness of things as they really are. > > ... > > S: What exactly are these "things" now and how is "as they really are"? As you say, we need to be very precise. > > 'Things' - everything. 'As they really are' - impermenant, empty, arising and passing away. ... S: What is "everything"? Please give me some examples of "everything" now which awareness is aware of "as they really are". I appreciate your good humour and gentle speech as we all 'quiz' you! Metta Sarah ===== #121959 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:48 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Had I been brave enough to take off the training wheels I might have understood what she meant. I now think she wanted me to see how citta took only one object at a time. (If there is seeing now, there is no smelling now.) The same with the vipaka example; without the training wheels we can talk conventionally and understand vividly how different vipakas are arising all the time, dependent on different kammas. .... S: I think we just understand according to the panna developed at the time. For example, we say "it's just vipaka" when something good or bad happens to someone, but it depends on the accumulations and panna at the time whether there is any understanding of dhammas, or it's just an idea of a long story happening to a person. It doesn't really matter what the speaker meant, does it? They may just be making a flippant comment, but it can still be a reminder for panna of dhammas. Same when we read the newspaper or watch TV for that matter. What was said and what someone meant has all gone - there can be awareness of thinking now! Time for the next 'hint' about the new invention or at least a little update:-) You need to be quick so that Phil doesn't take out the patent first, after all! Metta Sarah ===== #121960 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:53 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (118982) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > 
 > > > > J: Not sure what you mean when you say that removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the *requisites* for satipatthana. Surely there can be the development of satipatthana/insight without mundane jhana first being attained? Indeed, you have previously acknowledged that even enlightenment is possible without the attainment of jhana. ( may be missing something in what you say.) > > [RE:] Well I am going by the discussions we've had about the suttas in which it is said that there is a requisite resolution of the hindrances before steady satipatthana leading to insight can be developed. For concentration and sati to develop, doesn't there have to be some suppression or resolution of the hindrances? > =============== J: The short answer to your question ("For concentration and sati to develop, doesn't there have to be some suppression or resolution of the hindrances?") is, in the case of sati and the accompanying concentration, No. To my understanding, sati is just as likely to be aware of akusala citta (citta with attachment, citta with anger, for example) as of any kusala or vipaka citta or any rupa (always depending on the individual's accumulated tendencies, of course). In the Satipatthana Sutta, for example, there's specific mention of citta with lobha and dosa, and of the hindrances, as object of awareness. > =============== > [RE:] Also, I remember reading some commentary material that described the disruptive and disturbing qualities of the hindrances, [as opposites of samatha, for instance,] keeping kusala from arising, and that it took a certain degree of samatha to still these disturbances. > =============== J: That may be so, but that is of relevance for those developing samatha, and especially so for monks, since the persistent arising of certain defilements can be a condition for breaches of the vinaya, or for giving up the monk's life and returning to the lay life. If the arising of awareness required the prior suppression of the hindrances, there could never be the awareness of the akusala cittas and cetasikas that comprise the hindrances! > =============== > > > [RE:] But in the suttas it is *very rare* and it is not announced as a general path to enlightenment. > > > =============== > > > > J: I don't know of any sutta passage that directly addresses this point (and I gather you don't either), so it's a matter of consulting the commentaries or drawing inferences from other sutta references. > > [RE:] Well if there is a sutta reference that one can infer this from, I'd be happy to see it, and then maybe we can discuss it. I was looking at Moggalana, but I see he went through all the stages of meditation and all the jhanas before becoming an arahant. > =============== J: I think we've drifted off-track here a little. I was taking up an earlier comment of yours to the effect that in the suttas it is *very rare* for a person to attain enlightenment without first attaining jhana. I was asking whether this view was based on a detailed survey of the suttas, or simply an impression, because I think there are numerous instances of such cases, starting with all those where the Buddha gave a gradual teaching. Jon #121961 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:55 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: Yes, exactly so as you and Sukin have said. Rob E, just because conventional language is being used, it doesn't mean that anything other than conditioned dhammas are being referred to. > > I agree that conventional language points to the underlying dhammas when there is understanding of that reality. ... S: When we are talking about the conventional language in the texts, it is always referring to dhammas and was understood to be. For us when we read it, it just depends on the understanding at the time as to how deeply we understand the meaning. Take "kamma" and its "results" - it always refers to dhammas - cittas, cetasikas and rupas, but it depends on the listener what was understood. As understanding develops, it doesn't matter what was meant or what we read - just cittas, cetasikas ad rupas. <...> > For instance, you have said that the act of murder as kamma patha can be traced back to the mental factors involved that lead to that act. In the same way, any conventional action or object can be traced back to see what dhammas are involved in that area of experience. .... S: Rather than 'tracing back' or analysing - all kinds of thinking, most useful is the direct understanding of the dhammas arising now - seeing, thinking, confusion and so on. This is the only way there will be more and more confidence that whatever is read must be about paramattha dhammas. Metta Sarah ==== #121962 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes nilovg Dear Alex, Op 9-jan-2012, om 18:01 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N: We all have accumulated ignorance for aeons, no wonder it cannot > >be eradicated all at once. > >====================================== > > But haven't we accumulated lots of kusala qualities as well to > balance it out? ------- N: We can find out for ourselves the extent of akusala compared to the very few moments of true kusala. -------- > > A: Darkness in a cave can have been for thousands of years, but > once one ignites the torch, the darkness is instantly expelled - > even though the cave was dark for thousands of years... > > Same with lokuttara wisdom, perhaps. ------ N: We should develop understanding of this moment, otherwise there will never be the arising of lokuttara pa~n~naa. There are objects impinging on the six doors all the time, no matter what we are doing, even cooking ;-)) Nina. #121963 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 moellerdieter Hi Sarah, thanks for the motivating feedback. B.T.W. I have difficulties to get the PTS translation , when Pali fonds are involved. Do you have a source of download for dummies ? (Windows XP) with Metta Dieter #121964 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:28 am Subject: Should one eliminate ALL past akusala for maggaphala? truth_aerator Dear Nina, >N: We can find out for ourselves the extent of akusala compared to >the very few moments of true kusala. >----------------------------------------------------- Should one eliminate ALL past akusala in order for maggaphala to arise? >N: We should develop understanding of this moment... Of course. With best wishes, Alex #121965 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:38 am Subject: Rejoicing Joy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Mutual Joy cures all vicious Envy and Jealousy! The dear companion can be the proximate cause for Mutual Joy, where one rejoices in another being's success... One thus rejoicing in others fortune is called a 'boon companion', for he is constantly glad: He laughs first and speaks afterward! So he should be the first to be pervaded with gladness. Or on seeing a dear person being happy, cheerful and glad, mutual joy can be aroused thus: 'See this being is indeed glad! How good, how excellent!' Just as one would be glad at seeing a dear and beloved person very happy, exactly so does one pervade all other beings in all directions with mutual joy... Rejoicing mutual joy can also be aroused by remembering other's happiness in the past and recollecting the elated joy aspect in this way: 'In the past he had great wealth, a great following and he was always glad'. Or mutual joy can be aroused by apprehending the future glad aspect of his in this way: 'In the future he will again enjoy similar success and will go about in gold palanquins, on the backs of elephants or on horseback'. Having thus aroused mutual joy regarding a dear person, one can then direct the very same feeling successively towards a neutral one, and gradually towards any hostile person. Vbh 274, Vism I 316 Comments: Mutual joy causes Contentment! No mutual joy thus entails Discontentment! Therefore: If being generally dissatisfied, then be happy over other's gains ;-) Secondly: Mutual joy causes all envy and jealousy to evaporate into equanimity! <...> Rejoicing Joy! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #121966 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes jonoabb Hi Alex (and Nina) Just butting in to supplement Nina's earlier reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Nina, all, > > >N: We all have accumulated ignorance for aeons, no wonder it cannot > >be eradicated all at once. > >====================================== > > [A:] But haven't we accumulated lots of kusala qualities as well to balance it out? > =============== J: It's true that we've accumulated kusala along with the akusala tendencies (although probably not as much as we'd like to think). But however much kusala may have been accumulated, we should not expect it to 'balance out' the akusala. This is because the akusala tendencies remain accumulated unless and until eradicated by path consciousness. This explains why a person with highly developed panna, but who has not yet attained the first vipassana-nana, still has the potential for strong akusala (Angulimala, for example). Whatever accumulated akusala tendencies we came into this life with will no doubt be with us until we leave it. As Nina has pointed out, the relative infrequency of kusala (and, I would add, its sluggishness and weakness) is there to be seen. However, there can still be the development of awareness/insight, since accumulated akusala (other than strong wrong view) is no impediment to that. Jon #121967 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one eliminate ALL past akusala for maggaphala? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 10-jan-2012, om 22:28 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Should one eliminate ALL past akusala in order for maggaphala to > arise? -------- N: The magga-citta eradicates latent tendencies of akusala, but this happens stage by stage. As you know, there are four stages of enlightenment. But before that understanding of the present reality has to be developed on and on, so that later on lokuttara magga-citta can arise. For example, in being aware of naama and ruupa the pa~n~naa is being developed that gradually understands that there are only naama and ruupa, no self who is seeing, no self who owns visible object. Thus, the clinging to self can gradually wear away. But only the magga- citta of the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sotaapanna, can eradicate the latent tendency of wrong view so that it can never arise again. Thus, it is not so that past akusala is eliminated first so that the magga-citta can arise. It is the magga-citta itself that does the eradication of latent tendencies. Nina. #121968 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: The Dhammapada is a clear, concise, over-arching statement. Is it not Dhamma? Anatta means what it does. Is this to be a discussion that involves the amount of times something appears in a given text? Please consider the meaning anatta. It is a characteristic of all dhammas, the penetration of which by pa~n~naa leads to enlightenment. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, man. In my Pali Text society version of Dhammapada, 279 is rendered - "all forms of existence are unreal" (an-atta); he who perceives the truth of this gets disgusted with this world od suffering. This is the path to purity. compare the first line of the rendering you used - All things are not-self Very different. Herein lies my conention that the pre-occupation upon anatta, due to it's various possible translations, according to context, ofr instance, can cause many problems. I am not disputing the prevailing contention here at dsg that there is no self. I am questioning the wisdom of considering 'Is there self, or non-self' or whether this can itself, distract us from fruitful practice. Please see further posts in reply to others for further expansion of my view. I don't want to bore with repitition :-) #121969 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:20 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Sorry. I forgot to sign last message.... metta Andy #121970 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Andy), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >S: What do you mean by "metta meditation"? Again, we have to be very specific > about what metta is and to clearly understand whether metta is arising now > or not. Do we wish to have/attempt to have more metta? If so, it's not > metta meditation as taught by the Buddha as I understand it. > ... > ======================================== > Here is a part of what the Buddha taught about cultivation of metta. > Is no "attempt to have more metta" involved? ___________________ > Snp 1.8 > PTS: _Sn 143-152_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/Sn_utf8.html#v.143) > Karaniya Metta Sutta: Loving-Kindness <...> > What should be done by one skillful in good So as to gain the State of > Peace is this: Let him be able, and upright and straight, Easy to speak to, > gentle, and not proud, Contented too, supported easily, With few tasks, and > living very lightly; His faculties serene, prudent, and modest, Unswayed by > the emotions of the clans; <....> .... S: As you wrote well in another message on the same day (#121841) to Dieter and I: >HCW: >Yes. Whenever we wish, as opposed to merely see as useful, things to be other than as they are, that is tanha, and with tanha there is restlessness/turmoil/disturbance to at least some degree, and consequently there is suffering. (A related Hasidic saying: "Who is wealthy? Whoever is satisfied with what he has.")< .... S: The Buddha is never encouraging wishing/attachment or trying to have more "good" for oneself..... Any development has to be with understanding and detachment. Metta Sarah ===== #121971 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:24 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: The Buddha did want us to contemplate anatta. The only reason he refused to discuss it with Vacchagotta was that Vacchagotta was unwilling to hear about conditioned dhammas. Therefore the correct answer, "There is no self," would have been misinterpreted by him as, "The self I used to have does not now exist." Yes. In reading again, with more care, I concede that this example would show simply, that The Buddha was matching his answer to the ability of Vacchagotta to hear. However (isn't there always one...), I'd be interested in what you make of the following - "Ajahn Chah states: You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about Buddhism."; You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana.[79] However both he and Ajahn Maha Boowa state that for an enlightened being, there is neither self nor not-self. Ajahn Chah states: "Really, in the end there is neither atta nor anatta."[79] Ajahn Maha Boowa makes a similar point. He states: Atta and anatta are dhammas that are paired off together until the ultimate limit of the mundane relative world (samutti) - until the citta is free from the kilesas and has become a special citta. Atta and anatta then disappear of themselves and there is no need to drive either of them out, for there is just the entirely pure citta, which is eka-citta, eka-dhamma - no further duality with anything. The word anatta is a factor of the Ti-lakkhana [the Three marks of existence]. Those who aim for purity, freedom and Nibbana should contemplate anicca, dukkha, and anatta until they see and understand all three Ti-lakkhana clearly. Then it may be said that the citta has "gone well free". Nibbana, however, is not anatta. How can you force it to be anatta, which is one of the Ti-lakkhana, and therefore part of the path for getting to Nibbana?"[80]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta I particular focus on the second paragraph, re relevance to oour discussion. metta Andy #121972 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:30 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Dhammanando Bhikkhu, Thank-you (a lot) for taking the time to write your long post illustrating the contention re Access to Insight translations and position. As I say, this is contention is new to me and as I haven't found any mention (one way or the other) elsewhere with regard to this, I wonder if you could post a few links where it is also discussed. I have a few friends elsewhere (facebooks etc) that, like I did, heavil;y relied on AtI. I have mentioned that I have heard that all is not what it seems there, but I will probably be asked for some further reading myself. Many thanks Andy #121973 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or "meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising. > >R: Well I would definitely agree with that, but I would not agree with the further extrapolation that is sometimes made that this means that most meditation is akusala, and that it one unlikely to notice any akusala states that are present, making most meditation wrong development. On the other hand, I take the caution that one must expect a lot of akusala to arise and not take it for kusala. .... S: I find it more useful to discuss dhammas - kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya dhammas. I don't see how discussing a "situation" such as "sitting practice" is useful in terms of understanding dhammas. When the texts refer to bhavana (development/meditation) this is very specific and refers to the development of panna , samatha (calm) and vipassana (insight). Arguments about 'best situations' are bound to remain that - arguments about stories of places and people and situations. ... > >S: The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka, comes down to the understanding of this moment. > > Meditation also is worthless if it is not understood in terms of understanding of this moment. .... S: So let's just discuss the understanding of this moment and forget the word 'meditation' which carries a lot of baggage! We can talk about bhavana now. .... > > > For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: > > > > (Ananda speaking): > > "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. > > I would note that he also did not condemn every type of meditation, as many do in these discussions. ... S: Again, better to discuss kusala and akusala dhammas, kusala and akusala concentration and so on, perhaps. Never mind what others say or do! ... > Good warnings regarding akusala states, but not a condemnation of meditation as an accepted activity that is part of the path. ... S: Again, the path consists of kusala mental factors, not of "activities" or "situations'. ... > > > We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas, are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. > > The Buddha himself does not seem to have held this view. He did not say that jhana was wrong practice, but praised it as a stepping-stone to enlightenment. I would agree that without insight, jhana could be a trap that would not lead to enlightenment, but the Buddha stated that with the development of insight, jhana was of great value. ... S: You asked for sutta or commentary references. The texts make it clear that all kinds of kusala, including jhana attainment, other than the development of satipatthana are "wrong practice" in the sense of not leading out of Samsara. Only one path - satipatthana. > > > Only the development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice". <...> >R; What about a moment when there is the arising of the right kind of volition, or right effort, that hasn't yet led to the arising of panna? Would something like that qualify as well? .... S: The only right effort of the path is that which accompanies right understanding of the path. Without panna, there's no path. Volition, cetana, is not a path factor. However, again, only at moments of right understanding of realities is the accompanying cetana an aspect of the right path or practice. Metta Sarah ===== #121974 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I read your discussions about anattaa. We can talk about texts and > translations, but in order to understand what anattaa means it always > comes back to this moment. Take seeing: who can cause its arising? > Nobody can control it. There are conditions for seeing: eyesense and > visible object are conditions: without these there could not be any > seeing. Seeing is result of kamma. Eyesense is produced by kamma. We > can render anattaa also by: beyond control. Non-reality is no good, > anattaa is a characteristic of realities. Absolutely. But does this not refer to the concept of the conditioned self, which is itself unreal. Beyond the fact that any idea of an absolute self is a conceit of the unreal, conditioned self, and therefore, as concept, is also unrreal, can it be said that there is no absolute self, even though we are unable to conceive of it. I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream which I found of interest and would seem to possibly have some bearing on anatta. I wonder if you would mind taking a look and commenting. Thanks > Only if we apply the Dhamma just now we shall be able to > understand what he taught. Not just by reading, thinking or discussing. My main contention when I started this thread. I would go even further and posit that too much 'reading, thinking and discussing' can even cloud the mind when it comes to practice. >We would like to have mettaa, but we cannot help being irritated by such >or such person. Things in life do not go the way we wish them to happen. > It is all due to conditions. Refer to my reply to Sarah following this one re Metta. BTW. Thank-you so much for my books. Received a couple of days ago and already started reading. You also translate Thai? Did you spend any time there. I am very keen to begin visiting a local monastery of theirs that I asm lucky enough to have quite nearby. Any thoughts on their tradition/lineage? metta Andy #121975 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:06 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: That's interesting - a great place for teenagers! Which school did you go to? South Island? We live in Wanchai. No. Had some friends that went to Island School. We (my brother and I) went to St Georges in Kowloon. Dad was with the government. St Georges was the UK services school so would be no-more. As you drive towards Stanley, already on the penninsula, on the left, just before the beach, there is/was an estate of flats overlooking a grassed courtyard. That was Lion court (might still be called that) which is where we all lived. The Govt. had 3 or four estates dotted around. > S: Of course, it's just pa~n~naa arising, no "I" to have anything. Of course. difficult to remember to drop the I when describing. Certainly when experienced, there is no I experiencing. > S: Hmmm.... controversial! Can there be metta now, naturally, without an "intentional process"? When there's an intentional process, it seems like a clinging to having metta. "Beginning with ourselves"? I understand the brahma viharas refer to the care and wholesome concern for others' welfare, not for our own. We already have a lot of concern for ourselves - no need to listen to a Buddha to develop self-love! I refer to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81 "Mettā (Pali: मेत्ता in Devanagari) or maitrī (Sanskrit: मैत्री) is loving-kindness[1][2], friendliness[3][4][5], benevolence[2][4], amity[3], friendship[4], good will[4], kindness[6][3], close mental union (on same mental wavelength)[4], and active interest in others.[3] It is one of the ten pāramīs of the Theravāda school of Buddhism, and the first of the four sublime states (Brahmavihāras). This is love without clinging (upādāna). The cultivation of loving-kindness (mettā bhāvanā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating loving-kindness towards themselves,[7] then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings." just as we were taught at the retreat. further, of interest - (same source) The Karaniya Metta Sutta (Sn 1.8) combines both the interpersonal and radiant aspects of canonical expressions of loving-kindness. This is what should be done By one who is skilled in goodness, And who knows the path of peace: ... Wishing: In gladness and in safety, May all beings be at ease. Karaṇīyam- atthakusalena yaṃ taṃ santaṃ padaṃ abhisamecca ... Sukhino vā khemino hontu sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā Whatever living beings there may be; Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small, Ye keci pāṇa bhūtatthi tasā vā thāvarā vā anavasesā Dīghā vā ye mahantā vā majjhamā rassakāṇukathūlā The seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away, Those born and to-be-born – May all beings be at ease! Diṭṭhā vā yeva addiṭṭhā ye ca dūre vasanti avidūre Bhūtā vā sambhavesī vā sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā Let none deceive another, Or despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will Wish harm upon another. Na paro paraṃ nikubbetha nātimańńetha katthaci naṃ kańci Byārosanā paṭighasańńā nāńńamańńassa dukkhamiccheyya Even as a mother protects with her life Her child, her only child, So with a boundless heart Should one cherish all living beings; Mātā yathā niyaṃ puttaṃ āyusā ekaputtamanurakkhe Evampi sabbabhūtesū mānasaṃ bhāvaye aparimānaṃ Radiating kindness over the entire world Spreading upwards to the skies, And downwards to the depths; Outwards and unbounded, Freed from hatred and ill-will. Mettaṃ ca sabbalokasmiṃ mānasaṃ bhāvaye aparimānaṃ Uddhaṃ adho ca tiriyańca asambādhaṃ averaṃ asapattaṃ Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down Free from drowsiness, One should sustain this recollection. This is said to be the sublime abiding....[40] Tiṭṭhaṃ caraṃ nisinno vā sayāno vā yāvatassa vigatamiddho Etaṃ satiṃ adhiṭṭheyya brahmametaṃ vihāraṃ idhamāhu....[41] According to the Pāli commentaries, the Buddha originally gave this instruction (of loving-kindness meditation) to monks who were being harassed by the tree spirits of a forest in which the monks were trying to meditate. After doing this meditation in the forest it is said that the spirits were so affected by the power of loving-kindness that they allowed the monks to stay in the forest for the duration of the rainy season." "Ten verses in length, the Mettā Sutta extols both the virtuous qualities and the meditative development of mettā (Pali), traditionally translated as "loving kindness"[1] or "friendliness."[2] It is sometimes referred to as the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta after the opening word, Karaṇīyam, "(This is what) should be done."[3]" > Also, I don't think "vipassana bhavana" has anything to do with "sessions" - more controversy:-). 'Session' refers to my sitting sessions. Where I am actively mindful of body and sensations. Mt awareness unattached to self is only at best momentary at other times. So I usually am referring to meditation when I am talking of vipassana. >A:When I refer to 'mindfulness' I am referring to awareness of things as they really are. > > > S: What exactly are these "things" now and how is "as they really are"? As you say, we need to be very precise. mostly, for me, being mindful of anicca. difficult, as for all, to make good use of words to describe anything beyond causality and relativity. > > 'Things' - everything. 'As they really are' - impermenant, empty, arising and passing away. > ... > S: What is "everything"? Please give me some examples of "everything" now which awareness is aware of "as they really are". perhaps 'anything' may have been a better choice of words. > I appreciate your good humour and gentle speech as we all 'quiz' you! Pleasure (mostly :-) ) You'll notice my habit of not making instant replies. I save emails and re-read over a few days before replying. In, this, my more base impulses can be calmed. No really, no-one has given me cause for bad-humour or angry speech - yet. I thought I was quizzing you all? metta Andy #121976 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:50 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Andy, A "...Herein lies my conention that the pre-occupation upon anatta, due to it's various possible translations, according to context, ofr instance, can cause many problems." Scott: Due to the many translatory opinions, caused by the different ways in which translators either understand or misunderstand anatta, one gets the different renderings. You need to get anatta straight in spite of the lack of understanding out there. The problem is not understanding anatta correctly. In your original post, you noted: "...This begs the question to the community, then, of why there seems to me to be such emphasis on this matter of anatta when Buddha advises against wasting our time with it..." In this you are misinformed. A correct intellectual understanding of anatta is essential; anatta is one of the three characteristics of dhammas that can be known by pa~n~naa and this is the basis for enlightenment. The Buddha in no way suggested that one should not 'waste [one's] time with it.' A: "I am not disputing the prevailing contention here at dsg that there is no self. I am questioning the wisdom of considering 'Is there self, or non-self' or whether this can itself, distract us from fruitful practice. Please see further posts in reply to others for further expansion of my view. I don't want to bore with repitition..." Scott: Regarding your other 'sources,' I'd say steer clear. Why? A: "Ajahn Chah states: You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see..." Scott: This will lead you wrong because the Venerable was a mystic and is revered by 'practitioners' who, in my opinion, like their boodism mystical. Ajahn Chah is infamous for an anti-intellectual stance and would naturally discourage anyone from study, giving his own mystical views instead. They sound really cool and just like boodism is supposed to be in the movies, but as far as substance, meh... A: "Ajahn Maha Boowa makes a similar point. He states: Atta and anatta are dhammas that are paired off together.." Scott: Neither 'atta' nor 'anatta' are 'dhammas.' This 'source' has got it so wrong in the first place, there is no point reading or considering the rest. Atta doesn't exist; anatta is a *characteristic* (lakkhana) of dhammas, anatta is not a dhamma itself. Look in U.P and study these. Scott. #121977 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:40 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Andy, Regarding: A: "...I am not disputing the prevailing contention here at dsg that there is no self. I am questioning the wisdom of considering 'Is there self, or non-self' or whether this can itself, distract us from fruitful practice..." Scott: You still go wrong here. In the first place you are distracted by the wrong notion of 'fruitful practice.' In not yet understanding anatta, you continue to believe in this myth. Ideas about 'fruitful practice' are the distraction. What you seem to be disputing, despite suggesting that you are not, is the centrality of a correct understanding of anatta. You are suggesting that a consideration of anatta is a problem. The so-called 'prevailing contention' is that understanding anatta is absolutely essential. With this you seem to totally disagree. In Bh. Bodhi's translation of the Aananda Sutta, the text reads: "...If, Aananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self,' would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself?" "No, venerable sir..." The commentary clarifies: Spk: "As to the insight knowledge that arises thus, 'All phenomena are nonself (*sabbe dhammaa anatta - as in the Paa.li for the Dhammapada verse I quoted, Andy*),' would I have been consistent with that?" Scott: As you can see, nowhere is it being said that anatta means anything but there is no self. There is no equivocation here. It is clear that the Buddha taught anatta. The Buddha refers to his own enlightened 'insight knowledge' that all phenomena are nonself. This was his great penetration. He would hardly be taking it back, would he? Considering the context, the Buddha was talking to Vacchagotta. The sutta ends with: "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self,' I had answered, 'There is no self,' the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, 'It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.'" Scott: The Buddha was taking Vacchagotta's wrong view of self into consideration and seemed to be giving as much as that particular individual could take at one time. The guy later attained arahantship, by the way. The context of the sutta should give you to see that, while there is no equivocation on the centrality of anatta, there was a consideration of not further confusing a guy already confused by his own self-view - he'd have thought that the self he wrongly thought he had suddenly didn't exist anymore, when, in fact, this self never existed in the first place. Scott. #121978 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:13 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >. > > > > In any case, sure there are cases where advice for one person might not apply to another. Certainly though the Buddha taught anapansati and satipatthana not to one individual but to large groups and said that if practiced this way would lead to enlightenment. It was not individual advice. When he said do not kill or do not drink alchohol except medicinally, this was not advice for one individual either - it was for everyone. The rules for monks were not individually tailored either, they were for the body of monks in general. So I think we can distinguish to a decent extent between a peculiar situation where one person has a particular need or lesson, or they attain under unusual circumstances, and the general teachings that the Buddha gave to the body of followers. Why not talk about these general dictates and practices that the Buddha gave, rather than picking out odd examples of what this or that person did in a special case? That is of course what I am talking about. > > > > ___________ > Dear Rob > anapanasati is not for all, it is for sons of buddhas etc. It needs if one is an advanced beginner (i hope that slips past jon)an erect posture and seclusion before one can even reach first jhana. > > But mundan jhana is not related to the devlopment of vipassana: that can be even while urinating or defecating (that might irritate pt)- its related to the devlopment of rightview- so that wrongview, that thinks one must be doing something other tahn what is happening now can be eliminated. So do you think all the hundreds of "beginner monks" who were being "trained" by the more advanced monks in the sutta were all "advanced beginners?" Also, I do not see the anapansati sutta as only instructing development of jhana, but of insight and samatha in tandem. There are stanzas devoted to each. I think they were meant to be developed together, based on that reading. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #121979 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:37 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob, RE: It's not a question of what it comes down to, but what is the vehicle? Why does the Buddha teach in conventional language if that does not bear any fruit or is not part of the path? I can't seem to get an answer to that question. Any ideas? After all, there is nothing that doesn't come down to dhammas, so why didn't the Buddha just cut to the chase and teach about those dhammas? S: In our own conversations with Dhamma friends regarding kusala and akusala, isn't this normally done in conventional language? Do we not refer to paramatha dhammas only when we think that the reminder is necessary? Do you not therefore see the situation of the Buddha teaching his disciples as requiring even less need for such reminders? The Buddha set the Wheel of Dhamma in motion with the teaching about the Four Noble Truths. This means that many of the people around him already knew that he taught about ultimate realities. ====== RE: Why does he say 'do this, do that,' if one follows anapasati in this way one will develop the enlightenment factors...' etc. Why? Why not speak the way the Abhidhamma does? I would really appreciate an answer to that question. S: The answer to this has been given many times. He did not say what you think he says. He talked about Anapanasati and the development of Jhana for example, but this was descriptive of what took place for those who did practice them. The point in doing this was not so that they or you could try to follow the particular practices, but for them to understand the different realities involved as conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta directly, and for you to be reminded about the same in whatever you do in daily life. ==== RE: What that conventional language makes me think is that the Buddha taught that way because his words, his concepts, would cause certain arousings of cittas and cetasikas because of what they represented. If that is the case, it does not take away from the cittas and cetasikas, S: You refer to citta and cetasika which implies that it is ever only these that exists and perform functions, but at the same time talk as if there must be something more? Indeed your reference to citta and cetasika is not a statement about their reality and how it is important to understand this, but is being used to justify following the conventional actions something which can never be the object of mindfulness and the development of wisdom. Of course the Buddha's words cause certain arousings just as it would were you to hear Jesus speak. The difference between these two is that while the one is aimed at understanding reality, be it at the pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha level, the other conditioned by self-view encourages "doings" which easily results in attachment to rules and rituals. In referring to conventional actions while overlooking the importance of understanding the present moment reality, what you suggest is not too different from what a Christian priest would. ====== RE: but it says that when we listen to those concepts, when we develop intention to do good actions in life, when we sit to practice mindfulness under the influence of the Buddha's words, then the enactment of those intentions causes development. S: This clearly goes against what comes from some understanding about the nature of conditioned dhammas and what it is for them to be anicca, dukkha and anatta. And also what is got from reading about the Four Noble Truths, particularly the Cause of Dukkha. Therefore your suggestion is not grounded in reality. In giving so much importance to intention with regard to the development of the Path, this automatically goes at the expense of panna. You will not therefore convince someone with even a little right understanding, but find agreement only amongst those who believe in self and control…. ========= RE: Of course it all takes place through conditioned cittas and dhammas, but do we really understand the relation between the conventional teaching, conventionally motivated activities, and the development of kusala? It is my sense from the suttas that this connection is being lost when we ignore these teachings and say that they are just a desription of arising dhammas rather than a creating of conditions by the Buddha to do, think and intend in certain ways. We don't do it, but the Buddha's teachings do cause those things to be set in motion, and practice, consideration, action in life, etc., are part of that action. S: Of course there is no "we", only dhammas rolling on while performing their particular functions. You say this, but only after insisting on identifying with certain intentions and following through them with the idea that in doing so, certain conditions are being created. Is this not having one's cake and eating it too? ======== > Suk: Of course the Buddha's words were condition for particular set of dhammas to arise. RE: Well then why should we resist this and not do what he says? S: Well here is the difference between our understandings regarding this. I say that the Buddha's words were conditions for panna to arise to understand whatever the reality is experienced by each of his audience. You on the other hand are saying that it is a condition for them to follow a conventional activity for the purpose of creating conditions for future arising of panna. Therefore if on hearing a description about anapanasati someone got enlightened and became an arahat, would he be resisting the Buddha's message in not going back to his dwelling place and starting to meditate? ====== > This includes path consciousness for many of his audiences without any of them needing to do anything other than what they were doing at the time, namely listening. This is because conditionality exists between dhammas only. You however are suggesting that certain conventional actions deliberately performed also constitute cause and act as condition for particular results in the form of "dhammas". RE: Yes, and it is based on the description of the suttas, that hundreds or thousands of monks listened to the talk on anapanasati, and then what did they do? S: All talk by the Buddha with reference to what members of the Sangha did, be this anapanasati or any other samatha practices, or about going on the arms round, walking, eating, getting dressed, was a reminder about understanding present moment realities. Being that there are only realities rising and falling away no matter what conventional activity anyone is involved in, it is a huge misunderstanding to suggest that a monk would be prompted by the Buddha to do something out of the ordinary for the purpose of understanding these same realities. One implication of this is that given no understanding arose to know a present moment reality, following the Buddha's suggestion would then have to be with ignorance, which means that the Buddha was in effect encouraging ignorance. This does not make sense, does it? ====== RE: The advanced senior monks were teaching groups of hundreds of monks to do that form of meditation, and others were teaching other groups. They were taking the Buddha's teaching on this and practicing it. It's in the sutta. That's not a metaphor, it's a description of their action. S: If the senior monks were already teaching it, why did the Buddha then have to teach the same thing again? Is it not more likely the case that those monks were in fact practicing anapanasati as a samatha practice and the Buddha in reminding them about the need to understand conditioned realities during each of the steps, turned the practice as vehicle for vipassana? Which made it that for them, breath was a natural object for the development of understanding and for anyone else to try and do so would be wrong practice? ====== RE: I think it's unreasonable to think that every time you see a description like this you ignore what it says and say it is not saying that. That is not right. S: The only right is to understand whatever the Buddha wrote in light of his teachings about conditionality and the particular and general characteristics of the different mental and physical realities. To ignore this is to encourage not only more ignorance, but wrong view as well. ====== RE: Buddha gave this continuum. It is not that we will a particular dhamma and it arises. It is that in doing an intentional action that has a particular operation, over time certain factors will develop, because it is right practice. S: This is your own theory, one which no doubt was invented in order to explain and justify why you do what you do. It is a statement not about the nature of paramatha dhammas, but about why particular conventional action should be followed. After all, you would have observed in a day, that mental states both kusala and akusala arise not as a result of following intentional actions, but rather that different roots condition the intention leading to this and that action. And how is "right practice" determined? Is it by actions following from particular thought suggestions or by the arising of a particular level of wisdom? ======== RE: We don't control it, but there are certain principles of practice that the Buddha taught and in following them, the results eventually will develop, despite our inability to control anything. S: In suggesting that the conventional practice leads to panna later on, you admit that there is no panna now. With ignorance at the root, what you say is therefore wishful thinking conditioned by lobha which plays the role of both student and teacher. ======= RE: After all, he gave that teaching. It's all ultimately in the world of dhammas. It comes down to whether you believe that action and conventional objects exist at all, or are just plain, straight-out illusions. S: No, I will not refer to conventional objects and actions, as "straight-out illusions". After all, they have basis in the fact of paramatha dhammas rising and falling away. If I observe someone reaching into his pocket and reaching out to give a beggar some money, I think about the reality of Dana. Similarly, when in the texts reference to meditating monks is made, I think about the development of particular kusala dhammas. But you can see even here, that in order to understand what is what, the reality / concept distinction must have been made. You from your position of belief in meditation, appear to think that we must either accept conventional practice or else dismiss conventional actions completely. If we did so, then we'd not reach into our own pockets in order to give. Indeed, there'd be no dana citta to begin with, after all dana is based on the perception of a sentient being. In other words, it remains a fact that conventional reality being concept, does not exist. This however must come from an understanding about what in fact does exist and why conventional objects come to appear as objects of consciousness. ====== RE: It seems to me that they are approximations or distortions of the arisings of dhammas and their groupings, which of course also exist. In Abhidhammatha Sangaha it says that as awareness gets clearer that the nimittas that we experience are distorted shadown approximations of the actual dhammas that are arising. It gets closer as mindfulness and panna develop. S: Nimittas are nimittas of dhammas and can be understood as such. This is due to the speed at which dhammas rise and fall following each other and not because of understanding being weak. In any case, how does this fact justify following a conventional practice where concepts are objects of study? Concepts are not like nimittas, they are mind created whereas nimittas are not. Indeed in understanding concept as concept this must involve perception of the nimittas of paramatha dhammas from which the reality / concept distinction is made! ======= RE: I believe the practices given by the Buddha move the understanding in that directionm, as they are composed of rupas and namas too. But if you believe that conventional actions are straight-out illusions, then of course you will not think they have any relation to dhammas. I think this view is too extreme, and that there is a continuum between what we experience in a gross, incorrect way, and what is really happening. Therefore practice can sharpen the understanding over time. S: I've explained above about this. And based on other things that has been said, I'll add that your mis-characterization is the result of attachment to your chosen practice. You acknowledge the existence of dhammas only after insisting on following that practice when in fact you should be doing so at the very moment that the idea is conceived. Your reference to continuum etc. is a proliferation of view which has a concept as reference point hence taking you away from the reality appearing now. Your last sentence therefore is something that you like to believe and not a reflection of the way things are. ======== RE: I see all of those events as having relation to dhammas, not just one or the other. Of course, one person will awaken from hearing Dhamma because they have that accumulated propensity, and another though many have to practice to build those accumulations. S: Again this is something that you like to believe, but does it reflect the nature of the dhammas being referred to? I don't think so. Enlightenment is panna of the highest level, and as it is with all sankhara dhammas, it is what it is as a result of the accumulating process. In other words, you get panna of a higher level only because panna of a lower level arose in the past. You are saying not only that other sankhara dhammas leads to panna, but that this includes unwholesome dhammas as well. After all, you are suggesting to follow activities with no panna coming in to understand what might have motivated this, which means that there must at least be ignorance and attachment if not also wrong view! ====== RE: This is a normal view and understanding of the Buddhist path, but I know that folks around here don't see it that way. It's not a new idea however; meditation and other forms of Buddhist practice have been engaged continuously since the time of the Buddha. Buddhaghosa talks about such practices in detail, says to find a teacher to learn these techniques, but folks here will insist on seeing that as not really referring to what it refers to, but somehow it is a veiled description of dhammas. S: No, it is you and most of the Buddhist world who fail to acknowledge the fact that the whole of the Buddha's teachings is aimed at understanding dhammas and therefore must point only to these, or that his teaching on the Four Noble Truths sums it up and this is all about dhammas. The veil is not the conventional referents but our own ignorance and wrong view. ====== RE: Sure, it ALL represents dhammas arising. The question is how does kusala arise and how does understanding arise, and whether practice is part of the path, and that question is not answered by the mere existence of dhammas. S: I'm replying as I read, so don't mind that I comment too quickly. But of course I don't think that you really understand that it ALL represents dhammas. After all you are saying at the same time, that you do not agree that the answer to these questions can be done in terms of dhammas alone… Metta, Sukin #121980 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:40 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob, > > Suk: Do you not believe that the Dhamma is deep and difficult to understand and therefore require careful study? RE: It depends on what it says. Some of it is very deep and subtle and requires further study and some of it is clear, straightforward speech. S: This is convenient. So what is Dhamma Rob? Are there Shallow Dhamma, Medium Dhamma and Deep Dhamma or is it more that there are different levels of understanding the same Dhamma? ==== RE: I don't think it's right when straightforward, clear statements of the Buddha are given a convoluted or unrelated meaning, as does sometimes happen, based on the idea that its not reflecting what the reader already knows to be the case. S: No, this is an objection made by self-view which sometimes finds it easy to feed on a particular interpretation of one sutta and difficulty biting on another one. ====== RE: For instance, it's fine and understandable that if the Buddha talks about inventorying the body parts to say that we know that breaks down into rupas and we should understand the individual rupas and patterns that make up that object; but it's not reasonable and not fine in my view to say that the Buddha is just using the body part as a stand-in for rupas and that there is no purpose in looking at the body part at all, because we can't control rupas and therefore why look at a particular body part, which is just a conceptual object? S: First, a conventional object is not meant to be broken down into "individual rupas and patterns", rather the difference between concept and reality should be understood. Second, in talking about the different body parts the Buddha was describing one of the samatha practices which he did not disapprove of. However he did point to the need to understand that in fact what we take as being body parts are in reality based on the experience of different rupas and that it is only in understanding this that the Path is developed. What do you think, the Buddha taught in order to have Right Understanding about realities, or did he teach contemplating particular concepts which can at best lead to calm? ====== RE: To me, that is wrong. Buddha went through the body parts, the fluids, etc., because he wanted us to look at those areas of the body, THEN break them down into rupas, not replace them with our own philosophy of rupas, that since their arising can't be controlled, there is no such thing as any systematic study being part of the path. S: "Replace then with our own philosophy of rupas"? Dang! It is you who is encouraging thinking in terms of particular concepts and expect that this then be broken down into rupas, when the fact is that the idea of breaking down a concept into rupas is an impossibility and wrong. And the only way that you can maintain this position is by force of belief in a particular philosophy. On the other hand, what we point to is what takes place even now and can be understood. That finger, keyboard, monitor and so on are concepts based on the experience of visible object, hardness etc. and these can be understood in terms of the distinction between reality and concepts. This is philosophy or is this right understanding? ====== RE: Meanwhile, while everyone is saying that there's no way to systematically study or practice anything, what are they busy doing? They are busy systematically and purposely and intently studying the Abhidhamma and commentaries, sometimes very meticulously. S: This is your own projection. What correspondence does my coming to the computer or picking up the iPad, to read the Dhamma, but often end up reading other things and not see anything wrong with this, for five minutes or for an hour, depending on the interest at the time, have with your setting up time and place for meditation and that too must be in a particular posture and choosing one object to anchor upon? Besides, you believe that you are involved in "patipatti" whereas I think only in terms of 'reading'. Do you really believe that some of us decide to read thinking that we are involved in "pariyatti"? ======= RE: So why do we control those Dhamma concepts and try to learn them systematically, but all other aspects of systematic study and practice that the Buddha espoused are supposedly reflecting self-view and should be avoided? S: No systematic practice means that we do not believe in systematic study either! You are projecting your own misunderstanding everywhere. ====== RE: How come we don't avoid studying the Abhidhamma systematically - aren't we trying to control the development of our understanding by doing that? S: Haven't you heard us talk against the systematic study of Abhidhamma and Suttas? Don't we always say that understanding can arise or not depending on past accumulations and has nothing to do with the particular activity that we find ourselves doing, be it reading the Dhamma, surfing or watching a movie? Why do you then think that we read the Abhidhamma with the idea of 'control'? Just as we can't control attachment from arising while reading the Dhamma, we can't control panna from arising when watching TV. If accumulated understanding drives one to prefer studying the Dhamma over dong anything else, is there anything unusual about this? ====== RE: Isn't that total self-view, thinking we can enlighten ourselves? S: Ah, so you acknowledge that your own practice is motivated by self-view. ;-) But strange that you believe this can lead to right view!!? ========== RE: It's not consistent, and it makes it seem that it is much more a matter of studying that which the person finds an agreeable area of study -- that is, NOT meditation -- than it is a real sense that there is nothing to do, nothing to study and nothing to practice, and no one to control it. S: You continue to misrepresent our position thereby feel more justified in holding on to yours. And you will not realize this during any of your meditation sessions because those will be influenced by these same dhammas. And I can only wish that the opposite set of dhammas arise such that you arrive at the conclusion that "now" is the only time for the development of understanding. ====== > What you consider as "reinterpretation" on the part of some members here, may in fact be a result of recognizing the danger of reading the Suttas motivated by attachment and self-view! RE: Okay, fine, but what is the danger that nobody seems to care about that we will make up interpretations in trying to avoid self-view that are not the right ones? S: Oh no. The encouragement is always to understand the present moment reality no matter what that is. No one asks you to think in the abstract about self-view let alone anticipate its influence. An attempt to avoid self-view is likely motivated by self-view and we ask you to know this or any other reality which appears. ======= RE: If you jump away from what the Buddha literally says without understanding IT first on its own literal terms, then you can easily substitute an alternate philosophy without really knowing whether it is justified or not, especially when we're willing to ignore the obvious and turn statements into their opposites. S: It is you who is agitated and wants to get busy and consequently keep reading the Buddha's message as encouraging "doing something". Ours the proof of the Buddha's teachings is in this very moment. Whereas yours is an encouragement to ritualistic activity where you measure the value by appeal to literalness of statements!!? And how does saying that the teachings on Anapanasati are to be seen in terms of conditioned dhammas turning anything opposite? The message is to understand dhammas and not to avoid Anapanasati or anything. The opposition is between right and wrong understanding of the Buddha's teachings. ====== RE: I mean, in the anapanasati sutta, the Buddha talks about developing and pursuing anapanasati and that this yields great fruit. S: Yes, anapanasati yields great fruit. ====== RE: But there are people who will say that we can't pursue any form of development - this is self-view, so the Buddha couldn't have meant that. S: So the question is *not* whether anapanasati is useful or not. It is whether the view which drives one to follow a particular conventional activity in the name of developing anapanasati is right or wrong. It is "wrong" in the case of those who do not understand the nature of conditioned realities and insist on following what must then come down to a ritualistic activity, but believe that this will make them wise one day. ====== RE: It's just code for arising dhammas. The question is: how do the dhammas of development arise? And we assume we already know the answer, so Buddha couldn't have meant to actually "pursue" something like he said. S: He did not say to "pursue" but "when pursued". The former is a reading influenced by ambition, the other being descriptive in nature can be a reminder about the value of panna and how it must arise "now" if there is going to be any further development. ====== RE: These are straightforward statements, but we only believe the parts we agree with. S: How does not believing "your" interpretation translate into us rejecting those parts of the Buddha's teachings? Indeed in your reading those particular passages the way you do, are you not in effect overlooking the basic message with regard to conditionality and the particular and general characteristics of dhammas which is what the Dhamma is all about? ====== RE: This idea that we know what self-view is doing to us is pretty funny, since self-view will hide what it is doing, so we don't really investigate whether self-view is tricking us into avoiding meditation for instance, or something else that doesn't haappen to be part of our cherished philosophy. S: Thanks for the reminder about the possibility of self-view arising in any situation. The difference between meditation and daily life however is that while in the latter it can arise simply because the defilements still exists, with meditation the very conceiving of the idea *is* motivated by self-view and this makes it that this is being encouraged and wrong practice followed in the name of right practice. ====== RE: I mean, how far do we really look beyond what is already part of our group way of thinking, handed to us by our modern teachers or by our current spiritual friends? Not far at all, if at all, ever. S: What do you mean? We do not experience anything outside of this group in terms of an exchange of ideas? But even if we didn't, why not see this as possibly being the result of the ability to recognize wrong view as wrong view even from a distance so to speak, which you and others fail to do? Do you imagine that in arguing with you for example, I feel encouraged by the thought that Sarah, Nina, Jon and others side with me? Metta, Sukin #121981 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:44 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: Due to the many translatory opinions, caused by the different ways in which translators either understand or misunderstand anatta, one gets the different renderings. You need to get anatta straight in spite of the lack of understanding out there. The problem is not understanding anatta correctly. Quite. And the understanding or misunderstanding of those here also are subject to the same conjecture. Hence my preference for knowledge, on this and all other questions, garnered from experience. as Buddha taught. reject all that is not known to be true through experience. > In this you are misinformed. A correct intellectual understanding of anatta is essential; anatta is one of the three characteristics of dhammas that can be known by pa~n~naa and this is the basis for enlightenment. The Buddha in no way suggested that one should not 'waste [one's] time with it.' I disagree, and think you misunderstand me. i am not decrying the importance of anatta. i am questioning the importance of of the intellectual understanding of which you seem so keen. Again, it is, for me, much more important to experience anatta, or not. too much emphasis on studying it from the intellectual perspective, to my mind, could get in the way of the direct experience. > Scott: Regarding your other 'sources,' I'd say steer clear. Why? > > A: "Ajahn Chah states: You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see..." > > Scott: This will lead you wrong because the Venerable was a mystic and is revered by 'practitioners' who, in my opinion, like their boodism mystical. Ajahn Chah is infamous for an anti-intellectual stance and would naturally discourage anyone from study, giving his own mystical views instead. They sound really cool and just like boodism is supposed to be in the movies, but as far as substance, meh... It would seem that Ajahn Chah share much in common then. Just because his approach doesn't tally with yours, doesn't mean he is to be avoided, by those who find his teachings useful. Your opinion Scott, is just that - opinion. Not fact. Please take care to be clear that this is what you refer to. I don't appreciate an absolutist tone in anyone, about anything. > A: "Ajahn Maha Boowa makes a similar point. He states: Atta and anatta are dhammas that are paired off together.." > > Scott: Neither 'atta' nor 'anatta' are 'dhammas.' This 'source' has got it so wrong in the first place, there is no point reading or considering the rest. Atta doesn't exist; anatta is a *characteristic* (lakkhana) of dhammas, anatta is not a dhamma itself. See comment above. metta Andy #121982 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:52 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. scottduncan2 Andy, A: "...Hence my preference for knowledge, on this and all other questions, garnered from experience. as Buddha taught. reject all that is not known to be true through experience..." Scott: Oh. I suppose this is your misreading of the Kalamas sutta. Okay, Andy. What is the 'experience' of anatta then? A: "...i am questioning the importance of of the intellectual understanding of which you seem so keen. Again, it is, for me, much more important to experience anatta, or not. too much emphasis on studying it from the intellectual perspective, to my mind, could get in the way of the direct experience..." Scott: Sounds very boodisty, Andy. How can you 'experience' something when you don't even know what it is intellectually? This is the problem with going with rhetoric and boodist catch-phrases. Pa~n~naa develops slowly from the intellectual (involved with concepts) through to having dhammas as it's object. Again, can you tell me what the 'experience' of anatta is? A: "...I don't appreciate an absolutist tone in anyone, about anything..." Scott: No worries, I don't mind a smug superiour tone, at least for a little while. Carry on. Scott. #121983 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:32 am Subject: Re: Twins nichiconn thanks, robK... & here's one for you: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-re\ ligion/52317624/1 happy nothing new year! connie > > http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text > #121984 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Should one eliminate ALL past akusala for maggaphala? truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you for your reply. With best wishes, Alex #121985 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:26 am Subject: Certainty of Rightness... bhikkhu5 Friends: What Right View gives Certainty of Rightness? Seeing the 5 Clusters of Clinging: form, feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness collectively as impermanent, as painful, as a disease, as a boil, a dart, a calamity, an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as a plague, as terror, as menace, a disaster, as fickle, as perishable, as not lasting, as transient, as no protection, no shelter, no refuge, as empty, as vain & void, as not-self, as danger, as subject to change, as having no core, as the root of ruination, as murderous, as due to be annihilated, as subject to fermentation, as constructed of parts, as Mara's bait, as subject to birth, subject to ageing, subject to illness, subject to death, subject to sorrow, subject to lamentation, subject to despair, subject to defilement. By seeing that the 5 clusters of clinging are impermanent, one thus acquires a fondness, an inclination, a preference that conforms with the Dhamma! By seeing that ceasing of the 5 clusters of clinging is the very immutable Nibbâna, one enters into the certainty of rightness. This is therefore perfectly right view ! Ps II 238, Vism 611 <...> Physical aggregates can have many forms, yet mental even more so! Certainty of Rightness... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #121986 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Lukas. Heedless in daily life nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 8-jan-2012, om 19:34 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I am so heedlees during daily life, even I know that I should be > more careless about present experiences. But I still prefer this > pleasant dream. I am very heedless. I feel sometimes like wasting > my life. Sometimes I feel like i can really be less heedless, and > apply to the realites more. ------- N: Heedlessness or heedfulness, these are all conditioned naamas. They arise and then fall away. As Sarah said: , and we know that this is not possible. Sometimes the Buddha gave the monks a viriya kathaa, a talk to encourage them. I came across one in "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" and I think it can help us all when feeling discouraged: the sutta is in the Kindred Sayings (I, Sagćthć vagga, ChIV, 2, Mćra, §6, the Bowl). While the Buddha was preaching, Mćra wanted to distract the monks. He took the appearance of a bullock and went towards their bowls which were drying in the sun, whereupon the Buddha told the monks that it was not a bullock but Mćra. (end quote) ******* Nina. #121987 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-self, Self and the stream. nilovg Dear Andy, Op 11-jan-2012, om 11:44 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > N: We > > can render anattaa also by: beyond control. Non-reality is no good, > > anattaa is a characteristic of realities. > > Absolutely. But does this not refer to the concept of the > conditioned self, which is itself unreal. Beyond the fact that any > idea of an absolute self is a conceit of the unreal, conditioned > self, and therefore, as concept, is also unrreal, can it be said > that there is no absolute self, even though we are unable to > conceive of it. > I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream which I found of > interest and would seem to possibly have some bearing on anatta. > I wonder if you would mind taking a look and commenting. > -------- N: I know now what you meant by non-reality. I had a look at mindstream doctrines. The stress is on terms, on words. I found these discussions too long and could not read all. I would like to look again at the paali anattaa. A(n) is a negation, and attaa is "self", or what has substance. We do not only take what we call "our mind" and "our body" for a self, for mine or something that exists, also realities outside we take for self or mine or something that exists. ------- > > N: > Only if we apply the Dhamma just now we shall be able to > > understand what he taught. Not just by reading, thinking or > discussing. > > A:My main contention when I started this thread. I would go even > further and posit that too much 'reading, thinking and discussing' > can even cloud the mind when it comes to practice. > ------ N: When we associate with the right friend in Dhamma and we listen and consider, this is a condition for verifying what we heard and applying it. ------- > > > A: BTW. Thank-you so much for my books. Received a couple of days > ago and already started reading. You also translate Thai? Did you > spend any time there. > ------ N: Yes, almost five years when my husband was posted there in the diplomatic service. Khun Sujin took me straight away to temples in the province and let me talk to the people there. After we left Thailand we kept on visiting regularly, but now I think we cannot do this anymore because of old age. I have many recordings in Thai and I listen each morning and evening. Yes, I can read and translate. -------- > A: I am very keen to begin visiting a local monastery of theirs > that I asm lucky enough to have quite nearby. Any thoughts on their > tradition/lineage? > ------- N: When you meet Thais you will enjoy this, seeing their natural kindness, concern, hospitality. Lodewijk did not speak Thai but he always found that he learnt something being in their company. As to their traditions, there are monks of different traditions, such as the forest tradition. I do not know much about this. Khun Sujin is a lay woman and she taught me about vipassanaa in daily life. Many discussions about this also in the province. She made people run and ask whether that made any difference with doing movements slowly. She likes people to find out for themselves. ------- Nina. > #121988 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:53 pm Subject: Re: "Thus should you train yourselves" jonoabb Hi Alex (119145) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, RobertE, all, > ... > Here is Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: > > > "`A strong post or pillar': this, bhikkhus, is a designation for mindfulness concerning the body. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: `We will develop and cultivate mindfulness concerning the body, make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and thoroughly undertake it.' Thus should you train yourselves."" > > Even Bhikkhu Bodhi says "you should train yourselves thus". > =============== J: Right. And the training being recommended is the *thought or idea* “We will develop and cultivate mindfulness concerning the body, make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and thoroughly undertake it.” It is not a case of the Buddha suggesting the doing of certain actions. > =============== > I believe that whenever the Buddha has said that "you should train yourselves thus", He really meant that and not the exact opposite. > I really find it unbelievable to claim that whenever the Buddha has said "X" what He really meant that, but was inept at expressing, was "NOT-X". Was He really such a bad teacher who couldn't express what He meant clearly? > =============== J: I’m sure there’s no instance of the text saying “X” and me saying the meaning should be “Not-X”, or anything close to that. But if you have a particular topic in mind, pls feel free to bring it up for discussion. Jon #121989 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:37 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. andyebarnes67 Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I would like to look again at the paali anattaa. A(n) is a negation, > and attaa is "self", or what has substance. We do not only take what > we call "our mind" and "our body" for a self, for mine or something > that exists, also realities outside we take for self or mine or > something that exists. Is it not here that a possible problem exists, particularly when translating into English (and probably other languages)? Is the danger that 'non-self' itself becomes embued with characteristics from the self. Almost to become 'My non-self'. It is different to say 'that/this has no self' than it is to say 'that/this is non-self'. As soon as we say something 'is' something, we are attaching a characteristic rather than saying something has no characteristic. > N: As to their traditions, there are monks of different traditions, such as > the forest tradition. I do not know much about this. Yes. The monastery near me is in the forest tradition of Ajah Chah. metta Andy #121990 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Lukas. Heedless in daily life upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Lukas & Sarah) - In a message dated 1/12/2012 3:47:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Lukas, Op 8-jan-2012, om 19:34 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I am so heedlees during daily life, even I know that I should be > more careless about present experiences. But I still prefer this > pleasant dream. I am very heedless. I feel sometimes like wasting > my life. Sometimes I feel like i can really be less heedless, and > apply to the realites more. ------- N: Heedlessness or heedfulness, these are all conditioned naamas. They arise and then fall away. As Sarah said: , and we know that this is not possible. ================================== Yes, heedfulness is conditioned. Among the conditions for it is believing (or, better, realizing) that it is useful to be heedful and noting, as Lukas does, when it is absent. Recollection of the usefulness of heedfulness and noting when it is missing serve as conditions for the more frequent arising of heedfulness. At least this is what seems clear to me. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121991 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 moellerdieter Hi all, calling lobha an occasional cetasika is like in the case of mana somehow an understatement. Mana is usally translated by 'conceit' , but it seems to me that terms as 'self- esteem ' or self- worth may be ' better fitting', of course depending on the context . Below details and links..... with Metta Dieter Etymology: "conceit late 14c., "something formed in the mind, thought, notion," from conceiven (see conceive) based on analogy of deceit and receipt. Sense evolved from "something formed in the mind," to "fanciful or witty notion" (1510s), to "vanity" (c.1600) through shortening of self-conceit (1580s). conceited c.1600, "having an overweening opinion of oneself" (short for self-conceited, 1590s); earlier "having intelligence" (1540s); pp. adj. from conceit (q.v.)." deceive c.1300, from O.Fr. decevoir (12c., Mod.Fr. dĂ©cevoir) "to deceive," from L. decipere "to ensnare, take in, beguile, cheat," from de- "from" or pejorative + capere "to take" (see capable). Related: Deceived; deceiver; deceiving. receipt late 14c., "statement of ingredients in a potion or medicine," from Anglo-Fr. or O.N.Fr. receite "receipt, recipe" (c.1300), altered (by influence of receit "he receives," from V.L. *recipit) from O.Fr. recete, from L. recepta "received," fem. pp. of recipere (see receive). Meaning "written acknowledgment of money or goods received" is from c.1600. = self -esteem " feeling of being happy with your own character and abilitiessynonym self-worthto have high/low self-esteemYou need to build your self-esteem" vanity early 13c., "that which is vain, futile, or worthless," from O.Fr. vanite, from L. vanitatem (nom. vanitas) "emptiness, foolish pride," from vanus "empty, vain, idle" (see vain). Meaning "self-conceited" is attested from mid-14c. Vanity table is attested from 1936. Vanity Fair is from "Pilgrim's Progress" (1678). arrogance c.1300, from O.Fr. arrogance (12c.), from L. arrogantia, from arrogantem (nom. arrogans) "assuming, overbearing, insolent," prp. of arrogare "to claim for oneself, assume," from ad- "to" (see ad-) + rogare "ask, propose" (see rogation .. through the centuries it developed a meaning similar to vanity. Synonyms are self-esteem, egotism, complacency and vanity. Like vanity, humility is an antonym of the word. Read more: The Difference Between Vanity & Conceit | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8525627_difference-between-vanity-conceit.html#ixzz1j4m\ WEwyo " The core of mana is described by comparison (better, equal or lower) , which accompanies us our whole life within the society, whether kindergarten,school, university, working place, etc. It is therefore not surprising , that the fetter is only fully abolished at entrance of Arahantship. Nice from following blogger : Peter’s Pointers—April, 2005 http://www.orlandoinsight.org/Peter's_Pointers.pdf COMPARING MIND We live in a very competitive culture where status is determined by who has the most money, who won the game or the argument. We are also plagued by self-criticism, often judging our life experiences unmercifully. These mental states generate much suffering. Buddhism has something to offer for alleviating this distress. Another term in Buddhist psychology associated with "comparing mind" is conceit, an old English word meaning something imagined, fanciful, perhaps even delusional. We frequently think of conceit as arrogant, grandiose and filled with entitlement—the world should be as my conceit dictates. This is accurate, but conceit can also apply to self-loathing. Through conceit, there is a repeated judgmentalism, critical when the ideal is unfulfilled. This conceit is a root cause of suffering, as it finds ways to relate each moment of experience to an imagined, ideal self. The Buddha said that the core of human suffering is derived from the false notion, the conceit, that there is a separate self, that is compared to others. The mind’s normal, untrained mode of operating perceives an organizer, the self, that must be defended or gratified. This subjective experience compares, on a moment-by-moment basis, different ego states, judging one against the other. These comparisons can be on a large scale, i.e., comparing wealth, professional achievement, athletic accomplishment, or physical attractiveness—the list goes on and on. On a small scale, this moment of itching on the face is compared with the last moment of serene breath awareness, or this moment of peaceful clarity is compared with the prior moment of painful confusion. These moments tumble into one another, similar to the way dominoes stacked on end in a line, can knock one another over. This results in a harsh internal landscape, one ego state competing with other ego states, with no respite. This process is deeply conditioned in the human psyche. Infants are not born comparing on a large scale—they simply react to different sensory input. If the input is pleasant, they want more. If the input is unpleasant, they protest. This is comparing mind on the small scale. As the ego evolves, repeated exposure to our competitive and critical culture indoctrinates the child’s mind, building upon the pleasant or unpleasant reactions to create an elaborate process of comparing on the large scale. Comparing today’s experience to yesterday’s, my performance to yours, my status to your status creates an imbalance, and insecurity about winning and losing that can become as absurd and dangerous as road rage. The Buddha developed a system of observing inner processes that liberates the mind from this comparing. Using concentration, mindfulness and equanimity, the illusion of the ego’s demand for supremacy is investigated and deconstructed in a way that reveals there is no enduring ego to be judged, gratified " Searching the entire PTS dictionary for mana. located 18 occurrences, only "Mānin (adj.) (-- ˚) [fr. mana1] proud (of) Sn 282 (samaáč‡a˚), 889 (paripuáč‡áč‡a˚); Dh 63 (paáč‡ážita˚ proud of his cleverness, cp. DhA ii.30); J i.454 (atireka˚); iii.357 (paáč‡ážita˚); Sdhp 389, 417. -- f " seems to cover . ( I am not sure whether that is due to the lack of fonts in my software) A Dictionary of Buddhism | 2004 | DAMIEN KEOWN | © A Dictionary of Buddhism 2004, originally published by Oxford University Press 2004.} asmi-māna (Skt.; Pāli, the conceit ‘I am’). Inappropriate evaluation of self-worth when drawing comparisons with others. It may take the form of believing oneself to be superior, inferior, or equal. It is the eighth of the ten fetters (samÌŁyojana) and should be distinguished from the first of these (satkāya-drÌŁsÌŁáč­i) which is belief in permanent self or ātman. Nyantiloka Buddhist Dictionary: Sanskrit; Pāli, conceit). The eighth of the ten fetters (saáčƒyojana) which bind one to the cycle of rebirth (saáčƒsāra). Māna consists of an egocentric preoccupation with one's status vis-Ă -vis others, and is said to be threefold depending on whether the concern is that one is equal, better, or worse than them. It arises from the belief in a permanent self (ātman) and only disappears completely when this belief is destroyed on the attainment of enlightenment (bodhi). Māna is also the fifth of the seven negative mental tendencies known as anuƛayas, as well as being one of the defilements (kleƛa). 8. Mana literally this means "measuring" and is often translated as "conceit, arrogance, self-assertion or pride," but measuring is a better term because it means all forms of evaluation. Feeling oneself to be superior to others (the superiority complex) is indeed a form a conceit. But mana also includes measuring in the sense of judging oneself to be inferior to others (the inferiority complex) and also equal to others. Even in spiritual matters, e.g. how many do you observe precepts? how long do you sit for meditation? Certainly we are all different, but it is not helpful to engage in comparisons between oneself and others. http://sped2work.tripod.com/fetters.html The Wanderling further articles : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/bl014.html Pride and Conceit by Dr. Elizabeth Ashby and Brian Fawcett http://www.tricycle.com/dharma-talk/long-journey-a-bow?offer=dharma Long Journey to a Bow Overcoming the last great obstacle to awakening: the conceit of self Christina Feldman The Heart is Not High or Low : Overview on Religions http://afterenlightenment.net/not_high.htm 　 http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_buddhist-humility_C_Yu_Hsi.htm ( a Mahayana contribution) #121992 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:25 am Subject: Re: "Thus should you train yourselves" truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, > J: Right. And the training being recommended is the *thought or >idea* “We will develop and cultivate mindfulness concerning the >body, make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise >ourselves in it, and thoroughly undertake it.” > >It is not a case of the Buddha suggesting the doing of certain >actions. >================================= Well what do you think the quote says when it says: "We will develop and cultivate" and "make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and thoroughly undertake it.”" what do you think is meant by "thoroughly undertake it make it our vehicle, make it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and thoroughly undertake it.” What do you think "thoroughly undertake it" means? Buddha tells us to do kusala actions. With best wishes, Alex #121993 From: Lukas Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Lukas. Heedless in daily life szmicio Dear Nina, Sarah I cant listen to Dhamma now, cause of a great agitation I feel due to my problem of 'attraction to a nice girl'. I decided to go back Poland. When I came I will stay more on DSG Best wishes Lukas ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] to Lukas. Heedless in daily life Dear Lukas, Op 8-jan-2012, om 19:34 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I am so heedlees during daily life, even I know that I should be > more careless about present experiences. But I still prefer this > pleasant dream. I am very heedless. I feel sometimes like wasting > my life. Sometimes I feel like i can really be less heedless, and > apply to the realites more. ------- N: Heedlessness or heedfulness, these are all conditioned naamas. They arise and then fall away. As Sarah said: , and we know that this is not possible. Sometimes the Buddha gave the monks a viriya kathaa, a talk to encourage them. I came across one in "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" and I think it can help us all when feeling discouraged: the sutta is in the Kindred Sayings (I, SagĂ„thĂ„ vagga, ChIV, 2, MĂ„ra, §6, the Bowl). While the Buddha was preaching, MĂ„ra wanted to distract the monks. He took the appearance of a bullock and went towards their bowls which were drying in the sun, whereupon the Buddha told the monks that it was not a bullock but MĂ„ra. (end quote) ******* Nina. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #121995 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:20 pm Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) sukinderpal Hello Rob, > In interpreting references to conventional activities in terms of paramatha dhammas, this is a movement away from taking the experiences through the five senses and the mind as `self'. Should you not be accused then, of being motivated by `self' and `attachment to results' in your own interpretation of the Teachings? RE: I don't think so. What's at issue is whether the Buddha's teachings should be followed as he instructed, and understood as he taught. I am still waiting for an answer to the question as to why he taught in terms of conventional actions and objects *at all.* ..After all, he didn't need to mention them at all. And he could have explained everything in terms of dhammas. So why didn't he? S: First, Dhamma is not like mathematics where the only way to express is by use of particular set of symbols. Second, there is a big difference between the disciple's interpreting what the Buddha said in terms of ultimate realities and the suggestion that the Buddha should have taught exclusively in these terms. One is from the standpoint of the student who comes in with his own understanding and the other is from the position of a Teacher who knew how much his student could understand. It would indeed be inappropriate to teach in terms of the Abhidhamma exposition to those who could understand the message in everyday language. ======= RE: It is my contention that he wanted to point out the dhammas involved in specific areas of life, which are denoted by the things he talked about, such as thought, speech, behavior, actions, and what types of things involved kusala, what kinds of things involved the development of understanding etc. If you say, as you do later, that understanding reality more closely does not involve looking more closely at conventional realities to break them down into dhammas as one would do with a microscope, then why does Buddha point directly to these different areas of conventional living? S: Because that is what normal people communicate in. When the Buddha taught Abhidhamma in the deva realm and then repeated it to Sariputta, the situation was not as it is in the case of normal human beings living in the world and approaching the Buddha to hear Dhamma. In hearing about conventional acts both good and bad, being reminded at that moment about citta and cetasika with some level of understanding is a change in perception. This is different from going along with the story and thinking that one should also go out and do the same with the idea that it is the conventional action which is good. In other words either there is understanding involving the reality / concept distinction now, or there is not. To suggest taking on concepts as object of study is result of having failed to make this distinction and therefore will only lead to more wrong. ======= RE: I don't think you have a good explanation for this without acknowledging that the Buddha wanted to direct us to the dhammas that are associated with a, with b, and with c, not just objects in general. In other words, if you drink alcohol, which clouds the mind, what is the cetana, thought, actions involved that cause this to happen, what dhammas are involved in such a chain of causation, and what dhammas arise when someone is "drunk?" In this way of looking at it, conventional objects are organized generalized ways of looking at the patterns of dhammas that arise, but without acknowledging what is really at play. S: Drinking alcohol and getting drunk are tied to specific set of dhammas? You mean everyone who drinks will experience more or less the same set of cittas and cetasikas? And refraining from drinking must involve another series of citta and cetasikas particular to the act? And you are saying that the Buddha expects us to understand the relationship between conventional actions and each of the different dhammas arising during the time? Where did the Buddha ever refer to patterns of dhammas and what chain of causation are you talking about? You create a distortion of the Buddha's teachings and expect me to indulge you! ====== RE: If Buddha says 'look at what is the nature of these body parts' he is asking you to see what understandings and insights arise when you focus on a specific location and see what dhammas are involved in that. S: You are saying that specific set of dhammas are associated with each concept and therefore to think about those concepts is a condition to allow those dhammas to appear and studied. You are not saying that if someone was thinking about body parts, regardless of which dhammas arose for him, those are what he must understand. And btw, what is the "nature of these body parts" according to your understanding? And in referring to this are you not contradicting yourself in suggesting at the same time to "see what dhammas are involved"? ====== RE: If it is useful to contemplate the disgusting qualities of the physical form to detach from sensuality, then Buddha is asking us to contemplate the dhammas of understanding that arise when we focus in the way he has directed. S: And if the detachment of samatha doesn't arise it would be useless to teach about the the kind of detachment that comes only with vipassana? ====== RE: I think it is difficult to claim that he is directing us to look at all these areas but he really does not want us to focus on anything, because that would be self-view. This is just not in line with all the different very specific things that he did teach about. Contemplation of corpses does involve a variety of namas and rupas and none of them are controlled, but in doing such a contemplation those rupas of the rotting corpse will cause certain types of understandings and insights to arise. Otherwise he would not say to do these contemplations. S: He was directing us to the reality of dhammas and to understand these! When I refer you to finger, keyboard and computer screen in our discussion about realities, am I asking you to observe them or is it that these are what you *already* perceive and I'm simply using them as reference point in order to direct your attention to dhammas!? ====== RE: So I do see a "microscopic" nature to the relation of dhammas and what we take for conceptual entities. The entities don't exist but the dhammas that we mistake for them are organized into certain sorts of experiential objects. We know that rupas arise in groupings and that various causal factors cause accumulations. So there is a kind of organization that occurs when certain kinds of areas of living are contemplated. S: You are using the theory about citta, cetasika and rupa to justify the practice of observing and study of concepts and in the process come up with your own theory. Were you to understand the reality / concept distinction instead you'd not have proliferated into such ideas. ====== RE: Yes, and he clearly makes the relation between them. He will say old age, birth and death, and then he will point out that ultimately these are references really to the kandhas. So it directs the person to look at this area of living and instead of seeing the concept, see the dhammas. But the concept is a placeholder for the dhammas that he wants us to look into. S: So are concepts or the reality of citta and cetasika the object of study? ====== > Suk: He made reference to both, but the objects of understanding were dhammas only. RE: Well that is the question - is it what he talked about, which is then broken down into dhammas, or is it "dhammas only" despite the fact that he talked about all these many and varied specific subjects. S: I should say "despite the fact that the Buddha taught about ultimate realities" you continue to insist wrongly, on studying concepts as a practice. Please tell me how is a concept studied if not by way of reference to other concepts thereby continue having only more concepts as object of consciousness? ====== > Suk: A paramatha dhamma is understood by way of experiencing its particular and general characteristics, please explain to me how a concept can be understood? RE: Well if you say that in general it is like an equation, but if you look at daily life and the various areas in which dhammas arise, you have a different picture. You have people, walking, talking, eating, reading books like the Athasalini, and Buddha seemed to be interested in what was being ………….. with the ordinary idea of a table and we are then told to look at the specific qualities of the rupas, such as hardness, etc.? That is the same as breaking down a conceptual area into dhammas. S: You have not answered my question but only cite the fact that the Buddha talked conventionally and giving your own theory with regard to why you think he did. You say that starting with the perception of table this can then be broken down into rupas, but you have not said how this happens. ======= RE: And how is that hearing the Dhamma causes the path to arise? S: Unless we are bodhisattas in our last life, we all need to hear the Dhamma. This is because otherwise we continue as uninstructed worldlings to take concepts for reality. The Dhamma must be communicated through words and it takes accumulated panna on our part to understand its true meaning. ====== RE: Why does understanding the concepts of language in the Dhamma have any relation to dhammas arising? S: You'd want to rephrase the above, I think. ====== RE: Why does panna somehow respond to reading and language about Dhamma, which is all conceptual? S: How else can communication take place if not by use of concepts? This is not the issue and you know it. It is about concepts pointing to that which is real and therefore the only valid object for the development of understanding and those that point to what is not real and can't be the basis for right knowledge. ===== RE: Obviously there are certain kinds of conceptual understandings that do relate to understanding dhammas, so why be so selective and say only reading and studying concepts are relevant? Why isn't experiencing other areas of life and seeing them as dhammas not relevant? S: You are asking us to study particular conventional objects and to follow conventional activities with the idea that this leads to understanding paramatha dhammas. We are saying that the first step to any fruitful study is understanding the distinction between reality and concepts. Big difference in these two positions. ====== > While giving, if I understand the nature of paramatha dhammas, what do I need to understand about the conventional action in addition to this, in order that the path is optimized? RE: I don't know. The question is, if I am talking about "giving" as we are here, we are talking about a "conventional area" to identify a certain kind of action, and then when we talk about the dhammas involved we are talking about specific types of dhammas, for instance, metta, or perhaps lobha, if it is with attachment. So if we talk about "giving with metta" or "giving with lobha" we are still using the placeholder concept to identify the area we aer talking about, so it makes sense. Isn't that what the Buddha did? S: But you see, you have here provided reasons why we need to understand everything in terms of paramatha dhammas. Giving is kusala and attachment is akusala, so we can't simply observe, let alone imitate, the behavior. We must pay attention to the dhamma from the very beginning. Also metta and dana are two different cetasikas and we have to distinguish these two as well. We don't use the conventional activity as placeholder, after all from your own example; we see that dana is a particular mental reality. You communicate this and not tell people to follow particular motions of the body, do you? To do so would be encouraging following rule and rituals and this would be extremely akusala would it not? ========== RE: If he teaches about corpse contemplation, and then the commentary points us to the rupas involved, then it is the corpse concept that leads us to identify that particular group of rupas and to contemplate their nature. Without the "corpse" we wouldn't know what we were talking about, except in a very abstract way. S: "Groups of rupas"? See how you come up with your own inventions as a result of lack of pariyatti understanding and clinging to wrong practice? But more important than this is you fail to see that the development of understanding being the opposite of ignorance, must therefore not aim at understanding "particular" set of dhammas, let alone using particular concepts for the purpose. To choose to understand only some dhammas is to encourage ignorance during all other activities, to make an association between particular dhammas with a conventional activity is wrong view which leads to wrong practice. ======= RE: Invariably, if we talk about "hardness," we give the example of a table or some other hard conventional object, because that is where we have the experience, though we confuse it with the concept. So we say "Well it's not really a table, it's hardness and this and that..." but we are talking about those rupas that are ordinarily taken as a table, and that is the placeholder that identifies that area of rupas. Same with visible object or sound. We say there's not really music, just heard object, but we use the music as a reference point to point to what's really arising. S: You forget that hardness in the body or outside is to be understood as one particular kind of element? You forget that because no panna arises to know this that we end up talking about hardness of the table or softness of the skin? And you are telling us that we should deliberately study skin in order to understand the earth element? On touching a table, there can be either the earth, the fire or the wind element as object of experience. And the fact is we automatically take these as qualities of 'something' instead of understanding them as rupas. The intention to deliberately touch a table in order to understand the rupa is an instance of attachment and ignorance which if followed by panna to know say, hardness as hardness, this happens in spite of the intention and not because of it. Normally it is wrong view which conditions the wrong practice, and when this is the case, the hardness is invariably experienced as 'self'. Metta, Sukin #121996 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:57 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. tough day at the office at dsg... Changing the header again from Scott's little quip. Part I... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > S: In our own conversations with Dhamma friends regarding kusala and akusala, isn't this normally done in conventional language? Do we not refer to paramatha dhammas only when we think that the reminder is necessary? Or when we want to talk in more technical detail, sure. > Do you not therefore see the situation of the Buddha teaching his disciples as requiring even less need for such reminders? I don't think it's just a reminder. I think it would depend on the situation. If the Buddha was teaching specific understandings of breath as object, understanding breath as possible object of insight for those used to using it as object of samatha/jhana, I would think he would be inclined to talk about it in specific detail, not in a conventional language that was really not saying what he meant to teach. There is a specific method and order laid out in the anapanasati sutta and a number of specific procedures in the satipatthana sutta, so if he meant to teach how to regard the dhammas involved, it doesn't make that much sense to me to refer to "long breath/short breath" or "body parts" if that is not what he meant to teach about. > The Buddha set the Wheel of Dhamma in motion with the teaching about the Four Noble Truths. This means that many of the people around him already knew that he taught about ultimate realities. If the anapanasati sutta is meant to instruct those already used to jhana practice how to understand those realities involved as objects of insight, one would not presume that they would automatically understand the dhammas involved in this new subject area. > ====== > RE: > Why does he say 'do this, do that,' if one follows anapasati in this way one will develop the enlightenment factors...' etc. Why? Why not speak the way the Abhidhamma does? I would really appreciate an answer to that question. > > S: The answer to this has been given many times. > He did not say what you think he says. He talked about Anapanasati and the development of Jhana for example, but this was descriptive of what took place for those who did practice them. The point in doing this was not so that they or you could try to follow the particular practices, but for them to understand the different realities involved as conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta directly, and for you to be reminded about the same in whatever you do in daily life. If that is the case, does that accord with the understanding of someone seeing a "long breath as a long breath" or understanding a "short breath as a short breath?" Does that accord with inspecting bodily fluids or hair or nails and seeing them all as repulsive? How do those conventional objects and those conventional views of such objects hint at or stand in for paramatha dhammas at all? > ==== > RE: > What that conventional language makes me think is that the Buddha taught that way because his words, his concepts, would cause certain arousings of cittas and cetasikas because of what they represented. If that is the case, it does not take away from the cittas and cetasikas, > > S: You refer to citta and cetasika which implies that it is ever only these that exists and perform functions, but at the same time talk as if there must be something more? Not something more, but the ability to switch back and forth between views of reality, as you have described in a sense when you say that one can talk conventionally if it is known what is being referred to. When you say "there is no computer, just visual object, etc." you are acknowledging that what we think of as "computer" is in fact a misrepresentation of the rupas involved. So there is a relation between what we think is there and what actually is arising, and we can reference one by the other. So when Buddha talks about breath, if he is pointing towards the rupas of the breath, of what we call breath, there is a correspondence between what we think is there, although distorted, and what is actually there. And by teaching and acting to look at those objects more closely, the dhammas can begin to be discerned. Is that not what the Buddha is pointing towards, seeing that there are dhammas where we think there is this or that object? If that is so, then when he is talking about breath or bodily fluids, he's not talking about nothing - he's pointing towards specific rupas that can be discerned. Sorry have to stop - more later. I realize I'm not in accord with you on this. If you want me to give up, I'll be happy to let it go. Otherwise, I'll pick up as soon as I can. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #121997 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:08 pm Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > S: Drinking alcohol and getting drunk are tied to specific set of dhammas? You mean everyone who drinks will experience more or less the same set of cittas and cetasikas? And refraining from drinking must involve another series of citta and cetasikas particular to the act? And you are saying that the Buddha expects us to understand the relationship between conventional actions and each of the different dhammas arising during the time? Where did the Buddha ever refer to patterns of dhammas and what chain of causation are you talking about? > > You create a distortion of the Buddha's teachings and expect me to indulge you! Please tell me what is the purpose of the rules about alcohol consumption, not killing animals and the entire set of rules for monks in the vinaya? Are they not all conventional rules regarding conventional activities? Please explain why they exist. As for drinking alcohol being "the same for everyone," well obviously there are some things that are the same. Anyone who drinks a lot of alcohol gets drunk, and that clouds the mind. That is the obvious reason for not drinking alcohol. So you are saying that none of that exists, and in terms of dhammas the citta is not affected at all by alcohol because it is a conventional illusion? And if that is the case, then why should one refrain from alcohol at all since it is meaningless? Then why follow the Buddha's admonitions on conventional activities such as alcohol, killing animals, murder, etc.? No need. So then who is distorting the teaching? If you are suggesting that we can ignore such rules and do whatever we please because it has no affect on dhammas then that is interesting. If not, if we should follow those rules, then why? Why follow a conventional rule if there is no conventional teaching and no conventional objects? And if Buddha was only talking of dhammas and just speaking in conventional terms for convenience, since I am obviously ignorant of the real meaning please inform me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121998 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:17 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob HI Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > I don't think it's right when straightforward, clear statements of the Buddha are given a convoluted or unrelated meaning, as does sometimes happen, based on the idea that its not reflecting what the reader already knows to be the case. > > > S: No, this is an objection made by self-view which sometimes finds it easy to feed on a particular interpretation of one sutta and difficulty biting on another one. I start with what is said. That is not "self view." And that doesn't seem very "particular" to me as an interpretation. It's the proper way to interpret something, to start with what was actually expressed, and only secondly see what it may mean. And follow from the text, not from your own concepts. > ====== > RE: > For instance, it's fine and understandable that if the Buddha talks about inventorying the body parts to say that we know that breaks down into rupas and we should understand the individual rupas and patterns that make up that object; but it's not reasonable and not fine in my view to say that the Buddha is just using the body part as a stand-in for rupas and that there is no purpose in looking at the body part at all, because we can't control rupas and therefore why look at a particular body part, which is just a conceptual object? > > S: First, a conventional object is not meant to be broken down into "individual rupas and patterns", rather the difference between concept and reality should be understood. > Second, in talking about the different body parts the Buddha was describing one of the samatha practices which he did not disapprove of. However he did point to the need to understand that in fact what we take as being body parts are in reality based on the experience of different rupas and that it is only in understanding this that the Path is developed. > > What do you think, the Buddha taught in order to have Right Understanding about realities, or did he teach contemplating particular concepts which can at best lead to calm? > > ====== > RE: > To me, that is wrong. Buddha went through the body parts, the fluids, etc., because he wanted us to look at those areas of the body, THEN break them down into rupas, not replace them with our own philosophy of rupas, that since their arising can't be controlled, there is no such thing as any systematic study being part of the path. > > S: "Replace then with our own philosophy of rupas"? Dang! > It is you who is encouraging thinking in terms of particular concepts and expect that this then be broken down into rupas, when the fact is that the idea of breaking down a concept into rupas is an impossibility and wrong. And the only way that you can maintain this position is by force of belief in a particular philosophy. > > On the other hand, what we point to is what takes place even now and can be understood. That finger, keyboard, monitor and so on are concepts based on the experience of visible object, hardness etc. and these can be understood in terms of the distinction between reality and concepts. This is philosophy or is this right understanding? You just said "based on the experience of visible object, hardness, etc." You just said that the concept is based on those experiences, and that is what I am saying. That the concept is pointing towards those experiences. It is deluded, but a deluded translation of what is taking place, and Buddha speaks in terms that do the same thing. If you said to me, look at the computer, now what is the real experience, it's just hardness, visible object, etc." it is the same thing as the Buddha saying, "Look at this area of the body - now see that there is not really this area, but instead the experience of tactile object, smoothness, etc." You think my view is so arbitrary and radical but it's not. It's very similar to what you said above. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = =