#122000 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:08 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Sukin), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > tough day at the office at dsg... > Changing the header again from Scott's little quip. .... Sarah: SO tough that you're now getting Sukin and I mixed up -- too many S's!! (Pls note the following which you reply to was written by Sukin and so I think your reply should be addressed to him...) Metta Sarah > > 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. <...> #122001 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Lukas. Heedless in daily life sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > 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 ... S: All so very common, so very ordinary! As I wrote recently, I liked this sutta which Ven Samahita posted recently (#120766) "Venerable Mahaali once asked the Buddha: But, Venerable Sir, what is the causing condition of mental defilement? By what reason, do beings become mentally defiled and degraded? The Buddha then explained: If, Mahali, this form, this feeling, this perception, this construction and this consciousness were exclusively suffering, immersed only in frustration, soaked solely in trouble and if it were not also sometimes soaked in pleasure, beings would not become enamoured with it. But since this form, this feeling, perception, construction & this consciousness is also occasionally pleasurable, immersed now and then in pleasure, soaked momentarily in delight & it is not soaked only & always in pain, beings become enamoured & enthralled with it! By being enamoured with it, they are captivated by it and obsessed with it... By being captivated by it and obsessed with it, they are defiled & degraded! This, Mahali, is the causing condition for the mental defilement of beings... By this reason, do beings become mentally defiled & detrimentally degraded! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya III 69-71 **** S: The problem is not the not being able to listen to Dhamma now, the problem is always the lack of understanding of what appears at this very moment regardless of whether it is seeing, visible object, agitation, attachment or any other dhamma. Attracttions and aversions are normal, Lukas..... just passing dhammas that can be known for what they are - anatta! Metta Sarah ===== #122002 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 sarahprocter... Hi Dieter (Scott, Connie, Pt & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > 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) ... S: I'm afraid I have no idea. I didn't know PTS translations were even available on line. Perhaps Scott, Connie or others can help us here. I also forget if the old Metta link translations are available elsewhere now? And I've lost the link Pt gave me for copying Pali chunks into velthius, so look f/w to further assistance myself.... I'm now using a Mac-air. Metta Sarah ===== #122003 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:32 pm Subject: Re: "Thus should you train yourselves" jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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. > >================================= > > [A:] 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.”" > =============== J: The passage in quotes represents the thinking of someone who correctly understands the development of mindfulness [of dhammas] as the path, and the only path, taught by the Buddha. What the quoted passage does not spell out is exactly how mindfulness is developed. However, the fact that this thinking is described by the Buddha as the 'training' is significant, I'd say. > =============== > [A:] 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. > =============== J: The Buddha urges the development of kusala of all levels, and especially of the level of satipatthana. But I do not understand him to be specifying certain actions to be done as a means to that development. Certainly this sutta does not support such a view. Jon #122004 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:35 pm Subject: Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: The problem is not the not being able to listen to Dhamma now, the problem is always the lack of understanding of what appears at this very moment regardless of whether it is seeing, visible object, agitation, attachment or any other dhamma. Attracttions and aversions are normal, Lukas..... just passing dhammas that can be known for what they are - anatta! L: But I feel bad to how i behave, a lot of agitation, not picking up proper words carefully.And I speak with a lot of mana. Then I think bad of myself, of what I said. Best wishes Lukas #122005 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:47 pm Subject: Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > L: But I feel bad to how i behave, a lot of agitation, not picking up proper words carefully.And I speak with a lot of mana. Then I think bad of myself, of what I said. .... S: Yes, all clinging to oneself, to being another way, to having different kinds of cittas! It's all so common, but so very helpful when there is awareness at the present moment, awareness of thinking as just a dhamma - never mind what the thinking thinks about - all those long stories about "me" and "others" are so very unimportant..... just a passing dream of nonsense! There are little "tests" all day - depends whether any awareness arises. Visiting my friend in a coma in hospital regularly helps remind me that all the little daily annoyances and attachments that seem so important at the time are so very inconsequential. Death may come anytime or, like my friend, we can end up in a coma anytime at all - able to hear, but unable to respond in anyway. If we are troubled by the small tests, how can the patience and other paramis be developed enough so that there can be understanding when facing the big tests in life? Metta Sarah p.s. Nina, Howard & all - a little more reaction in my friend, eyes more open, a moving foot, that sort of thing. It's been suggested that she may have stepped on a 'stonefish' in the shallow water (which has deadly venom like a snake) and lost consciousness before the near-drowning. Anything can happen anytime according to past kamma! ======= #122006 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life nilovg Dear Sarah, I am glad you tell us. That shows that there are good prospects for her recovery. ----- S: And I've lost the link Pt gave me for copying Pali chunks into velthius, so look f/w to further assistance myself ----- N: I used to have a simple pad, but now the link takes me to complicated things, they have changed. I know that Han uses one. Nina. Op 13-jan-2012, om 10:47 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Nina, Howard & all - a little more reaction in my friend, eyes more > open, a moving foot, that sort of thing #122007 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Nina), Wishing you a Wise and Healthy New Year! >________________________________ > From: Nina van Gorkom >S: And I've lost the link Pt gave me for copying Pali chunks into >velthius, so look f/w to further assistance myself >----- >N: I used to have a simple pad, but now the link takes me to >complicated things, they have changed. >I know that Han uses one. .... Han, if you read this, could you let us know if you have an exchange pad you use? Metta Sarah ===== #122008 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/13/2012 4:47:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: p.s. Nina, Howard & all - a little more reaction in my friend, eyes more open, a moving foot, that sort of thing. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Good! :-) The downside of encouraging news like this, though it is worth it of course, is that it breeds hope, and hoping is a form of desire and is mentally painful. ------------------------------------------------ It's been suggested that she may have stepped on a 'stonefish' in the shallow water (which has deadly venom like a snake) and lost consciousness before the near-drowning. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Hmm! It's a bit comforting, I suppose, to have an explanation and also to suspect that she may have been unaware of what would otherwise have been painful and frightening. ------------------------------------------------- Anything can happen anytime according to past kamma! ----------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. So far as we can know, it can be pretty much anything at anytime. All that's open to us is to "keep our eyes open" and do the best we can. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous #122009 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-self, Self and the stream. nilovg Dear Andy, Op 12-jan-2012, om 11:37 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > 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: There are different translations. PTS translates anattaa in the Kindred Sayings IV, on Sense, as void of the self, whereas Ven. Bodhi translates it as nonself. We should not mind the words, it is rather the understanding of the reader and listener that matters. This understanding can come into being by explanations and examples from daily life. Understanding that whatever arises does so because of the proper conditions helps very much to understand the characteristic of anattaa. Painful bodily feeling, different ailments, these are results from past kamma and we cannot avoid what has been conditioned already. I have to remind Lodewijk and myself of this fact when he complains about ailments. Immediately after the vipaakacittas that are results akusala cittas rooted in aversion (dosa) are bound to arise. These arise because of conditions other than those for the vipaakacittas. We had a lot of aversion in the past and this conditions the arising of aversion today. Seeing, hearing, all these experiences can only arise because of the proper conditions. Anattaa is a characteristic of all realities, thus, we can say: they *are* anattaa. Also nibbaana is anattaa. We read in the Dhammapada vs 277-279, that all conditoned dhammas are impermanent and dukkha, and that all dhammas, all realities are anattaa and this includes nibaana. NIbbaana is a dhamma, a reality, but it is unconditioned. ------- Nina. #122010 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 moellerdieter Hi Sarah, you wrote: 'I'm afraid I have no idea. I didn't know PTS translations were even available on line. Perhaps Scott, Connie or others can help us here. I also forget if the old Metta link translations are available elsewhere now? And I've lost the link Pt gave me for copying Pali chunks into velthius, so look f/w to further assistance myself.... I'm now using a Mac-air. D: thanks Sarah , I meant the PTS dictionary ( see previous comment: (Searching the entire PTS dictionary for mana. located 18 occurrences, only "Mānin (adj.) (-- ˚) [fr. mana1] proud (of) Sn 282 (samaṇa˚), 889 (paripuṇṇa˚); Dh 63 (paṇḍita˚ proud of his cleverness, cp. DhA ii.30); J i.454 (atireka˚); iii.357 (paṇḍita˚); Sdhp 389, 417. -- f " seems to cover .) I suppose if I had typed 'a' with the line upon , the result might bewn different ,at least I expected better fitting results of occurences. But I am not familar with the PTS sutta index (wondering whether some table exists in order to find the texts within the common (?) order ) , so not yet sure. Metta link Tipitaka translations: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html ,( incl. a number of suttas not yet published by ATI ) with Metta Dieter #122011 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 2 moellerdieter Hi all, only a bit more about mana ... ;-) comments wellcome with Metta Dieter mana in Abhidhammattha Sangaha http://www.budsas.org/ebud/abhisgho/abhis02.htm : 21. Mana - Derived from man, to think. (D ? : PTS dictionary treats' mano & mana ' in length , the hint "The form mano is found throughout in cpds. as mano˚, the other mana at the end of cpds. as ˚mana " seems to explain some confusion (?) with the terms , mana (with ' - ' above the first a , derived from mana ? ) The 4 Immoral mental states common to all immorals such as moha (delusion), ahirika (shamelessness), anottappa, (fearlessness), and uddhacca (restlessness) must arise in it. What about the remaining ten? Lobha - attachment must arise. Ditthi - misbelief must arise. Mana - conceit cannot arise. Conceit does not arise in lobha consciousness, together with misbelief. Ditthi is connected with wrong view, while mana is concerned with egoism. Both of them, say the commentators, are like two lions that cannot live together in one cave. d) Conceit (*3) is found in the four types of consciousness dissociated with wrong view. (*3) Mana too originates with the "I" - conception connected with oneself. As such it also is present only in types of consciousness rooted in attachment. Nevertheless, both ditthi and mana do not arise simultaneously in one particular consciousness. Where there is ditthi there is no mana. Commentaries compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den. Mana may arise in those four types of consciousness dissociated with ditthi. But it does not follow that mana is ever present in them.] unquote sutta examples: AN 6.49 PTS: A iii 358 Khema Sutta: With Khema translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2004–2012 On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. And at that time Ven. Khema and Ven. Sumana were staying near Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove. Then Ven. Khema and Ven. Sumana went to the Blessed One and on arrival, have bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Khema said to the Blessed One, "When a monk is an arahant, with his fermentations ended — one who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis — the thought doesn't occur to him that 'There is someone better than me,' or 'There is someone equal to me,' or 'There is someone worse than me.'" That is what Ven. Khema said, and the Teacher approved. Sensing that "The Teacher approves of me," Ven. Khema got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One, circled him — keeping him on his right — and left. Then Ven. Sumana, not long after Ven. Khema had left, said to the Blessed One, "When a monk is an arahant, with his fermentations ended — one who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis — the thought doesn't occur to him that 'There is no one better than me,' or 'There is no one equal to me,' or 'There is no one worse than me.'" That is what Ven. Sumana said, and the Teacher approved. Sensing that "The Teacher approves of me," Ven. Sumana got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One, circled him — keeping him on his right — and left. Then the Blessed One, not long after Ven. Khema & Ven. Sumana had left, said to the monks, "Monks, this is how clansmen declare gnosis. The meaning [of gnosis] is stated, but without mention of self. Yet there are some worthless people who declare gnosis as if in jest. They will fall into trouble afterward. Not as higher, lower, nor equal do they refer to themselves. With birth ended, the holy life fulfilled they go about totally freed from fetters." 　 SN 22.49 PTS: S iii 48 CDB i 887 So.no Sutta: So.na Conceit translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe © 2007–2012 The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition. [At Veluvana So.na the householder's son approached the Blessed One. The Buddha said:] "Whatever recluses and Brahmans, So.na, hold views about the body, which is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change, such as 'I am better [than you],' 'I am equal [to you],' or 'I am worse [than you]' [likewise 'feeling,' 'perception,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness'], what else are they but folk who do not see things as they really are? "But, So.na, whatever recluses and Brahmans do not hold such views... What else are they but those who see things as they really are?" AN 4.159 PTS: A ii 144 Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu excerpt: "'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then, at a later time, he abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. Excerpt: Paramatthaka Sutta A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances.... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ireland/wheel082.html last but not least : http://thebuddhisttemple.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid\ =62one describing "Common Forms of Conceit, and How to Dispel Them assumed you finished reading both postings of Cetasika mana , you deserve a reward : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ #122012 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:13 am Subject: translit & PED nichiconn dear Sarah, Dieter, Nina, 1. transliteration. a. for Pali-Velthuis, you might search addons.mozilla.org for: transliterator It's "a Firefox / Thunderbird / etc extension which provides transliterated keyboard input mode and transliteration/detransliteration of document text." - http://www.benya.com/transliterator/ [<-- link on the US Firefox page has an extra ) at the end] I uninstalled this add-on the other day after several months of never bothering to try it out, so I can't say anything more about it -- you're on your own. b. Another option is the built in translit tool in the Digital Pali Reader (DPR). If your version of Firefox is up to date (at least 4.0 for Windows - dunno about the others), you can download/install DPR & Tipitaka/s directly from the homepage: http://pali.sirimangalo.org/ Note that you have to get at least the program itself and the Burmese Texts - the Thai Texts file is optional. If your Firefox is outdated & you don't want to update for whatever reason, try one of the no longer supported "all in one" (program + texts) 0.9 or 1.0 DPR versions from http://sourceforge.net/projects/digitalpali/files/DPR/ You're on your own here, too. 2. PTS Pali-English Dictionary a. download a pdf from abhidhamma.com look in the Books menu, first one in the list under P (or check archive.org) b. the version at www.leighb.com/pts_ped.htm doesn't require entering a word at all, just pick a section and scroll thru. c. on dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html try entering an English word to avoid using fonts. ex: conceit for maana i hope there's something useful to you there, connie #122013 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:06 am Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. kenhowardau Hi Andy, --------- <. . .> >> KH: The Buddha did want us to contemplate anatta. <. . .> >> > A: 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] ---------- KH: Thanks very much for asking. My opinion of any purportedly "Buddhist" teaching will always be one of two kinds. I will regard it as either a *description* of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma, or as a *prescription* of something for a permanent self to do. So what do you think of the above teaching? Is it a description or a prescription? ------------------------------ > A: 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] ------------------------------ KH: When we interpret the Buddha's teaching as a prescription all sorts of confusions must inevitably arise. In order to allay those confusions people come up with original theories. The idea that there is neither atta nor anatta is an original theory, and it blatantly contradicts the ancient texts. ----------------------------------- > A: 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. ----------------------------------- KH: Over the course of many centuries, the original teaching became largely lost and forgotten. Only in quite recent years has it become generally available again, and this is due largely to the work of K Sujin and friends who have translated many Pali commentaries that were previously untranslated. We can now see that the Dhamma is a description of "the way things are" (now, in the present moment). The present moment is the only moment that can ever be known. Future moments will be known *in the future* and so they will be known by a completely new consciousness - a consciousness devoid of anything carried on from the present. So the Dhamma is very much a here-and-now teaching. It's now or never! :-) ------------------------- > A: "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 our discussion. ------------------------ KH: The second paragraph is a typical (albeit blatant) example of what happens when we study the Dhamma with wrong view. If we regard the Dhamma as a prescription, for someone to carry out, we must wonder what will ultimately happen to that "someone." Will it live eternally, or will it be annihilated? In the given example the conclusion was "live forever." (A conclusion that required a blatant rewriting of the ancient texts, changing "Nibbana is anatta" to "Nibbana is atta.") Ken H #122014 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:27 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: "R" said: > > tough day at the office at dsg... > > Changing the header again from Scott's little quip. > .... > > Sarah: SO tough that you're now getting Sukin and I mixed up -- too many S's!! Ha ha - well that's what happens when you start just calling yourselves "S." I sometimes get mixed up and think I'm Rob K. > (Pls note the following which you reply to was written by Sukin and so I think > your reply should be addressed to him...) I appreciate the correction, but I think I'll just give up. :-) Best, Rob E. aka "R" - - - - - - - - - - #122015 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:52 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll interpret it incorrectly) scottduncan2 Rob E., I know you've 'given up' with your campaign to claim that the Buddha taught self-view (for the best, really), but, regarding: R: "...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..." Scott: The above the quite convoluted. Actually, Rob, in one sense you try to imagine that you *refuse* to interpret when your claim is that the suttas mean what they say at the surface. You do this because you believe that you have it correct, that you know what the suttas mean. Or else you're a bit mixed up as to what 'interpret' means. Random definitions, to assist you: http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/interpret "1 [transitive] interpret something to explain the meaning of something: 'The students were asked to interpret the poem.' "2 [transitive] to decide that something has a particular meaning and to understand it in this way interpret something as something: 'I didn't know whether to interpret her silence as acceptance or refusal.' interpret something: 'The data can be interpreted in many different ways.' "3 [intransitive] interpret (for someone) to translate one language into another as you hear it: 'She couldn't speak much English so her children had to interpret for her.' "4 [transitive] interpret something to perform a piece of music, a role in a play, etc. in a way that shows your feelings about its meaning: 'He interpreted the role with a lot of humor.'" Scott: In actuality, however, you *do* interpret, apparently in spite of yourself. Your 'interpretation' is that the suttas are meant to be understood as explanations formatted in the style of a how-to manual - that they tell us what to do in order to make things happen. And of course, in this, you completely do away with the fact that no dhamma can be manipulated - do away with the fact that anatta is said to be a fundamental characteristic of dhammas and is demonstrated in their not being susceptible to control, nor capable of interest or curiosity. When you act as if you can control dhammas and imagine that your 'will' is interested in a future result, you totally and completely misunderstand anatta. You decide that the suttas are instructions that apply to you and that you know what they mean and that you can enact them. This is your wrong interpretation. Scott. #122016 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] translit & PED moellerdieter Dear Connie (Sarah and Nina ), thanks for your kind and thorough advise . 20 years ago I should have started to learn Pali to see for myself , now it is a bit late ;-) First to PTS, you wrote: 2. PTS Pali-English Dictionary a. download a pdf from abhidhamma.com look in the Books menu, first one in the list under P (or check archive.org) D: Pali dictionary ( pdf: 1358 pages ..can be managed by pdf search -tool .. I tried 'mana' but similar results as the source above . Anyway , a helpful additional link . S: b. the version at www.leighb.com/pts_ped.htm doesn't require entering a word at all, just pick a section and scroll thru. D: I failed to get a connection so far S: c. on dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html try entering an English word to avoid using fonts. ex: conceit for maana D: thanks for the hint : using the English word I get what I wanted, obviously a lot of synonyms too . ( no hit for maana , another code I assume). One wonders how much time can be spent for a missing line above the 'a' ;-) , C:1. transliteration. a. for Pali-Velthuis, you might search addons.mozilla.org for: transliterator It's "a Firefox / Thunderbird / etc extension which provides transliterated keyboard input mode and transliteration/detransliteration of document text." - http://www.benya.com/transliterator/ [<-- link on the US Firefox page has an extra ) at the end] I uninstalled this add-on the other day after several months of never bothering to try it out, so I can't say anything more about it -- you're on your own. b. Another option is the built in translit tool in the Digital Pali Reader (DPR). If your version of Firefox is up to date (at least 4.0 for Windows - dunno about the others), you can download/install DPR & Tipitaka/s directly from the homepage: http://pali.sirimangalo.org/ Note that you have to get at least the program itself and the Burmese Texts - the Thai Texts file is optional. If your Firefox is outdated & you don't want to update for whatever reason, try one of the no longer supported "all in one" (program + texts) 0.9 or 1.0 DPR versions from http://sourceforge.net/projects/digitalpali/files/DPR/ You're on your own here, too. D: I have Firefox installed , but are used to I.E.. I will try with both ...( wondering whether I really need it , as it showed for you ) with Metta Dieter #122017 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:34 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., I was reading in U.P. and read the following. Could you interpret this - your own quote (Message #8814)? "...I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a little effort. But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a good medicine for those like myself who believe that there is something else involved in the process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to a notion of self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in fact not 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging to self or possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or Mahayanist, is to know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, and is just grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the journey, this is still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been attracted to this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a good dose of anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real substitute for this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion of something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment process." Scott: I found this to be a clear demonstration of your view. You allude to 'something else involved in the process,' and then clearly offer your belief in a 'primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow.' Very interesting. What say you now? Scott. #122018 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] translit & PED nichiconn Dear Dieter, I'm going to answer you off-list. connie > D: I have Firefox installed , but are used to I.E.. #122019 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:33 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll interpret it incorrectly) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > I know you've 'given up' with your campaign to claim that the Buddha taught self-view (for the best, really), but, regarding: > > R: "...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..." > > Scott: The above the quite convoluted. Actually, Rob, in one sense you try to imagine that you *refuse* to interpret when your claim is that the suttas mean what they say at the surface. You do this because you believe that you have it correct, that you know what the suttas mean. Or else you're a bit mixed up as to what 'interpret' means. > > Random definitions, to assist you: > > http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/interpret > > "1 [transitive] interpret something to explain the meaning of something: 'The students were asked to interpret the poem.' > > "2 [transitive] to decide that something has a particular meaning and to understand it in this way interpret something as something: 'I didn't know whether to interpret her silence as acceptance or refusal.' interpret something: 'The data can be interpreted in many different ways.' > > "3 [intransitive] interpret (for someone) to translate one language into another as you hear it: 'She couldn't speak much English so her children had to interpret for her.' > > "4 [transitive] interpret something to perform a piece of music, a role in a play, etc. in a way that shows your feelings about its meaning: 'He interpreted the role with a lot of humor.'" > > Scott: In actuality, however, you *do* interpret, apparently in spite of yourself. Your 'interpretation' is that the suttas are meant to be understood as explanations formatted in the style of a how-to manual - that they tell us what to do in order to make things happen. > > And of course, in this, you completely do away with the fact that no dhamma can be manipulated - do away with the fact that anatta is said to be a fundamental characteristic of dhammas and is demonstrated in their not being susceptible to control, nor capable of interest or curiosity. When you act as if you can control dhammas and imagine that your 'will' is interested in a future result, you totally and completely misunderstand anatta. > > You decide that the suttas are instructions that apply to you and that you know what they mean and that you can enact them. This is your wrong interpretation. Sorry, I'm not going to respond to this post. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122020 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:14 am Subject: Patience is the Highest Praxis! bhikkhu5 Friends: Patience is the 6th Perfection: The characteristic of patience is acceptance, its function is to endure, and its manifestation is non-opposing tolerance! The cause of patience is understanding how things really are.. The effect of patience is calm tranquility despite presence of intensely stirring provocation.. Patience of the will produces forgiving forbearance! Patience of the intellect produces faith, confidence and certainty! Patience of the body produces resolute and tenacious endurance! Internal tolerance of states within oneself is patient endurance... External tolerance of other beings is forbearance and forgiveness... He who patiently protects himself, protects also all other beings! He who patiently protects all other beings, protects also himself! Not from speaking much is one called clever. The patient one is free from anger and free from fear, only such steady persisting one, is rightly called clever... Dhammapada 258 Patient tolerance is the highest praxis... Nibbna is the supreme Bliss! So say all the Buddhas. Dhammapada 184 The innocent one, who has done nothing wrong, Who endures abuse, flogging and even imprisonment, Such one, armed with stamina, the great force of tolerance, Such stoic one, who self-possessed can accept, I call a Holy One! Dhammapada 399 One should follow those who are determined, tolerant, and enduring, intelligent, wise, diligent, clever, good-willed and evidently Noble. One shall stick to them as the moon remains in its regular orbit. Dhammapada 208 Friends, even if bandits were to cut you up, savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, you should not get angry, but do my bidding: Remain pervading them and all others with a friendly Awareness imbued with an all-embracing good-will, kind, rich, expansive, and immeasurable! Free from hostility, free from any ill will. Always remembering this very Simile of the Saw is indeed how you should train yourselves. Majjhima Nikya 21 The five ways of removing irritating annoyance: Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which any irritation can be entirely removed by a Bhikkhu, when it arises in him. What are these five ways? 1: Friendliness can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 2: Understanding can be undertaken towards an irritating person or state.. 3: On-looking Equanimity can be kept towards an irritating person or state.. 4: One can forget and ignore the irritating person, mental or physical state.. 5: Ownership of Kamma of the irritating person can be reflected upon thus: This good person is owner of his actions, inherit the result his actions, is indeed born of his actions and only he is responsible for his actions be they good or bad. This too is how annoyance with the irksome can be instantly removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, and by which any irritation can be entirely removed in a friend, exactly when it arises... Anguttara Nikya V 161 Buddha to his son Rhula : Develop an Imperturbable Mind like the elements: Rhula, develop a mind like earth, then contacts of arisen like and dislike will not obsess your mind! Rhula, on the earth is dumped both the pure and the impure: excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, but the earth does not detest any of those... Even and exactly so make your mind stable like the earth! Rhula, develop a mind like water, then contacts of arisen pleasure and pain will not seize your mind. Rhula with water both the pure and the impure are cleaned... Washed away with water are excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the water does not despise any of that! Even so make the mind fluid and adaptable like the water! Rhula, develop a mind like fire, then the contacts of any arisen attraction or aversion will neither consume, nor hang on to your mind! Rhula, fire burns both the pure and the impure, burns excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the fire does not loathe any of that.. In the same manner refine the mind into a tool like an all consuming and purifying fire! Rhula, develop a mind similar to space, then contacts of arisen delight and frustration does neither take hold of, nor remain in your mind. Space does not settle anywhere! Similarly make the mind unsettled and unestablished like open space. When you expand mind like space, contacts of delight and frustration will neither be able to dominate, nor obsess your mind... Majjhima Nikya 62 More on the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm Patience is the Highest Praxis! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #122021 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:54 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll interpret it incorrectly) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Sorry, I'm not going to respond to this post." Scott: Ahh. It's for the best. I can savour the effects of my devastating arguments. Ha ha. Scott. #122022 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:55 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > I was reading in U.P. and read the following. Could you interpret this - your own quote (Message #8814)? > > "...I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a little effort. But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a good medicine for those like myself who believe that there is something else involved in the process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to a notion > of self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in fact not 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging to self or possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or Mahayanist, is to know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, and is > just grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the journey, this is still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been attracted to this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a good dose of anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real substitute for this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion of something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment process." > > Scott: I found this to be a clear demonstration of your view. You allude to 'something else involved in the process,' and then clearly offer your belief in a 'primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow.' Very interesting. > > What say you now? I think the arahant "has" a state of enlightened awareness that is completely devoid of self-view. That is what I would expect at the "end of the rainbow," nothing more or less. After parinibbana, I have no view of what does or doesn't exist. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #122023 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:56 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll interpret it incorrectly) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Sorry, I'm not going to respond to this post." > > Scott: Ahh. It's for the best. I can savor the effects of my devastating arguments. Ha ha. > > Scott. Enjoy. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #122024 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:00 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., Nothing to say on the subject of anatta? R: "...After parinibbana, I have no view of what does or doesn't exist." Scott: Very equivocal. Nothing exists after parinibbana. Scott. #122025 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:12 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Nothing to say on the subject of anatta? I said that the arahat has no self-view remaining. The understanding of anatta is the cause for this. What do you want me to say? > R: "...After parinibbana, I have no view of what does or doesn't exist." > > Scott: Very equivocal. Nothing exists after parinibbana. Nothing exists for whom? For the person who is gone who didn't exist in the first place? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122026 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:17 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > I was reading in U.P. and read the following. Could you interpret this - your own quote (Message #8814)? > > "...I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a little effort. But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a good medicine for those like myself who believe that there is something else involved in the process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to a notion > of self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in fact not 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging to self or possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or Mahayanist, is to know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, and is > just grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the journey, this is still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been attracted to this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a good dose of anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real substitute for this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion of something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment process." > > Scott: I found this to be a clear demonstration of your view. You allude to 'something else involved in the process,' and then clearly offer your belief in a 'primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow.' Very interesting. BTW, what is one of my posts doing in useful posts? I object! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122027 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:52 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I said that the arahat has no self-view remaining. The understanding of anatta is the cause for this...." Scott: It was *your* current understanding of anatta I was interested in, not some statement about an arahat. Your iteration of a decade ago had quite a lot to say about it. R: "Nothing exists for whom? For the person who is gone who didn't exist in the first place?" Scott: Why equivocate then? Scott. #122028 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:53 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "BTW, what is one of my posts doing in useful posts? I object!" Scott: Yeah, me too. And under 'anatta' no less. Scott. #122029 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:05 am Subject: What I heard: Sati in all circumstances (I). nilovg Dear friends, Sati in all circumstances (I). We read in the Vinaya: (I, Suttavibha.nga, Defeat, I) that the Buddha was staying at Vera~nja with five hundred monks to spend the rainy season there. Vera~nja was short of almsfood, people were suffering from famine. Some horse dealers had arrived with five hundred horses and prepared steamed grain in the horse rings. The monks were unable to obtain almsfood in Vera~nja and went into the horse rings where they were given steamed grain. After the monks returned they pounded this on a stone and ate it. Aananda crushed some on a stone for the Lord and offered it to him. The Buddha ate it and when he heard the sound of a mortar he asked what it was. Aananda explained everything to the Buddha. The Buddha said that monks in future times would have contempt for their food. ------- Kh Sujin: We should consider our daily life and develop satipa.t.thaana. Was life at that time difficult for the monks? Even so is the life of lay followers today difficult and will it be so in the future? We do not know what will happen to morrow. Today we may be strong and we can obtain proper food, we may have many possessions. Tomorrow nothing may be left of those. Life will perhaps be difficult, but we can develop satipa.t.thaana and be aware of realities as they are, we can understand naama and ruupa as they appear through the eyes, the ears and the other doorways. We should not say: Now we suffer much, we should first look for food and possessions. Can one be aware when one is hungry or when eating coarse red rice? People believe that they cannot develop satipa.t.thaana in such circumstances. Kamma that was committed in the past produces vipaaka in the form of experiences through the senses. Satipa.t.thaana can be habitually developed in daily life. We can consider the life of the monks in Vera~nja. They went on alsmround, they went into the horse rings to receive steamed grains that they pounded with a mortar. They developed satipa.t.thaana in daily life, during their activities. They were contented with little. All this has really happened at Vera~nja. Who is habitually aware has less troubles in his life. The vipaakacitta that sees, hears etc. is beyond control. Everyone likes to see pleasant things, but it all depends on kamma what kind of vipaakacitta arises at present. ********* Nina. #122030 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:33 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I said that the arahat has no self-view remaining. The understanding of anatta is the cause for this...." > > Scott: It was *your* current understanding of anatta I was interested in, not some statement about an arahat. Your iteration of a decade ago had quite a lot to say about it. > > R: "Nothing exists for whom? For the person who is gone who didn't exist in the first place?" > > Scott: Why equivocate then? Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options. The important point about anatta is that there is no self to destroy, not that something is destroyed in parinibbana. If we recognize that as far as a "self" is concerned, nothing happens in parinibbana, I think that's a more clear understanding of anatta. All that happens is that the selfless arisings of phenomena cease to arise. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #122031 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:34 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "BTW, what is one of my posts doing in useful posts? I object!" > > Scott: Yeah, me too. And under 'anatta' no less. It's just anatta one of those things. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #122032 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:56 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." Scott: What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it? Are dhammaa real? R: "The important point about anatta is that there is no self to destroy, not that something is destroyed in parinibbana. If we recognize that as far as a 'self' is concerned, nothing happens in parinibbana, I think that's a more clear understanding of anatta. All that happens is that the selfless arisings of phenomena cease to arise." Scott: Parinibbana is the death of the arahat, is it not? Nothing more. Do you still believe in some sort of consciousness persisting beyond parinibbana? Scott. #122033 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:13 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." > > Scott: What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it? Are dhammaa real? They really arise and they really fall away. Definitely a real occurrence in the moment in which they occur - nothing more nor less. > R: "The important point about anatta is that there is no self to destroy, not that something is destroyed in parinibbana. If we recognize that as far as a 'self' is concerned, nothing happens in parinibbana, I think that's a more clear understanding of anatta. All that happens is that the selfless arisings of phenomena cease to arise." > > Scott: Parinibbana is the death of the arahat, is it not? What does that mean? Is there an arahat to die? You're talking in concept language. All that exists are dhammas, right? So when parinibbana takes place, those dhammas associated with the "arahat" no longer arise. That's all. Do you not agree with that? You don't think there's a person that's an arahat, do you? > Nothing more. Do you still believe in some sort of consciousness persisting beyond parinibbana? Like I said, I really don't know what exists or doesn't exist after parinibbana. All I know is that dhammas no longer arise and there is no more conditioned reality. Consciousness as one of the five kandhas definitely no longer exists. And I don't know if there's anything else. Nothing that I know of. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #122034 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." Me: "What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it?" Scott: Sutta reference please, Rob. Otherwise you are simply making more unfounded rhetorical statements. Where are you getting this from and, more importantly, how do you interpret it? What do you mean by 'local terms?' Me: "Are dhammaa real?" R: "They really arise and they really fall away. Definitely a real occurrence in the moment in which they occur - nothing more nor less." Scott: A bit equivocal still, Rob. You are agreeing that a dhamma is a reality, having own nature (characteristic and function)? This would be a statement in favour of the existence of dhammaa, wouldn't it? Please explain in relation to your original, cryptic statement regarding 'existence' and 'non-existence.' Scott. #122035 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:48 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) sukinderpal Hello Rob, > Do you not therefore see the situation of the Buddha teaching his disciples as requiring even less need for such reminders? Rob: 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. S: We are not talking about the 'language'. The question is what the teachings point to, namely whether it is ultimate reality or is it also conventional reality / activities? You refer to long breath / short breath but forget that what follows is reference to each of the five Khandhas and also to inconstancy etc. and in the same way, the different jhana factors. And you infer from this that he was teaching to note conventional reality? ====== Rob: 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. S: That a monk who practices anapanasati will think in terms of whether the breath is short or long, this is natural. And those who meditated on the body parts, these are the concepts they were meant to think about. Why would the Buddha not refer to them if those are the concepts which form part of the monk's samatha practice? ===== > 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. Rob: 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. S: Understand or not understand what other way is there but to point to reality and the distinction between this and concepts in order that understanding of the one happens? What are you proposing? That those people were directed to pay attention to conventional objects and not told about the reality / concept distinction? And you're saying that from the conventional practice arises knowledge about ultimate realities later on? ======= Rob: 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? S: They were not cited as 'hint' for paramatha dhammas; this is your own inference from the standpoint of thinking that the Buddha taught deliberate practice of Vipassana. The Buddha mentioned them because this is what the monks had as object of their samatha practice. ====== > 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? Rob: 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. S: Concepts neither represent nor misrepresent reality; they are simply the object of thinking and to be known as such. Thinking is part of the natural order of consciousness and therefore concepts will always be part of our experience. The idea of ability to switch back and forth between the perception of concepts and that of reality does not therefore make any sense. And this is another reason why it is wrong to suggest concentrating on concepts as a practice for the development of wisdom. It is like trying not to think about say, a tree, all you get is more thinking about trees. ====== Rob: 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. S: Although the concept of breath is based on the experience of particular rupas and thinking, this is only a story thought about with right or wrong understanding. Right understanding would have it that the realities are to be known as and when they appear from which arise the knowledge that in reality there are only paramatha dhammas. To suggest study of the concept of breath in order to understand the dhammas, this results in a story "about breath" and not the understanding of realities. Distortion does not come from the concepts, but the ignorance and wrong understanding and this includes when thinking about paramatha dhammas as well. ======= Rob: 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? S: No, the Buddha's words are meant to condition understanding there and then with regard to whatever reality appearing for each person. If this doesn't happen, then at a later time, because one has heard the Buddha's message, understanding of any reality could happen regardless of situation or activity, not necessarily those associated with breath. This is because one understands that it is reality and not concept which is the object of study. How else did 50 or 100 or 500 monks become enlightened at the same time while listening to the Buddha? Do you think that they all experienced the same set of realities? Therefore if you believe that the Buddha asked us to concentrate on concepts and that this will lead to discerning of paramatha dhammas, no understanding is going to arise here, there or anywhere for you. And if you think that he recommended choosing breath as object, this is wrong view and the tendency to wrong practice will just get worse. ======= Rob: 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. S: This is your wrong understanding. Understanding of realities cannot come without firm intellectual understanding with regard to the present moment reality as the only valid object of study, saccannana. If you continue to entertain ideas about another time, place, posture and object, this is looking at the opposite direction of such kind of understanding. Metta, Sukin #122036 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:50 pm Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) sukinderpal Hello Rob, Rob: 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. S: Why do you think only a Sotapana has perfect sila? A puthujjana will continue breaking sila and monks are expected to confess to senior monks when they break the vinaya. This is because sila like all dhammas are anatta and why the five precepts are training rules and not commandments. Increased sila comes as a result of increased understanding. Without the understanding of dhamma as dhamma, hence anatta, there is not purity of sila. Indeed the Buddha pointed to the danger of attachment to rules and rituals or silabattaparamasa; this means that he'd want us to develop Right Understanding with regard to everything and discourage any kind of blind following of rules. He'd rather us fail in sila while slowly developing understanding than follow rules motivated by self-view. ====== Rob: 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? S: Alcohol is ultimately rupa, although I don't know what it affects and how. What I do know is that when intoxicated, one is likely to break the precepts more easily than otherwise. Given that as students of the Buddha's teachings and seeing the value of his words, "Do good, avoid evil, cultivate the mind", refraining from taking alcohol is seen as a very sensible suggestion. So again the focus is on the dhammas, such as the difference between ignorance and mindfulness, kusala and akusala and what constitutes kusala and akusala kammapatha. ====== Rob: 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? S: Because you understand the value of particular dhammas and the harm in others. So in fact they all point to dhammas and the need to understand these, otherwise sila will not develop and become purified. ====== Rob: 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. S: The Buddha didn't speak for convenience, what he was teaching could be communicated in no other way. We lie, steal, kill with the perception of beings, and for any of these deeds to constitute kammapatha, there must involve perceptions of many, many other concepts. But restraint is a state of mind and not outward physical action. Knowing for example, that Dana has a concept of a 'being' and 'something that is given' as object, does a person who understand the value of dana need to be told how he should go about performing the act? Likewise, someone understands the value of restraint from stealing, let alone being told, does he even need to tell himself how to behave physically? Metta, Sukin #122037 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:52 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob, > 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. Rob: 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. S: This is strange. What is said need not be interpreted? Do you imagine a situation of coming in with a clean slate or something? Is this ever possible? You tell a child to sit down, and even he will ask why before deciding to do so or not. ====== > 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? Rob: 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. S: When you suggested that conventional objects are pure illusions and I disagreed by pointing out to the experience of sense objects as their basis, I was trying to highlight the difference between what one experiences in a dream and the waking state. The reason why the keyboard that I am typing on does not suddenly look like one of the objects of a Salvador Dali painting is because of the experience of these sense objects. In the same way, when I suggest in general that concepts are based on the experience of visible object and so on, this is to highlight the fact that without these experiences, there would not be those concepts. The reason why keyboard is not confused for the monitor is because of the different in the rupas rising and falling away. This does not however translate into the idea that keyboard and monitor can be studied in order to arrive at the understanding of rupas, let alone those particular to them. That concepts become objects of consciousness is incidental and not a matter of making particular set of realities known. Concepts are equally unreal whether during waking state or in a dream. And as I said, when panna arises it knows a reality and in effect distinguishes this from the concepts. What you are suggesting implies that this does not in fact happen and instead one becomes involved in the concept. And since thinking never stops, your thinking to study concepts with the aim of understanding realities, will result only in more concepts being thought about with ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding. ======= Rob: 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. S: If it is deluded, this must be due to ignorance and wrong view, no? So why would you suggest that it is fruitful to study those concepts then? Is this not wishful thinking? ====== Rob: 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." S: If I expect any result from such a suggestion, it would be the understanding of the reality / concept distinction. This in effect makes invalid the idea of studying concepts. ====== Rob: You think my view is so arbitrary and radical but it's not. It's very similar to what you said above. S: I understand that you do have great difficulty understanding what some of us are really saying. Maybe I am not so clear myself And sometimes l forget what I want to say and stray off into something else. :-/ Metta, Sukin #122038 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." > > Scott: What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it? It's not rhetoric - just don't have a good reference system, either in my mind or on my computer. I'll look around. Okay, here's a quote, though not the most detailed one, from the Cula Sihanada Sutta: "There are the two speculative ideas, of eternalism and of annihilationism. Every recluse or brahmin who is attached, devoted, and given over to the first view is an opponent of the other; and vice versa. Recluses or brahmins who know not the real nature of the rise and wane of these two speculative ideas, who know not their lure, their perils, and their outcome, harbour passion, hate, illusion, cravings and attachments, are empty of lore, are foes to peace, take pleasure and delight in obsessions, nor do they win deliverance from birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, depression of body and mind, or from tribulation; they win, say I, no deliverance from Ill. Whereas, all recluses and brahmins who do know the real nature of the rise and wane of these two speculative ideas, their lure, perils and outcome, are void of passion, hate and illusion, void of cravings and attachments, are rich in lore, combat not the unpeaceful, take no pleasure or delight in obsessions, and win Deliverance from birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, depression of body and mind, and from tribulation; these win, say I, Deliverance from Ill." I recall other suttas where the content of the two views is spelled out in more detail - such as one that says something like "If I were to say that there is a self, those who believe in eternalism would think they were right and it would solidify their wrong view; but if I were to say that there is no self, those who believe in annihilationism would believe they were right, and would hold onto their wrong view." But I don't remember what sutta that is paraphrased from. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122039 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:40 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." > > Me: "What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it?" > > Scott: Sutta reference please, Rob. Otherwise you are simply making more unfounded rhetorical statements. Where are you getting this from and, more importantly, how do you interpret it? What do you mean by 'local terms?' > > Me: "Are dhammaa real?" > > R: "They really arise and they really fall away. Definitely a real occurrence in the moment in which they occur - nothing more nor less." > > Scott: A bit equivocal still, Rob. You are agreeing that a dhamma is a reality, having own nature (characteristic and function)? This would be a statement in favour of the existence of dhammaa, wouldn't it? Please explain in relation to your original, cryptic statement regarding 'existence' and 'non-existence.' That was with regard to parinibbana, not dhammas. I never asserted that dhammas are in some sort of inbetween state, but I also don't assign them any permanent status. They just arise and fall away and exist very briefly, but yes, they do arise and they do fall away. I don't want to suggest that they have either more or less of a status than that. Sorry if that sounds equivocal. If you say "they do exist" and land on that, it tends to make it sound like they are static objects, which they are not, and take away from the reality of their fleeting coming and going. They don't ever exist in stasis but arise and fall away in a dynamic process. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #122040 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:10 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > > > Do you not therefore see the situation of the Buddha teaching his disciples as requiring even less need for such reminders? > > Rob: > 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. > > > S: We are not talking about the 'language'. The question is what the teachings point to, namely whether it is ultimate reality or is it also conventional reality / activities? Well, yes, I *am* talking about the language. That is the whole question - whether Buddha's language which many here call conventional or literal and dismiss its obvious meaning, is to be instantly translated into what you already understand of dhamma terms, or whether it is to be at all regarded in its own right, as he expressed it in his own words. You can ask 'which it is referring to' all day long, but if you don't look to what he actually said as the evidence for what he was pointing to, then you are referring to some other source or resource and translating the Buddha's words into your preferred philosophy. After all, all we have of the Buddha's original teachings is his *language.* So how can we decide what he was referring to without referencing his language? Yet you assume that you already know what terms to read his words in, just as you think I am doing. The only difference is that you have an already-established set of dhamma rules by which you believe the universe works, and you see the sutta language only in terms of that pre-existing framework. That framework did not come from the suttas. It came from a group of modern teachers' rendering of the commentaries and sub-commentaries of the suttas and Abhidhamma. That is fine. I am not denying the wisdom of those sources. But I am saying that there is a distinction between what one learns from those sources, which are *secondary* to the Buddha's words themselves, and what is derived by listening to the Buddha first and taking in his words, and then deciding what to interpret from the other commentaries based on the integrity of what he said. What is the foundation, the Abhidhamma or the suttas? What is the guide, what is the touchstone, what is the final authority? Is it the commentaries or the Buddha's mouth? Is it the modern teachers whom you trust, or the Buddha? Someone has to have the last word, and for me, after reading and hearing whatever I read and hear, I go back to the Buddha, not to the Abhidhamma, not to the commentaries, and not to anyone else. Back to the Buddha for the final word. He spoke what he spoke, and you can't mix everything together and say that it is "all Dhamma" even if the Buddha's original words are lost in the mixture. The World Teacher did speak, and he did not speak the commentaries, he spoke the suttas. So who do you follow? Who is the final World Teacher, the *only one* with omniscient knowledge? When I say "Why did the Buddha say what he said and not something else," I mean it! His words come first, and they come last. Otherwise it's not "Buddhism." It's okay to have Abhidhammism, and it's okay to have Commentarialism - all giving great insight into the teachings of the Buddha. But in the end the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings of the Buddha. Now I do not know what the source is for the report that the Buddha delivered the Abhidhamma to Devas and others in the higher planes. It may be true, but the Buddha never asserted it, and there is not the same historical evidence for this that the suttas have standing behind them. We *know* that the Buddha spoke the suttas. > You refer to long breath / short breath but forget that what follows is reference to each of the five Khandhas and also to inconstancy etc. and in the same way, the different jhana factors. And you infer from this that he was teaching to note conventional reality? Why, why, why does he talk about the breath? You say to note what he says afterwards, and yet he keeps coming back to the breath and talks about the breath as object of insight and for the development of samatha and jhana. Why would you want to ignore what he is teaching with and about and pick and choose the comments that you want? The breath is all over the sutta, and the name of the sutta is "anapanasati," which means the "sutta on the full awareness of the BREATHING." So you want to leave the breath out of the discussion? Should we take it out of the title too? From wikipedia: "Ānāpānasati (Pali; Sanskrit: ānāpānasmṛti; Chinese: 安那般那; Pīnyīn: ānnbānn), meaning 'mindfulness of breathing' ("sati" means mindfulness; "ānāpāna" refers to inhalation and exhalation)" Anapana refers to inhalation and exhalation, ie, breathing. The Buddha is systematically talking about using the breath to develop discernment and samatha the entire sutta. It is the subject of the sutta. But you can take the breath away and just leave the dhammas that you like... So when you see a dhamma reference you say "that is what he was referring to." But when he talks about the breath, and says to be mindful of the breathing while calming the body; mindful of the breathing while calming the mental formations, you say "take the breath out of that, because that is not a dhamma!" Can you pick and choose like that, or do you have to accept the actual and entire teaching of the sutta? Which? Can you leave out what you don't want to read? Of course he is talking about the specific moments, the rupas and attendant namas, that arise in relation to the breath. But the general or conventional object from which these arise is the breath. And that is the way the Buddha describes and teaches about it in the actual sutta. It is his reference point, and thus should be yours as well. > ====== > Rob: > 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. > > > S: That a monk who practices anapanasati will think in terms of whether the breath is short or long, this is natural. And those who meditated on the body parts, these are the concepts they were meant to think about. Why would the Buddha not refer to them if those are the concepts which form part of the monk's samatha practice? You assume that all the practices that the Buddha taught about in detail were all practices that were not Buddhist and were already taking place. There is no evidence of this. The Buddha was very clear about the practices that he taught and wanted the monks to follow. He would take common terms and practices and translate them into his own terms. He would teach the true meaning of terms and practices the monks already knew and transform them into Buddhist practices. And he did not promote or continue practices that were not able to be used as part of the path. Buddha didn't just accept breath meditation and jhana; he taught them in detail and instructed the monks what to do with those practices. They *are* Buddhist practice in the form in which he gave them. He had no problem telling the Brahmins that their teachers were all wrong and then telling them how they should practice correctly. And he would not have continued practices "just because they were familiar" if they were not parts of his own teaching method, which they clearly were, as he repeated them on many occasions in various forms. > ===== > > 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. > > Rob: > 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. > > S: Understand or not understand what other way is there but to point to reality and the distinction between this and concepts in order that understanding of the one happens? If you wanted to open up a concept and explain what it was really about, as Buddha was capable of doing at any time, he would not jus say "breath" the way it was already known if he didn't mean that to be attended, he would then explain the dhammas and the arising functions that he wanted them to really understand. The fact that he used breath as the central object of the whole discussion tells us that he thought it was as useful focus for development of satipatthana, and in fact he says that is a most excellent object of discernement on any number of occasions. > What are you proposing? That those people were directed to pay attention to conventional objects and not told about the reality / concept distinction? And you're saying that from the conventional practice arises knowledge about ultimate realities later on? Well, I actually do say that, although many here think I am very wrong. But more important than what I say, is: what did the Buddha say? Did he explain the dhammas involved? And to the extent that he did not, did he not then allow that the attention to breath would yield knowledge of dhammas? Otherwise, why did he teach it? Tell me how the monks he instructed in this way got their "dhamma knowledge" if that is all he said? What are you proposing? Was there another secret meeting when he told them about the dhammas? And if he just left it with the breath as object, was he leaving them in the lurch with nothing but a conventional object to understand? How do you think the sutta does any good if you don't think the breath as object is a useful object for discernment? > ======= > Rob: > 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? > > > S: They were not cited as 'hint' for paramatha dhammas; this is your own inference from the standpoint of thinking that the Buddha taught deliberate practice of Vipassana. The Buddha mentioned them because this is what the monks had as object of their samatha practice. But he didn't go any further? If all he did was "mention them" and they were not the true practice, then what else could they be other than a mere hint? Why didn't he explain more fully how real discernment and development come about, if you believe that the actual words he used, talking about the breath in so much practical detail, was not the real teaching? That's all I can handle for tonight. Thanks for the stimulating questions! :-) I hope you will be kind enough to answer some of mine. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122041 From: Lukas Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:36 pm Subject: vipaka and kamma szmicio Dear friends, What is vipaka and what is kamma? Best wishes Lukas #122042 From: Lukas Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:01 pm Subject: Question szmicio Dear friends, My friend ask me, when I told about my adictions, even if I know this is so bad and harmful, why I am doing it again and again. I am going back to addictions now. Why that happen, i really dont know? Why? Why? Why? Lukas #122043 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to Lukas. Heedless in daily life sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >S: p.s. Nina, Howard & all - a little more reaction in my friend, eyes more > open, a moving foot, that sort of thing. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Good! :-) > The downside of encouraging news like this, though it is worth it of > course, is that it breeds hope, and hoping is a form of desire and is > mentally painful. > ------------------------------------------------ S: Yes, attachment to results is very apparent in a case like this. it's interesting that if I mention any encouraging indications to my friend's husband, he tends to discount them, as though afraid to get any hopes up. The downside to his approach is that I'm now reticent to share anything with him, such as your comments about Rita's relation, which might encourage the family to give more stimulation, more assistance. In the end, like on any other occasion, it comes down to kamma, vipaka and the various accumulations at any moment as to how we respond. After all, it's not about my friend, Howard or Sarah, but about seeing, thinking, likes and dislikes, hopes and despairs and so on now. ... >S: Anything can happen anytime according to past kamma! > ----------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes. So far as we can know, it can be pretty much anything at anytime. > All that's open to us is to "keep our eyes open" and do the best we can. > =============================== S: I find that we have to -- or rather panna has to -- dig very deep in order to really understand kamma and its results at this very moment. "Anything can happen according to past kamma" really means seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching of a sense object now. We think it's the wave, the stone fish, the car, the other person that caused this or that when actually it's just a moment of seeing or bodily consciousness arising now according to past kamma. Without a very careful consideration of the Buddha's Teachings it would be impossible to ever explain (even superficially) all the strange occurrences in life. Thanks again for your support and good friendship, Howard! Metta Sarah ===== #122044 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > calling lobha an occasional cetasika is like in the case of mana somehow an understatement. .... S: I understand your point! Of course, the unwholesome "occasional" is just a translation of the Pali term akusala pakinnaka, which refers to those unwholesome cetasikas which sometimes arises with akusala cittas, as opposed to the akusala sabbacitta sadharana - the unwholesome cetasikas which arise with every akusala citta. It doesn't mean that lobha only occasionally arises during the day for most of us! .... > 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 . .... S: I think "self-esteem" and "self-worth' are rather good as translations. Whenever the banner about "This Important Me" is flying, there is very likely mana. We are often taught to value 'self-esteem' and 'self-worth', to find 'oneself' important in all regards - all kinds of clinging to oneself. ... > = 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" ... S: exactly so! Just lots of 'Important Me'! Metta Sarah ===== #122045 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 2 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > The 4 Immoral mental states common to all immorals such as moha (delusion), ahirika (shamelessness), anottappa, (fearlessness), and uddhacca (restlessness) must arise in it. > What about the remaining ten? > > Lobha - attachment must arise. > > Ditthi - misbelief must arise. > > Mana - conceit cannot arise. .... S: I think you're referring to cittas arising with mana, in which case, ditthi 'must NOT' arise, mana 'must' arise. Maybe I've missed something #122011 .... > > Conceit does not arise in lobha consciousness, together with misbelief. Ditthi is connected with wrong view, while mana is concerned with egoism. Both of them, say the commentators, are like two lions that cannot live together in one cave. > > d) Conceit (*3) is found in the four types of consciousness dissociated with wrong view. (*3) Mana too originates with the "I" - conception connected with oneself. As such it also is present only in types of consciousness rooted in attachment. Nevertheless, both ditthi and mana do not arise simultaneously in one particular consciousness. Where there is ditthi there is no mana. Commentaries compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den. Mana may arise in those four types of consciousness dissociated with ditthi. But it does not follow that mana is ever present in them.] > > unquote ... S: Yes, all correct. Conceit and wrong view never arise with the same citta rooted in lobha. Thx for all the good sutta quotes, starting with the Khema Sutta Metta Sarah ==== #122046 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -lobha part 2 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter (Connie & Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: thanks Sarah , I meant the PTS dictionary ( see previous comment: > (Searching the entire PTS dictionary for mana. located 18 occurrences, only "Mānin (adj.) (-- ˚) [fr. mana1] proud (of) Sn 282 (samaṇa˚), 889 (paripuṇṇa˚); Dh 63 (paṇḍita˚ proud of his cleverness, cp. DhA ii.30); J i.454 (atireka˚); iii.357 (paṇḍita˚); Sdhp 389, 417. -- f " seems to cover .) > > I suppose if I had typed 'a' with the line upon , the result might bewn different ,at least I expected better fitting results of occurences. But I am not familar with the PTS sutta index (wondering whether some table exists in order to find the texts within the common (?) order ) , so not yet sure. .... S: I understand now what you mean, but have no experience with these searches (mainly due to my techno incompetence). Alex may also have additional suggestions. I think he does his searches in Tipitaka.org. Not sure if you could just search 'mana' there. .... > > Metta link Tipitaka translations: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html ,( incl. a number of suttas not yet published by ATI ) .... S: That works! I had it on my last computer, but lost most my links when I changed (or forget where they were saved to, more likely)!! Metta Sarah ====== #122047 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:15 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' rjkjp1 Dear scott and Rob, Try this one http://www.abhidhamma.org/KaccanagottaSutta.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Scott. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > Rob E., > > > > R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." > > > > Scott: What text(s) are you referring to here ('As I recall...')? This is rhetoric otherwise, all these terms - what do you mean by it? > > It's not rhetoric - just don't have a good reference system, either in my mind or on my computer. I'll look around. > > > > Okay, here's a quote, though not the most detailed one, from the Cula Sihanada Sutta: > > "There are the two speculative ideas, of eternalism and of annihilationism. Every recluse or brahmin who is attached, devoted, and given over to the first view is an opponent of the other; and vice versa. Recluses or brahmins who know not the real nature of the rise and wane of these two speculative ideas, who know not their lure, their perils, and their outcome, harbour passion, hate, illusion, cravings and attachments, are empty of lore, are foes to peace, take pleasure and delight in obsessions, nor do they win deliverance from birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, depression of body and mind, or from tribulation; they win, say I, no deliverance from Ill. Whereas, all recluses and brahmins who do know the real nature of the rise and wane of these two speculative ideas, their lure, perils and outcome, are void of passion, hate and illusion, void of cravings and attachments, are rich in lore, combat not the unpeaceful, take no pleasure or delight in obsessions, and win Deliverance from birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, depression of body and mind, and from tribulation; these win, say I, Deliverance from Ill." > > I recall other suttas where the content of the two views is spelled out in more detail - such as one that says something like "If I were to say that there is a self, those who believe in eternalism would think they were right and it would solidify their wrong view; but if I were to say that there is no self, those who believe in annihilationism would believe they were right, and would hold onto their wrong view." But I don't remember what sutta that is paraphrased from. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = > #122048 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:57 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Okay, here's a quote, though not the most detailed one, from the Cula Sihanada Sutta..." Scott: See the reference provided by Rob K. Is that it? Scott. #122049 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:25 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I never asserted that dhammas are in some sort of inbetween state, but I also don't assign them any permanent status. They just arise and fall away and exist very briefly, but yes, they do arise and they do fall away. I don't want to suggest that they have either more or less of a status than that. Sorry if that sounds equivocal. If you say 'they do exist' and land on that, it tends to make it sound like they are static objects, which they are not, and take away from the reality of their fleeting coming and going. They don't ever exist in stasis but arise and fall away in a dynamic process." Scott: You are suggesting that while you will give a very tentative nod to the notion of the momentary existence of dhammas (citta and accompanying cetasikas in existence following their arising and prior to their complete falling away), you give more credence to your belief in the completely conceptual notion of a 'dynamic process.' This is where you always go wrong - believing in the supremacy of 'dynamic process' - and represents a view that definitely hampers your ability to understand anatta properly. You refuse to grant 'more or less of a status than that.' I don't know what 'less of a status' would be (but it would probably put your views more solidly in line with the Mahayana way of thinking, which really is the evolution of how the concept of 'self' is inserted into beliefs about the Dhamma), but 'more' of one could certainly damage your belief in willful 'practice' because it would force you away from an over-reliance on notions of 'dynamic process.' A proper understanding of the moment and the limits that a complete falling away of one state prior to the arising of the next places on what one is able to say about being able to control dhammas, puts notions of 'dynamic process' into perspective. Without this perspective - focusing on 'dynamic process' over the moment - you make room for yourself to continue to believe in 'practice' - you rationalize your belief in your ability to influence a 'dynamic process' by failing to properly comprehend the meaning of momentariness and the implications this has on 'control' over dhammas. While it is true that dhammas arise and fall away in succession, to take the 'process' as the reality, rather than each moment and the dhammas this contains, is to believe in concepts. And it is this - a belief in concepts, including self - that allows for the view that suggests that one can 'practice.' I come back to this because your entire view of the Dhamma hinges on your belief in the 'reality' of conceptual entities. Scott. #122050 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:56 am Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hello Rob, > > Rob: > 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. > > S: Why do you think only a Sotapana has perfect sila? Hey, I hope this won't be too disappointing, but I'm going to exit all the conversations about whether Buddha taught meditation and conventional practice in general. I really don't want to spend all my time on a fruitless debate, and only got back into it because Scott brought it up - out of a thread that was not about this subject - and then insisted on drawing me out for his own purposes [you know, the usual - dissect, humiliate, destroy and then celebrate the imagined victory and of course, oneself.] Anyway, I am here to learn about dhammas, not to have this argument. It's pointless. If I ever agree with the view that Buddha didn't teach anything that he talked about, I'll make an announcement. Yours in peace, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #122051 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:46 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > ====== > > 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? > > Rob: > 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. > > S: When you suggested that conventional objects are pure illusions and I disagreed by pointing out to the experience of sense objects as their basis, I was trying to highlight the difference between what one experiences in a dream and the waking state. The reason why the keyboard that I am typing on does not suddenly look like one of the objects of a Salvador Dali painting is because of the experience of these sense objects. This is interesting and a very helpful image to talk about concepts and realities, and I would like to respond to it. > In the same way, when I suggest in general that concepts are based on the experience of visible object and so on, this is to highlight the fact that without these experiences, there would not be those concepts. Well, let me think about this for a second. It seems to me that this is what I've been saying these many discussions, that the real experiences we have with dhammas is translated into delusory experiences with conceptual objects, and that therefore there is this distorted but none-the-less actual relationship between what we think we are experiencing [concepts] and what we are actually experiencing in an underlying way [the actual dhammas arising, upon which the thought-objects are distortedly based.] It is on this basis that I have suggested that when the Buddha talks about the breath or various rules for monks and householders, or the act of killing or stealing, that he is using the concepts that his listeners understand as "markers" or "portals" to start looking in a particular way at the world that they mistakenly perceive, and begin looking beyond the concepts to the dhammas. The only real issue is whether he is directing them to a particular area of conceptual reality, to look at particular types of dhammas. When I suggest this, it is said that I am trying to pick and choose the dhammas that arise, and therefore I don't understand that there is no control or choosing as to which dhammas will arise or be experienced at any given moment. This is of course true, but that doesn't mean that we can't look at a particular area and then, without control, see what arises in that area. If Buddha says "he knows that he is breathing long or breathing short" [to paraphrase] and if the monk who is following the breathing looks at the breath, let's say a long breath arises and he starts by saying "I know that this is a long breath," and then experiences the rupas involved - let's say he experiences sensation, vedana, or some other attendant dhammas: he hasn't chosen the long breath, he hasn't chosen the dhammas that arise, he has just taken the occasion when it arose to be aware of what arises. If the Buddha hadn't given the instruction he would have been unaware of the significance of any of that, so he would have done something else, but since the seed of understanding and discernment have been planted by the sutta, when the occasion comes up he looks at it differently. Does this violate your sense of no-control? It makes sense to me. > The reason why keyboard is not confused for the monitor is because of the different in the rupas rising and falling away. This does not however translate into the idea that keyboard and monitor can be studied in order to arrive at the understanding of rupas, let alone those particular to them. > > That concepts become objects of consciousness is incidental and not a matter of making particular set of realities known. Concepts are equally unreal whether during waking state or in a dream. And as I said, when panna arises it knows a reality and in effect distinguishes this from the concepts. What you are suggesting implies that this does not in fact happen and instead one becomes involved in the concept. Not really. I am implying that one looks at that which is taken for conceptual object differently as understanding develops and the dhammas become more apparent. I imagine that this develops as it develops, not that one can control it. The point is that concepts are not fabricated from whole cloth but are fabrications based on distortions of actual dhammas, and that they can be seen as constructed images that use the dhammas as springboards to create their fantasy objects. It seems to me that if this is the case one can trace back in the other direction, as understanding develops. Many times Sarah or others will give reminders that when we think "computer" there is really only visual image, etc. I think these reminders are not any different than what I am saying. It just seems different, because I advocate practice, and that is seen as misguided. > ====== > Rob: > 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." > > S: If I expect any result from such a suggestion, it would be the understanding of the reality / concept distinction. This in effect makes invalid the idea of studying concepts. I'm not really advocating studying concepts. I'm advocating seeing what is really there when the occasion arise. What I'm advocating that is controversial is the idea that one can set out to practice, and then still take whatever arises without any sense of control. Best, Rob E. P.S. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about this stuff anymore, but this seemed more fruitful and less of a back-and-forth argument, so I thought I'd pursue it. I don't know if that's a good idea or not, but in general I'm not going to argue about meditation anymore. I realize your intentions are to be helpful and clarify the nature of dhammas, and I appreciate the time you've put into your replies. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #122052 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:05 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > While it is true that dhammas arise and fall away in succession, to take the 'process' as the reality, rather than each moment and the dhammas this contains, is to believe in concepts. And it is this - a belief in concepts, including self - that allows for the view that suggests that one can 'practice.' I come back to this because your entire view of the Dhamma hinges on your belief in the 'reality' of conceptual entities. As I said to Sukin, I really want to wind down the debate over meditation, because I don't generally think it's going anywhere, but I will answer this because it may be worthwhile. I'm not trying to be high-handed, I'm just sick of debating back and forth with no purpose and with greater ill will developing. The discussion of what exists apart from our subjective experience is probably not too pertinent, but I think there is probably a pretty even split between people who think that cars, bodies, mountains and rivers do not exist at all, and those who think that they do exist, but that we cannot experience them as "wholes" but only in individual moments of one or another quality that arises. Both agree, at least around here, that either way we only experience reality one rupa or nama at a time, so it is really inconsequential for understanding of momentary reality. I don't personally think that "there is no car at all," that the machine is a fabrication and that metal and gears and motors and gasoline are pure fantasies, but I do think that we experience one dhamma at a time, so for discernment it is the same thing. I noticed that Ken H. spoke about neurons firing and visual objects as scientific realities as well as experiential realities recently, so it seems that there are some very devoted Abhidhamma students here who do take into account the physical existence of those things we experience as concepts, and think that scientific information is pertinent as well. I don't know if the Buddha or any of the commentaries ever came down hard on whether these objects are pure hallucination or just concepts "for us." Maybe you have a clearer idea of that. Sarah seems to have stated pretty clearly that there *is no* computer or body or any other supposed object, so perhaps that is the more mature view of the universe, as merely a fabrication constructed from the misinterpretation of arising dhammas. In any case I don't believe in the "reality of the concepts" that we hold in mind, whether there are real cars and rivers in the physical universe, or not. Either way, what we "think" is unreal because it is merely a mental construction. Dhammas are the only "real things" that we actually experience. The reason that we don't agree on the "dynamic process" that you criticize is not because I am attached to some notion of continuity that denies the total falling-away of a particular dhamma. It is because, as I have pointed out before, the single-dhamma reality is absolutely meaningless if one doesn't pay equal attention to accumulations and tendencies that develop from dhamma to dhamma. It's nonsensical to talk about individual dhammas without seeing that continuity. Tendencies and accumulations are developed and passed on from one dhamma to the next, bhavanga-cittas stand as placeholders so that there is never a gap in experience between one citta and the next, and rupas arise in definite groupings and series. So the idea that none of that is a "process" and that we should restrict discussion to individual dhammas is ridiculous. There is a process, and that process has to do with conditions that condition each successive dhamma. That is the process, nothing more! I am not saying there is something more than that, but that is the most important aspect of how samsara and the path both manage to exist. Without such development, successive passing on and accumulations we'd be sitting around like sticks with no concepts and no hope of liberation. So the individual dhammas are important to understand, falling away completely is important to understand, and accumulations and development from one dhamma to the next is also extremely important. There is no problem there, it is just how things take place. The activity of dhamma a leads to the tendencies or accumulations of dhamma b, and that is all I am saying. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122053 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:10 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Rob K. and Scott. Yes, Rob, this is one of the ones that expresses what I was talking about. I think there is another one that focuses in some more detail on the existence or non-existence of the self in relation to eternalism and annihilationism, but this one is great, and makes the point very well. Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > Dear scott and Rob, > Try this one > http://www.abhidhamma.org/KaccanagottaSutta.htm > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Scott. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > > > Rob E., > > > > > > R: "Existence and non-existence are local terms, part of the All. To assert existence is to tend towards eternalism. To assert non-existence is to tend towards annihilationism. As I recall, when asked, the Buddha rejected both options." = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #122054 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:24 am Subject: Get Going! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Definition of Energy? The Blessed Buddha once said: What, Bhikkhus, is the ability of Energy? Here, Bhikkhus, the Noble Disciple lives with energy aroused for the elimination of disadvantageous mental states and for gaining a firm foundation in advantageous states. He is determined, resolute in all his efforts, not evading any good opportunity to train advantageous mental states. This is called the ability of Energy. Source: Samyutta Nik�ya V 48 Without Energy, there is neither advantageous action, nor effort! Without any advantageous action, there is neither any good result! No cause gives no effect! Therefore: Raise and stir up yourself! <...> Get Going! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #122055 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:32 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I don't believe in the 'reality of the concepts'...Dhammas are the only 'real things' that we actually experience...the single-dhamma reality is absolutely meaningless if one doesn't pay equal attention to accumulations and tendencies that develop from dhamma to dhamma... Tendencies and accumulations are developed and passed on from one dhamma to the next...There is a process, and that process has to do with conditions that condition each successive dhamma...Without such development, successive passing on and accumulations we'd be sitting around like sticks with no concepts and no hope of liberation. So the individual dhammas are important to understand, falling away completely is important to understand, and accumulations and development from one dhamma to the next is also extremely important. There is no problem there, it is just how things take place. The activity of dhamma a leads to the tendencies or accumulations of dhamma b, and that is all I am saying." Scott: Yeah, '...we'd be sitting around like sticks with no concepts and no hope of liberation...' We are sticks, Rob. Better to effect some sort of return to a Judeo-Christian religion if you want to wait for a messiah or hope of salvation. I don't believe for a second that you can simply arbitrarily disassociate yourself from your own belief in 'meditation' and self in order to discuss 'dhamma theory,' as you call it. These are two polar and incompatible beliefs. I'm not going to discuss further with you, since this arbitrary attempt to pretend that you are understanding anatta or 'dhamma theory' rings false to me. You say 'the activity of dhamma a...' and that says it all. Dhammas don't 'act.' People do. Bye. Scott. #122056 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:41 pm Subject: Buddha's 'Conventional' Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote'...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Scott brought it up - out of a thread that was not about this subject - and then insisted on drawing me out for his own purposes [you know, the usual - dissect, humiliate, destroy and then celebrate the imagined victory and of course, oneself.]..." Scott: OMG. That must be terrible! Talk about melodrama, Rob. You ought to go into it for a living or something... Scott. #122057 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:28 pm Subject: Re: Question rjkjp1 Dear lukas Because there is no self. There are simply accumulations of this And that arisinf at the appropriate time. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, > My friend ask me, when I told about my adictions, even if I know this is so bad and harmful, why I am doing it again and again. I am going back to addictions now. Why that happen, i really dont know? Why? Why? Why? > Lukas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #122058 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:43 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: Yeah, '...we'd be sitting around like sticks with no concepts and no hope of liberation...' > > We are sticks, Rob. Wow - what a revelation. You are as profound as the empty-headed puppet you think you are. You're a master of misinterpretation. > Better to effect some sort of return to a Judeo-Christian religion if you want to wait for a messiah or hope of salvation. That would be better than your religion of constantly admiring yourself in the guise of dhamma theory. > I don't believe for a second that you can simply arbitrarily disassociate yourself from your own belief in 'meditation' and self in order to discuss 'dhamma theory,' as you call it. Nobody cares what you believe, but you might want to look at your own presumptions some day. > You say 'the activity of dhamma a...' and that says it all. Dhammas don't 'act.' People do. That's your ridiculous talent - to pick up a word and give it an exaggerated meaning so you can critique it. 'Dhammas act' in the sense that they perform their function. They are active not static. What did you think I meant? That they perform Hamlet's soliloquy? I will not miss your constant attempts to draw out the meditation debate so you can try to smash opposing views and elevate your own sense of correctness, and the cessation of your caustic and manipulative responses will be greatly enjoyed. Thanks for quitting! - Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #122059 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Question szmicio Dear Robert Thank you for a fast reply. Is there anyway to comes from that? Lukas > Dear lukas > Because there is no self. There are simply accumulations of this And that arisinf at the appropriate time. #122060 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (118982) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > BTW, this is an aside on another subject, a recurrent one, but I see that the Buddha clearly instructed Moggalana how to avoid drowsiness when meditating, rather than to allow whatever dhamma happened to be arising. > > Here's the end of a long passage of such advice: > > 8. "But if, by doing so, drowsiness does not vanish, you may, mindfully and clearly aware, lie down, lion-like, on your right side, placing foot on foot, keeping in mind the thought of rising; and on awakening, you should quickly get up, thinking 'I must not indulge in the comfort of resting and reclining, in the pleasure of sleeping.' > > "Thus, Moggallana, should you train yourself." > > " Anguttara Nikaya VII, 58 > > Jon, this is very clearly a "formal meditation" instruction, an instruction to do a specific conventional activity in order to achieve a meditative aim with regard to a hindrance. He does not say "see it as an arising dhamma." He says "Do X to fight the drowsiness." The Buddha is full of such devices in the stanzas that precede this final one. > =============== J: First, thanks for citing a specific sutta passage. Always better to be discussing the actual texts than exchanging summaries of (half-) remembered suttas once read :-)). Yes, they are suggestions for shaking off drowsiness (with kusala). But they are not teachings directly on the development of the path. There is no doctrinal statement being made in this part of the sutta, as far as I can see. Drowsiness may well be an obstacle to the development of samatha at levels approaching jhana, but it is not an obstacle to the awareness of currently arising dhammas. Also, I would read these suggestions as being things that are done with kusala mind-states (note, for example, the reference to lying down *mindfully and clearly aware*). So they are not to be taken as strategies for the aspiring (beginner) developer of samatha. In any event, there’s no mention of anything to do with “meditation” in this passage, so I would not agree with your characterisation as an activity designed to achieve a meditative aim with regard to a hindrance. > =============== > [RE:] Here's another one in another area of activity: > "Further, Moggallana, you should train yourself in this way. You should think, 'When calling at families (on the alms-round), I shall not be given to pride.' > =============== J: The training being referred to here is the thinking about the tendency to conceit, not the doing of any activity. Note the words “You should think”. Of course, it's not a suggestion as to how you or I should try to *direct our thinking*, but a reference as to how a person who properly understands kusala and akusala might naturally and spontaneously think. Jon #122061 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:29 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:] One passage that occurs to me is the Buddha's 'gradual instruction' (see Nyanatiloka entry quoted below), a teaching given on numerous occasions and invariably resulting in the attainment of enlightenment by the listener/s to whom it was addressed. There is no indication in that oft-repeated instruction of a particular role for jhana. ... > [RE:] Well, that does indicate that when the Buddha personally "prepares your mind for the teaching," exceptional things can happen. I can well imagine that, but don't see that he gave this as something that could generally be used as a path to enlightenment without the Buddha's personal participation. But I admit it could be, under the right conditions. The only way we know this particular path would work, though, is when the Buddha is personally in charge. There doesn't seem to be an extrapolation from this from the Buddha that this can be done in other circumstances, without his help. > =============== J: I wasn't extrapolating, I was just giving an example. There are other suttas in which enlightenment is attained without any apparent role for mundane jhana. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your view that enlightenment without mundane jhana was the exception rather than the rule in the Buddha's time is a subjective one rather than a view that is come to after an (objective) analysis of the whole of the sutta pitaka. > =============== > > J: Well I think you can safely assume that if there was a requisite minimum level of samatha for the attainment of enlightenment mentioned anywhere in the texts you'd have heard of it by now! > > [RE:] But I thought it was said in commentary that for the path factors to arise they have to arise with a jhana-level of samatha. Not so? > =============== J: Not quite. What the commentaries say is that the samma samadhi that accompanies path consciousness is of an intensity equal to that of jhana (what might be called jhana-equivalent concentration) regardless of whether mundane jhana itself has been achieved. > =============== > > [J:] But more pertinent for us is that, as far as I know, there is no suggestion of there being a minimum level of samatha for the development of satipatthana/insight for levels below enlightenment, so the matter is of little practical consequence to us anyway. > > [RE:] Hm...this seems contradictory to what has been said before. Maybe you can clarify the role of samatha as a factor in these stages. > =============== J: I’m wondering if you're confusing samatha and concentration. It’s important to realise that these 2 terms are not in any sense synonyms, although ‘samadhi’(‘concentration’) is often used to refer to samatha at its higher levels (approaching jhana) since the concentration aspect of samatha becomes more prominent at those levels. The word ‘samatha’ means something like calm or tranquillity, and takes its name from the wholesome mental factor of passadhi (calm) that is characteristic of all moments of kusala consciousness (as is udhacca, restlessness, of all akusala). When we read about right concentration of the NEP, this is a reference not to the development of samatha but to the mental factor of ekaggatta (one-pointedness) that accompanies the consciousness moment. This mental factor (ekaggatta) is one of those that accompanies all moments of consciousness, kusala and akusala, so it takes its character from the kusala-only mental factors with which it co-arises. In other words, kusala concentration can only ever be the concentration that arises with kusala cittas. There’s no such thing as ‘kusala-only’ concentration. Hope this is clearly expressed (apologies if not). > =============== > > J: Yes, we've already discussed at some length the fact that Right Concentration of the NEP is defined in terms of the 4 jhanas. And as I think I said then, it is first necessary to understand the context, i.e., what the NEP represents. According to the ancient texts, it represents the mental factors that accompany a moment of path consciousness (magga citta). > > [RE:] Well at the very least this level of jhana as a mental factor is necessary for the path to arise. Then it's a question of it arising as part of development of jhana-citta, or how and when it can arise by other means related to insight. > =============== J: But in the description of the NEP it doesn't actually say that *jhana must be attained before the path (enlightenment) can arise*. What it says is (quoting from an earlier post of yours): "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk...enters & remains in the first jhana...enters & remains in the second jhana...enters & remains in the third jhana...enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness... This is called right concentration." " SN 45.8 This is saying, I believe, that if a monk attains both the first jhana and insight/enlightenment (with that jhana as basis), then that first jhana level of concentration is right concentration; and if a monk attains both the second jhana and insight/enlightenment, then that too is right concentration; and so on for the various levels of jhana. But it's not an exhaustive definition of what right concentration is. Jon #122063 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:45 pm Subject: Re: vipaka and kamma sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > What is vipaka .... S: Seeing now....hearing, smelling, tasting, touching..... ... >and what is kamma? .... S: Cetana (intention), in particular, the cetana that accumulates with the kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome) javana cittas.... Any reason for asking? (Lots more in U.P. under kamma and vipaka) Metta Sarah ==== #122064 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:50 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Scott, > > R: "BTW, what is one of my posts doing in useful posts? I object!" > > > > Scott: Yeah, me too. And under 'anatta' no less. > > It's just anatta one of those things. .... S: Good one, Rob, just 'got' it...... anatta witty exchange.... A good discussion too.... Metta Sarah ====== #122065 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "andyebarnes67" wrote: > > 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. .... S: I remember it. I taught some Japanese students who went to St George's. I lived in Kowloon at that time (in the 8os and early 90s) ... > 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: I did a quick search - I think it's gone as have most old Govt buildings. We also lived for a while in a lovely Govt block on the Peak with all the original brass fittings etc - redeveloped too. Stanley is very trendy these days. ... On metta - > > 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 >.....first of the four sublime states (Brahmavihāras). This is love without clinging (upādāna). ... S: Exactly - one of the four brahma viharas, "love without clinging", such as friendliness, kindness now when there is an opportunity without thought of oneself or expectation of any kind. ... > > 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." .... S: Lots of misunderstanding about metta, especially in regard to its development and the idea of cultivating it "towards oneself". See lots more in Useful Posts under "metta" if you have time. Now, if there is an attempt to have metta to ourselves, it's bound to be attachment - wanting "ME" to be happy. ... .... > > 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. <...> > 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." .... S: Again, it needs careful study. It is not attachment to oneself (or even metta to oneself) that is being developed. Again, dhammas as anatta. The last stanza indicates that it is the insight into nama and rupa only that leads to enlightenment. Even metta is a nama which is anatta - beyond anyone's control. .... > > "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]" ... S: The development of metta, through understanding, bhavana only. ... > '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. .... S: However, the Buddha uses vipassana in the context of insight into namas and rupas rather than 'sitting sessions" or any other activities. ... > > >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. .... S: Again, mindfulness or sati has to begin with the awareness of present namas and rupas .... > > > > '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. .... S: I was wanting you to give some examples of dhammas which can be understood "as they really are" now, such as seeing consciousness, hearing, visible object, sound, attachment, dislike and so on. If there is no direct understanding of realities appearing now, then there cannot be any understanding of the impermanence of these dhammas, can there? ... > > > 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? ... S: I'm like you.... I take my time...... And we all quiz each other! All fellow students sharing our reflections and understanding to date.... Again, I appreciate all your discussions here. Metta Sarah ====== #122066 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:56 pm Subject: audio - more great listening! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, We've just uploaded some more of the (edited) discussion from our trip to Kaeng Krachan last year with Ajahn Sujin, Phil, Rob K, Ann, Maeve, Sukin, Azita and other friends. The discussions from 9th March below (a.m. and p.m sessions) are the newly updated parts. There are some excellent discussion, mostly in response to Phil's qus. Highly recommended for all. Kaeng Krajaan, March 2011 Recorded by Jonothan, edited by Jonothan and Sarah 8 March: (1), (2), (3), (4). 9 March, am: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). 9 March, pm: (1), (2), (3). These and more audio discussions can be found on www.dhammastudygroup.org. These particular discussions are under "work in progress" at the end of the audio discussion section. Any comments on any of the discussions most welcome! Metta Sarah ==== #122067 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Lukas) - In a message dated 1/16/2012 9:28:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear lukas Because there is no self. There are simply accumulations of this And that arisinf at the appropriate time. Robert ================================== Robert, you may well have said more that I have missed. You don't mean to imply by this, do you, that there is nothing useful that Lukas can intentionally do that will serve to lessen the inclination? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #122068 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:42 am Subject: Re: Question scottduncan2 Howard, H: "Robert, you may well have said more that I have missed. You don't mean to imply by this, do you, that there is nothing useful that Lukas can intentionally do that will serve to lessen the inclination?" Scott: This is no implication. It has been stated straight-out, for years, that you and others misinterpret and misunderstand the role of 'intention' in the arising of kusala. There is nothing a person can do to cause this or that dhamma to arise. Have you missed this clear and unequivocal message for all these years? Scott. #122069 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question upasaka_howard I was speaking to Robert, Scott. In a message dated 1/17/2012 8:42:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, H: "Robert, you may well have said more that I have missed. You don't mean to imply by this, do you, that there is nothing useful that Lukas can intentionally do that will serve to lessen the inclination?" Scott: This is no implication. It has been stated straight-out, for years, that you and others misinterpret and misunderstand the role of 'intention' in the arising of kusala. There is nothing a person can do to cause this or that dhamma to arise. Have you missed this clear and unequivocal message for all these years? Scott. #122070 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question scottduncan2 Howard, H: "I was speaking to Robert, Scott." Scott: So? I was commenting on what you said. Scott. #122071 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:20 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Thanks for quitting!" Scott: Wishful thinking, lad. I'm just out of this thread. I'll join you when next I feel like it. Scott. #122072 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:57 am Subject: Unsubscribing upasaka_howard Hi, all - I consider a teaching to the effect that human action is either impossible or, if possible, unable to have beneficial effect and that thinking, planning, intention, and the actions following from them, i.e., kamma and kammapatha, will not ever produce useful consequences, to be a perversion of the Dhamma. And when this is presented with absolute certainty and arrogance as orthodox Dhamma and unquestionable truth, the effect it has on me is to turn me away from the Dhamma, which I would consider a terrible loss. But I won't let such turning away occur. Scott has succeeded where others have failed. I am choosing, with much regret (due to clinging), to unsubscribe from DSG. I will leave Scott and those here of like mind to your incestuous interaction. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #122073 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:11 am Subject: Sati in all circumstances (II). nilovg Dear friends, Sati in all circumstances (II). Kh S: Those who develop satipa.t.thaana are aware of naamas and ruupas as they appear through the six doorways. Who habitually develops satipa.t.thaana will have a clearer understanding of realities. This obstructs the stream of defilements that cause trouble. The monks at that time developed the sama.na dhammas. N: We read about the sama.na dhammas, dhammas of a recluse, A III, 371: A recluse returns not the insult of the insulter, the anger of the angry, the abuse of the abuser- thus keeps a recluse recluse- Dhamma. Satipa.t.thaana is always implied. Kh S: We read that later on monks would despise coarse food, such as red rice. At this time one should think of the monks in the past who lived in a time of scarcity of food. When monks at this time develop the sama.na dhammas they can accept the realities that occur. They can develop satipa.t.thaana and be aware of realities as they are, no matter they appear through the eys, the ears or the other doorways. Whenever we eat, we notice that sometimes the food is delicious, but sometimes not. This is our normal life. When one develops satipa.t.thaana it does not make any difference what kind of vipaakacitta arises, it is conditioned by kamma. The commentary to this part of the Vinaya states that the sappurisa (the noble person) can conquer all scarcity of food and all conduct motivated by desire. Question: how? Answer: The monk did not have to go anywhere else. Q: How is lobha conquered? Answer: The monk did not have to go anywhere else. Q: How is conduct motivated by desire conquered? Answer: The monk did not have to go anywhere else. The commentary states that some of the monks entered jhaana, but that they did not do so to impress others in order to gain something. Kh Sujin: They developed satipa.t.thaana in order that pa~n~naa would understand what appeared as it really is. They did not go to another place where there was no scarcity of food, they conquered scarcity. The monks who lived at a later time critized their food, even when it was rice of high quality. Those without defilements were contented even with red rice. One should develop satipa.t.thaana and not try to do something specific in order to cause the arising of sati. ------ Nina. #122074 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing nilovg Hi Howard, Perhaps you may reconsider. I would miss you very much. Turning away because of one person you disagree with? There are many people on this list and some posts you may find helpful, whereas others you do not find helpful, that is normal life. Nina. Op 17-jan-2012, om 15:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And when this is presented with absolute certainty and > arrogance as orthodox Dhamma and unquestionable truth, the effect > it has on me is > to turn me away from the Dhamma, which I would consider a terrible > loss. But > I won't let such turning away occur. > Scott has succeeded where others have failed. I am choosing, with much > regret (due to clinging), to unsubscribe from DSG. I will leave > Scott and > those here of like mind to your incestuous interaction. #122075 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/17/2012 10:16:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Perhaps you may reconsider. I would miss you very much. ----------------------------------------------- Thank you, Nina. I hope to continue our friendship and my friendship with Sarah and Jon and others on DSG. I have, however, already submitted by unsubscribing post. ------------------------------------------------ Turning away because of one person you disagree with? There are many people on this list and some posts you may find helpful, whereas others you do not find helpful, that is normal life. ----------------------------------------------- It is more than just the one person. He is just the trigger - the final straw. My unsubscribing has been a long time coming. Happily for me, there are other Dhamma lists that I am a member of, and also, quite happily and with considerable surprise, I have discovered the beauty and depth of my birth religion, Judaism. -------------------------------------------------- Nina. ============================== With much metta and a deep bow to you and to Lodewijk, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #122076 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:32 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Thanks for quitting!" > > Scott: Wishful thinking, lad. I'm just out of this thread. I'll join you when next I feel like it. You're like a returning fungus. When next you appear, we will medicate accordingly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122077 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:35 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & Scott, > > > > > R: "BTW, what is one of my posts doing in useful posts? I object!" > > > > > > Scott: Yeah, me too. And under 'anatta' no less. > > > > It's just anatta one of those things. > .... > S: Good one, Rob, just 'got' it...... anatta witty exchange.... > A good discussion too.... :-) Things have devolved a bit since then, but I'm glad you thought the discussion was useful. At least at this point. Scott apparently wants to keep talking to me - to beat the meditation out of me. The anaesthetized surgery with Jon is a little more pleasant. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122078 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 moellerdieter Dear, Sarah, all, thanks for your feedback . I am glad to note agreement ;-) . I wonder whether the intention of the project is understood by all. For some it may look like that I aim to enter the glorious hall of UP by writing long and detailed messages about terms which are not really unknown. However , the purpose of this project is to let us recognize the state of mind in order to be mindful of action , in particular when such state conditions unwholesome kamma. In my understanding it is true in daily life , that such recognition usually happens when it is already too late . We can change that by establishing a framework so that insight has a chance to grow (when memory meets experience). In such way the Buddha laid the foundation of mindfulness and -more subtle - that of Abhidhamma. Of help in establishing such framework, as we intend to do with the list of cetasikas , we may use devises to aid memory as well , e.g. mnemonic rhymes. I mentioned a practical example at the end of the mana part 2. . you wrote: (D: calling lobha an occasional cetasika is like in the case of mana somehow an understatement.....) S: I understand your point! Of course, the unwholesome "occasional" is just a translation of the Pali term akusala pakinnaka, which refers to those unwholesome cetasikas which sometimes arises with akusala cittas, as opposed to the akusala sabbacitta sadharana - the unwholesome cetasikas which arise with every akusala citta. It doesn't mean that lobha only occasionally arises during the day for most of us! D: yes, my dictionary says : occasional: ' happening or done sometimes, but not often..' It is an example that we cannot trust blindly English translations : certainly the Theras did not teach that any of the 10 akusala pakinnaka cetasikas are rarely presented in the citta. (D:> 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 . .... S: I think "self-esteem" and "self-worth' are rather good as translations. Whenever the banner about "This Important Me" is flying, there is very likely mana. We are often taught to value 'self-esteem' and 'self-worth', to find 'oneself' important in all regards - all kinds of clinging to oneself.... (> = 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' ) S: exactly so! Just lots of 'Important Me'! D: I recall that Nina gave an example of self esteem some time ago , when she was treated with disrespect. The point as you said is clinging , related to aversion / unpleasant feeling. We need to remember that mana is only fully abolished by Arahantship, meaning not being too tough with blaming one's reaction . But recalling such event , it may be of help towards development of equanimity (which of course shouldn't one prevent to make things very clear .. for example the Buddha made plain who 'hedged first' ) (D The 4 Immoral mental states common to all immorals such as moha (delusion), ahirika (shamelessness), anottappa, (fearlessness), and uddhacca (restlessness) must arise in it. > What about the remaining ten? > > Lobha - attachment must arise. > > Ditthi - misbelief must arise. > > Mana - conceit cannot arise. .... S: I think you're referring to cittas arising with mana, in which case, ditthi 'must NOT' arise, mana 'must' arise. Maybe I've missed something #122011 .... D: I copied from Ven. Narada's translation pls compare: Conceit does not arise in lobha consciousness, together with misbelief. Ditthi is connected with wrong view, while mana is concerned with egoism. Both of them, say the commentators, are like two lions that cannot live together in one cave. d) Conceit (*3) is found in the four types of consciousness dissociated with wrong view. (*3) Mana too originates with the "I" - conception connected with oneself. As such it also is present only in types of consciousness rooted in attachment. Nevertheless, both ditthi and mana do not arise simultaneously in one particular consciousness. Where there is ditthi there is no mana. Commentaries compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den. Mana may arise in those four types of consciousness dissociated with ditthi. But it does not follow that mana is ever present in them.] unquote What he is stating is that the citta accompanied by lobha and ditthi is excluding mana ( because mana and ditthi are excluding eachother ) The simile of the two lions does not really provide the Why. I suggest we come back to that when we discuss ditthi (next) (D:I suppose if I had typed 'a' with the line upon , the result might bewn different ,at least I expected better fitting results of occurences. But I am not familar with the) PTS sutta index (wondering whether some table exists in order to find the texts within the common (?) order ) , so not yet sure. .... S: I understand now what you mean, but have no experience with these searches (mainly due to my techno incompetence). Alex may also have additional suggestions. I think he does his searches in Tipitaka.org. Not sure if you could just search 'mana' there. D: Connie has been so nice and lead me to the Digital Pali Reader , a Firefox add-on, which brings results even when the fonts are missing, trying for example 'pakinnaka ' with the PTS dictionary brings no results, with the former however : Pakiṇṇaka (adj.) [pa+kiṇṇa (pp. of kirati)+ka] scattered about; fig. miscellaneous, particular, opp. to sādhāraṇa KhA 74; cp. Cpd. 13, 952; Vism 175 (˚kathā) 317 sq. (id.). -- As Np. name of the xivth book of the Jātakas. .... (> Metta link Tipitaka translations: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html ,( incl. a number of suttas not yet published by ATI ) .... S: That works! I had it on my last computer, but lost most my links when I changed (or forget where they were saved to, more likely)!! D: fine ..how about an ' useful links ' file ? with Metta Dieter #122079 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:07 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (118982) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > > BTW, this is an aside on another subject, a recurrent one, but I see that the Buddha clearly instructed Moggalana how to avoid drowsiness when meditating, rather than to allow whatever dhamma happened to be arising. > > > > Here's the end of a long passage of such advice: > > > > 8. "But if, by doing so, drowsiness does not vanish, you may, mindfully and clearly aware, lie down, lion-like, on your right side, placing foot on foot, keeping in mind the thought of rising; and on awakening, you should quickly get up, thinking 'I must not indulge in the comfort of resting and reclining, in the pleasure of sleeping.' > > > > "Thus, Moggallana, should you train yourself." > > > > " Anguttara Nikaya VII, 58 > > > > Jon, this is very clearly a "formal meditation" instruction, an instruction to do a specific conventional activity in order to achieve a meditative aim with regard to a hindrance. He does not say "see it as an arising dhamma." He says "Do X to fight the drowsiness." The Buddha is full of such devices in the stanzas that precede this final one. > > =============== > > J: First, thanks for citing a specific sutta passage. Always better to be discussing the actual texts than exchanging summaries of (half-) remembered suttas once read :-)). > > Yes, they are suggestions for shaking off drowsiness (with kusala). But they are not teachings directly on the development of the path. There is no doctrinal statement being made in this part of the sutta, as far as I can see. Drowsiness may well be an obstacle to the development of samatha at levels approaching jhana, but it is not an obstacle to the awareness of currently arising dhammas. So, it seems you are saying here that the hindrances sloth and torpor are not hindrances for development of mindfulness? Isn't it a very basic understanding that the hindrances, including sloth and torpor, do inhibit the path from developing? > Also, I would read these suggestions as being things that are done with kusala mind-states (note, for example, the reference to lying down *mindfully and clearly aware*). So they are not to be taken as strategies for the aspiring (beginner) developer of samatha. Well, let's say for the sake of argument that they are only for an advanced monk, not a beginner, what would be the purpose in that case of advising him with all these strategies to defeat sleepiness? If such advice is only for the development of samatha, which you would say is not part of the path, why would Buddha care if he falls asleep or not? If sleepiness is not an obstacle for development of mindfulness, why would Buddha advise him how to defeat sleepiness and return to his sitting position? In addition, why would he not give him advice which would help him develop the path, such as the understanding that 'it is not necessary to defeat sleepiness, but only to be aware of the nature of the dhammas arising at that time.' Instead of even suggesting this, he gives him a number of conventional strategies for defeating his sleepiness - in my view so he can meditate effectively. In your view...what is the purpose? Is he just generically opposed to a monk taking a nap? In addition, since half the sutta is spent on this subject, why would Buddha teach, and why would the council select, a sutta that has no relation to the path? Did Buddha habitually give helpful advice to monks that had no relation to the path, and were they included in the sutta body just in case someone was feeling sleepy? In addition, if it is indeed advice against sleepiness given to an advanced monk developing samatha, does this not suggest that Buddha did indeed give conventional advice to monks about conventional obstacles that were not directly related to dhammas and the understanding of dhammas? If in fact, the entire path is about the understanding of dhammas as they arise in the moment, why would Buddha indulge in such an activity? Buddha said that he taught "only suffering and the end of suffering," so is this advice about the cessation of the clinging-kandhas and the suffering they carry, or did Buddha break his word and teach various helpful teachings that had no relation to the end of suffering - just side-tracks? > In any event, there’s no mention of anything to do with “meditation” in this passage, so I would not agree with your characterisation as an activity designed to achieve a meditative aim with regard to a hindrance. Well if Buddha saw with his eye of wisdom that Moggalana was nodding in a distant place while sitting, and Buddha considered it enough of a problem to magically transport himself to Moggalana's side to give him advice on how to maintain wakefulness, what do you suppose MOggalana was doing? Why would Buddha go to this trouble and mention the "advanced" states of mindfulness that you mentioned at the same time, if Moggalana were not involved in the dreaded "mindfulness practice" which you generally think did not exist? Why do you suppose Buddha did not want Moggalana to be defeated by sleepiness and wanted him to perservere? So he could be awake while sitting around instead of taking a nap? Or why? Why would Buddha transport himself to this purpose? He must have thought something important was going on. > > =============== > > [RE:] Here's another one in another area of activity: > > "Further, Moggallana, you should train yourself in this way. You should think, 'When calling at families (on the alms-round), I shall not be given to pride.' > > =============== > > J: The training being referred to here is the thinking about the tendency to conceit, not the doing of any activity. Note the words “You should think”. > > Of course, it's not a suggestion as to how you or I should try to *direct our thinking*, but a reference as to how a person who properly understands kusala and akusala might naturally and spontaneously think. Well, that is your translation, not what Buddha said. You can take his active admonitions and turn them into descriptions but that is not how the original reads - if you agree that the translation is accurate. Buddha does say "you should train yourself...you should think..." Then you say lthat is *not* a suggestion to direct one's thinking, but it sure seems like one! Why does Buddha say "you should" twice in a row. He says to train yourself, he says when on alms-round you should think a particular way. That very much seems that he is saying to direct one's thought and train oneself. I know you reject this, and this is why I think we have to actually look at the Buddha's words, not just what we think he means. How is it *not* a suggestion to do something when one says "you should?" There is really no adequate explanation for this except that you change the words and give them a different meaning. There's no way out of this kind of argument. If we cannot use the Buddha's words as evidence, but contradict them to give them a different meaning, how can we give any kind of evidence at all? The word "should" doesn't have a lot of ambiguity, it means "should." The Buddha could have easily said "When you adopt such a state of mind, or when such arises, pride will naturally cease to arise..." or something like that. He didn't. He said "You should train yourself...to think..." in a particular way, and you are saying that he does not mean that, that he means the exact opposite - based on what evidence? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122080 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:50 am Subject: The Golden Middle Way! bhikkhu5 Friends: Avoiding the Extremes Opens Way to Peace! The blessed Buddha once explained: There are these two extremes, which should not be practiced by any one, who has begun purification: The hunt for sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the common way of ordinary worldlings, ignoble, disadvantageous; and any practice of self-torture, which is painful, ignoble, and also quite disadvantageous! Without veering towards either of these extremes, the well-come-well-gone-beyond Buddha has awakened to this Middle Way, which leads to assured vision, to direct knowledge, which leads to ease, to peace, to certain knowledge, to Enlightenment, to Nibbna... And what is that Middle Way awakened to by the Buddha, which leads to assured vision, to direct knowledge, which leads to ease, to peace, to all certain knowledge, to Enlightenment, to Nibbna? It is this very Noble 8-fold Way: <...> /What_is_Right_Concentration.htm> Concentration That is indeed the very Middle Way awakened to by the Blessed Buddha, which leads to assured vision, to direct knowledge, which leads to ease, to certain knowledge, to Peace, to Bliss, to Enlightenment, to Nibbna... <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. Book IV [330-1] Section 42: On The 6 Senses. Rasiya: 12. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html The Golden Middle Way! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #122081 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:26 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing kenhowardau Hi Howard and all, ------------ > H: I consider a teaching to the effect that human action is either impossible, or, if possible ------------ KH: What sort of teaching would cover both contingencies? Surely it must be one or the other; either there are humans (and human activities) or there are only dhammas. In satipatthana the teaching of the Buddha - there are only dhammas. ------------------ > H: unable to have beneficial effect ------------------ KH: I think that would be some kind of annihilation theory (i.e., that there is a self but it is powerless). Does anyone at DSG teach that? ------------------------- > H: and that thinking, planning, intention, and the actions following from them, i.e., kamma and kammapatha, will not ever produce useful consequences, ------------------------- KH: I think you (Howard) are confusing concepts with realities. You seem to be saying that human activity (a concept) is kamma (a reality). In fact, kamma is cetana - a conditioned nama. --------------- > H: to be a perversion of the Dhamma. --------------- KH: Yes, confusion between concepts and realities will inevitably produce a perverse understanding of the Dhamma. That is what DSG is trying to protect people from. But that is not what you are saying is it, Howard? I think you are saying there ultimately is human activity, and human activity is no less real than conditioned dhammas are real. In fact, you are saying human activity is *more* real. ------------------------- > H: And when this is presented with absolute certainty and arrogance as orthodox Dhamma and unquestionable truth, ------------------------- KH: Is it the *manner* of presentation that worries you, or is it the *substance* of the presentation? I am not saying anyone here is behaving badly, but even if they were, badly presented true Dhamma would be preferable to nicely presented false Dhamma. Infinitely preferable! ----------------- > H: the effect it has on me is to turn me away from the Dhamma, which I would consider a terrible loss. But I won't let such turning away occur. ----------------- KH: It's good that you have other Dhamma groups to go to, but please remember the only real "turning away" must be the function of a conditioned dhamma. It can't be something that a human being can do. Ultimately it is only wrong view (micha-ditthi a conditioned nama) that turns away from the Dhamma. ---------------------- > H: Scott has succeeded where others have failed. I am choosing, with much regret (due to clinging), to unsubscribe from DSG. I will leave Scott and those here of like mind to your incestuous interaction. ---------------------- KH: Hopefully we will still be here when you realise your mistake. This is the place where you first saw people taking anatta seriously. You won't find that in your other groups. Ken H #122082 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 1/17/2012 10:16:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > Perhaps you may reconsider. I would miss you very much. > ----------------------------------------------- > [H:] Thank you, Nina. I hope to continue our friendship and my friendship > with Sarah and Jon and others on DSG. I have, however, already submitted by > unsubscribing post. > ------------------------------------------------ J: I join Nina in asking you to reconsider. You are one of the longest standing active members! > ------------------------------------ > Turning away > because of one person you disagree with? There are many people on > this list and some posts you may find helpful, whereas others you do > not find helpful, that is normal life. > ----------------------------------------------- > [H:] It is more than just the one person. He is just the trigger - the > final straw. My unsubscribing has been a long time coming. Happily for me, > there are other Dhamma lists that I am a member of, and also, quite happily > and with considerable surprise, I have discovered the beauty and depth of my > birth religion, Judaism. > -------------------------------------------------- J: I can quite understand a degree of frustration with views that run counter to one's own deeply-held beliefs. However, I believe there is much in the Dhamma that is of great benefit regardless of one's primary 'religion', and that a little mental aggro is a small price to pay for the potential rewards :-)) Hoping to see you back on the list soon. Jon #122083 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] audio - more great listening! nilovg Dear Sarah and Jonothan, thank you very much, I appreciate your work. I copied them, but I think I had march 8 already. I listened to March 9, a. It is very good. About nimitta, taking it for something, then we cognize a concept. Without nimitta there is no concept. About wrong view: hardness of the body is still my hardness when there is no understanding of the ruupa that is hardness. Clinging to the sitting position, no reality appears to pa~n~naa. Stressing the aim: this is not having sati, but more understanding. The emphasis should be on understanding. Nina. Op 17-jan-2012, om 12:56 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Recorded by Jonothan, edited by Jonothan and Sarah > 8 March: (1), (2), (3), (4). > 9 March, am: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). > 9 March, pm: (1), (2), (3). #122084 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing sarahprocter... Dear Howard & all, Firstly, sorry to see the subject heading. Just as I was going to bed last night, I read the brief exchange between you and Scott (before you wrote this message) and mentioned to Jon that we should intervene/help as I knew you were distressed by the interaction. We were both very tired and couldn't think of anything very helpful - I drafted a message with a little humour, I copied a sutta on right speech at the right time and so on, like - "Do I speak at the right time, or not? "Do I speak of facts, or not? "Do I speak profitable words or not? "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious? "O bhikkhus, these five conditions are to be investigated in himself and the latter five established in himself by a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another." (as quoted recently by Pt) We also considered a moderator guidelines message. In the end, none of it seemed the 'right thing', so we decided to wait til the morning. This morning I left home at 6 a.m. - yoga class, visit to the osteopath to work on my hip, then a trip across town (stuck in traffic for an hour) to visit my friend in hospital. Usually I chat to her about ordinary things - Chinese New Year, her family, the walks she loves and so on. Today, I just chatted about the Dhamma. When I'd previously tried letting her listen to Dhamma on my ipod, it seemed to send her to sleep, but today, her eyes remained open. I talked about courage and patience, about letting the past go, the present moment, understanding, not worrying about the future, a little about present dhammas - all in simple language and with repetition. For the first time I saw water (a tear?) in her eyes. Not sure if it was of any significance at all and better not to speculate. For the first time since the accident, I actually had a little tear in my eyes as I left her - I'll be away for over two months and have no idea what will happen to her in this time. I've been so focussed on assistance for Sharon, I actually haven't thought about any possible loss. We never know what will happen - not even at the next moment. I don't know what I'm going to be writing, but we live as though we really think we can direct events and do know what will happen next. Will there be seeing? What visible object will be seen? Hearing? What sound? The more understanding there is of conditioned dhammas, the less illusion there is that there really is any 'control' over them. It's only when we think in terms of the events or situations or people themselves that there really can be an idea of control, it seems. As I left the hospital, I was stuck again in traffic and for the first time today, checked DSG on my smart phone. In the wrong order I looked at your messages and Ken H's and Nina's responses. Normally, I would have been quite distressed to read your message and in particular, of your intention to unsubscribe. You are a very dear and respected good friend and have been one of the greatest supporters of DSG from the earliest days. For this, I thank you with all my heart and hope that conditions will be such that today, next week, next year, sometime, conditions will be conducive for you to continue your posting here. After my hospital visit and reminders about the shortness of life and some of the real tests of life which lie in store for us all, I don't feel so disturbed by the brief conditioned moments of seeing and hearing, results of kamma, beyond my or anyone else's control, at this moment. Feeling sad, distressed, disturbed are natural responses to all the daily accumulated attachment during the day (and I have plenty to DSG and friends here, as everyone knows), but so very useless. Whether it's sadness on account of a friend in a coma or sadness about a friend leaving DSG - it's just more "ME", more attachment to our own feelings at such a time. So, instead, let me just really wish you joy and wisdom in all your studies and pursuits. As life is so very short, it shouldn't be wasted in sadness, grief and clinging to the past, but in appreciating the opportunities and dhammas at this moment to develop insight. Thanks again, Howard, for all your help and support. Metta Sarah p.s As Nina, said, please don't turn away "just because of one person you disagree with"! >________________________________ > From: "upasaka@..." >I consider a teaching to the effect that human action is either >impossible or, if possible, unable to have beneficial effect and that thinking, >planning, intention, and the actions following from them, i.e., kamma and >kammapatha, will not ever produce useful consequences, to be a perversion of >the Dhamma. And when this is presented with absolute certainty and >arrogance as orthodox Dhamma and unquestionable truth, the effect it has on me is >to turn me away from the Dhamma, which I would consider a terrible loss. But >I won't let such turning away occur. >Scott has succeeded where others have failed. I am choosing, with much >regret (due to clinging), to unsubscribe from DSG. I will leave Scott and >those here of like mind to your incestuous interaction. #122085 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Question rjkjp1 Der Lukas patience is almost the whole path, I think. No one who can change anything, but if understanding can still grow, and it can if one is patient, then anything is possible, if not this life then a future one. best robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Robert > Thank you for a fast reply. Is there anyway to comes from that? > Lukas > > > Dear lukas > > Because there is no self. There are simply accumulations of this And that arisinf at the appropriate time. > #122086 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (Howard & all), I agree with most of your helpful comments to Howard and especially with your kind encouragement to him, but just a couple of points I'd like to comment on. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > ------------------------- > > H: And when this is presented with absolute certainty and > arrogance as orthodox Dhamma and unquestionable truth, > ------------------------- > > KH: Is it the *manner* of presentation that worries you, or is it the *substance* of the presentation? > > I am not saying anyone here is behaving badly, but even if they were, badly presented true Dhamma would be preferable to nicely presented false Dhamma. Infinitely preferable! .... S: I wonder about this... I think it may depend on the accumulations of the listener at the time. To mention a non-Dhamma incident briefly. When Jon and I lived in Adelaide, a friend (actually, a Dhamma friend who'd listened to K.Sujin) visited us and joined us at a yoga class. The yoga teacher was an expert in terms of technique and knowledge of anatomy and so on, but he would loudly and rather personally criticise students who weren't able to follow his instructions in front of the class in a an unpleasant, belittling way. Well, our visitor got 'the treatment', burst into tears and ran out of the class. She certainly never went back to that class. It was simply an inappropriate teaching method for her. We once had a discussion with K.Sujin about problems with regard to one of her students who'd impolitely tell newcomers (and old-comers) about their 'wrong views' and speak in what seemed like a hostile manner. K.Sujin had talked to the student at length on multiple occasions about metta, friendliness and so on, but the message hadn't had much effect. "Just conditioned dhammas and accumulations", I suggested, but K.Sujin shook her head and said something interesting. She said that if the speech and behaviour continued in this way, even after hearing so much 'Right' Dhamma, it indicated that there wasn't really any understanding, even if the words were 'correct'. She will say, it has to be the direct understanding of the dhammas now - the Dhamma has to "go into the bones". It is only the really firm understanding which eradicates doubt and leads to the growth in confidence. With more understanding and confidence, there is more understanding of others' accumulations, of the difficulties in really penetrating The Truths. There is a growth in metta and all the other perfections with understanding and less doubt, less insecurity. [I've read a Sutta on the "going into the bones", using different words, but forget where it is now - maybe AN? Nina may remember it.] ... > KH: Hopefully we will still be here when you realise your mistake. This is the place where you first saw people taking anatta seriously. You won't find that in your other groups. ... S: However, I'm sure that most people would like to be amongst friends with whom they can have such 'serious' anatta discussions packaged with kind, friendly and 'non-personal' comments - I certainly do. Metta Sarah ===== #122087 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Unsubscribing nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 18-jan-2012, om 8:53 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > [I've read a Sutta on the "going into the bones", using different > words, but forget where it is now - maybe AN? Nina may remember it.] -------- N: I remember Kh Sujin used several times this expression in Thai and then we discussed the English. The Dhamma should go into your very bones, really stick there. I do not know a sutta about this. --------- > > ... > > KenH: Hopefully we will still be here when you realise your > mistake. This is the place where you first saw people taking anatta > seriously. You won't find that in your other groups. > ... > S: However, I'm sure that most people would like to be amongst > friends with whom they can have such 'serious' anatta discussions > packaged with kind, friendly and 'non-personal' comments - I > certainly do. ------- N: When talking in an unfriendly way people will not even listen and the words of the speaker will not have any effect. Kh Sujin often spoke about being an understanding person, understanding the other person's accumulations. ------- Nina. #122088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing nilovg Dear Sarah, I really appreciate your letter full of Dhamma reminders. I am glad to hear about Sharon's responses. This reminds me too of Howard's concern for others. He is always so concerned about other people's wellbeing. A real example. I wanted to add about his Jewish tradition: the Buddha never said that we have to give up the tradition we have been brought up in. It pertains to our accumulations, our daily life. Howard understood this very well. Op 18-jan-2012, om 8:09 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > After my hospital visit and reminders about the shortness of life > and some of the real tests of life which lie in store for us all, I > don't feel so disturbed by the brief conditioned moments of seeing > and hearing, results of kamma, beyond my or anyone else's control, > at this moment. Feeling sad, distressed, disturbed are natural > responses to all the daily accumulated attachment during the day > (and I have plenty to DSG and friends here, as everyone knows), but > so very useless. Whether it's sadness on account of a friend in a > coma or sadness about a friend leaving DSG - it's just more "ME", > more attachment to our own feelings at such a time. ------ N: Good to remember, more attachment to our own feelings. Good to remember during our frequent visits to Lodewijk's specialists. ------- Nina. #122089 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:43 pm Subject: Unsubscribing - So What!!! dhammasaro Good friends all, Most likely my message will be deleted or delayed for the usual "nit pickin'" Please check when I joined... I concur with Good Friend Howard (upasaka) What killed it for me???? 1. So much of "my - my or highway" stuff... why so many dedicated Dhamma monks come and leave... heh??? 2. Radical stupid non-understanding of the very historical use of the Buddhist "swastika." The many local ignorant vocal members decried my mention of the "swastika" in Buddhism!!! In their ignorance, they never took the the time to review the very ancient use of the "swastika." In my very personal experiences, all Mahayana and many Theravada Temples have Buddha images with the swastika on the image of the Buddha!!! The "swastika" predates Buddhism, as many scholars teach!!! But, here, who cares!!! The "ignorant" rules!!! 3. Good friend Howard (upasaka); hooray on your liberation... Judaism is great... without your Jesus; there would be no Christianity... Good friend Howard, Without your Abraham, we most likely would not have today Judaism, Islam, and Christianity; which I respect all... Peace to you Howard, my good friend, and to all sentient beings... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck rest deleted by Chuck #122090 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:13 pm Subject: Re: No-self, Self and the stream. sarahprocter... Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "andyebarnes67" wrote: > > 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. >... S: I think it was Rob K quoting what Ven Dhammanando wrote some time ago. For more links, please see more under "Anatta" and "Anatta - ATI" in "Useful Posts". Maybe raise any points of interest. ... > 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. ... S: That's the way we all learn - through checking, studying, considering and explaining to others! Metta Sarah ==== 122092 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (121616) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > J: Let's look at an actual sutta passage of your choice with the above comments in mind. > > [RE:] Okay. While waiting for such a cite to be relocated, we could look at the passage in the Visuddimagga that we've discussed before about the person seeking meditation instruction finding a teacher and learning the technique. It's at least an example where it seems to say "When you want to learn meditation, get someone to teach you how to do it, and then go practice" from Buddhaghosa, who I think we all trust pretty well. Do you recall where that is in the Vis...? > =============== J: Happy to discuss the Vism passage, but would prefer to do so as a separate thread, keeping the present thread to sutta passages only (given your emphasis on the importance of having regard to the actual words of the Buddha, in the raw as it were and eschewing outside interpretations, as far as possible). > =============== > > > [RE:] A much more simple explanation of Buddha's talking this way is that such talk would indeed motivate people to practice meditation, and that this practice in turn would promote the development of satipatthana. In the above formulation there is still no control. It comes directly from the Dhamma to the meditator. > > > > > > Buddha says "strive" ----> Followers "strive" through meditation practice [and other means, eg, Dhamma study] ----> satipatthana develops. > > > =============== > > > > J: OK, I understand what you're proposing, but let's look at an actual sutta passage. > > [RE:] Okay....how about the satipatthana sutta for this point...: > =============== J: Fine. So we are looking at the Satipatthana Sutta as an example of your summary of the Buddha’s teaching as follows: < Followers "strive" through meditation practice [and other means, e.g., Dhamma study] ----> satipatthana develops.>> > =============== > "The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding " in other words, the four frames of reference." > > [RE:] This establishes what the path is. > =============== J: As I read this passage, it is saying that the four frames of reference are what constitutes the direct path for the purification of beings (or, in other words, the path is the four frames of reference). Is this how you read it too? Those 4 frames of reference are then explained as: remaining focussed on/being mindful of (a) the body, (b) feelings, (c) the mind [citta] and (d) mental qualities [cetasikas]. Then follows the section on the first frame of reference, mindfulness of the body. This begins with the sutta asking (rhetorically) the question, "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?” There are 14 separate answers to this question (grouped as 6 in the TB translation you've quoted from), each describing an instance of mindfulness of the body, the first of these being the passage you cite next (just below), the section on anapanasati. > =============== > "There is the case where a monk " having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building " sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." > > [RE:] Leaving aside whether "always mindful" denotes an advanced practitioner, this appears to begin a set of instructions, or at least a description of how one practices to satisfy the first paragraph's stated subject: > > "..the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding..." > =============== J: This passage, up to and including “Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out", is the description of the particular "case where" being instanced. So it is introductory in nature; the part dealing with actually “remaining focused on the body in & of itself” is yet to come. > =============== > "He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' " > > [RE:] If the monk in question is "training himself" to do such as is described, it is clearly not the case that the description is of a totally natural development that just arises. There is training involved. I don't see what else that can mean. > =============== J: The training is the thinking/reflecting/recollecting that is then described. In this part of the passage, note the 2 different levels of kusala being described: the thinking, which is a *training*, and the *discerning* which is presumably direct understanding of some kind or another. I would see the thinking/reflecting/recollecting as being a training in the sense that direct understanding (in the language of the suttas, the practice) must be preceded by the correct intellectual understanding (the training). So not a training in the sense of some kind of (preliminary) practice/rehearsal, or component part of the target thing, to be undertaken. > =============== > [RE:] In addition, it also shows that the task has not already been accomplished - a fully realized description - but one of the method that is used to further develop satipatthana. > =============== J: Well, I do not see a method being laid out. There is just the development of kusala through different levels, up to the direct understanding that is satipatthana. > =============== > At the end, the Buddha says: > "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him..." > > [RE:] In other words, having spelled out the correct approach to satipatthana, he then says "if it is developed in this way," in other words, in the way I have just taught or described, "this fruit can be expected," in other words, the result of such practice. > =============== J: It’s the result of such development. But this just takes us back to whether the development earlier described is a form of purposeful practice or not :-)) Jon #122093 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (in case you're still reading) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > 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? ... S: At the moment of seeing of visible object, there are always just the same 7 universal cetasikas arising briefly with the citta and then falling away instantly. Now, for a person who is semi-blind, for example, the visible object is obviously different from the person with good eye-sight, but in all cases, it's just the seeing of what is visible, the colour at that moment. It is only because of thinking that one visible object seems more "worthy" or "shapely" than another. ... >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? .... S: After the seeing consciousness and the other sense door cittas have fallen away, there may be the brief experience of the visible object in the subsequent mind-door process. This is followed by thinking. The cetasika, manasikara (attention) arises with all the cittas, regardless of an interest in birds (or meditation). Sati (mindfulness) arises with all sobhana cittas. So if the thinking is wholesome, i.e concerned with dana, sila or bhavana only, then sati arises. If there is attending to the details of the birds or details of the sensations in one's arm, it is unlikely to be wholesome. Focussing and concentration, for sure - but then ekaggata (concentration) arises with all cittas, wholesome and unwholesome. I'd like to discuss this topic with you in more depth if and when you return - we can put a rain-check on it until then. Metta Sarah ==== #122094 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:59 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Hi Alex, (I just lost a post to you - will try again!!) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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. ... S: I agree with the "Clear seeing, insight.", but we have to know what there is clear seeing or insight of. As for the "precise" part of the definition, where do the commentaries suggest: a) vipassana is "done"? b) "done in seclusion"? c) what kind of seclusion would this be? ... > > 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" . ... S: "Crowded" and "dusty" with defilements. The commentary says "like the open air in the sense of being unhindered". This means unhindered with attachment, i.e. the arahat's life. "For even if one gone forth is living in a gabled cottage, a jewel-ornamented mansio, or a celestial palace, etc, with closed doors and windows, covered by a roof, he is unhindered, unattached, unbound." The life of the arahat in contrast to our life, full of "the dust of defilements" now. We read a little later about how "purified livelihood does not arise in space or among the tree-tops, but in the doors of body and speech." It's now that the path factors have to be purified through right understanding. ... > 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 ... S: See the context - samma ditthi as the forerunner: "In a person of right view, right resolve comes into being. In a person of right resolve, right speech. In a person of right speech, right action. In a person of right action, right livelihood. In a person of right livelihood, right effort. In a person of right effort, right mindfulness. In a person of right mindfulness, right concentration. In a person of right concentration, right knowledge. In a person of right knowledge, right release. [1] "This is how from rightness comes success, not failure." Note 1. MN 117 states that the path of stream-entry has eight factors, whereas the path to arahantship has these ten." .... Metta Sarah ===== #122095 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question rjkjp1 Dear Howard he could go to 12 step, take NALTREXONE, go to TM, make a resolution never to to this or that. Get hypnotised, pray, take up a hobby, find a self help group, get counselling, meditate. They all work, kind of. But what is more important, suppressing accumulations or understanding that they are anatta. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Lukas) - > > In a message dated 1/16/2012 9:28:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@... writes: > > Dear lukas > Because there is no self. There are simply accumulations of this And that > arisinf at the appropriate time. > Robert > ================================== > Robert, you may well have said more that I have missed. > You don't mean to imply by this, do you, that there is nothing useful > that Lukas can intentionally do that will serve to lessen the inclination? > > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #122096 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' sarahprocter... Hi Rob E > From: Robert E >> > It's just anatta one of those things. >> .... >> S: Good one, Rob, just 'got' it...... anatta witty exchange.... >> A good discussion too.... > >:-) Things have devolved a bit since then, but I'm glad you thought the discussion was useful. At least at this point. .... S: well, there were quite a few posts (maybe a record?) in which you were both discussing good Dhamma points.....as you say, it "devolved" a little later on....anatta story:/ I think that opting out of the thread is a good option, if conditioned that way, when there's more name-calling than Dhamma:) .... > >Scott apparently wants to keep talking to me - to beat the meditation out of me. The anaesthetized surgery with Jon is a little more pleasant. .... S: ...and at least I give you a little candy before you leave the surgery, don't I? This is what our childhood dentist used to do - banned nowadays! So, hope you get used to the boot-camp, unsweetened variety too..... Metta Sarah ===== #122097 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:10 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hi Sarah, all, > S: I agree with the "Clear seeing, insight.", but we have to know >what there is clear seeing or insight of. As for the "precise" part >of the definition, where do the commentaries suggest: a) vipassana >is "done"? > b) "done in seclusion"? > c) what kind of seclusion would this be? > The seclusion such as described in VsM and suttas. The commentaries as well as suttas praise seclusion. > > 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" . > ... > S: "Crowded" and "dusty" with defilements. Yes. So it is good to avoid it whenever one can. Buddha didn't teach "arhatship while cooking". He ran into a forest and recomended the same to others who wanted full awakening. >The commentary says "like the open air in the sense of being >unhindered". This means unhindered with attachment, i.e. the >arahat's life. >===================================================== We are not yet arhats to like a new planted tree, need extra help. >We read a little later about how "purified livelihood does not >arise in space or among the tree-tops, but in the doors of body and >speech." It's now that the path factors have to be purified through >right understanding. > ... Right, and if one doesn't see the drawbacks of household life and benefits of giving it up, what sort of understanding is it? If one can't get rid of this kind of gross attachment (at least temporarily in meditation retreats, or even in meditation at home), then what can be said about much much more powerful attachments such as self-view? As long as hindrances are present, any "insight" is just restlessness and words. Meditation suppresses hindrances and allow insight to occur. With best wishes, Alex #122098 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:28 am Subject: United in Harmony :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: The 6 Things Uniting in Harmony to be Remembered: The Blessed Buddha once said: These six things are to be remembered in order to Unite any Community in Harmony: Which six? 1: Friendly Behaviour (metta-kaya-kamma=friendly bodily action) both in public & in private. 2: Friendly Speech (metta-vaci-kamma=friendly verbal action) both in public & in private. 3: Friendly Thought (metta-mano-kamma=friendly mental action) both in public & in private. 4: Sharing of Gains (sadharana-bhogi=common wealth) even down to any single lump of food. 5: Moral Harmony (sila-samannagato=uniform morality): All respect the same ethical rules. 6: Harmony in Views (ditthi-samannagato=uniform attitude): All share same general views. These 6 things are to be considered and remembered both for individual & social Harmony... Comments: So we can sleep with open doors and dance with the children in our arms :-) On Harmony: Unique_Unity , Milk_and_Water Source (edited extract): The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikya. The Book of Sixes 11: To be Remembered... [III: 288-9] United in Harmony :-) Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #122099 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: well, there were quite a few posts (maybe a record?) in which you were both discussing good Dhamma points.....as you say, it "devolved" a little later on....anatta story:/ I think that opting out of the thread is a good option, if conditioned that way, when there's more name-calling than Dhamma:) Agreed. I'm glad to hear you found the exchange useful for that many rounds - I find that encouraging. > >Scott apparently wants to keep talking to me - to beat the meditation out of me. The anaesthetized surgery with Jon is a little more pleasant. > > .... > S: ...and at least I give you a little candy before you leave the surgery, don't I? This is what our childhood dentist used to do - banned nowadays! Yes, you do, and I appreciate that. You have always been very kind to me, and for all the harshness of the bare reality that we all attempt to contemplate, I think even the Buddha said that there were more pleasant and less pleasant ways to tread the very long path, so I do not discount having these nice moments along the way... > So, hope you get used to the boot-camp, unsweetened variety too..... There are times when that is definitely good - just a straight dose of reality, or something in that direction. I enjoy the stories of K. Sujin's version of that. On the other hand, there's the occasional sadistic Sargent who has to be replaced... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122100 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:11 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing kenhowardau Hi Sarah and Howard, First of all I should correct my mistake and make my message to Howard more heartfelt and a little less matter-of-fact. So thanks, Howard for all your good company over the years, I hope you will resubscribe soon. ------------ >> KH: I am not saying anyone here is behaving badly, but even if they were, badly presented true Dhamma would be preferable to nicely presented false Dhamma. Infinitely preferable! >> > S: I wonder about this... I think it may depend on the accumulations of the listener at the time. > To mention a non-Dhamma incident briefly. When Jon and I lived in Adelaide, a friend (actually, a Dhamma friend who'd listened to K.Sujin) visited us and joined us at a yoga class. <. . .> ------------ KH: You are right of course. But even so, I wonder if the Dhamma might be an exception to the rule. I suspect hearing badly presented Dhamma would be vastly preferable to hearing no Dhamma at all. Also, I tend to take Scott's side in this. I have had my turn at being DSG's bad boy on the no-control side of the debate. But I always got as good as I gave. In fact, I believe the meditators tend to be more forthright in their criticisms than any of the non-meditators ever are. But it's the non-meditator in the argument who cops the flack. :-) Ken H #122101 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:30 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' philofillet Hi Rob E > > > > On the other hand, there's the occasional sadistic Sargent who has to be replaced... > I don't expect to be posting this year, but if you are still going on and on and on and on and ob and on and on about something yoy don't actually do ("meditate") when I come back I expect I will take pleasure in doing my best to point out how absurd that. I read once tgat "the Buddha made it a point to avoid useless discussions" though I don't know the source, I would put discussing "meditation" with you in that category. As for Howard leaving, seems sensible. Tep did, James did, Joop did, I'm sure others did. It's not politically correct but I don't think it's a bad thing, this is an online discussion group, not a family. People can come and go ( for good), they always have, always will. You won't though, you just love the sound of your own voice on the screen (I can relate to that) going on and on and on about Dhamma based on your ideas rather than studying of the Dhamma. Yes you're a great guy, Howard was/is a wonderful human being, I have no doubt about that, none whatsoever. But if you decided to leave as well I think it would be sensible and even wise. As Howard said there any number of discussion groups where people can go on and on and on about meditation, and some of them actually meditate, could be motivational for you and Alex! Phil #122102 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:25 am Subject: Re: Question philofillet Hi Lukas I think Rob K gave you a helpful explanation. You kniw, I have a lot of addictions as well, tge fact is some of us are more prone to them, accumulations, that won't change But as we listen and consider more and more and ubderstanding the anattaness and uncontrollability of dhammas I do believe there will be more monents of wise consideration of the disadvantages of akusala and more moments of arising of huri otappa and otger factors tgat condition abstention. But all that is anatta, can't be controlled. As Rob K wrote to Howard if we want to try to force our addictions into submission, without understanding and yes there can be some benefit fron tgat in tge short term. But wuthout understanding we will just be born again and again and again with our addictions. The only liberation is Dhamma and tgat is all about anattaness of dhammas. Please keep listening and discussing, if you could keep Rob K poating it would be grwat for the group. We are very fortunate to have Dhamma friends who are good at explaining the deep, liberating Dhamma. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, > My friend ask me, when I told about my adictions, even if I know this is so bad and harmful, why I am doing it again and again. I am going back to addictions now. Why that happen, i really dont know? Why? Why? Why? > Lukas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #122103 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing glenjohnann Dear Sarah Dear Howard, Sarah and others Sorry, Howard, that you have unsubscribed feeling the way you do. While I am not a prolific writer here, I love to read posts and have found yours useful, thoughtful and thought provoking. My best wishes to you for continued study and understanding. As Sarah says, perhaps conditions will have you back with us some time. Sarah, I very much appreciate your post here for many reasons. Full of dhamma reminders - always appreciated and helpful. But also very much describing your dhamma reflections as you have reacted to Howard's news. You point out so clearly and well that while we spend most of our days thinking that we can control what happens to us - the stories - that of course, we can't. This is the illusion propelled by ignorance and wrong view. It seems that your experiences with Sharon's situation have given rise to more deep contemplation of the meaning of the teachings of the Dhamma which you are generously sharing with the rest of us. Thank you for this. The shortness of life, the tests that lie ahead, all things that we don't like to acknowledge, but when a dear friend experiences these in one way or another, it can condition more reflection and perhaps erode a bit the story that these things won't happen to us, at least not in the immediate future. Because we don't know, and as you said, we don't know what word will appear next on the computer let alone what sense ojbect will appear next. All by conditions. And so much of the time we go on in ignorance finding ourselves caught up in the stories of being able to direct our lives. Your experiences seem to provide occasion for urgency - but I find much of that too is of the akusala variety - ie. lobha for more understanding etc. Not all of it - but best know when it is lobha. There is so much attachment to our feelings - our wants and the subsequent disappointments when things do not go the way we had anticipated or hoped. When one is fortunate enough to have heard the "right" dhamma the more one confronts these "stories" with understanding the more one can see the uselessness of the worry, grief, anxiety etc. I can see more and more how understanding of the presently arisen dhamma is the only way to understand anatta, little by little. Yes, it takes patience. It takes courage too. I remember several times when Achan Sujin has looked at the group and asked (paraphrased here) if we have the courage to really understand the present moment, anatta. At first I thought it an odd question - I was thinking about it intellectually and that did not seem to take much courage. But then I found myself from time to time momentarily frightened at the thought of "no self". Perhaps this is because of more understanding, the moments of understanding preceeding the subsequent moments of ignorance and fear. I recognized that it does take courage to face the true nature of realities. I don't know of a mental factor of "courage", unless it is synonomous with or included with one of the cetasika's. I can see how panna will lead to courage to know,"face" realities. Achan Sujin has also often asked, when we speak of various moments of lobha, dosa etc., "whose lobha, dosa?". She explained that we can notice them, but it is still "my" lobha etc. when there is no direct understanding. When there is direct understanding, it is not mine. I will leave off here for now. Ann Sarah's post > > I talked about courage and patience, about letting the past go, the present moment, understanding, not worrying about the future, a little about present dhammas - all in simple language and with repetition. For the first time I saw water (a tear?) in her eyes. Not sure if it was of any significance at all and better not to speculate. For the first time since the accident, I actually had a little tear in my eyes as I left her - I'll be away for over two months and have no idea what will happen to her in this time. I've been so focussed on assistance for Sharon, I actually haven't thought about any possible loss. > > We never know what will happen - not even at the next moment. I don't know what I'm going to be writing, but we live as though we really think we can direct events and do know what will happen next. Will there be seeing? What visible object will be seen? Hearing? What sound? The more understanding there is of conditioned dhammas, the less illusion there is that there really is any 'control' over them. It's only when we think in terms of the events or situations or people themselves that there really can be an idea of control, it seems. > > As I left the hospital, I was stuck again in traffic and for the first time today, checked DSG on my smart phone. In the wrong order I looked at your messages and Ken H's and Nina's responses. Normally, I would have been quite distressed to read your message and in particular, of your intention to unsubscribe. You are a very dear and respected good friend and have been one of the greatest supporters of DSG from the earliest days. For this, I thank you with all my heart and hope that conditions will be such that today, next week, next year, sometime, conditions will be conducive for you to continue your posting here. > > After my hospital visit and reminders about the shortness of life and some of the real tests of life which lie in store for us all, I don't feel so disturbed by the brief conditioned moments of seeing and hearing, results of kamma, beyond my or anyone else's control, at this moment. Feeling sad, distressed, disturbed are natural responses to all the daily accumulated attachment during the day (and I have plenty to DSG and friends here, as everyone knows), but so very useless. Whether it's sadness on account of a friend in a coma or sadness about a friend leaving DSG - it's just more "ME", more attachment to our own feelings at such a time. > > So, instead, let me just really wish you joy and wisdom in all your studies and pursuits. As life is so very short, it shouldn't be wasted in sadness, grief and clinging to the past, but in appreciating the opportunities and dhammas at this moment to develop insight. #122104 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:18 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' jonoabb Dear All Needless to say, Phil's remarks to Rob E here do not represent the moderators' views (as I know he realises). Members whose understanding of the teachings differs from the orthodox commentarial tradition are welcome to participate. However, all members, regardless of views, level of activity, 'seniority' on the list or any other citerion, are urged to keep things friendly and pleasant, and to avoid personal remarks, sarcasm and other such devices as far as possible. In recent times the list has lost much of its former friendly tone, and it would be good to see a return to that. So can we all keep to discussing the teachings, and avoid the personal jibes. Thanks! Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > > > > > On the other hand, there's the occasional sadistic Sargent who has to be replaced... > > > I don't expect to be posting this year, but if you are still going on and on and on and on and ob and on and on about something yoy don't actually do ("meditate") when I come back I expect I will take pleasure in doing my best to point out how absurd that. ... ... But if you decided to leave as well I think it would be sensible and even wise. As Howard said there any number of discussion groups where people can go on and on and on about meditation, and some of them actually meditate, could be motivational for you and Alex! > > Phil #122105 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. Part I. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > > "The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding " in other words, the four frames of reference." > > > > [RE:] This establishes what the path is. > > =============== > > J: As I read this passage, it is saying that the four frames of reference are what constitutes the direct path for the purification of beings (or, in other words, the path is the four frames of reference). Is this how you read it too? I'm not sure if this is exactly what you mean as well, but I would say that the path is the development of awareness/understanding of the four frames of reference, rather than the frames of reference themselves. And sati/mindfulness is in the title of the sutta, so I would think the title would translate to something like "Mindfulness of the four frames of reference," and I would say that the development of this is the path to full enlightenment. > Those 4 frames of reference are then explained as: remaining focussed on/being mindful of (a) the body, (b) feelings, (c) the mind [citta] and (d) mental qualities [cetasikas]. > > Then follows the section on the first frame of reference, mindfulness of the body. This begins with the sutta asking (rhetorically) the question, "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?” There are 14 separate answers to this question (grouped as 6 in the TB translation you've quoted from), each describing an instance of mindfulness of the body, the first of these being the passage you cite next (just below), the section on anapanasati. > > > =============== > > "There is the case where a monk " having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building " sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." > > > > [RE:] Leaving aside whether "always mindful" denotes an advanced practitioner, this appears to begin a set of instructions, or at least a description of how one practices to satisfy the first paragraph's stated subject: > > > > "..the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding..." > > =============== > > J: This passage, up to and including “Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out", is the description of the particular "case where" being instanced. So it is introductory in nature; the part dealing with actually “remaining focused on the body in & of itself” is yet to come. In what sense would mindfulness of the breathing be introductory, rather than part of the body of the progression? If the monk trains himself to "breathe in sensitive to the entire body," and then "breathe in [and out] calming the bodily fabrication," etc., then the following of long and short breath would be the beginning of the awareness of the breathing which will then be accompanied by each of the specific purposes noted in the sutta. It seems to me that awareness of the breathing - anapanasati - is the root method of establishing mindfulness and which is maintained and extended to other subjects of mindfulness, which are each indicated in order. "There is the case where" introduces the method being practiced, it does not denote that everything after it is introductory. "There is the case where" seems to be positing the matter being discussed. > > =============== > > "He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' " > > > > [RE:] If the monk in question is "training himself" to do such as is described, it is clearly not the case that the description is of a totally natural development that just arises. There is training involved. I don't see what else that can mean. > > =============== > > J: The training is the thinking/reflecting/recollecting that is then described. To me it seems clear that "He trains himself..." means that he is intending to do or develop that which is then stated. If I said "I will train myself to get up by 7 am every morning," I would be training myself to develop the capacity to actually do that thing - to get up at that time. The training and what follows has the purpose of setting forth the intention to develop the capacity to do what is stated. If he is going to train himself to breathe in calming the bodily fabrication, then the purpose of that is to calm the bodily fabrication, and the breath and the attention to the breath is being focused towards that purpose. I note that the breath is always part of the equation, that the sutta begins with developing the capacity to be mindful of the specific qualities of the breathing, and that this is then applied to other purposes, such as calming the bodily fabrication. I will stop here for tonight, and hopefully continue tomorrow. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122106 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: I think you're referring to cittas arising with mana, in which case, ditthi 'must NOT' arise, mana 'must' arise. Maybe I've missed something #122011 > .... > > D: I copied from Ven. Narada's translation <...> > What he is stating is that the citta accompanied by lobha and ditthi is excluding mana ( because mana and ditthi are excluding eachother ) > The simile of the two lions does not really provide the Why. I suggest we come back to that when we discuss ditthi (next) ... S: Yes, that's fine. I understood you to be saying something else before. Mana and ditthi arise with cittas that have different objects. As you say, it can be discussed in more detail later. (see also in U.P. under "mana and ditthi") ... > D: Connie has been so nice and lead me to the Digital Pali Reader , a Firefox add-on, which brings results even when the fonts are missing, ... S: That's good.... I hope to try it later.....rushing to get ready for our trip to Bkk tomorrow. ... > (> Metta link Tipitaka translations: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html ,( incl. a number of suttas not yet published by ATI ) > .... > S: That works! I had it on my last computer, but lost most my links when I changed (or forget where they were saved to, more likely)!! > > D: fine ..how about an ' useful links ' file ? .... S: We have it already - see "links" in the files section. I expect the Metta link is there. If you have time, maybe you could check and add it if not. There will be a delay with any more of replies to you or anyone else after anything else I quickly write now - I'll have minimal computer access for the next week until I arrive in Australia. I'll be taking my mother with me, so will have rather limited time there as well when I first arrive. I'll look forward to reading everything in the meantime. Metta Sarah ===== #122107 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: I agree with the "Clear seeing, insight.", but we have to know >what there is clear seeing or insight of. As for the "precise" part >of the definition, where do the commentaries suggest: a) vipassana >is "done"? > > b) "done in seclusion"? > > c) what kind of seclusion would this be? > > > > The seclusion such as described in VsM and suttas. > > The commentaries as well as suttas praise seclusion. .... S: "Clear seeing" of what? Pls give me just one short quote which defines vipassana as something that must be "done in seclusion" and we can discuss it further. .... > > S: "Crowded" and "dusty" with defilements. > > > Yes. So it is good to avoid it whenever one can. Buddha didn't teach "arhatship while cooking". He ran into a forest and recomended the same to others who wanted full awakening. ... S: Did he tell everyone to "run into a forest"? Did Ananda "run into a forest" to become an arahat? Are we ready for arahatship now anyway? Is there even any understanding of the dhammas precisely known at even the first stage of insight now? ... > >S:We read a little later about how "purified livelihood does not >arise in space or among the tree-tops, but in the doors of body and >speech." It's now that the path factors have to be purified through >right understanding. > > ... > > Right, and if one doesn't see the drawbacks of household life and benefits of giving it up, what sort of understanding is it? .... S: The Buddha taught the Truths, beginning with the truth that sankhara dhammas are dukkha. The Truths he taught, including the Path are applicable whether one is a bhikkhu or a lay person. Attachment is attachment, understanding is understanding. These are sankhara dhammas. "Household life", "bhikkhu" are concepts. The Buddha also taught that the true meaning of "bhikkhu" is the one who understands the truths, just as the true meaning of "sangha" refers to those who have become ariyans by understanding the Truths. Much better to be a lay person now in the middle of the city with right understanding and an understanding of the true meaning of "seclusion", the living alone with right understanding of dhammas, than to be a bhikkhu with no understanding. ... >If one can't get rid of this kind of gross attachment (at least temporarily in meditation retreats, or even in meditation at home), then what can be said about much much more powerful attachments such as self-view? ... S: Self-view has to be eradicated first. Let's talk more about self-view now. What do you understand it to be (in your own words)? Without an understanding of dhammas as anatta now, no attachments will ever be eradicated or even understood. ... > As long as hindrances are present, any "insight" is just restlessness and words. Meditation suppresses hindrances and allow insight to occur. .... S: The hindrances have to be directly understood *when they arise*, like now. Insight is the clear understanding of present dhammas, not the attempted avoidance or suppression. Metta Sarah p.s I hope others will help with replies as mine will be delayed for a week. ====== #122108 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >...In fact, I believe the meditators tend to be more forthright in their criticisms than any of the non-meditators ever are. But it's the non-meditator in the argument who cops the flack. :-) ... S: Ah well, we're the ones who talk about the importance at the present moment, so what better way to share such understanding and patience as when the Worldly Conditions are not the ones of choice :) And aren't we the ones who say there are no meditators, no non-meditators, so what's all this getting hung up on copping the flack? So how's the invention going? Metta Sarah ==== #122109 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unsubscribing sarahprocter... Dear Ann, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > > Sarah, I very much appreciate your post here for many reasons. Full of dhamma reminders - always appreciated and helpful. But also very much describing your dhamma reflections as you have reacted to Howard's news. You point out so clearly and well that while we spend most of our days thinking that we can control what happens to us - the stories - that of course, we can't. This is the illusion propelled by ignorance and wrong view. ... S: I don't have time to say more now, but thank you for your kind comments and your own additional helpful ones. As you say, it's all about "the illusion propelled by ignorance and wrong view." I hope to add more once I'm settled in Aus. I really appreciate all your notes which I'll read more carefully later with Jon. Please keep sharing your helpful and wise dhamma reflections. I know you have your own share of disappointments and issues at the moment, Ann. Wishing you very well. It is the insight into the Dhamma, the realisation that there are just moments of vipaka cittas arising now, followed by so many stories, usually with ignorance, that can give guidance and inspiration for all that's wise. Perhaps you'll have a chance to listen to some of the discussions from last year in KK that we uploaded - maybe you can find one or two extracts to transcribe or summarise with you reflections. Thank you and everyone for all your good friendship. Will add more later... Metta Sarah ===== #122110 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:05 am Subject: Loneliness and loss, what I heard (in India). nilovg Dear friends, Loneliness and loss. Kh S:Any situation is a test for ones own development of understanding. We can think a lot about different situations, but it is only thinking. When visible object or sound appears it reminds us that there is no understanding of these realities yet. If we realize this, there is no time to be lonely. Pa~n~naa and sati can arise, performing their tasks in the development of understanding. Q: What to do if they do not arise? Kh S: Clinging comes in as your teacher. Is there any understanding of seeing as not me? Or do we just follow the words that seeing is not self. The characteristic of seeing should be considered as being different from the object that is seen. The next moment there is hearing and there must be the reality that hears so that sound can appear. Hearing and sound are not self. I think that instead of feeling lonely there is a lot to do, because realities are there, ready to be object of awareness. When there is not direct awareness yet one may be thinking of these phenomena as just realities. When direct awareness arises it is aware and then there can be a degree of enthusiasm (piiti). The teachings can help us to develop more understanding. When realities are not known, they are all lost. When we were not born yet into this world we did not possess anything of this life up to now. When it is time in this life to lose it is exactly the same. Why should we regret? Everything is just temporary. ******** Nina. #122111 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 17-jan-2012, om 19:44 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > What he is stating is that the citta accompanied by lobha and > ditthi is excluding mana ( because mana and ditthi are excluding > eachother ) > The simile of the two lions does not really provide the Why. I > suggest we come back to that when we discuss ditthi (next) -------- N: As was suggested, they each have a different object. When there is di.t.thi there is a wrong view of realities and one really believes in it. When there is conceit, you fly the banner of the importance of self. For instance: my knowledge is better than his. There is no view at that time. I would like to add about maana that it arises so often in daily life, and we do not notice it. There can be maana when we look at the way someone else is dressed for example. Or when we consider someone else's improper behaviour, his conceited speech, his manners. Before we realise it conceit arises. I quote from my Cetasikas: The Book of Analysis, (Vibhaṅga, Chapter 17, par832) gives a very revealing list of the objects on account of which pride and conceit can arise: Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; pride of being not despised; pride of posture (bearing); pride of accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhāna; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection. All these objects can be a source of intoxication and conceit and we should consider them in daily life, that is why they are enumerated. Conceit can arise on account of each of the objects which are experienced through the senses. When we experience a pleasant object through one of the senses we may have conceit because of that; we may think ourselves superior in comparison with someone else who did not receive such a pleasant object. At that moment we forget that the experience of pleasant objects through the senses is only vipāka, conditioned by kamma. Thus, there is no reason to be proud of a pleasant experience. But ignorance covers up the truth, it conditions the arising of all sorts of akusala dhammas. Conceit can arise not only on account of the objects experienced through the senses, but also on account of the senses themselves. When we see someone who is blind there may be pride on account of our eyesense. The ``Book of Analysis'' classifies conceit in many different ways in order to show different aspects. We read, for example, about ``self-disrespect conceit'' (omāna, par881). When someone has self-disdain or self-contempt he still upholds himself and finds himself important. There is also ``over-estimating conceit''. Someone may erroneously think that he has attained jhāna or realized stages of wisdom and have conceit about it. ------ Nina. #122112 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:22 am Subject: seclusion truth_aerator Hello Sarah, all, >S: "Clear seeing" of what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anicca, dukkha, anatta and 4NT. >Pls give me just one short quote which defines vipassana as >something >that must be "done in seclusion" and we can discuss it >further. >=-=================== Example, MN17. It says that if insight doesn't occur in one forest, regardless of how many requisites for life one has, then one should leave it for the forest where one will establish insight, and reach Awakening. It is clear as clear can be. "Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides in a certain forest stretch. When abiding there, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not concentrate, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food, dwellings, and requities when ill, are collected with difficulty. That bhikkhu should reflect, `I abide in this forest stretch, to me abiding in this forest, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not get concentrated, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food dwellings, and requisites when ill, are collected with difficulty.' Bhikkhus, he should not abide in that stretch of forest, he should leave it by night or by day." http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/017-vanapattha\ -sutta-e1.html In Satipatthana sutta it does tell us that: There is the case where a monk having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/017-vanapattha\ -sutta-e1.html And in plenty of suttas the Buddha recommended: "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 [ Commentary on Introductory Paragraph ] 184. Here: in this view, in this choice, in this preference, in this selection, in this True Idea, in this Discipline (vinaya), in this field of True Idea and Discipline, in this doctrine, in this Good Life, in this Master's Dispensation. Hence 'here' is said. 185. A bhikkhu: a bhikkhu is a magnanimous ordinary man or an Initiate or an Arahant who has reached the unassailable idea. 186. Forest: having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest. 187. Root of a tree: where the bhikkhu's seat is prepared, or his bed or his chair or his mattress or his mat or his piece of hide or his spread of grass or his spread of leaves, or his spread of straw, there he walks or stands or sits or lies down. 188. Empty: unfrequented by laymen or by those gone forth into homelessness. 189. Place: dwelling, lean-to, mansion, villa, cave. 190. Sits down; having folded his legs crosswise: he is seated, having folded his legs crosswise. 191. Set his body erect: his body is erect, [firmly] placed, properly disposed. - Patisambhidamagga explanation page 176-177 ======================================================= So the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., to point out a forest abode as a place likely to hasten his advancement. 158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176; Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 - VsM VIII ============================================================== Please note, place DOES matter. Not every place is equal. Otherwise we would not have all these instructions for suitable place. Neither do "go to the forest..." is to be taken metaphorically as Ptsm and VsM clearly explain it to mean what it says. With best wishes, Alex #122113 From: A T Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:36 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hi Sarah, all, >S: Self-view has to be eradicated first. Let's talk more about >self-view now. What do you understand it to be (in your own words)? >Without an understanding of dhammas as anatta now, no attachments >will >ever be eradicated or even understood. >======================================================== In order to correctly understand anatta it is crucially important to understand the object of negation. Anatta is negating the notion of a permanent Self which is not subject to affliction/dis-ease. It is not negating the conventional person which is nāmarūpa conditional processes with self-agency (attakāra). In SN 22.59 The Self which is being negated is a Self which would be: permanent, satisfactory, not subject to affliction or disease. This "Self" is refuted: a permanent, satisfactory Self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 states: Bhikkhus, form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness is not-self. Were form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness self, then this form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness would not lead to affliction/dis-ease. The affliction/disease is in the context of: "none can have it of form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness: 'Let my form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness be thus, let my form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness be not thus.'" What is not negated is conditional attakāra (AN6.38) process that can lead to more or less dukkha. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html Also: 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html With best wishes, Alex #122114 From: A T Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:54 am Subject: On effort truth_aerator Hello all, There are some who claim that one should not put in any effort or work hard. Some say that since Buddha teaches the abandoning desire, then one should not desire Awakening to occur. One should not desire to have more wholesome states of mind and one should not desire bad states to cease. For how can you Awaken which is ending of desire by desiring it? This is where careful analysis of original pali words is needed. The cause of suffering is craving, taṇhā. The craving is defined (in MN9) as craving for six sense objects. Awakening is the end of craving (taṇhā). There is a wholesome desire for ending of craving that is called by a different word, desire (chanda) which in this case is wholesome. Without desire or determination one will simply not put in the effort to develop wholesome states of mind and drop unwholesome ones. Not many are willing to work hard without any goal in mind. “There is the case where a monk generates desire (chanda), endeavors (vāyamati), activates persistence (vīriyaṃ), upholds(paggaṇhāti) & exerts (padahati) his mind for the sake [of droping unwholesome qualities and developing the wholesome ones]. Please note that effort to abandon unwholesome states and develop the good states is called chanda, not taṇhā. Some say that suffering is asking for situation to be other than what it is. Sure, this is true. However not every suffering or distress is useless. Some suffering can be actually good if it leads to following the path that will eventually lead to ending of all suffering. If one never tries to change the situation for the better, then it will simply not improve. Impetus is needed, such as desire to reach Awakening to end all suffering. "And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)” – MN137 What the Buddha has said was: "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire (chando), effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided 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, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html “And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "And what, monks, is right effort? "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." [alex: I've removed repetitions] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html I can't believe that these quotes say another other than that it is good to have right effort for the path. With best wishes, Alex #122115 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:26 am Subject: Buddha didn't teach contentment regarding Akusala truth_aerator Hello RobertK, Lukas, all, > Der Lukas >patience is almost the whole path, I think. No one who can change >anything, but if understanding can still grow, and it can if one is >patient, then anything is possible, if not this life then a future one. >========================================== This is terrible advice, RobertK. Buddha never recomended contentment with akusala states. "Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. "You, too, monks, should relentlessly exert yourselves, [thinking,] 'Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence.' You, too, in no long time will reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html With best wishes, Alex #122116 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:35 am Subject: seclusion in VsM truth_aerator Hello Sarah, all, "The open air provides a life That aids the homeless bhikkhu's strife, Easy to get, and leaves his mind Alert as a deer, so he shall find Stiffness and torpor brought to halt. Under the star-bejewelled vault The moon and sun furnish his light, And concentration his delight. The joy seclusion's savour gives He shall discover soon who lives In open air, and that is why The wise prefer the open sky." VsM II,63 If any place was the right place, then we would not have teachings such as: "Firstly it was said above, he should sever any of the ten impediments that he may have. [90] Now the 'ten impediments' are: A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." - VsM III,29 "Then he should sever the lesser impediments (Ch. HI, 28): one living in such a favourable monastery should sever any minor impediments that he may still have, that is to say, long head hair, nails, and body hair should be cut, mending and patching of old robes should be done, or those that are soiled should be dyed. If there is a stain on the bowl the bowl should be baked. The bed, chair, etc., should be cleaned up. These are the details for the clause 'Then he should sever the lesser impediments'." - VsM IV, 20 "[THE EIGHTEEN FAULTS OF A MONASTERY] 2. Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, [edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there." - VsM IV,2 The point is that external circumstances DO matter. Not every place is equal to the other . There are more suitable and less suitable places... With best wishes, Alex #122117 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:43 am Subject: Some intentional Dhutanga practices in VsM truth_aerator Hello all, Some say that Buddha's Dhamma teaches us that one should live normally lay life... But what About ascetic practices (VsM II,2) ? "i. the refuse-rag-wearer's practice, ii. the triple-robe-wearer's practice, iii. the alms-food-eater's practice, iv. the house-to-house-seeker's practice, v. the one-sessioner's practice, vi. the bowl-food-eater's practice, vii. the later-food-refuser's practice, viii. the forest-dweller's practice, ix. the tree-root-dweller's practice, x. the open-air-dweller's practice, xi. the charnel-ground-dweller's practice, xii. the any-bed-user's practice, xiii. the sitter's practice." "all the ascetic practices, that is to say, those of trainers, ordinary men, and men whose cankers have been destroyed, may be either profitable or [in the Arahant's case] indeterminate. [80] No ascetic practice is unprofitable." - VsM II,78 ===================================================== These are intentional activities that were recommended by the Buddha. The point is that neither Buddha, nor Buddhaghosa taught that one should not do anything. There are profitable things to do! Doing something properly (like Dhutanga, meditation, etc) is part of the path. I am not saying that ALL should do Dhutanga practice, all I am saying is that it is NOT counter to the teaching to do so properly. With best wishes, Alex #122118 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: (D: The simile of the two lions does not really provide the Why. I > suggest we come back to that when we discuss ditthi (next) -------- N: As was suggested, they each have a different object. When there is di.t.thi there is a wrong view of realities and one really believes in it. When there is conceit, you fly the banner of the importance of self. For instance: my knowledge is better than his. There is no view at that time. D: I wonder whether we can get an exact definition of ditthi which allows us to say (wrong) view cannot arise together with conceit or self-esteem. Our most stubborn (wrong) view is the I-view due to delusion (moha) , conditioned by not knowing and/or not wanting to know the 4 N.T. (avijja ). If Ditthi is understood to include I -view , conceit or self esteem (mana) will not arise without it. Insofar there is lion and lioness ;-) The term view means according to my dictionary :" -opinon , -way of understanding, -what you can see,- photograph/picture (that shows an interesting place or scene)", i.e. inner (mental) or outer view (sight). Can we get help by the definition from Dhammasangani or Vibhanga? N: I would like to add about maana that it arises so often in daily life, and we do not notice it. There can be maana when we look at the way someone else is dressed for example. Or when we consider someone else's improper behaviour, his conceited speech, his manners. Before we realise it conceit arises. I quote from my Cetasikas: The Book of Analysis, (Vibhaṅga, Chapter 17, par832) gives a very revealing list of the objects on account of which pride and conceit can arise: Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; pride of being not despised; pride of posture (bearing); pride of accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhāna; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection. D: conceit , pride , high self-value, high self-esteem ..I see a long list of English words what we call in German 'eingebildet' (Dutch ?) It is not that we should not acknowledge a good feeling having done something positive (kusala), but when it is used to compare with others and judge: lower, equal or higher, mana shows up, isn't it? N: All these objects can be a source of intoxication and conceit and we should consider them in daily life, that is why they are enumerated. Conceit can arise on account of each of the objects which are experienced through the senses. When we experience a pleasant object through one of the senses we may have conceit because of that; we may think ourselves superior in comparison with someone else who did not receive such a pleasant object. At that moment we forget that the experience of pleasant objects through the senses is only vipāka, conditioned by kamma. Thus, there is no reason to be proud of a pleasant experience. D: I recall mana in connection with having been in Far East and learning about different culture, probably a bit arrogance towards the folks at home ;-) N:But ignorance covers up the truth, it conditions the arising of all sorts of akusala dhammas. Conceit can arise not only on account of the objects experienced through the senses, but also on account of the senses themselves. When we see someone who is blind there may be pride on account of our eyesense. D: yes, there can be mana by someone who considers a blind a lower person , but I think we may exclude that from our cetasikas in daily life. Who is really pride of something which is considered normal.. N: The ``Book of Analysis'' classifies conceit in many different ways in order to show different aspects. We read, for example, about ``self-disrespect conceit'' (omāna, par881). When someone has self-disdain or self-contempt he still upholds himself and finds himself important. There is also ``over-estimating conceit''. Someone may erroneously think that he has attained jhāna or realized stages of wisdom and have conceit about it. ------ D: as you said 'it arises so often in daily life, and we do not notice it' . It is a habit promoted by our culture : to be better than others, to be the winner, to get out of the mass, etc . ... and - this I mean means mana - to act accordingly by body, speech or thought. with Metta Dieter #122119 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:18 am Subject: Anapanasati and seclusion truth_aerator Hello All, I've heard strange teaching that Mindfulness of breathing is not for us. I've checked VsM and can't find definitive statement. The closest it seems is: ================================================================= 155. Or alternatively, this mindfiilness of breathing as a meditation subjectwhich is foremost among the various meditation subjects of all Buddhas, [some] Paccekabuddhas and [some] Buddhas' disciples as a [Alex: Please note that bracketed additions by translator are not found in actual text, and the text does affirm that Buddha's disciples can use it]. basis for attaining distinction and abiding in bliss here and nowis not easy to develop without leaving the neighbourhood of villages, which resound with the noises of women, men, elephants, horses, etc., noise being a thorn to jhana (see A.v,135), whereas in the forest away from a village a meditator can at his ease set about discerning this meditation subject and achieve the fourth jhana in mindfulness of breathing; and then, by making that same jhana the basis for comprehension of formations [with insight] (Ch. XX, 2f.), he can reach Arahantship, the highest fruit. That is why the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., in pointing out a favourable abode for him. VsM VIII, 155 ============================================================== And again it does clearly talk about the need for physical seclusion. Obviously this is not "try it while cooking" sort of thing to reach Arhatship. This is another example of favorable abode with help of which one can reach Arhatship. With best wishes, Alex #122120 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:35 am Subject: Re: No-control and its implications truth_aerator Hello all, When it is cold, one can't merely wish "let it be warm". There is no control. Sure. But what one usually does is put on more clothing, and/or turn on the heater. When one is hungry, one can't wish it away. But one goes and eats food. Here we have intentional actions. Do they HAVE TO promote Self-Views? Does stream-enterer or higher avoids doing them and freezes and starves to death? Should one drop like insentient (lest one thinks about Self) log of wood? No. One does it without Self-Views. Same with proper meditation outlined in suttas, VsM and Commentaries. Intention and wrong views are separate. It is perfectly possible to have intention and no wrong views. So what is at fault is wrong view, never kusala activity (such as meditation) itself. I've also heard "don't meditate because you can get attached". We can have been told that we shouldn't attach to precepts, practices, Awakening. Great! Don't eat so that you wouldn't be attached to eating... Don't drink any liquids or you will get attached... Don't sleep... Etc. It is double standard how people tell us "don't be attached to meditation, precepts, practices, etc" and yet themselves are attached to their cup of tea, surfing, tv, whatever. At least attachment to meditation is kusala and can lead to development of more wisdom. Not minor akusala of daily life stuff. Just like one needs to be attached to higher and higher steps as one is walking the staircase, same is here. Attachment to wholesome activities can be required at certain time and at other time when it has finished its duty, let go. Another simile is relay chariots. I am all for understanding and wisdom, but the crux of the issue is how it is gotten. I do not believe that any real wisdom can be gained until 5 hindrances are suppressed as is said in AN5.51 . And in order to suppress the hindrances, for many people, samatha meditation to some degree is a must. Not every person is Angel and doesn't have hindrances often present. Many people in the suttas who got Awakened listening to Buddha's sermon may have been in totally different mental state than us. Many of them were already ascetic wanderers and may have had suppressed hindrances for a long while. They also actually met the live Buddha, something we cannot have today. So their circumstances might have been very different from ours and what worked for them cannot work for us, at least not me. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.051.than.html If meditation would be so 'bad' than Buddha would have explicitly warned us again and again. But no, He frequently talked about its virtues and recommended it to us. With best wishes, Alex #122121 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:08 am Subject: On understanding & action truth_aerator Hello all, I don't believe that simply saying "no self! no self!" constitutes real and deep understanding. Also no matter how well one can argue for "no self", as long as one's inner and outer behavior is selfish, it also is not really deep understanding. I believe that understanding goes hand in hand with action based on that understanding. Being "not-attached" and yet gathering sensual experiences, surfing the waves, traveling, enjoying cup of tea, etc, is not really non-attachment. It sounds hypocritical to me. If one cannot stop attention to sights, sounds, and other sensory phenomena when one is meditating, it betrays the fact of attachment. So great way, IMHO, to test one's attachment is to see how easy it is to temporary give up all knowing in doing in 5 sense world... Merely talking and saying "don't be attached! No Self!" but living normally and enjoying the comfort of one's own home with all its sensual pleasures is mutually exclusive, IMHO... When one is enjoying something sensual, IMHO, one is no longer dispassionately studying it as in satipatthana. Why, other than kilesas, allow oneself to enjoy as much as one wants, and yet don't meditate? Doesn't it betray one's real intentions to say "don't be attached to precepts, meditation, attainments" and yet don't see the drawbacks of attachment to mundane things like cup of tea, travel, surfing, cup of tea, etc? With best wishes, Alex #122122 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:20 pm Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) sukinderpal Hello Rob, R: Well, yes, I *am* talking about the language. That is the whole question - whether Buddha's language which many here call conventional or literal and dismiss its obvious meaning, is to be instantly translated into what you already understand of dhamma terms, or whether it is to be at all regarded in its own right, as he expressed it in his own words. S: You say that the conventional teachings does not give the kind of details that the Abhidhamma gives, therefore there is something communicated in the former which is not had in the latter. This requires interpretation and coming in with a view. And then you also say that we are to read those conventional expressions "without any kind of interpretation" and therefore must stick to the wordings alone. So what is it? ======== R: You can ask 'which it is referring to' all day long, but if you don't look to what he actually said as the evidence for what he was pointing to, then you are referring to some other source or resource and translating the Buddha's words into your preferred philosophy. S: What decides how anything is to be interpreted? Do we not take into account that the Suttas were given in accordance to the individual's accumulations and therefore need to put it in the context of the basic teachings? Please tell me how this is a wrong approach? ====== R: After all, all we have of the Buddha's original teachings is his *language.* So how can we decide what he was referring to without referencing his language? S: You mean we are to study the teachings not as Dhamma students but as scholars? ====== R: That framework did not come from the suttas. It came from a group of modern teachers' rendering of the commentaries and sub-commentaries of the suttas and Abhidhamma. S: Ah, so you have a different rendering of the commentaries and sub-commentaries? How did you study them? Did you refer back to the Suttas to find out what they really meant? Did you find something that contradicted the Suttas? Would you conclude that they represent well the Buddha's teachings? ====== R: That is fine. I am not denying the wisdom of those sources. But I am saying that there is a distinction between what one learns from those sources, which are *secondary* to the Buddha's words themselves, S: What are you referring to now, the Abhidhamma and commentaries or the modern day teacher's interpretation of these? Please be clear, you can't switch back and forth and expect any progress in discussion. ====== R: and what is derived by listening to the Buddha first and taking in his words, and then deciding what to interpret from the other commentaries based on the integrity of what he said. S: So you are saying that the commentaries are not wrong, but in order to understand them, we must first read the Suttas to find out what these commentaries are really saying. Then why study the commentaries at all if you already understand what the Buddha taught from reading the Suttas?! ====== R: What is the foundation, the Abhidhamma or the suttas? What is the guide, what is the touchstone, what is the final authority? Is it the commentaries or the Buddha's mouth? S: Again, you need to make up your mind and tell us what exactly your position is. You can't one moment refer to the Suttas as authority and use this to argue against the Abhidhamma and commentaries and another use these to argue against the modern interpretation. ====== R: Is it the modern teachers whom you trust, or the Buddha? S: It isn't and never was between the teacher and the Buddha, but yours and mine!! How can it not be that the Buddha is the final authority when K.Sujin and the authors of the commentaries and sub-commentaries all express great confidence in the Buddha and acknowledge gratitude towards him?! How can you suggest that members of DSG don't trust the Buddha when this is the one group which is willing to discuss *any and all* that is recorded in the Tipitaka? The foundation here in Bangkok, is for this very purpose, and is open to all who think that they have the correct answer just as you and others do here. ====== R: Someone has to have the last word, and for me, after reading and hearing whatever I read and hear, I go back to the Buddha, not to the Abhidhamma, not to the commentaries, and not to anyone else. S: My Impression is that you go back to the Buddha to exercise your wrong understanding. ====== R: Back to the Buddha for the final word. He spoke what he spoke, and you can't mix everything together and say that it is "all Dhamma" even if the Buddha's original words are lost in the mixture. S: If you are suggesting the reading of say, the Anapanasati Sutta without reference to what one has gained from reading anything else that the Buddha said, then your reading would be no different from that of any non-Buddhist's, would it not? A Hindu or a Christian will read the sutta and believe like you, that the Buddha recommended meditation and he would not have any understanding about conditionality or about anatta. Does this reflect the profoundness of the Dhamma? Is this deserving of being considered the teachings of the Enlightened One? Please tell me how your reading is different? ====== R: The World Teacher did speak, and he did not speak the commentaries, he spoke the suttas. So who do you follow? Who is the final World Teacher, the *only one* with omniscient knowledge? S: Take Sukin out of the picture and imagine that you are talking directly to one of the commentators. You wouldn't suggest that I did not refer to the Suttas in order to arrive at what I did, would you? If not, what would you now advise me to do? ====== R: When I say "Why did the Buddha say what he said and not something else," I mean it! His words come first, and they come last. Otherwise it's not "Buddhism." S: And I gave you an answer, and will say that Dhamma comes first and it is from the understanding of this that any interpretation of the Buddha's words be done. Failing this is the "Buddhism" as taught by most people today, but is not what the Buddha wanted from any of his followers. I am highlighting here, the role of wisdom in reading the Suttas. What are you highlighting with your suggestion to read the words literally and not to interpret them in light of what one might have got from reading anything else? ====== R: It's okay to have Abhidhammism, and it's okay to have Commentarialism - all giving great insight into the teachings of the Buddha. But in the end the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings of the Buddha. S: Yes, yes, the Abhidhamma and commentaries must conform with the rest of the Tipitaka and they do. Rob Epism and Meditationism however clearly does not! And this is exactly why you agree with parts of the Abhidhamma and commentaries and rejects the rest. ====== R: Now I do not know what the source is for the report that the Buddha delivered the Abhidhamma to Devas and others in the higher planes. It may be true, but the Buddha never asserted it, and there is not the same historical evidence for this that the suttas have standing behind them. We *know* that the Buddha spoke the suttas. S: You are talking history. As far as I'm concerned, you do not know the Buddha and this is because you do not understand the Dhamma. And btw, I find it odd that you accept the possibility that the Buddha might have taught the Abhidhamma and yet at the same time suggest that it not be referred to when reading the Suttas...? ======== > You refer to long breath / short breath but forget that what follows is reference to each of the five Khandhas and also to inconstancy etc. and in the same way, the different jhana factors. And you infer from this that he was teaching to note conventional reality? R: Why, why, why does he talk about the breath? You say to note what he says afterwards, and yet he keeps coming back to the breath S: Because, because, because without pointing those things out, the breath will continue to be perceived as 'concept', the object of samatha practice, instead of also a reality, the object of vipassana development. And why should he not talk in detail when the subject does involve so much detail? ====== R: ..and talks about the breath as object of insight and for the development of samatha and jhana. Why would you want to ignore what he is teaching with and about and pick and choose the comments that you want? S: Please tell me which part of the Sutta I am ignoring? ====== R: The breath is all over the sutta, and the name of the sutta is "anapanasati," which means the "sutta on the full awareness of the BREATHING." So you want to leave the breath out of the discussion? Should we take it out of the title too? S: I am certainly not taking breath out of the discussion, what I am doing however, is attempting to understand what it is in light of the understanding got from not only other places in the Tipitaka, but other parts of the Sutta itself. It is you who is ignoring all this. ====== R: From wikipedia: "Ānāpānasati (Pali; Sanskrit: ānāpānasmṛti; Chinese: 安那般那; Pīnyīn: ānnbānn), meaning 'mindfulness of breathing' ("sati" means mindfulness; "ānāpāna" refers to inhalation and exhalation)" Anapana refers to inhalation and exhalation, ie, breathing. S: Or it could be 'mindfulness of "breath"' or 'mindfulness while practicing anapanasati', I don't know. But do you know breath? Do you know for example that sucking in and blowing out air is not breathing? And do you know that breathing takes place even when you so called 'hold the breath'? Do you know that breath is conditioned by all citta except sense consciousness? ====== R: The Buddha is systematically talking about using the breath to develop discernment and samatha the entire sutta. It is the subject of the sutta. But you can take the breath away and just leave the dhammas that you like... S: The breath that the Buddha wanted his disciple to understand is not the concept which is object of samatha. Breath as a rupa conditioned by citta is extremely subtle, and this means that he'd expect only those who were already used to paying attention to the experience at the nose tip and with great panna, to be able to perceive those rupas as rupas. You ignore this implication. This is because you do not appreciate what breath really is and what it takes to have direct understanding of it. So really, ignoring is what *you* do. ====== R: So when you see a dhamma reference you say "that is what he was referring to." S: And you say no? Please explain why. ====== R: But when he talks about the breath, and says to be mindful of the breathing while calming the body; mindful of the breathing while calming the mental formations, you say "take the breath out of that, because that is not a dhamma!" Can you pick and choose like that, or do you have to accept the actual and entire teaching of the sutta? Which? Can you leave out what you don't want to read? S: "Take the breath out of that, because that is not a dhamma!" are your words, not mine. You can't take breath out of the picture because you *will* think about breath. But you think either with kusala or akusala citta. When it is kusala, it can be with samatha understanding, but if it is vipassana, the object is either the earth, fire or wind element. No place here for the idea of studying the concept of breath as a practice for the development of understanding realities. So what I'm taking out of the picture, is your wrong idea about practice. When I read the Sutta I have no problem with the mention of breath, be this with reference to samatha or vipassana. But given that the Buddha taught the Eightfold Path which is about vipassana and not samatha, what I do is not a matter of picking and choosing, but rather getting to the point of the Buddha's teachings. ====== R: Of course he is talking about the specific moments, the rupas and attendant namas, that arise in relation to the breath. But the general or conventional object from which these arise is the breath. S: Rupas are not experienced now? Should I be trying to study the monitor screen in order to understanding visible object when the fact is that visible object appears even when I look away from the monitor? If you were to approach the Buddha to seek knowledge, would the Buddha not direct your attention to realities in the context of what you do in daily life, for example, you sitting in front of a computer? The breath was a focus of the monk's samatha practice and therefore it was referred to again and again. But even then, did the Buddha not refer to other realities in that Sutta and not only rupa khandha? ===== R: And that is the way the Buddha describes and teaches about it in the actual sutta. It is his reference point, and thus should be yours as well. S: Yes breath was the reference point, but not the point of the teaching. The point of the teaching was to understand realities, not as consequence of the samatha practice, but more like in spite of it. ====== > S: That a monk who practices anapanasati will think in terms of whether the breath is short or long, this is natural. And those who meditated on the body parts, these are the concepts they were meant to think about. Why would the Buddha not refer to them if those are the concepts which form part of the monk's samatha practice? R: You assume that all the practices that the Buddha taught about in detail were all practices that were not Buddhist and were already taking place. There is no evidence of this. The Buddha was very clear about the practices that he taught and wanted the monks to follow. S: What I suggest is based on the fact that even the Buddha was involved in these practices before he became enlightened and rejected them as not being the Path. He however did not dismiss them as without value. Kusala is kusala and should be encouraged and those who could develop it to the level of Jhana should be praised. There were many who did and were already recluses, and therefore after hearing the Buddha's teachings, became monks and continued with those practices. What is so farfetched about this? You say that I make false assumptions but you project your own idea about practice into the Buddha's words and try to support this with the following suggestion: Quote: "He would take common terms and practices and translate them into his own terms. He would teach the true meaning of terms and practices the monks already knew and transform them into Buddhist practices." When the Buddha taught the Fire Sermon and used the concept of fire as metaphor to teach Dhamma, did he also teach fire worship in a new way? If vipassana is the practice characteristic of a Buddha which is not tied to any particular activity, and samatha is another kind of practice which when at the level of Jhana, requires particular posture and object, what practice is the one you are suggesting classified under? ====== R: And he did not promote or continue practices that were not able to be used as part of the path. Buddha didn't just accept breath meditation and jhana; he taught them in detail and instructed the monks what to do with those practices. S: What is the difference between the development of wisdom in daily life and the one you propose in terms of knowledge gained? ====== R: They *are* Buddhist practice in the form in which he gave them. He had no problem telling the Brahmins that their teachers were all wrong and then telling them how they should practice correctly. S: How exactly were they wrong and the Buddha right? Please answer this question if not any other. ====== R: And he would not have continued practices "just because they were familiar" if they were not parts of his own teaching method, which they clearly were, as he repeated them on many occasions in various forms. S: He of course did not teach those practices which you imagine he did. But what is your reason for suggesting that the Buddha discourage those monks from their samatha practices which are in fact high forms of kusala, when he did not even ask those living the dusty household life, to change their lifestyles? Have you not heard it expressed here again and again, the idea of living naturally while developing Right Understanding? ====== > S: Understand or not understand what other way is there but to point to reality and the distinction between this and concepts in order that understanding of the one happens? R: If you wanted to open up a concept and explain what it was really about, as Buddha was capable of doing at any time, he would not just say "breath" the way it was already known if he didn't mean that to be attended, he would then explain the dhammas and the arising functions that he wanted them to really understand. S: Well he did point to dhammas didn't he? Can you imagine a conversation even about the Dhamma, without reference to conventional objects and activities? That would be a perversion of thought would it not? With regard to breath, please refer to what I wrote earlier in this post. ====== R: The fact that he used breath as the central object of the whole discussion tells us that he thought it was as useful focus for development of satipatthana, and in fact he says that is a most excellent object of discernement on any number of occasions. S: Most excellent object of discernment in terms of the wisdom of those particular people and not in terms of what any Robert, Sukinder and Sarah can choose to focus on. Why would the Buddha expect someone who does not have the panna to perceive earth in earth when touching the keyboard or fire in fire when placing hand above a flame to know those subtle rupas conditioned by citta? ===== R: Tell me how the monks he instructed in this way got their "dhamma knowledge" if that is all he said? What are you proposing? Was there another secret meeting when he told them about the dhammas? And if he just left it with the breath as object, was he leaving them in the lurch with nothing but a conventional object to understand? S: You forget that he did in fact refer to realities in the Anapanasati Sutta?!! ===== R: How do you think the sutta does any good if you don't think the breath as object is a useful object for discernment? S: Useful in relation to the level of panna capable of discerning the subtle rupas. For the rest of us, it is a reminder to understand the realities which make up our moment to moment experiences. ======= > S: They were not cited as 'hint' for paramatha dhammas; this is your own inference from the standpoint of thinking that the Buddha taught deliberate practice of Vipassana. The Buddha mentioned them because this is what the monks had as object of their samatha practice. R: But he didn't go any further? If all he did was "mention them" and they were not the true practice, then what else could they be other than a mere hint? S: The idea of 'hint' is from the standpoint of thinking that the Buddha recommended focusing on breath as a practice. He didn't. And yes, he did not only talk about the breath, but about understanding the five Khandhas as impermanent, insubstantial and non-self. And this is what the whole point was. ====== R: Why didn't he explain more fully how real discernment and development come about, if you believe that the actual words he used, talking about the breath in so much practical detail, was not the real teaching? S: "Explain more fully how real discernment and development come about"? You mean instead of pointing to the realities and in the process distinguishing this from concept, the Buddha should have taught some particular "method" for developing panna? That imo, would take the attention away from the present moment and make it impossible for wisdom to develop! The monks would naturally continue with their samatha practice if this is what they did on a daily basis. And since some of them did have the accumulations for great discernment, why not encourage it by going along with the details of their practice? And you should not confuse the Abhidhamma details which some here often cite in their discussions, with the fact that there is only one of the Five Khandhas to be known at a time. The practicality is not in being able to go step by step in the samatha practice, but the deep insight which can arise at any time during that practice. Metta, Sukin #122123 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:22 pm Subject: Re: On understanding & action rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello all, > > I don't believe that simply saying "no self! no self!" constitutes real and deep understanding. Also no matter how well one can argue for "no self", as long as one's inner and outer behavior is selfish, it also is not really deep understanding. > > I believe that understanding goes hand in hand with action based on that understanding. Being "not-attached" and yet gathering sensual experiences, surfing the waves, traveling, enjoying cup of tea, etc, is not really non-attachment. It sounds hypocritical to me. > > ++http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka...ikavaggo-e.html Dear Alex Migasala Sutta Once the Venerable Ananda, having dressed in the morning, took his bowl and went to the house of the female lay disciple Migasala, where he sat down on the seat prepared for him. The female lay disciple Migasala, after having paid homage to him, sat down to one side and said to him: "Please, venerable sir, how ought one to understand this teaching taught by the Blessed One: namely, that one who leads the pure, celibate life and one who does not should both have the very same status after death? My father Purana, venerable sir, was (in his later years) a celibate, living remote from sensuality, abstaining from the low sexual life; and when my father died, the Blessed One declared that he had attained to the state of a once-returner and had been reborn among the Tusita devas. "But then, venerable sir, there was my father's brother Isidatta, who was not a celibate but lived a contented married life. When he died the Blessed One said that he too was a once-returned and had been reborn among the Tusita devas. "Now, Venerable Ananda, how ought one to understand this statement of the Blessed One, that both had the very same status?" "Well, sister, it was just in that way that the Blessed One had declared it." When the Venerable Ananda had taken his almsfood at the house of the female lay disciple Migasala, he rose from his seat and left. And in the afternoon, after meal time, he went to the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. So seated, he told the Blessed One what had occurred. The Blessed One said: "Who, indeed, is this female lay disciple Migasala, this foolish, inexperienced woman with a woman's wit? And who (in comparison) are those who have the knowledge of other persons' different qualities? "Then, Ananda, the critics will pass such judgement: 'This one has the same qualities as the other. Why, then, should one be inferior and the other better?' Such judgement, indeed, will for a long time cause harm and suffering to those critics. "Now, Ananda, one who has heard the teachings and acquired much learning, who has a keen understanding and attains a temporary liberation of mind - such a one surpasses and excels the other person. And why? Because the Dhamma-stream carries him along. But who can be aware of these differences except a Tathagata, a Perfect One? "Therefore, Ananda, you should not be a hasty critic of people... "Further, there is another person prone to anger and pride, and from time to time states of greed rise up in him. And he has not heard the teachings or acquired much learning; he has no keen understanding, nor has he attained even temporary liberation of mind. With the breakup of the body, after death, he will be set for decline, not for progress; he will deteriorate and not rise higher. "Then there is one likewise prone to anger and pride, and from time to time states of greed rise up in him. But he has heard the teachings and acquired much learning; he has keen understanding and has attained temporary liberation of mind. With the breakup of the body, after death, he is set for progress, not for decline; he will rise higher and will not deteriorate. "Then, Ananda, the critics will pass such judgement: 'This one has the same qualities as the other. Why, then, should one be inferior and the other better?' Such judgement, indeed, will for a long time cause harm and suffering to those critics. "Now, Ananda, one who has heard the teachings .... surpasses and excels the other person. And why? Because the Dharmma-stream carries him along. But who can be aware of these differences except a Tathagata, A Perfect One? "Therefore, Ananda, you should not be a hasty critic of people.... "Anguttara Nikaya+++++++++ #122124 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:56 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Phil... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > > > > On the other hand, there's the occasional sadistic Sargent who has to be replaced... > > > I don't expect to be posting this year, but if you are still going on and on and on and on and ob and on and on about something yoy don't actually do ("meditate") when I come back I expect I will take pleasure in doing my best to point out how absurd that. How absurd that? Yes, very. I expect too! > I read once tgat You read tgat? > "the Buddha made it a point to avoid useless discussions" though I don't know the source, I would put discussing "meditation" with you in that category. Well that is great. Thanks for letting me know! Then I guess we don't have to discuss it. But thanks for taking a break from your continuous Abhidhamma studies to make this important point. > As for Howard leaving, seems sensible. Tep did, James did, Joop did, I'm sure others did. Well, if all of them did, then maybe you're right. After all, that's a total of four. Hm...I wonder if there's a pattern there? Do you think that having people like you suggesting that others leave who do not conform to your view; or perhaps having Scott insult, deride, manipulate, taunt and badger people whose view he is "suspicious" of, might have something to do with it! Maybe it's you and Scott that are the problem and not them, eh? What if being around a couple of insulting dogmatic trolls is just not something they want to continue to be subjected to, treated like dogs by a couple of yelping egotists who think they are defending the Dhamma when they're just acting like a couple of arrogant boors? And who justify it by saying it's about 'right view' - the Mickey Mouse version that they've memorized. > It's not politically correct but I don't think it's a bad thing, this is an online discussion group, not a family. And you're an arrogant fool. So what? > People can come and go ( for good), they always have, always will. You won't though, you just love the sound of your own voice on the screen No, actually I don't. And in fact, if I leave too, it will be because of the personal intrusions of a few nasty people like you. Don't make up things you don't know about other people, Phil. I actually try to work through the issues that arise relating to Dhamma that I care about, but your view is myopic and you can't actually see anything but your own reflection, and project your own impatience and insufficiency onto others. You know Phil, you give the impression of being a little loose in the head. You fly around from one extreme to the other, give your personal confessions, then suddenly become a serious student of Dhamma, leave the list, come back suddenly, and hurl insults and arrogant statements as if you own the place. People tolerate you because you seem like a lost little baby and they want to support you, but you can't just say whatever you please about other people and think it's okay. And it's not alright, Phil, if good people who are here to investigate the Dhamma are driven off the list because of nasty people like you. It ought to be stopped. > (I can relate to that) going on and on and on about Dhamma based on your ideas rather than studying of the Dhamma. That's your opinion, one I've never agreed with. You don't learn by imitating statements from a textbook. If that's your way, go for it, but I would never learn or study anything that way. It's empty-headed and you don't really understand anything simply by copying it. But it is convenient for someone who's not capable of a real investigation into anything. > Yes you're a great guy, Howard was/is a wonderful human being, I have no doubt about that, none whatsoever. Sorry I can't say the same. > But if you decided to leave as well I think it would be sensible and even wise. I think it would be sensible, wise and appropriate for you to shut up and stop telling other people what you think they ought to do. It's not your list, you're not a moderator, and you are arrogant, destructive and disrespectful. > As Howard said there any number of discussion groups where people can go on and on and on about meditation, and some of them actually meditate, could be motivational for you and Alex! And before you keep condescending to people who you don't know and who don't want your advice, you might want to spend some time getting yourself together and stop spitting and whirling aimlessly in other people's direction, and insulting people who didn't ask to speak to you in the first place. Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122125 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:07 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear All > > Needless to say, Phil's remarks to Rob E here do not represent the moderators' views (as I know he realises). Thank you for saying so. Unfortunately I cannot read a post like that without firing back, and the accumulation of such messages from Scott and occasionally Phil when he pops in for a jab is leading toa state of affairs that is not healthy for myself or others who have to listen to the exchanges. I could attempt not to read their messages, but that might be difficult. > Members whose understanding of the teachings differs from the orthodox commentarial tradition are welcome to participate. Thanks again, Jon. I will say for the record that no matter how much we may disagree, that discussing our different views with you, Sarah, Nina and others that have experience and a sense of civility always seems like a discussion between friends, and that's how it should be. But there is a serious problem with repeated and sometimes incessant attempts by Scott to grind the "wrong thinkers" in his view down to the ground and force them to submit to the view that he thinks is correct, and it is not possible to keep being hounded by such attacks without eventually being poisoned by them. Phil's more direct proddings for people who meditate to actually leave is even worse. In fact he is taking the presumption of a moderator when he says something like that, and it misrepresents the leadership of this group to speak directly to other group members and advise them to go away. That should not be allowed. This drama that has been taking place of those who will not tolerate other people's divergent views has gotten to the point where it interferes in any decent exchange of ideas. > However, all members, regardless of views, level of activity, 'seniority' on the list or any other criterion, are urged to keep things friendly and pleasant, and to avoid personal remarks, sarcasm and other such devices as far as possible. In recent times the list has lost much of its former friendly tone, and it would be good to see a return to that. Although my response to Phil is guilty of all of the above, I really appreciate your admonition and would enjoy a mutual cease-fire of such language. It's hard to do it unilaterally, but I would welcome a truce. > So can we all keep to discussing the teachings, and avoid the personal jibes. Thanks! I hope that we can all do that. Discussing the teachings is why we're here. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122126 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:39 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex Just butting in on this thread if I may. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > > Hi Sarah, all, > ... > > In order to correctly understand anatta it is crucially important to understand the object of negation. Anatta is negating the notion of a permanent Self which is not subject to affliction/dis-ease. It is not negating the conventional person which is n�marūpa conditional processes with self-agency (attak�ra). In SN 22.59 The Self which is being negated is a Self which would be: permanent, satisfactory, not subject to affliction or disease. > > This "Self" is refuted: a permanent, satisfactory Self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 states: > > Bhikkhus, form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness is not-self. Were form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness self, then this form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness would not lead to affliction/dis-ease. > > The affliction/disease is in the context of: > > "none can have it of form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness: 'Let my form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness be thus, let my form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness be not thus.'" > > What is not negated is conditional attak�ra (AN6.38) process that can lead to more or less dukkha. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html > =============== J: Note that in the Buddha's teaching on not-self, it is not-self *as a characteristic of dhammas* (in this sutta, as the 5 khandhas) that is spoken of. It is by developing an understanding of dhammas that the understanding of not-self comes to be. The importance of this connection is seen in the closing paragraph of the sutta, which explains that when the khandhas are understood as not-self, there is liberation and then enlightenment: "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in [the 5 khandhas]. "When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'" Jon #122127 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:07 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (121616) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > > J: Not sure what you're saying here. Is it not quite possible that for a person practicing in the way you interpret the Buddha to be suggesting there could be a lot of self-view? > > It's always possible. What I'm saying is that it's not necessitated by engaging in practice, not that it's not possible. Most of the dhamma-theory students here have had a firm view that meditation without self-view is *impossible.* That's all I'm seeking to contradict. > =============== J: I'd like to clarify that the view you're referring to here is not specifically a view about `meditation' but applies to any action purposefully undertaken with the idea of thereby having (or of increasing the chances of having) more awareness/understanding. So it could include activities such as reciting/memorising/reading texts, undertaking ascetic practices, attending discussions, doing penance, etc, indeed anything done out of the view that awareness/understanding is thereby more likely to arise. The issue is the idea that by doing some particular activity awareness/understanding can be induced to arise. If that view is mistaken, then no part of the activity can be the development of the path. Jon #122128 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 19-jan-2012, om 18:38 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: > If Ditthi is understood to include I -view , conceit or self esteem > (mana) will not arise without it. Insofar there is lion and > lioness ;-) > The term view means according to my dictionary :" -opinon , -way of > understanding, -what you can see,- photograph/picture (that shows > an interesting place or scene)", i.e. inner (mental) or outer view > (sight). > Can we get help by the definition from Dhammasangani or Vibhanga? > ------- N: The Atthasālinī (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the following definition of wrong view, diṭṭhi: "It has unwise conviction as characteristic; perversion as function; wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see the ariyans as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the highest fault." One believes that there is a person or thing that exists that can last. One fails to see that there are only naama and ruupa that arise and fall away. In the Khemaka-sutta (Kindred Sayings III, Khandhå-vagga, Middle Fifty, Part 4, § 89) the difference between the wrong view of self and conceit is explained: > > -------- > > D: conceit , pride , high self-value, high self-esteem ..I see a > long list of English words what we call in German > 'eingebildet' (Dutch ?) > N: Ja, inbeelding. ------ > > D: It is not that we should not acknowledge a good feeling having > done something positive (kusala), but when it is used to compare > with others and judge: lower, equal or higher, mana shows up, isn't > it? > ------ N: Also when we do not compare. Such a good feeling is mostly with lobha, though not all the time. Akusala and kusala alternate very quickly. When we notice this it has fallen away already. ------- > > D: I recall mana in connection with having been in Far East and > learning about different culture, probably a bit arrogance towards > the folks at home ;-) > ------- N: A good example. When we learn something others do not know of. ----- > > D: yes, there can be mana by someone who considers a blind a lower > person , but I think we may exclude that from our cetasikas in > daily life. > Who is really pride of something which is considered normal.. > ------ N: Alas. There can be conceit. When one is young, walking without a stick, being able to run. Then I think: he is running, I cannot anymore. Conceit again. ------- > > > D: as you said 'it arises so often in daily life, and we do not > notice it' . It is a habit promoted by our culture : to be better > than others, to be the winner, > to get out of the mass, etc . ... and - this I mean means mana - to > act accordingly by body, speech or thought. > ----- N: Yes, always an idea of competition. ------ Nina. > #122129 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:31 am Subject: Re: On understanding & action truth_aerator Dear RobertK2, >Migasala Sutta As you know, the general belief is that as we get further away from Buddha's time, the general capabilities of people decline. As people's defilements go up, I think that more is necessary than bare minimum for those lucky few. Venerable Bahiya was instantly Fully Awakened after hearing a paragraph short teaching of the Buddha. Can we? Does it apply to us? Same with Migasala suttas and other similar suttas. We, IMHO, should not take exceptional cases and make general rule out of them. Especially for today's time when there are more defilements and people are less capable. With best wishes, Alex #122130 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:36 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, >It is by developing an understanding of dhammas that the >understanding of not-self comes to be. > > "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, >he finds estrangement in [the 5 khandhas]. >=========================== We have heard this a million times. Have we fully understood Anatta, yet? Are we Awakened? Why not? In order to "see thus" a very long and arduous vipassana retreat may be required. If it weren't we could have been already Awakened. The devil is in the details... The "sees thus" may require entire N8P including Jhanas as part of samma-samadhi to really "see thus". With best wishes, Alex #122131 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: 'D: If Ditthi is understood to include I -view , conceit or self esteem (mana) will not arise without it. Insofar there is lion and lioness ;-) Can we get help by the definition from Dhammasangani or Vibhanga? > ------- N: The Atthasālinī (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the following definition of wrong view, diṭṭhi: "It has unwise conviction as characteristic; perversion as function; wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see the ariyans as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the highest fault." One believes that there is a person or thing that exists that can last. One fails to see that there are only naama and ruupa that arise and fall away. D: This passage of the commentary to the Dhammasangani refers not directly to I-view . However , when we consider , as you suggest '' One believes that there is a person or thing that exists that can last' , the I-view is covered by the term ditthi . Hence mana must go together with ditthi , as the very base of conceit is the I -view. Back to Abhidhammattha Sangaha : Immoral Mental States § 6 d. Conceit (*3) is found in the four types of consciousness dissociated with wrong view. Ven. Narada noted : (*3) Mana too originates with the "I" - conception connected with oneself. As such it also is present only in types of consciousness rooted in attachment. Nevertheless, both ditthi and mana do not arise simultaneously in one particular consciousness. Where there is ditthi there is no mana. Commentaries compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den. Mana may arise in those four types of consciousness dissociated with ditthi. But it does not follow that mana is ever present in them.] unquote The simile from subcommentaries , he refers to , is to explain Ven. Anuruddhacariya's statement ( mana disassociated with ditthi). Your quotation from Ven. Buddhagosa' s Atthasālinī doesn't say so , so one may asked whether Ven. Anuruddhacariya interpreted or cited the Dhammasangani . I am bit stubborn here , because so far it makes no sense to me to disassociate mana from ditthi . How can there be conceit without I-view..? It is like saying a running nose and a cold disassociated. N:In the Khemaka-sutta (Kindred Sayings III, Khandhå-vagga, Middle Fifty, Part 4, § 89) the difference between the wrong view of self and conceit is explained: snip D: thanks for the quotation , Nina. This is indeed an important sutta . Let me quote SN 24.89 more detailed ( Thanissaro Bhikkhu) "On one occasion many elder monks were staying at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. And at that time Ven. Khemaka was staying at the Jujube Tree Park, diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then in the late afternoon the elder monks left their seclusion and addressed Ven. Dasaka, [saying,] "Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him... snip ....... "Enough, friend Dasaka. What is accomplished by this running back & forth? Fetch me my staff. I will go to the elder monks myself."Then Ven. Khemaka, leaning on his staff, went to the elder monks and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with them. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?" "Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' "It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?" "No, friend." "Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" "As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." "In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated. "Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated. "In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Khemaka, "We didn't cross-examine Ven. Khemaka with the purpose of troubling him, just that [we thought] Ven. Khemaka is capable of declaring the Blessed One's message, teaching it, describing it, setting it forth, revealing it, explaining it, making it plain — just as he has in fact declared it, taught it, described it, set it forth, revealed it, explained it, made it plain." That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's unquote Emphases on that there is quite a difference between having given up personality belief and having realized the state of anatta (entering arahantship). In paritcular: " Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated." "In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated " It is this keeping the focus of arising and ceasing on ..etc, which finally means abolishment of the residue 'mana' . This considered , I think , we may say , as personality belief is a ditthi given up by the sotapanna , mana is disassociated with ditthi for the Noble Ones , but only concerning the mind states of those . Agreed? ;-) with Metta Dieter #122132 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:22 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: I believe the meditators tend to be more forthright in their criticisms than any of the non-meditators ever are. >> > S: Ah well, we're the ones who talk about the importance at the present moment, so what better way to share such understanding and patience as when the Worldly Conditions are not the ones of choice :) . ---------- KH: You're right as always. :-) Patience, courage and *good cheer* are for the here-and-now, not for some other time. --------------------- >> KH: But it's the non-meditator in the argument who cops the flack. :-) >> > S: And aren't we the ones who say there are no meditators, no non-meditators, so what's all this getting hung up on copping the flack? --------------------- KH: Good point: the only flack that really exists is dukkha. And dukkha afflicts conditioned dhammas not people. But I would suggest that some of the "getting hung up" is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us enjoy a spirited, no-nonsense style of debate. Even if we all adopted a polite, politically correct style of speech people would still find ways of taking exception and feeling insulted. It's a matter of (as I have heard Jon say) "dosa looking for an object." --------------------------- > S: So how's the invention going? --------------------------- KH: Terribly! (Thanks for asking.) There has been no progress. It's a great little invention, and I am sure there is a market for tens (or hundreds) of millions of them. But I have decided not to manufacture and distribute it myself. It's an extremely simple little gadget that anyone could copy and sell regardless of patents, so I don't want to risk being stuck with a garage full of them. I think my best strategy would be to find a large company that is already in the business, and license my invention to it. But how do I find such a company? Sorry to go off-topic but, does anyone out there know of a large, successful manufacturer/distributor of musical instrument accessories? Any tips (off list, of course) would be gratefully accepted. Ken H #122133 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:59 am Subject: Buddha's Conventional Teaching (was: Re: 'Give me a quote' etc.) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. I got you mixed up with Sarah last week. I guess if you were willing to abbreviate yourself as Su or Sk instead of S it might be helpful. I've stuck to Rob E. even though people have been calling Rob K. just "Rob" and I've mixed myself up with him a few times - very disorienting... I'm just going to comment on a few of your points below for now. I hope that will stand in for some of your other points. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > S: You say that the conventional teachings does not give the kind of details that the Abhidhamma gives, therefore there is something communicated in the former which is not had in the latter. This requires interpretation and coming in with a view. And then you also say that we are to read those conventional expressions "without any kind of interpretation" That is not a quote from me, Sukin. I never said, as far as I know, that we should read conventional expressions without any interepretation. I did say that I don't think that reading what is said literally *is* an interpretation. That is a different point, and not at all the same. Here is what I think: One starts with what is actually said. One tries to understand the literal meaning. In other words, if I read Shakespeare and I don't know what "quietus" means or what a "bodkin" is I should find out or I won't even get the basic sense of the statement: "when he himself might his own quietus make with a bare bodkin." That means to find peace and quiet with a bare knife, ie, to kill yourself. Now it does require a *drop* of interpretation to take "his own quiet make with a bare knife" and say that this means that he could stab himself, but it's the obvious literal meaning of what is said. If I don't even know that, I can't "interpret" anything because I don't know what I'm interpreting. So that's my first proposal, not to end on the literal and be restricted to it, but get the sense of what is being said before you go off to some other level. Reasonable enough? When the Buddha says that "when breathing a long breath he knows that he is breathing a long breath" before jumping away from that to another level, what does that mean? It means that the person is clearly and consciously aware of the length of his breath at the time that it is taking place. There is no other meaning for "long." "Long" is not a rupa, it only pertains to the breath. So I start there and say that the Buddha is acknowledging or promoting a type of awareness that is very conscious of what is happening to the breath at each moment that one is breathing. For me, I can then go the next step and say "what does he want us to be aware of within this procedure?" And I can then perhaps say that he wants us to become aware of the rupas that are arising within this procedure, contact, tactile object, etc. But it starts with the "long or short breath" level, because that is what the Buddha is speaking about as the "arena" for the discernment to take place in that part of the sutta. So that's how I think. Do you think that is a wild interpretation? Or am I trying to be true to what the Buddha talks about and then see what is within it of the more specific level. Don't you think that is the responsible way to read the words of one's Master teacher? > and therefore must stick to the wordings alone. No, I did NOT say to stick to the wordings alone, so I would thank you to please look at the point within a sentence or paragraph and not abstract it from what is being said. To pick apart *part* of a statement and then act as if it is the whole is not correct. I said to start with the literal and come back to it; not to get lost in interpretation to the point where one loses the original text; but that grounded within the actual message of the Buddha one can safely look at the other levels, the commentary interpretations, whatever can add more refined knowledge, without losing the original understanding. I think that is responsible, rather than a "chosen interpretation." Any interpretation that does get promoted after that should not contradict the text, but explain it in more refined detail. That's my personal criteria, which I think protects against arbitrary or wrongful interpretations. * * * > S: So you are saying that the commentaries are not wrong, but in order to understand them, we must first read the Suttas to find out what these commentaries are really saying. Then why study the commentaries at all if you already understand what the Buddha taught from reading the Suttas?! I am sorry, Sukin, but this statement is twisting the point in order to discredit it. Yes, you have to understand the literal sutta first, because of the reasons I stated above, and yes, that does not mean the commentaries are wrong. What it means is that you need basic allegiance to the sutta text first; then you can understand the commentary *in relation* to it, not instead of it. One shouldn't replace the sutta's message with a commentary message, but see how the commentary applies to the sutta and illuminates it. That is not only the correct thing to do for anyone seeking to understand any kind of commentary, but it also protects the Buddha's message from an interpretation that may be incorrect. If you read a commentary without a clear relationship between the commentary and the sutta, your interpretation of the *commentary* may veer off in the wrong direction, since not understanding the sutta you may choose the wrong emphasis or application of the commentary, even though the writer of the commentary understood that relationship perfectly well. So that is what I think as a student, that the source material always has to be an anchor for any commentary, or you can just get the wrong point in the wrong way. There are many here who seem to read commentary and commentary interpretation quite a lot without going back to the suttas, and I think that's dangerous. I am not saying anything against any commentary at all. I am talking about what is safe, correct procedure for investigating a source and its commentary, and if you look at it that way, perhaps you will agree with me on the general procedure. Or not. * * * Sukin: > How can it not be that the Buddha is the final authority when K.Sujin and the authors of the commentaries and sub-commentaries all express great confidence in the Buddha and acknowledge gratitude towards him?! That does not at all contradict the Buddha being the final authority. Since everyone acknowledges the Buddha as the source, then everyone should logically go back to the Buddha on a regular basis and understand that source in its source meaning. Anyone who believes in a source teaching will do that. Those who go off into the commentarial teaching without regularly coming back to the source are going to eventually get lost in the weaving of the interpretive commentary and lose the purity of the source. That will happen with any source material, it is just logical to keep going back and justify whatever you think by showing the way it logically applies to the source teaching. No one should object to that at all. > How can you suggest that members of DSG don't trust the Buddha when this is the one group which is willing to discuss *any and all* that is recorded in the Tipitaka? I never suggested that anyone does not "trust the Buddha." I suggested that one must read and understand and honor the words of the Buddha and keep in touch with his teaching while getting into greater details of the dhammas that are involved, so that one does not lose the original foundation of all such investigations. I think that is sensible and correct. > The foundation here in Bangkok, is for this very purpose, and is open to all who think that they have the correct answer just as you and others do here. That is great. In that case, I hope you will be open to the sensible ideas that I am clarifying above. They do not contradict anything. They lay out what I think is a way to stay true to the Buddha when going into other areas of investigation that he didn't directly talk about. > ====== > R: > Someone has to have the last word, and for me, after reading and hearing > whatever I read and hear, I go back to the Buddha, not to the Abhidhamma, not to the commentaries, and not to anyone else. > > S: My Impression is that you go back to the Buddha to exercise your wrong understanding. What gives you that impression? Having an impression does not make it correct. If I say I want to go back to the Buddha to see what his original intention and formulation is of any given subject, that is honoring the Buddha, not any particular interpretation. If we then argue about our interpretations, that is another thing - but at least we can say "the Buddha said X" in our defense instead of being in some completely different place. How is that a wrong view? Or are you just suspicious of me because you are just convinced that I am wrong, period? > ====== > R: > Back to the Buddha for the final word. He spoke what he spoke, and you can't mix everything together and say that it is "all Dhamma" even if the Buddha's original words are lost in the mixture. > > S: If you are suggesting the reading of say, the Anapanasati Sutta without reference to what one has gained from reading anything else that the Buddha said, then your reading would be no different from that of any non-Buddhist's, would it not? A Hindu or a Christian will read the sutta and believe like you, that the Buddha recommended meditation and he would not have any understanding about conditionality or about anatta. Does this reflect the profoundness of the Dhamma? Is this deserving of being considered the teachings of the Enlightened One? > > Please tell me how your reading is different? This is a false argument in my view. This idea that the words of the Buddha themselves do not have merit in their literal rendering because somehow that is not profound enough, is a very serious idea that is not a good one. The Buddha's teachings are profound on every level, not just the dhamma breakdown. That is part of what I object to in this kind of argument. When the Buddha says not to kill anyone because of the kamma, that is a profound teaching in all its implications. It is not only profound once one breaks down the specific dhammas involved. This is true for all the Buddha's teachings. The idea that in their raw form they don't say enough or they are not profound enough is a big mistake in my view. In my view we should honor the basic teachings as we find them, then add to our understanding by engaging in a more detailed breakdown of what exists through our understanding of dhammas. It is not one or the other. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122134 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:41 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' philofillet Hi Rob E Sorry, I overspoke. My behaviour at DSG has come to be strongly conditioned by irritation over my internet addiction. It (the addiction) had been much better this year, so a year away from DSG might allow me to participate in a more appropriate way next year. Then again, maybe this format is just not for me, I like listening to the talks more, maybe that dynamic suits me. Phil p.s I should apologize and say I hope Howard returns but honestly I don't feel people moving on in life is such a bad thing, Howard probably feels the same now. The great discussions he had here are in the archives for all to see, and his friendship with Nina, Sarah others will always be intact. #122135 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:04 am Subject: Calm and Content! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Cause of Contentment? The blessed Buddha once said:u Contentment is the Highest Treasure! Dhammapada 204 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, Who clearly sees and understands this Dhamma. Udana 10 What is the proximate cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... Therefore: If one is always gladdened by other's success, one will always be content! Therefore: If one is never gladdened by other's success, one will always be discontent! Therefore is contentment caused by an altruistic mental state & not by external richness... Example: Rich people possessing all the things they ever desired, can still be very discontent! And vice versa: Poor people not having much, can still be very content and very much smiling! Contentment even with almost nothing! ( ) Calm and Content! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #122136 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:13 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > Sorry, I overspoke. My behaviour at DSG has come to be strongly conditioned by irritation over my internet addiction. It (the addiction) had been much better this year, so a year away from DSG might allow me to participate in a more appropriate way next year. Then again, maybe this format is just not for me, I like listening to the talks more, maybe that dynamic suits me. > > Phil > > p.s I should apologize and say I hope Howard returns but honestly I don't feel people moving on in life is such a bad thing, Howard probably feels the same now. The great discussions he had here are in the archives for all to see, and his friendship with Nina, Sarah others will always be intact. Thanks, Phil, for your message. I appreciate it, and I wish you well. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122137 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:33 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon, Sarah, Nina - anyone who can help. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (121616) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > > > > J: Not sure what you're saying here. Is it not quite possible that for a person practicing in the way you interpret the Buddha to be suggesting there could be a lot of self-view? > > > > It's always possible. What I'm saying is that it's not necessitated by engaging in practice, not that it's not possible. Most of the dhamma-theory students here have had a firm view that meditation without self-view is *impossible.* That's all I'm seeking to contradict. > > =============== > > J: I'd like to clarify that the view you're referring to here is not specifically a view about `meditation' but applies to any action purposefully undertaken with the idea of thereby having (or of increasing the chances of having) more awareness/understanding. > > So it could include activities such as reciting/memorising/reading texts, undertaking ascetic practices, attending discussions, doing penance, etc, indeed anything done out of the view that awareness/understanding is thereby more likely to arise. > > The issue is the idea that by doing some particular activity awareness/understanding can be induced to arise. If that view is mistaken, then no part of the activity can be the development of the path. Well, it seems to me that the students of K. Sujin are firmly convinced that this is the case - that any conventional activity cannot create conditions that enhance the path, and while I understand the idea that self-view and control are associated with any purposeful activity attempting to create a path result, I do not understand all the steps of logic that lead to that conclusion. If in fact, all conventional activities are hallucinatory in nature and do not actually take place, and/or have no relation at all to the arising of dhammas, then I could understand the idea that no hallucinatory dream-activity could have a "real" result in the "real" world of dhammas. So I wonder if that is the basis for this belief? If on the other hand, kusala-seeming activities reflect some accumulation of kusala dhammas and there is a correlation between life circumstances and activities and the activity of accumulations of kusala taking place "under the surface" then you could see how my view that going deeper into that which is "kusala but conventional" could have an association with actual kusala. It seems to me that there is such an association, although anything conventional obviously reflects a somewhat distorted or not fully developed understanding of the dhammas involved, but it seems to me that the Buddha's teachings on various practices for monks, lay-people and others regarding right livelihood, non-harmfulness, development of satipatthana, etc., have a strong aspect of doing certain things to create conditions for kusala results. From my knowledge so far, which is admittedly spotty, I see the level of dhammas as being the real moment-to-moment reality that is reflected in a shadowy way by the way things go conventionally, though it is not a one-to-one association. While dhammas are not controlled and can't be manipulated, they do arise according to conditions and accumulations and they do have an orderly way of developing over time until they reach the stage of insight, powers, stream-entry etc., which are irrevocable stages that are not just subject to a hodge-podge of random dhammas. So there is an order of a sort created by conditions and accumulations as the path progresses. If you could explain to me how such an orderly development takes place over time - albeit a very long time - without any influence of any conventional choices, such as whether to read and study Dhamma, whether to meditate, whether to kill insects, animals or people, etc., and that all the foregoing are incidental and not associated with the path, perhaps I can understand how such a view is formulated. Right now it seems like an ideological choice to dismiss any conventional activities that seem to be promoted by the Buddha, and to translate them into incidental reports that at the same time really point to the totally separate reality of dhammas. For instance, all the talk of jhana is just incidental to the fact that everyone happened to be developing jhana at that time and so it presented an example for the Buddha, rather than the promulgation of a practice tool. If there is a clearer logic as to how all the admonitions and practices that were spoken of by the Buddha [and Buddhaghosa, et al] are totally unrelated to the path, I would like to understand how that actually works. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122138 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:24 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > But I would suggest that some of the "getting hung up" is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us enjoy a spirited, no-nonsense style of debate. > > Even if we all adopted a polite, politically correct style of speech people would still find ways of taking exception and feeling insulted. It's a matter of (as I have heard Jon say) "dosa looking for an object." I think that the direct, spirited debate can be okay. What I think is not okay are the direct, personal aspersions and assumptions about where someone is coming from. That gets into attack and counterattack and that goes beyond being "spirited." When someone says "Well you can't possibly really believe X that you claim to believe, because I know you believe Y," or "you're one of those X's so I can't take seriously anything that you say" then the discussion has to go downhill fast. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122139 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: On understanding & action rjkjp1 dear Alex what do you think silabataparamasa(clingining to rules and rituals ) is? Do you think people these days have any, could you give some examples of subtle silabataparamasa. robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear RobertK2, > > >Migasala Sutta > > As you know, the general belief is that as we get further away from Buddha's time, the general capabilities of people decline. > > As people's defilements go up, I think that more is necessary than bare minimum for those lucky few. > > Venerable Bahiya was instantly Fully Awakened after hearing a paragraph short teaching of the Buddha. Can we? Does it apply to us? Same with Migasala suttas and other similar suttas. We, IMHO, should not take exceptional cases and make general rule out of them. Especially for today's time when there are more defilements and people are less capable. > > With best wishes, > Alex > #122140 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:37 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Even if we all adopted a polite, politically correct style of speech people would still find ways of taking exception and feeling insulted. It's a matter of (as I have heard Jon say) "dosa looking for an object." >> > RE: I think that the direct, spirited debate can be okay. What I think is not okay are the direct, personal aspersions and assumptions about where someone is coming from. That gets into attack and counterattack and that goes beyond being "spirited." ---------- KH: Maybe so, but it is still dosa looking for an object, isn't it? Think of how much worse our lives could be. We could be impaled on a spear (as in the sutta) or having bandits saw us in half with "a two-handled saw." Imagine then how gladly we would be at home, sitting in front of a computer being insulted by a Dhamma student. :-) Lugzury! ----------------------- > RE: When someone says "Well you can't possibly really believe X that you claim to believe, because I know you believe Y," or "you're one of those X's so I can't take seriously anything that you say" then the discussion has to go downhill fast. ------------------------ KH: Yes, it will *usually* go downhill. But, as Sarah said, what better time is there for having understanding and patience "than when the Worldly Conditions are not the ones of choice?" Ken H #122141 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:06 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing scottduncan2 Ken H., Rob E., R: "...When someone says 'Well you can't possibly really believe X that you claim to believe, because I know you believe Y,' or 'you're one of those X's so I can't take seriously anything that you say' then the discussion has to go downhill fast." Scott: That is simply because one fails to see the flaws in the view that is being confronted. When one claims, on the one hand, to accept that dhammas arise and fall away due to conditions and are not subject to control while, on the other hand, defends a 'practice' wherein the whole premise is to control dhammas by creating conditions, one demonstrates a catastrophic breach in logic and has a view that is wrong. These are incompatible claims The actions - sitting with the aim of making certain dhammas arise - are not in accord with the stated belief and it is a very simple matter to reject that person's claim of belief. That person simply has things very mixed up and continues to demonstrate this with each subsequent claim in the efficacy of any act done to make kusala occur. It would be like the child who covers her eyes, thinking that in so doing no one can see her, telling others that she doesn't believe in invisibility. We can all see (while she stands 'invisible' before us, eyes covered) that she simply doesn't have the cognitive maturity to make that claim, while using the words to do so. Scott. #122142 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:26 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ---------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Even if we all adopted a polite, politically correct style of speech people would still find ways of taking exception and feeling insulted. It's a matter of (as I have heard Jon say) "dosa looking for an object." > >> > > > RE: I think that the direct, spirited debate can be okay. What I think is not okay are the direct, personal aspersions and assumptions about where someone is coming from. That gets into attack and counterattack and that goes beyond being "spirited." > ---------- > > KH: Maybe so, but it is still dosa looking for an object, isn't it? Think of how much worse our lives could be. We could be impaled on a spear (as in the sutta) or having bandits saw us in half with "a two-handled saw." > > Imagine then how gladly we would be at home, sitting in front of a computer being insulted by a Dhamma student. :-) Lugzury! Kind of a straw man, no? I don't think that issues are resolved by comparing them to something worse. Nice if they were. If I punch you in the face it's not an excuse to say "Well it could have been worse - I could have stabbed you!" > ----------------------- > > RE: When someone says "Well you can't possibly really believe X that you claim to believe, because I know you believe Y," or "you're one of those X's so I can't take seriously anything that you say" then the discussion has to go downhill fast. > ------------------------ > > KH: Yes, it will *usually* go downhill. But, as Sarah said, what better time is there for having understanding and patience "than when the Worldly Conditions are not the ones of choice?" I don't think it's either/or. People can improve their behavior, and we can also test our understanding and patience at the same time when the occasion arises. That's not a reason though to tolerate behavior that's overly offensive. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122143 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:58 am Subject: Re: Unsubscribing epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Ken H., Rob E., > > R: "...When someone says 'Well you can't possibly really believe X that you claim to believe, because I know you believe Y,' or 'you're one of those X's so I can't take seriously anything that you say' then the discussion has to go downhill fast." > > Scott: That is simply because one fails to see the flaws in the view that is being confronted. That's an assumption, and you fail to see the flaws in your own view, which you are sure is correct, but have no proof or a complete logical bridge to back you up. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean that the logic of your confrontations is correct, and you offer your conclusions based on your own bias, and then attribute them to the other person as a fact. > When one claims, on the one hand, to accept that dhammas arise and fall away due to conditions and are not subject to control while, on the other hand, defends a 'practice' wherein the whole premise is to control dhammas by creating conditions, I don't accept that definition, although you keep promoting it. No ones controlling anything by *practicing* something. I don't know what you mean by control, but to me it means causing something to happen through direct action, not practicing something so that skill and understanding can develop in their own way and in their own time. No one controls practice, and that's a fundamental error on your part. > one demonstrates a catastrophic breach in logic and has a view that is wrong. These are incompatible claims Only according to your presuppositions about the relationship between activity, views and dhammas, which are unexamined and have not been shown to be correct. > The actions - sitting with the aim of making certain dhammas arise I do not define it that way - you do. You attribute that aim -- "making arise," "controlling dhammas" to meditation, although I have explained it differently. And you act as if your beliefs about this are facts. They're not. You just have a firm bias which you think is a reality - talk about being lost in concepts! > - are not in accord with the stated belief and it is a very simple matter to reject that person's claim of belief. That person simply has things very mixed up and continues to demonstrate this with each subsequent claim in the efficacy of any act done to make kusala occur. No one is trying to "make kusala occur." That's not the same thing as doing something that creates conditions for something to occur, without predictability or control, but by the nature of what is being done. To conclude that your view about this is correct is just bias. > It would be like the child who covers her eyes, thinking that in so doing no one can see her, telling others that she doesn't believe in invisibility. We can all see (while she stands 'invisible' before us, eyes covered) that she simply doesn't have the cognitive maturity to make that claim, while using the words to do so. You can't back up that analogy, because you have never and cannot ever make a logical link between activities and self-view. Calling someone a child covering their eyes, or any of your other contempuous analogies and statements, do not prove your point in any way. They just show your frustration with being unable to prove your case. Every time you fail, you spit and throw insults at your opponents - speaking of being a little child. All you have to back you up are a few people who agree with you - no scripture, no direct statement by the Buddha or anyone else, just belief and bias that dhammas arising means that no activity can develop conditions. There's not a single statement that anyone can show so far to assert that you are right about this. Such a relationship is not inherent, and to think that it is is just an assumption. You have no scriptural authority and when challenged to produce it you try to show that I don't respect or read quotes, or some other diversion, but you still can't produce one yourself to back up your view. You have produced quotes that state the nature or anatta, which are agreeable enough to me, but the bridge from there to activities is made up by you. It's not in the scriptures. It doesn't exist in any scriptures that you've been able to produce. You keep claiming that others are trying to cause particular dhammas to arise, even though no one ever says that except you, and you clearly don't understand the idea of something developing over time by practicing something, which is not a matter of control, but of accumulation of skill. You can't tolerate a legitimate disagreement about the implications of arising dhammas for the path, so you make things up about those who disagree, attribute all kinds of thoughts and nonsense to them, and pretend that the ancient scriptures back you up, when they never state anything like what you do. They talk about the true nature of dhammas being anatta and being uncontrolled, but they never say that formal practice is the result of wrong view or that it inherently promotes self-view and control. You're merely drawing your own conclusions about that, with no ability to show a complete logical chain from dhammas to activities. You're great at insulting people, but terrible at backing up your own view of activities. Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122144 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...No ones controlling anything by *practicing* something. I don't know what you mean by control, but to me it means causing something to happen through direct action, not practicing something so that skill and understanding can develop in their own way and in their own time. No one controls practice..." Scott: It is clarified that anatta has at least two main characteristics. One is that no dhamma is subject to control; the second is that no dhamma has interest or curiosity. Since all dhammas have anatta as characteristic, no dhamma is subject to control - that is to being caused to arise when one desires, and no dhamma has interest or curiosity hence is incapable of 'planning ahead.' This is a function of anicca - dhammas are of the moment and fall away completely. The whole premise behind 'practice' is control - 'practitioners' call it 'intention.' It has been likened to mundane skill acquisition like playing the piano. It is said that one improves with 'practice' as one does with playing the piano. 'Practitioners' function as if the dhammas they wish to perfect are not momentary but are continuous, quasi-permanent entities. R: "...No one is trying to 'make kusala occur.' That's not the same thing as doing something that creates conditions for something to occur, without predictability or control, but by the nature of what is being done..." Scott: Sati, for example, only arises with kusala citta. If one sits and intends to be 'mindful of the breath' then one is trying to make kusala, in this case, sati, arise. There is absolutely no other way to say it, and of this I am completely certain. The notion of 'creating conditions' is equally incorrect since it fails to factor in that conditions are dhammas as well. Conditions are not actions or postures. This is also completely correct. R: "..." Scott: Please just stick to the discussion, Rob. Scott. #122145 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:34 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > R: "..." > > Scott: Please just stick to the discussion, Rob. It's hard to believe that you can say this without acknowledging all the aspersions you've cast and the damage you've done with your personal comments and rudeness - not just to me, but to others. If you stick to the discussion from now on, which includes not making aspersions and imputing motives to the other person, then I will do the same. Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122146 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:42 pm Subject: Re: Unsubscribing scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...No ones controlling anything by *practicing* something. I don't know what you mean by control, but to me it means causing something to happen through direct action, not practicing something so that skill and understanding can develop in their own way and in their own time. No one controls practice..." Scott: It is clarified that anatta has at least two main characteristics. One is that no dhamma is subject to control; the second is that no dhamma has interest or curiosity. Since all dhammas have anatta as characteristic, no dhamma is subject to control - that is to being caused to arise when one desires, and no dhamma has interest or curiosity hence is incapable of 'planning ahead.' This is a function of anicca - dhammas are of the moment and fall away completely. The whole premise behind 'practice' is control - 'practitioners' call it 'intention.' It has been likened to mundane skill acquisition like playing the piano. It is said that one improves with 'practice' as one does with playing the piano. 'Practitioners' function as if the dhammas they wish to perfect are not momentary but are continuous, quasi-permanent entities. R: "...No one is trying to 'make kusala occur.' That's not the same thing as doing something that creates conditions for something to occur, without predictability or control, but by the nature of what is being done..." Scott: Sati, for example, only arises with kusala citta. If one sits and intends to be 'mindful of the breath' then one is trying to make kusala, in this case, sati, arise. There is absolutely no other way to say it, and of this I am completely certain. The notion of 'creating conditions' is equally incorrect since it fails to factor in that conditions are dhammas as well. Conditions are not actions or postures. This is also completely correct. Scott. #122147 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:25 am Subject: Unhindered is Freedom! bhikkhu5 Friends: Mental Hindrances => Neglect & Ruin: The Blessed Buddha once said: One whose mind is dominated by greed, lust, desire, and envy or jealously will do, whatever should not be done, and neglect whatever should be done! As a consequence of that, his good reputation is lost and his contentment & happiness falls into ruin. Exactly so with anyone whose mind is overwhelmed by anger and grumbling ill-will or overcome, slowed down & stagnated by the hindrance of lethargy & laziness or agitated, scattered, and worried by the hindrance of restlessness & regret or perplexed, confused and bewildered by the hindrance of doubt & uncertainty... Such one will do what should not be done at all, while neglecting what actually should be done. As a result of that, his good name & status is lost & he is ruined by depressed frustration. But if any Noble Disciple has seen these five as contaminated pollutions of the mind, then he will gradually overcome & eliminate them. When doing so, he becomes known as one of deep understanding, of fine & great knowledge, clear-sighted, endowed with wisdom. This lack of mental hindrance is indeed exactly, what is called endowment with wisdom! There are these five Mental Hindrances: 1: Sense-Desire & Lust , 2: H ate and A nger , 3: Lethargy & Laziness, 4: Restlessness & Regret , 5: Doubt & Uncertainty. How to break and overcome these 5 Mental Hindrances (Nvaranas ) The Hindrances Blocks any Progress and Makes your Future Barren! Source (edited extract): The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikya. The Book of Fours 61: Four deeds of Merit... [II: 67] Really Suffocating, yet not easily Visible! Unhindered is Freedom! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * #122148 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:11 pm Subject: Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Friends. A great discussion yesterday afternoon - mostly between Rob K, Sukin, Jon, myself and K.Sujin with a small group of keen Dhamma students listening in. There were no newcomers which meant we had a chance to discuss some deep topics without much explanation of terms and so on. Briefly: 1. Robert introduced what became a recurring theme relating to a topic he's brought up here - basically how it's surely more obvious that there is wrong view arising in the example of the man standing with one arm held up in the air for a long time (as he wrote about before) or on a meditation retreat in a forest than, say, studying the Abhidhamma, possibly in Pali or reciting the Patthana which is much more likely to lead to right understanding. KS's response again and again was that these are all situations. "Understand now!" The path, the practice all comes back to this moment. We cannot say it's better to study Abhidhamma than go to the forest or stand on one leg. It's all according to accumulations. If person A came to her and said they planned to go to the forest for a year on retreat and person B said they planned to study and recite the Patthana for the same time, her answer to both would be the same:- "What for?" What about the understanding now instead of wishing for results at another time. "What is the reality now?" Dhammas arising according to conditions. "It's useless to talk about activites, even studying the Abhidhamma - understand now!” 2. Discussion about red fish and congee as ahara sappaya (suitable nutriment) - it doesn't mean we should copy! For someone else it may be coffee now! Robert also mentioned the sitting cross-legged, counting breaths and so on - according to what was suitable for those in India who sat that way (or for me at the Foundation!). Rob or Jon may add more on these topics. 3. Reflection on repulsiveness (asubha)as given in the Satipatthana commentary and quoted before by Jon (#113183): "The reflection by way of mindfulness directed bodywards, called the reflection of repulsiveness, is unknown to non-Buddhists in the form of subject of meditation development (kammatthana bhavana vasena)." "What is a Buddhist?" "Depends on understanding" no matter what the text says....cannot be known as a reality if satipatthana hasn't been developed. Calm with all kusala cittas. 4. Kalapas - there was some discussion about whether the understanding of them is always as a concept. Not so. "Kalapas"is just a word, but as the understanding develops, understanding different rupas, one at a time, it understands more and more precisely how they must arise together, how there must be the 4 primary rupas and other rupas dependent on them. 5. Colour/visible object - just terms. What is seen, visible object, the colour of the table - the same. My friend in the coma as no light sensitivity - like seeing in the dark, but we cannot say the seeing is any weaker - still just visible object seen. I mentioned references to colour and light as conditioned by samatha and vipassana panna and examples in the texts, such as Ven Anuruddha's divine consciousness (dibba cakkhu citta) producing light in up to one thousand world systems or other disciples'panna producing light up to one yojana in every direction. This is as a result of the eye-sense and panna at such times. For example, the Buddha's eye-sense was not the same as ours. ***** to be contd Metta Sarah ========== #122149 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:15 pm Subject: Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (2) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Discussion notes contd: 6. Space - the two kinds and a question I asked about the first arupa jhana, (aakaasaa~ncaayatana). The arupa jhanas are not connected with materiality, so I wondered if this was still the experience of the second kind of akasa (the open space) discussed before. This is the citta that understands there is nothing there - just empty. This is different from the rupa jhana which has space as object. Why do we want to know about such things??? 7. Einstein's knowledge - lobha, not panna. Rob suggested his cittas from birth must have 3 roots and be conditioned by past panna in previous lifetimes. We cannot say this. 8. Killing - akusala kamma. The sotapanna has no need to kill - there are just dhammas, arisen from conditions, all will fall away. There's no escape from death. Kamma, killing, deaths have nothing to do with situations, such as "killers" or accidents - just kamma which brings its results by way of vipaka, including cuti (death) citta. There are other supporting conditions, but these can only be understood in terms of paramattha dhammas. Pakatu upanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition) does not mean killers and accidents - but all dhammas are pakatu upanissaya paccaya. We need to read and consider the texts, even the commentaries, very carefully! I had read out a tiika (sub-commentary) which Ken O had quoted (#114763) as an example of a text which needs careful consideration. 9. Jhana cittas before death arising by conditions for those for whom the powers have not fallen away (like Devadatta). Just conditions for these particular dhammas to arise for those who have developed skill in jhanas leading to rebirth in rupa/arupa brahma realms. 10. K.Sujin was really stressing the danger of dhammas - we cling to dhammas which arise and fall away all day long. How calm and peaceful when there's no clinging to becoming, to the arising of dhammas and there's no more life. 11. Inner and outer ayatanas. For example, at a moment of seeing there is the eye-sense, visible object, citta and cetasikas - no thing there at all. No use studying the Abhidhamma text if there's no understanding of the meaning of ayatana now - not the word, but the dhamma appearing. What is dhamma? what is Abhidhamma? I mentioned the sutta Nina had referred to on the very strong attachment to the inner ayatanas (#121898). without eye-sense and the other inner ayatanas, nothing is seen or experienced through the senses. One's own senses that one finds so important. Ayatanas and doorways - shouldn't be mixed up - two different topics. Although visible object is experienced through the eye-sense, we cannot say that dhammayatanas (cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana) are experienced through the manayatanas (cittas). **** to be contd Metta Sarah ====== #122150 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma sarahprocter... Dear Friends, (especially Dear Han!), Kamma. It seems to me that without an understanding of paramattha dhammas, really nothing can be understood about kamma and vipaka. KS said the understanding can be of different levels - even a conventional understanding of cause and result is better than nothing. Rob E had mentioned (#112661) a difficulty in "fully subscribing"to how "good or evil thought or action now will have consequences in future vipaka". KS said this difficulty is because of not understanding the accumulation of kusala and akusala now, as Han also suggested. Han and I had a lengthy discussion about kamma bringing results in the same lifetime (see #114186, #115172 and other posts in the thread), the results of di.t.thadhamma-vedaniya kamma (immediately effective kamma). Han had mentioned the knowledge about this kind of kamma, which brings results in this lifetime, had had particular significance for him in his younger, heedless days. These are the results of the first javana cittas only, the weakest of the 7 javana cittas. Such kamma cannot bring results after this lifetime and other kinds of kamma arising in the other javana cittas do not bring results in the present lifetime. I had thought that these results were relatively minor, as they result from the weakest javana citta. I had thought (wrongly) that perhaps they were just supporting other kammas. However, it seems Han was right and they can even produce rupas such as eye-sense, other senses or masculinity/femininity, even though this kind of kamma is relatively weak, compared to the kamma arising with the other javana cittas. K.Sujin reminded me of the example of the Sorreya* to indicate how kamma in the present life could condition the senses, masculinity and femininity. Han, this may be a good example to mention to your Burmese friends with whom you mentioned you'd had a disagreement on this point.In any case, it's all ahosi kamma, past kamma. (See texts on "ahosi kamma" in Useful Posts, discussed before as well.) **** *From PDPN: 2. Soreyya. A setthiputta of Soreyya. Once, when he and a friend with a large retinue were driving out of the city to bathe, he saw Mahā Kaccāyanaadjusting his robe before entering the city for alms. Soreyya saw the Elder's body, and wished that he could make him his wife or that his wife's body might become in colour like the Elder's. Immediately Soreyya turned into a woman, and, hiding from his companions, went with a caravan bound for Takkasilā. Arrived at Takkasilā, he became the wife of the Treasurer of that city and had two sons. He had already two sons in Soreyya, born to him before his transformation. Some time after, he saw his former friend driving in a carriage through Takkasilā, and, sending a slave woman to him, invited him to the house and entertained him. The friend was unable to recognize him till he revealed the truth. Thereupon they both returned to Soreyya and invited Mahā Kaccāyana to a meal. Soreyya fell at his feet, confessed his fault, and asked for forgiveness. When the Elder pardoned him, he once more became a man. He entered the Order under the Elder and went with him to Sāvatthi. There people having heard his story worried him with questions. He therefore retired into solitude, and, developing insight, became an arahant. Before that, when people asked him which of his children he loved best, he would say: "Those to whom I gave birth while a woman"; but after attaining arahantship he would say: "My affections are set on no one." DhA.i.324ff. **** S: My thanks and appreciation to Han (as well as K.Sujin) for helping me to understand this topic more deeply. Metta Sarah ====== #122151 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Unsubscribing sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, (Scott & all), MN131 "Let one not trace back the past Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come. That which is past is left behind Unattained is the "yet-to-come." But that which is present he discerns — With insight as and when it comes. The Immovable — the-non-irritable. In that state should the wise one grow Today itself should one bestir Tomorrow death may come — who knows?" Metta Sarah .>> Scott: Please just stick to the discussion, Rob. > >It's hard to believe that you can say this without acknowledging all the aspersions you've cast and the damage you've done with your personal comments and rudeness - not just to me, but to others. If you stick to the discussion from now on, which includes not making aspersions and imputing motives to the other person, then I will do the same. > > > > #122152 From: han tun Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for remembering me. I thought you have forgotten me because I cannot join you and Jon when you come to Bangkok. I also thank you very much for the post, the contents of which I have noted with deep gratitude and respect. My overall muscular strength is failing. I cannot walk as fast as or as far as before. I feel dizzy when I stand up or when I look around quickly, which makes it dangerous when crossing the road. I admire you and Jon [also Nina] for your strength and determination to continue the discussions. I wish you all success in your discussions. with metta and respect, Han p.s. I am not joining the active discussions in the other three fora any more, but I am currently posting my thoughts on Death and Dying, without taking much questions. Just posting them. --- On Sun, 1/22/12, sarah abbott wrote: Dear Friends, (especially Dear Han!), Kamma. Han, this may be a good example to mention to your Burmese friends with whom you mentioned you'd had a disagreement on this point.In any case, it's all ahosi kamma, past kamma. (See texts on "ahosi kamma" in Useful Posts, discussed before as well.) AdChoices #122153 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:20 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' jonoabb Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > [RE:] Thanks again, Jon. ... But there is a serious problem with repeated and sometimes incessant attempts by Scott to grind the "wrong thinkers" in his view down to the ground and force them to submit to the view that he thinks is correct, ... > =============== J: As we learn from our study of the teachings, 'serious problems' with another's perceived misconduct are usually more a matter of our own kilesas -- expectations, dosa, etc. We don't have to buy in. > =============== > [RE:] ... and it is not possible to keep being hounded by such attacks without eventually being poisoned by them. > =============== J: If a member feels they're under attack at any time, silence is often the best strategy. After all, if the perception is correct, other members will understand and sympathise (and appreciate). Otherwise, as you say, the discussion degenerates into mudslinging. > ===============> > [RE:] Phil's more direct proddings for people who meditate to actually leave is even worse. In fact he is taking the presumption of a moderator when he says something like that, and it misrepresents the leadership of this group to speak directly to other group members and advise them to go away. That should not be allowed. > =============== J: It may be that we've not been moderating as strictly as we should. But then that cuts both ways for those who've also been in breach of the guidelines in the meantime:-)) > ===============> > [RE:] Although my response to Phil is guilty of all of the above, I really appreciate your admonition and would enjoy a mutual cease-fire of such language. It's hard to do it unilaterally, but I would welcome a truce. > =============== J: In many if not most cases, it's just conceit that makes a unilateral withdrawal difficult :-)) Keeping silent is often the more courageous option. > ===============> > > So can we all keep to discussing the teachings, and avoid the personal jibes. Thanks! > > [RE:] I hope that we can all do that. Discussing the teachings is why we're here. > =============== J: Yes, and that's why where we see genuine interest in the teachings we're reluctant to intervene unless it's really necessary. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Jon #122154 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:41 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > > >It is by developing an understanding of dhammas that the >understanding of not-self comes to be. > > > > "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, >he finds estrangement in [the 5 khandhas]. > >=========================== > > [A:] We have heard this a million times. Have we fully understood Anatta, yet? Are we Awakened? Why not? > =============== J: Agreed, we have not fully understood anatta yet. Anatta cannot be understood unless and until there is the direct understanding of dhammas. The direct understanding of dhammas in turn requires a correct intellectual understanding of the teaching on dhammas, their characteristics and their momentary, conditioned nature. This intellectual understanding needs repeated hearing of the teachings in order to be developed. > =============== > [A:] In order to "see thus" a very long and arduous vipassana retreat may be required. If it weren't we could have been already Awakened. The devil is in the details... The "sees thus" may require entire N8P including Jhanas as part of samma-samadhi to really "see thus". > =============== J: The development of understanding can begin here and now, whenever we are reminded of the important aspects of the teachings that I mentioned above. However, if we have the idea that we'd be better off somewhere else, or with different mindstates or mental factors than those currently appearing, then that development may never happen. Jon #122155 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma nilovg Dear Han, So glad to hear from you. As to muscular strength, yes we feel the same. But let us keep up courage! Lodewijk sends you his warmest greetings. PLease post for us your thoughts about death, so actual. Our life is also nearing its end. Warmest greetings, Nina. Op 22-jan-2012, om 9:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > in your discussions. > > with metta and respect, > Han > p.s. I am not joining the active discussions in the other three > fora any more, but I am currently posting my thoughts on Death and > Dying, without taking much questions. Just posting them. #122156 From: han tun Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina, My best wishes to you and Lodewijk also. I will be willing to repost my messages at DSG, but I am afraid I will not like to enter into discussions. I will welcome ideas different from my own ideas, or I will welcome if some one says I am wrong and come up with what is right. But I would not like to enter into back and forth discussions, because I cannot concentrate any more. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sun, 1/22/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Han, So glad to hear from you. As to muscular strength, yes we feel the same. But let us keep up courage! Lodewijk sends you his warmest greetings. PLease post for us your thoughts about death, so actual. Our life is also nearing its end. Warmest greetings, Nina. #122157 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, Sarah, Nina - anyone who can help. > ... > > [J:] The issue is the idea that by doing some particular activity awareness/understanding can be induced to arise. If that view is mistaken, then no part of the activity can be the development of the path. > > [RE:] Well, it seems to me that the students of K. Sujin are firmly convinced that this is the case - that any conventional activity cannot create conditions that enhance the path, and while I understand the idea that self-view and control are associated with any purposeful activity attempting to create a path result, I do not understand all the steps of logic that lead to that conclusion. > =============== J: OK, just to clarify that we are talking about *purposeful activity attempting to create a path result*, and not conventional activity of any other kind (as is often mis-attributed to me and others). > =============== > [RE:] If in fact, all conventional activities are hallucinatory in nature and do not actually take place, and/or have no relation at all to the arising of dhammas, then I could understand the idea that no hallucinatory dream-activity could have a "real" result in the "real" world of dhammas. So I wonder if that is the basis for this belief? > =============== J: What we take for conventional activities are in fact various dhammas, and these dhammas do condition other dhammas. Hope this answers your question. > =============== > [RE:] If on the other hand, kusala-seeming activities reflect some accumulation of kusala dhammas and there is a correlation between life circumstances and activities and the activity of accumulations of kusala taking place "under the surface" then you could see how my view that going deeper into that which is "kusala but conventional" could have an association with actual kusala. > =============== J: I think the nub is the proposition you put forward here: That kusala-seeming activities reflect some accumulation of kusala dhammas, and is there accordingly a correlation between (a) life circumstances and activities and (b) the activity of accumulations of kusala taking place "under the surface". I don't see how this proposition can be maintained. It is apparent, is it not, that kusala-seeming activities can be done with wrong view? Nor did the Buddha ever make an assertion to the effect that you are arguing for. It's an inference drawn from the fact that the suttas were given in conventional language (he guards the sense-doors, he strives, etc.). But there's no actual doctrinal basis for its support. > =============== > [RE:] It seems to me that there is such an association, although anything conventional obviously reflects a somewhat distorted or not fully developed understanding of the dhammas involved, but it seems to me that the Buddha's teachings on various practices for monks, lay-people and others regarding right livelihood, non-harmfulness, development of satipatthana, etc., have a strong aspect of doing certain things to create conditions for kusala results. > =============== J: Firstly, only kusala deeds/actions (or, properly speaking, moments of consciousness) can bring kusala results. Secondly, by 'kusala results' you perhaps mean moments of kusala consciousness. Moments of consciousness cannot be the 'result' of deeds. > =============== > [RE:] From my knowledge so far, which is admittedly spotty, I see the level of dhammas as being the real moment-to-moment reality that is reflected in a shadowy way by the way things go conventionally, though it is not a one-to-one association. > =============== J: If you see dhammas as being "the real moment-to-moment reality", that should mean that it's dhammas that are to be known (given that the teaching is all about knowing things as they truly are). > =============== > [RE:] While dhammas are not controlled and can't be manipulated, they do arise according to conditions and accumulations and they do have an orderly way of developing over time until they reach the stage of insight, powers, stream-entry etc., which are irrevocable stages that are not just subject to a hodge-podge of random dhammas. So there is an order of a sort created by conditions and accumulations as the path progresses. > > If you could explain to me how such an orderly development takes place over time - albeit a very long time - without any influence of any conventional choices, such as whether to read and study Dhamma, whether to meditate, whether to kill insects, animals or people, etc., and that all the foregoing are incidental and not associated with the path, perhaps I can understand how such a view is formulated. > =============== J: (Not all dhammas develop; only those that are kusala and akusala.) So-called conventional choices do have effects, in the sense that, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, what we take for conventional activities are in fact various dhammas, and these dhammas do condition other dhammas. But obviously it's the dhammas rather than the apparent nature of the conventional activity that bring the result. > =============== > [RE:] Right now it seems like an ideological choice to dismiss any conventional activities that seem to be promoted by the Buddha, and to translate them into incidental reports that at the same time really point to the totally separate reality of dhammas. For instance, all the talk of jhana is just incidental to the fact that everyone happened to be developing jhana at that time and so it presented an example for the Buddha, rather than the promulgation of a practice tool. If there is a clearer logic as to how all the admonitions and practices that were spoken of by the Buddha [and Buddhaghosa, et al] are totally unrelated to the path, I would like to understand how that actually works. > =============== J: Well here we come to a matter of interpretation. I've yet to see a passage quoted by you that is worded in the form of an admonition or practice, rather than as a description of kusala already developed (as understood in the commentarial tradition). As regards "jhana as a practice tool", this is also a matter of interpretation, since jhana was never spoken of in these terms by the Buddha (happy to look at any texts you'd care to bring up on this). Jon #122158 From: han tun Date: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:20 pm Subject: Buddhist View of Death (1) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and others, I am reposting my posts that were posted at other forums. -------------------- This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist View of Death: An Interview with Bhante Gunaratana by Samaneri Sudhamma and Margot Born. -------------------- Margot Born: What is the general Buddhist view of death? Bhante Gunaratana: First, the definition. When the life force -- heat and consciousness -- ceases to exist, then that is called death. Death can occur: 1) when one's own kamma is exhausted, 2) when one's own life span is exhausted, that is, the span allotted for that particular life (one can only live so long and after that one has to die). 3) when both kamma and life span are exhausted together, or 4) when life ends due to accidental, unnatural causes. These are the ways that death can come. So death in Buddhism is not the end of total existence. Death is just closing one chapter and the next chapter is opened immediately after that. These two always go immediately together-death and rebirth. -------------------- Han: Bhante Gunaratana defined the death as "when the life force (heat and consciousness) ceases to exist." On a similar line, a Myanmar Sayadaw said that when three factors cease to exist a person is dead. What three? Aayu, Usma, Vi~n~naa.na. Aayu means naama jiivita and ruupa jiivita, the life force of mind and matter. Usma means the body temperature that keeps the person alive. Here, it is a different expression of the "heat" that is usually understood as "tejo." When we study the four great elements of pathavii, aapo, tejo, vaayo, we find that there are four kinds of tejo, namely, (i) santappana tejo, the heat all over the body, as in fever; (ii) jiira.na tejo, the heat that burns the body in the process of ageing; (iii) daha tejo, the heat combined with pain as in tissue inflammation or cellulites; (iv) paacaka tejo, the heat in the stomach that helps the digestion of food. Thus, usma is a different expression of heat that is essential for life. ---------- Han: Another definition of death can be found in DN 22 Mahaasatipa.t.thaana sutta, 390. "Katama~nca, bhikkhave, mara.na.m? Ya.m tesa.m tesa.m sattaana.m tamhaa tamhaa sattanikaayaa cuti cavanataa bhedo antaradhaana.m maccu mara.na.m kaalakiriyaa khandhaana.m bhedo ka.levarassa nikkhepo jiivitindriyassupacchedo, ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, mara.na.m." 390. And, bhikkhus, what is death? The falling away from existence, the passing away from existence, the dissolution, the disappearance, the end of life, the passing away due to completion of the life-span, the breaking up of the Aggregates, the discarding of the body, the destruction of the life-faculty of various beings in various categories, this, bhikkhus, is called death. [translation by Myanmar Pi.taka Association] ----------- Han: As regards the Four Causes of Death, Aacariya Anuruddha in his Abhidhamma.t.tha Sa"ngaha, wrote: "Aayukkhayena, kammakkhayena, ubhayakkhayena, upacchedaka-kammunaa caa ti catudhaa mara.na.m uppatti naama." The above Paa.li statement was explained by Dr Mehm Tin Mon as follows: 1 Aayukkhaya-mara.na = Death due to the expiration of the age-limit. 2 Kammakkhaya-mara.na = Death due to the expiration of the reproductive kammic force. 3 Ubhayakkhaya-mara.na = Death due to the expiration of both the age-limit and kamma. 4 Upacchedaka-mara.na = Death due to the intervention of a destructive kamma. It is sudden death such as the one encountered in car accident or suicide. ==================== Samaneri Sudhamma: People are always worried about how to prepare for death. Perhaps there are two levels to be addressed. One being how to prepare the ordinary mind for this, or what to do properly at the time of death. The other, how to go beyond the whole cycle of birth and death. In other words, how to prepare for death by no longer being subject to death. Bhante Gunaratana: I see. We want to talk about two types of death. One is conventional death and the other is final death. Conventional death also has two sides, one is moment-to-moment death, the other is the "actual" death that cannot be revived. In moment-to-moment death, you seem to have survived. You still exist. But in fact everything in the body and mind is dying every given moment. And it is renewing -- being reborn. Repetitive death and renewal doesn't appear to be occurring. We seem to be alive. But you have to understand that death happens every moment. Understanding this truth is the most important step in preparing for death. That is understanding the meaning of death. If we understand this, we understand that "actual" death is just another moment. Up to that moment, I've died trillions of times. Each of those times was a momentary death. ---------- Margot Born: And that, I think, is what we realize in mediation? Bhante Gunaratana: Yes, that's what we realize in meditation. Actually, if you practice insight meditation and concentration meditation, one helps to understand the other. So if you gain insight, you understand what concentration is. If you gain concentration, you understand what insight is. (1) In a concentrated, mindful state, you really feel, experience, and know this momentary death. You feel your palpitations, your heartbeat, your nervous vibrations, your sensations changing, your perception changing, and every thought changing. Change, simply, means momentary death. When things change, they never can be revived. When a thought-moment is dead, that thought-moment will never, ever, appear again. The death of a cell means that when it dies, it's finished. That cell can never be revived. It should not remain in the body. It should be discarded, expelled from the body, in order for other cells to grow and develop. If they aren't discarded from the body, they can grow in the body, and we can develop cancer. Once the cell is dead, it must be discarded, just as when the human body dies, it must be discarded. It has to be gotten out of the house. It has to go somewhere to be buried or burned so that others can live a healthy, hygienic life. This kind of thing is happening all the time. Through vipassana meditation we see moment-to-moment death, we experience it, we know it, we become fully aware, and that is the way to prepare for death. So we prepare for "actual" death on the experiential level. (2) We further prepare for "actual" death by looking at it logically. You just open your eyes and look around. Everything is dying all the time. You can see that trees, plants and insects die all the time. When you have lived forty years, for example, and count the number of friends, relatives, and so forth who have died, you have to one day sit down and think, "In this way I must know that with the number of my friends, my relatives, my acquaintances -- with all these people dying, now it is my turn. So in this way I know that I must die. My friends, my classmates, one by one, one by one, one by one have died. Next is my turn." So that's another way to look at death. (3) Another logical way to think of death is to think that all of us are made up of impermanent objects. For instance, we are made up of earth, water, fire, air. Yet tomorrow, they're not there. Therefore the elements can never remain permanent. The elements of which the body is made are subject to death, impermanence. Therefore the product is going to be impermanent, too. There's no way to stop it. Thus examining the elements of the body is another logical way of looking at death. (4) Once we understand the truth of death, we should think, "Now that I'm going to die, why should I be so proud of something? I'm intimidated by the thought of death; I don't have any reason to be proud of anything. I don't have any reason to hold a grudge against anybody. Sooner or later I will die, and I don't have any reason to try to hold on to anything. No matter how hard I try to hold on, it will slip away from my hand at the time of separation. So I don't need greed either. I think, that if I don't hold onto my greed, my death will be very peaceful." (5) The next thing to think is, "I know that I will die, I think it is good for me to die peacefully, so let me prepare for that. Let me have peace all the time." That doesn't mean that you lie on the road waiting for a truck to run over you, or that you take poison, or commit suicide. That is not the way to obtain peace. We have to live this life as long as it lasts. We have to do as we are doing. We must therefore think, "Since I'm going to die anyway, I must die peacefully." To die peacefully, we must prepare our minds to remain peaceful. A peaceful death is a painless death. --------------------- Han: I have put the paragraph numbers so that the readers may not miss the different ways of looking at the death. The contemplation on moment-to-moment death (kha.nika mara.na) is interesting. We often come across the kha.nika mara.na as we study mara.naanussati. ==================== To be continued. Respectfully, Han #122159 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma nilovg Dear Han, Do not be afraid, I do not think poeple want discussions about death, we just appreciate, Nina. Op 22-jan-2012, om 11:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > But I would not like to enter into back and forth discussions, > because I cannot concentrate any more. #122160 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:03 am Subject: Re: Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma philofillet Hi Han > Thank you very much for remembering me. I thought you have forgotten me because I cannot join you and Jon when you come to Bangkok. I have arrived in Bangkok, such fond memories of breakast with you last year, the little white lie that was involved! It was worth it, wasn't it? I remember reading the letter I wrote to my father explaining why Dhamma is so impirtant to me, and you approved of it, which was important to me. By the way, my father really liked that letter and often mentions Buddhism in an interested way when I talk to him on the phone. Please take care of yourr health and hope to meet you again some day. With respect, Phil > I also thank you very much for the post, the contents of which I have noted with on Death and Dying, without taking much questions. Just posting #122161 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Jon answered your post point by point. I can add a few things. When we think of the development of the perfections as described by Kh Sujin in her book I think that many questions one has about conventional actions will be answered. I do not think so much in terms of conventional actions, rather: what is the citta like at this moment? I do not think either of enlightenment, rather: is there more understanding now of seeing, visible object, all dhammas. And, at the same time, I know that we need the medicine of the development of all the perfections on the way. There need not be any delay. Patience is important all the time, lest akusala citta arises. And when it arises because of conditions do we have the patience to study it? Nina. Op 21-jan-2012, om 4:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > While dhammas are not controlled and can't be manipulated, they do > arise according to conditions and accumulations and they do have an > orderly way of developing over time until they reach the stage of > insight, powers, stream-entry etc., which are irrevocable stages > that are not just subject to a hodge-podge of random dhammas. So > there is an order of a sort created by conditions and accumulations > as the path progresses. #122162 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:46 am Subject: Re: On understanding & action truth_aerator Dear RobertK2, >what do you think silabataparamasa(clingining to rules and rituals) is? >================================================== Dog duty and Ox Duty ascetism are first examples from the suttas that jump to mind. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html Please give me any sutta quote that equates Buddhist meditation to silabata. With best wishes, Alex #122163 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:59 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, >J:Agreed, we have not fully understood anatta yet. Anatta cannot >be >understood unless and until there is the direct understanding of >dhammas. >===================== It goes further than mere intellectual understanding. All parts of Noble Eightfold path need to be developed. N8P includes samma-samadhi which is defined as four Jhanas. The more one understands anatta, the easier Jhanas can be. Why? Because one does not hold distracting thoughts, sounds, pains, to be "I, me, mine" and thus does not react with personal liking or disliking thus creating disturbance to peace of letting go. The less idea of Self, the less one is distracted, restless, lustful, irritated, etc... So if one cannot enter Jhana, then it is a big hint that one has not really understood Anatta, only parroting learned phrases. "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#fnt-1 With best wishes, Alex #122164 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Unsubscribing epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Rob E, (Scott & all), > > MN131 > > "Let one not trace back the past > Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come. > That which is past is left behind > Unattained is the "yet-to-come." > But that which is present he discerns " > With insight as and when it comes. > The Immovable " the-non-irritable. > In that state should the wise one grow > Today itself should one bestir > Tomorrow death may come " who knows?" > > Metta > > Sarah I appreciate the general principal, but in a sense it doesn't work unless there is a basic acceptance of the divergency of views in a discussion. There have been real consequences to Scott's lack of respect, and I am not happy about what I consider his driving Howard off of his long-standing participation in the list. Perhaps this should not be discussed and made into more of an issue, but when folks of the "majority" view here say that others who disagree are basically fools, and that their other statements are not to be believed because their basic premises are deluded, that puts part of this group in a very bad position. Somewhere along the line it became "okay" to speak to Howard in a disparaging way that had never been done before, and it became "okay" for Phil to suggest over and over again that Howard, myself and Alex should get out of the group because we were interfering with legitimate Dhamma discussion. That atmosphere traces directly back to when Scott cam back and announced that he was going to say exactly what he thought and not mince words. Is it a good decision to allow that? Do we make better progress in Dhamma by ripping the other person to shreds instead of discussing on the merits? Maybe "bare knuckles" discussion is more direct, but I doubt it is the best for developing understanding. I don't think the list is better off with Howard gone, and I don't think there's any doubt that this is ultimately why he left. And then after all the insults hurled, the putdowns even in thread titles which then go on and on. Scott asks me to "stick to the discussion." It's really a little too much. If I need to leave too to bring peace back to the list I'll do it, but I think that asking for some standards in how people are treated is not asking too much. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = > .>> Scott: Please just stick to the discussion, Rob. > > > >It's hard to believe that you can say this without acknowledging all the aspersions you've cast and the damage you've done with your personal comments and rudeness - not just to me, but to others. If you stick to the discussion from now on, which includes not making aspersions and imputing motives to the other person, then I will do the same. =================== #122165 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:52 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote from a past iteration of myself...' epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > [RE:] Thanks again, Jon. ... But there is a serious problem with repeated and sometimes incessant attempts by Scott to grind the "wrong thinkers" in his view down to the ground and force them to submit to the view that he thinks is correct, ... > > =============== > > J: As we learn from our study of the teachings, 'serious problems' with another's perceived misconduct are usually more a matter of our own kilesas -- expectations, dosa, etc. We don't have to buy in. I agree, but I don't think it's either/or. As you know very well as moderator, some sorts of behavior are not tolerated, and some just go up to the line but don't cross it. We have all used hard words at times and personalized our responses, but look at the title of this thread. Has anyone else taken an insult and put it into a thread title, so that it would go on and on? While one may personally want to take the occasion to practice patience and equanimity, that doesn't mean that there are no standards for how people treat each other in messages. > > =============== > > [RE:] ... and it is not possible to keep being hounded by such attacks without eventually being poisoned by them. > > =============== > > J: If a member feels they're under attack at any time, silence is often the best strategy. After all, if the perception is correct, other members will understand and sympathize (and appreciate). Otherwise, as you say, the discussion degenerates into mudslinging. On the other hand, if someone is unrelenting, and wants to hound someone, they will wait for them to speak up and do it again, and this has happened - breaking into other people's threads not with comments but with insults, and in Howard's case, literally hounding him off the list completely! You may say that it is each person's responsibility to mind his own participation, and I would agree, but still, when things get so unpleasant that someone who does not want to be harassed can no longer have a pleasant conversation, that is a little too much. > It becomes an environment in which someone who is "in the minority" is not free to communicate without being attacked. Is that useful environment for discussion? > > ===============> > > [RE:] Phil's more direct proddings for people who meditate to actually leave is even worse. In fact he is taking the presumption of a moderator when he says something like that, and it misrepresents the leadership of this group to speak directly to other group members and advise them to go away. That should not be allowed. > > =============== > > J: It may be that we've not been moderating as strictly as we should. But then that cuts both ways for those who've also been in breach of the guidelines in the meantime:-)) I don't think it's bad that you've allowed people to speak freely. I think it's been important to let the views come out fully and have a free exchange. Maybe though, at the point where it gets too unhealthy, it's time to pull back for a while, and maybe doing so voluntarily has become difficult, at least at this moment. The loss of Howard may have happened anyway, but maybe not. It's a little too late for that. > > ===============> > > [RE:] Although my response to Phil is guilty of all of the above, I really appreciate your admonition and would enjoy a mutual cease-fire of such language. It's hard to do it unilaterally, but I would welcome a truce. > > =============== > > J: In many if not most cases, it's just conceit that makes a unilateral withdrawal difficult :-)) Keeping silent is often the more courageous option. That may be true. As you know, it's hard to "will oneself" into being more advanced! :-) > > ===============> > > > So can we all keep to discussing the teachings, and avoid the personal jibes. Thanks! > > > > [RE:] I hope that we can all do that. Discussing the teachings is why we're here. > > =============== > > J: Yes, and that's why where we see genuine interest in the teachings we're reluctant to intervene unless it's really necessary. > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Thank you, Jon. I know you're trying to strike the right balance, and allow the discussion to keep flowing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122166 From: han tun Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (3) - Kamma hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Phil, I thank you very much for remembering me. I too hope to meet once again and have a similar fond memories. I am also glad to know that your father likes your letter. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sun, 1/22/12, philip wrote: I have arrived in Bangkok, such fond memories of breakast with you last year, the little white lie that was involved! It was worth it, wasn't it? I remember reading the letter I wrote to my father explaining why Dhamma is so impirtant to me, and you approved of it, which was important to me. By the way, my father really liked that letter and often mentions Buddhism in an interested way when I talk to him on the phone. Please take care of your health and hope to meet you again some day. #122167 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:50 am Subject: Serene is Silent Equanimity... bhikkhu5 Friends: Serene Equanimity promotes imperturbable Peace: Equanimity just looks on and observes, while calmly settled in composed neutrality. Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of impartiality among beings. Its function is to see the equality of all beings. It is manifested as the quieting of both resentment and approval. Its proximate cause is seeing and comprehending the ownership and efficacy of kamma thus: All beings are owners of their actions, born, created and conditioned by the accumulated effect of their past intentions! Whose, if not theirs, is the choice by which they have become happy, or unhappy, or will break free from suffering, or have fallen down from their past good state? Equanimity succeeds, when it makes both resentment and approval subside, and it fails, when it instead produces a bored, indifferent, & careless state of negligence! Vism I 318 Comments: Non-involved and even Equanimity is a subtle form of happiness... By stabilization it perfects and consummates all the other six links to awakening: Awareness, Investigation, Energy, Joy and Concentration. Equanimity is the proximate cause for knowing and seeing it, as it really is. Equanimity quenches any upset agitation! When seeing and noting: 'All this is constructed, conditioned, coarse and transient! But this state of serene equanimity is indeed exquisitely peaceful...', then instantly ceases any arisen agreeable or nasty feeling, when Equanimity takes its stance The Power of Equanimity eliminates agitation, wavering & panic! Equanimity (Upekkh) is indeed a divine state, and itself a link to Awakening! Even is Equanimity, The 7 Links to Awakening, Serene Equanimity and Beyond, Imperturbable Equanimity, Unshakable Equanimity, Equanimity Upekkha, Feeding Equanimity, Empty Equanimity. Serene is Equanimity... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #122168 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Pariyatti scottduncan2 FYI, From 014-2011-03-KK-pm: KS: "...And there can never be the understanding of realities without the understanding [of] pariyatti more and more until it can condition moment of awareness with right understanding. Like vipaaka, no need to call it anything like vipaaka because now there's seeing, that's all. Q: "What exactly is pariyatti understanding? Is it intellectual of the present moment? KS: "When it's not about realities it's not pariyatti." Q: "Okay, but it's about realities arising at this moment? - " KS: "Realities - " Q: "...not future, not past, but realities arising now." KS: "What we call past is just the reality that is completely gone." Q: "Right. And one can only think about - " KS: " - But there must be reality otherwise how can there be past and future and present?" Q: "I want to follow up on that somehow. Thinking about the dhamma. I guess I'm trying to zero in on what is thinking about the dhamma with understanding." KS: "The understanding understands and it is not the understanding of what appears through eyes, ears, nose, tongue. So it's the understanding of that which is the object." Q: "And the object could be what appears through the sense doors or what appears through the mind door." KS: "What appears through the sense door does not have any words at all. And understanding it is moment from learning about it. So at that moment of understanding it it's not the intellectual understanding from learning." Q: "No that would be direct understanding - satipa.t.thaana. So I guess what I'm looking for is what is intellectual understanding." KS: "Wise thinking? Can there be unwise or wise thinking as well?" Q: "Yes." KS: "So it is not the understanding of reality it's the wise thinking of the terms and the words. Like now there can be thinking and seeing and there can be right understanding of both of them one at a time and even thinking is a reality which thinks." Q: "And thinking about them, not direct experience of them but thinking about them - " KS: "But there can be understanding thinking as a reality." Q: "Yes." KS: "All dhammas are objects of right understanding through six doorways." Q: "And pariyatti understanding would be, again, of thinking as a reality -" KS: "Correctly, which will lead to understanding reality right now as it is." Q: "So thinking correctly -" KS: "Is -" Q: "Is? Can you finish the sentence? Ha ha." KS: "Is the kusala with pa~n~naa which thinks. For example there can be thinking of the word 'dhamma.' With understanding or without understanding. It can be only the memory of the term 'dhamma' but at the same time, when one understands what 'dhamma' is, there can be longer story about dhamma. So [those] moments are moments of right thinking about dhammas, not about other things. But it's thinking, only thinking. Not 'me.'" Scott: Is this clear yet? Scott. #122169 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:52 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob (and Sarah), I want to reply to this post before we go to KK later today. > In the same way, when I suggest in general that concepts are based on the experience of visible object and so on, this is to highlight the fact that without these experiences, there would not be those concepts. R: Well, let me think about this for a second. It seems to me that this is what I've been saying these many discussions, that the real experiences we have with dhammas is translated into delusory experiences with conceptual objects, and that therefore there is this distorted but none-the-less actual relationship between what we think we are experiencing [concepts] and what we are actually experiencing in an underlying way [the actual dhammas arising, upon which the thought-objects are distortedly based.] S: No we are not talking the same thing. One, I do not consider concepts such as the computer monitor in front of me to be a delusory experience. It is as non-existent as any one which is experienced in a dream. Two, in the case of say the perception of a snake, the only relationship between this and realities is that it is the result of thinking based on the experience of visible object and not for example, taste. Given that it could turn out that the snake is in fact a piece of rope, this relationship between the particular concept and reality is more a general reminder about each and not that studying one can lead to the study of the other. Three, concepts *are* actually experienced but act only as object and NDS condition. And this experience is as real as those of the rupas arising in between. You can't say that the experience of one is real while the other is not. In other words, concepts are not real, rupas are realities and the experience of both is also very much real. ====== R: It is on this basis that I have suggested that when the Buddha talks about the breath or various rules for monks and householders, or the act of killing or stealing, that he is using the concepts that his listeners understand as "markers" or "portals" to start looking in a particular way at the world that they mistakenly perceive, and begin looking beyond the concepts to the dhammas. S: If it is mistakenly perceived, this must be the function of ignorance and wrong view. So studying it must also be wrong. And if all concepts are the result of misperception, then Dhamma must be wrong and the Buddha is not a Buddha. I thought you started off with the premise that something was communicated through conventional teachings which was not there in the Abhidhamma exposition, and that to reduce everything into the latter terms was missing something essential? ====== R: The only real issue is whether he is directing them to a particular area of conceptual reality, to look at particular types of dhammas. When I suggest this, it is said that I am trying to pick and choose the dhammas that arise, and therefore I don't understand that there is no control or choosing as to which dhammas will arise or be experienced at any given moment. This is of course true, but that doesn't mean that we can't look at a particular area and then, without control, see what arises in that area. S: Right understanding is the function of panna cetasika. When this arises, the object is a reality, not a concept. Besides, 'looking' is thinking, and thinking has concept as object. The Buddha would therefore not suggest looking at anything but rather, develop understanding of whatever reality is at the moment. So when a concept is object of experience, the realities then include thinking, memory, attention, feeling and such, not the concept and not any rupa. If you say that the Buddha suggested studying concept as 'hint', what you are also saying then, is that instead of understanding the reality which appears, the Buddha was encouraging thinking. Because even if there be rupas experienced in between the thinking, it is however not the object of experience at that very moment, but more like making assumptions and following its suggestions. So the objection in fact it is not only to picking and choosing and the idea of control, but also mistaking what is not the Path for the Path. ====== R: If Buddha says "he knows that he is breathing long or breathing short" [to paraphrase] and if the monk who is following the breathing looks at the breath, let's say a long breath arises and he starts by saying "I know that this is a long breath," and then experiences the rupas involved - let's say he experiences sensation, vedana, or some other attendant dhammas: he hasn't chosen the long breath, he hasn't chosen the dhammas that arise, he has just taken the occasion when it arose to be aware of what arises. S: Well what you are in effect suggesting is that meditation and choosing to concentrate on say, the breath is not necessary? Or are you insisting on the idea that say, long breath as a concept has particular set of dhammas associated with it different from say, looking at the computer screen and the point of meditation is to understand those particular realities? Your position appears to change all the time, but maybe I keep missing your point ===== R: If the Buddha hadn't given the instruction he would have been unaware of the significance of any of that, so he would have done something else, but since the seed of understanding and discernment have been planted by the sutta, when the occasion comes up he looks at it differently. Does this violate your sense of no-control? It makes sense to me. S: OK, so you are saying that meditation is necessary. So please tell me, what is the difference between the experience while mediating and not meditating in terms of the understanding and knowledge gained? And now you are saying that the "seed of understanding and discernment have been planted by the sutta", but elsewhere you suggested to the effect that the particular audience were not told about realities? And if the Buddha did in fact point to realities, then realities being realities, why do that and not this, why there and not here and why that object and not this one? ===== > That concepts become objects of consciousness is incidental and not a matter of making particular set of realities known. Concepts are equally unreal whether during waking state or in a dream. And as I said, when panna arises it knows a reality and in effect distinguishes this from the concepts. What you are suggesting implies that this does not in fact happen and instead one becomes involved in the concept. R: Not really. I am implying that one looks at that which is taken for conceptual object differently as understanding develops and the dhammas become more apparent. I imagine that this develops as it develops, not that one can control it. S: But there is no place for the idea, "looks at that which is taken for conceptual object differently". Experiencing a rope as rope is not a case of taking visible object for rope. It is just a case of thinking arising conditioned by memory following upon seeing. One might take the rope for real or believe that seeing sees a rope and not know that this is in fact the function of thinking. These would be due to wrong understanding and not the fault of the thinking process. Either a reality is the object of consciousness or it is a concept and when panna arises, it knows the difference. Perceiving rope as rope or mistaking it for snake makes no difference with regard to understanding thinking as thinking, visible object as visible object or perception as perception. ======= R: The point is that concepts are not fabricated from whole cloth but are fabrications based on distortions of actual dhammas, and that they can be seen as constructed images that use the dhammas as springboards to create their fantasy objects. S: This is your misunderstanding and a justification for following your particular practice. But when you suggested elsewhere to the effect that the Buddha taught about particular conventional objects and activities such as dana, in order to know the underlying realities associated with it, is this not saying the opposite of what you say here? ===== R: It seems to me that if this is the case one can trace back in the other direction, as understanding develops. Many times Sarah or others will give reminders that when we think "computer" there is really only visual image, etc. I think these reminders are not any different than what I am saying. It just seems different, because I advocate practice, and that is seen as misguided. S: When talking about the experience of "computer" itself, I think what Sarah would say is that the reality then is "thinking". If she referred to the visible object prior to this based on which the concept was conceived, it would be to point out what seeing actually experiences. This is theory which will condition understanding or not depending on the person reading about it. Are you suggesting also only this? No. While Sarah comes in from the perception of this moment being conditioned and already fallen away hence 'no control', yours as you say above, is from and / or leads to the idea deliberate practice which to me implies 'control'. Also Sarah would say that understanding is the function of panna cetasika which like all realities is conditioned. Your position on the other hand appear not to take this into consideration but in advocating deliberate looking / practice prompted by intention is highlighting a volitional activity with no regard to whether this is conditioned by understanding or some other cetasika. So the difference between you and Sarah is not that of meditation vs. not mediation, but rather doing something while motivated by the idea of time, place and posture vs. "now" is the only time that panna arises or not to know a reality. This latter appears to me as manifestation of detachment whereas what you advocate is not. ====== > Rob: > 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." > > S: If I expect any result from such a suggestion, it would be the understanding of the reality / concept distinction. This in effect makes invalid the idea of studying concepts. R: I'm not really advocating studying concepts. I'm advocating seeing what is really there when the occasion arise. What I'm advocating that is controversial is the idea that one can set out to practice, and then still take whatever arises without any sense of control. S: You do not see that "the idea that one can set out to practice, and then still take whatever arises without any sense of control" *is* an instance of the idea of self and control? And in believing that the Buddha asked us to concentrate on the breath, that this is not studying concepts? And in advocating "seeing what is really there when the occasion arise", you are making a case for deliberate practice of a particular kind and not talking about that which can happen at any time at all? ======= R: P.S. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about this stuff anymore, but this seemed more fruitful and less of a back-and-forth argument, so I thought I'd pursue it. I don't know if that's a good idea or not, but in general I'm not going to argue about meditation anymore. S: I don't see why meditation should not be discussed, after all this is what you and many consider as "practice" taught by the Buddha? I don't think even you will be able to avoid referring to it when involved in Dhamma discussions about what is Right Understanding and what is not. Metta, Sukin #122170 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:57 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Jon answered your post point by point. I can add a few things. > When we think of the development of the perfections as described by > Kh Sujin in her book I think that many questions one has about > conventional actions will be answered. I do not think so much in > terms of conventional actions, rather: what is the citta like at this > moment? I do not think either of enlightenment, rather: is there more > understanding now of seeing, visible object, all dhammas. And, at the > same time, I know that we need the medicine of the development of all > the perfections on the way. There need not be any delay. Patience is > important all the time, lest akusala citta arises. And when it arises > because of conditions do we have the patience to study it? Thanks, Nina. That is helpful guidance. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #122171 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:12 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > S: You do not see that "the idea that one can set out to practice, and then still take whatever arises without any sense of control" *is* an instance of the idea of self and control? And in believing that the Buddha asked us to concentrate on the breath, that this is not studying concepts? And in advocating "seeing what is really there when the occasion arise", you are making a case for deliberate practice of a particular kind and not talking about that which can happen at any time at all? > > ======= > R: > P.S. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about this stuff anymore, but this seemed more fruitful and less of a back-and-forth argument, so I thought I'd pursue it. I don't know if that's a good idea or not, but in general I'm not going to argue about meditation anymore. > > S: I don't see why meditation should not be discussed, after all this is what you and many consider as "practice" taught by the Buddha? I don't think even you will be able to avoid referring to it when involved in Dhamma discussions about what is Right Understanding and what is not. I appreciate your attempts to answer back, but it really does seem like we are talking in two different languages. I have been around long enough so that I am not totally ignorant of the dhammas-only way of looking at things, but it seems that to talk about anything in the conventional realm leads to a circular argument on both sides. You will say that anything I say about practice is disqualified by the fact that I am talking about practice. I will say that when you say that practice is about control and self-view that you are jumping to that conclusion based on your prior philosophy of dhammas. So we will keep talking past each other since there's no agreement on the basic point of whether activities can produce anything. You speak as if it's impossible to "look" at anything - that this cannot be done, because visual object or any object arises without any control. But in fact we can choose to look at something and then look at it. That may also arise from uncontrolled dhammas but still it takes place. I can look at the breath and focus on it. So how is this possible if there are only dhammas rising in a random way? It just seems like the actual experiences and activities that we do are dismissed and have no relation to anything in the dhammas-only view, and this just doesn't seem to mesh with everyday experience. It may be more useful for me to keep understanding more about dhammas here, than to keep going back and forth in this endless debate. How much progress have we made in this argument in the last ten years? Personally I am sick of talking about meditation. It seems like something that you either do or don't do. Why keep arguing about it on the most abstract intellectual level? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122172 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pariyatti nilovg Dear Scott, Thanks for the transcription, always useful. It never is enough. Nina. Op 23-jan-2012, om 4:04 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > So [those] moments are moments of right thinking about dhammas, > not about other things. But it's thinking, only thinking. Not 'me'. #122173 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (1) nilovg Dear Han, Thank you for the posting. I especially like your remarks and appreciate your quotes from Dr Mehm Tin Mon. Appreciating, Nina. Op 22-jan-2012, om 13:20 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > And, bhikkhus, what is death? The falling away from existence, the > passing away from existence, the dissolution, the disappearance, > the end of life, the passing away due to completion of the life- > span, the breaking up of the Aggregates, the discarding of the > body, the destruction of the life-faculty of various beings in > various categories, this, bhikkhus, is called death. [translation > by Myanmar Pi.taka Association] #122174 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions with K.Sujin in Bkk, Jan 2012 (1) nilovg Dear Sarah, Thank you for your summary. Good reminder, even when studying the Abhidhamma, understand 'now'. Nina. Op 22-jan-2012, om 8:11 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > "It's useless to talk about activites, even studying the Abhidhamma > - understand now! #122175 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:03 pm Subject: Discussions in Kaeng Kracan. 10 /3, 2011. (no 1) nilovg Dear friends, K.K. 10 /3. (no 1) About reality and nimitta (the sign of it). There cannot be nimitta if there is no reality. Dhamma arises and falls away so fast and what is left is the nimitta. When one takes the nimitta for something the object is a concept. Without nimitta there is no concept. Cognizing a concept is not necessarily wrong view. When hardness appears and there is no understanding of the ruupa that is hard, hardness is still me and that is wrong view. When one clings to the sitting position no reality appears to pa~n~naa. Usually the object that is cognized is a nimitta of a concept, but one begins to cognize a nimitta of reality. ... ------- Phil was holding the mike and instead of speaking he would be inclined to refrain from speaking. He was wondering whether there was dosa or generosity at that moment. Kh S: This is not the moment of understanding such realities as lobha, dosa, etc. Realize that there is only doubt, because the reality you are thinking of is gone. Be accustomed to the way it is: just a reality. Even if it is lobha, it is gone. Even if it is dosa, it is gone. They are gone before one can see their characterstics, but later on one can develop understanding of these realities. Pa~n~naa begins to eliminate the idea of self from realities, little by little. Phil: When thinking why I put down the mike is just speculation. Kh S: Thinking. Phil: Can this be helpful for the future? Kh S: I do not think so. Attachment is not helpful. It conditions more attachment to having such conditions. The teachings will lead to detachment. The development of understanding has to be very natural, so that one will see ones accumulations. _______ Nina. #122176 From: han tun Date: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:02 pm Subject: Buddhist View of Death (2) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and others, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist View of Death: An Interview with Bhante Gunaratana by Samaneri Sudhamma and Margot Born. In the last post, Bhante Gunaratana was saying that to die peacefully, we must prepare our minds to remain peaceful, and that a peaceful death is a painless death. Now, read on, please. -------------------- Margot Born: Can you talk a little about physical pain due to illness? Bhante Gunaratana: Yes, when we meditate, we have physical pain, for example, pain in the knee. We can use this pain to prepare for the pain of a final illness. The knee pain is like cancer pain. I think that if the cancer affects our nervous system, then we're always in pain. No matter what we do, the nerves are exposed and we have pain. Therefore, we must prepare our minds by learning to practice meditation on feelings. We determine to always look at our feelings, no matter what the feeling is, even a tiny little toothache, neck ache, any little, little ache. If we are experiencing pain, we meditate on that. When pain arises, we focus on it. We watch it as it arises, how long it remains, and then we watch it fall. Every time, a little pain has these three stages, its rising moment, its peak moment, and its passing away moment. If we condition our mind to be with that pain, or with that feeling, then our mind can get absorbed into the feeling and become one with the feeling. If we turn against the pain, then we try to dichotomize ourselves. But if we try to accept whatever comes, we absorb into it. Even when we have intense pain, we will come to a point where the mind cannot tolerate it any further and then the mind merges with the pain. After that it doesn't matter what happens. So before death happens, we learn to willingly accept and stay with pain, watch the pain, and not get upset with the pain. The more upset we are with the pain, the more painful it is. The more we relax with the sensation, the less painful it will be. I know some friends who have died a physically very agonizing and painful death. They refused to take medication. Yet they even explained to visitors where the cancer was, how it developed, and what stage it was in now. Instead of the visitors trying to console the patient, it was rather the patient consoling the visitors. The patient thinks the visitors come out of sympathy, out of compassion, to give him some encouragement, but when he can relax with the pain, it is he who gives sympathy, compassion and encouragement to the visitors. So physical pain in a last illness doesn't necessarily need to prevent a peaceful death. -------------------- Margot Born: What about when someone has gone over the pain threshold where it's impossible to relax and soften into the pain? Bhante Gunaratana: You know, there is some pain that a person cannot handle, and then medication is necessary. But we can first try to increase the tolerance of pain by conditioning the mind and preparing it to accept the physical pain. We can condition the mind by very kindly and gently trying to advise the person to meditate. We can chant some soothing, comforting chants, play some soothing, comforting music to prepare the mind, to try to help the mind remain peaceful. Give them instructions in meditation. You remember that women who are having labor pains are taught these days to concentrate on their breath. They keep the rhythm of breathing. When they push the baby out, they're focusing on their breath and on their body and on the pushing. That's a very beautiful thing for us to remember. We can use this information to teach people. And these mothers have babies with less pain because they are trained to do that. So we train the mind to accept the pain. We can use the information from mothers in labor to teach dying people how to manage pain. So therefore we have to train the mind. Instead of dealing with the physical pain first, we learn how to treat the mind first. Because these two are always cooperating. When the body becomes calm, the mind becomes calm. They're always complementary to each other. -------------------- Margot Born: How do you feel about painkillers? Bhante Gunaratana: I think that they have side effects. They can drop your blood pressure. Some people can't take them and they can be very dangerous. A person has to keep only a certain amount of them in his blood stream. But meditation was invented long before medication was discovered. Now people don't pay attention to that spiritual training and they go straight away to narcotics or painkillers. Now we want to reverse the order again because the spiritual treatment is more healthy than chemical treatment. People take all kinds of pills, you know, and they all have side effects, especially after long usage. But spiritual training will never have side effects. It always builds up. It always prolongs your life. And any side effects it may have improve your life, give a better taste to life. When you come out of a painful state, when you do these things when you're sick, they have a peaceful effect that last long after you have recovered from the painful state. Now, to get back to death. Actually, we haven't digressed, because illness is the cause of death and illness has pain. To die very quickly without any pain is no problem. So I think talking about pain is quite fundamental for any discussion of death. ==================== Han: Pain management is very important, especially for a person who is stricken with illnesses. In August 2010, I was operated upon for infected and swollen gall bladder with gall stones by open abdominal surgery. When I regained consciousness after the surgery, I felt very intense pain that I had never before experienced in my life. I shouted, "Pain! Pain! Pain!" all the time until the analgesic injection took its effect. At that moment of intense pain, I could not think about any Dhamma, any reflection. Even my loved ones who have dominated my thoughts during my waking hours did not appear in my mind. I could think of nothing else but pain. If I had died at that moment I would probably be reborn in the lower planes. Maybe, I have a very low pain threshold. But Bhante Gunaratana's words are a timely reminder for me to have a new outlook on pain and to have a better management of pain. To be continued. Respectfully, Han #122177 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:10 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, I might try to stand in for Sukin while he's at KK: -------- <. . .> RE: It seems like something that you either do or don't do. Why keep arguing about it on the most abstract intellectual level? ------------ KH: Yes, meditation is something that a sentient being either does or does not do. The whole point of DSG, however, is to help people understand there is no sentient being; there are only the presently arisen dhammas. It's what we do! :-) Ken H #122178 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:32 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > I might try to stand in for Sukin while he's at KK: > > -------- > <. . .> > RE: It seems like something that you either do or don't do. Why keep arguing about it on the most abstract intellectual level? > ------------ > > KH: Yes, meditation is something that a sentient being either does or does not do. The whole point of DSG, however, is to help people understand there is no sentient being; there are only the presently arisen dhammas. > > It's what we do! :-) I agree with you. Since there is no sentient being and only presently arisen dhammas, that is the case no matter what we do. I am more interested in learning about dhammas here, whether I look at meditation and other activities the same way you do or not. If we talk about dhammas and you say "you know there are no 'activities' per se, just dhammas" that is something we can talk about. But when one says "You SHOULD do this, or you SHOULDN'T do that," then you are not understanding dhammas, you are just clinging to a view about activities. [Just my view on views.] So why not stick to understanding what is happening in the moment, as everyone advises? If we were ever to talk about what conventional activities really consist of, not in general but specifically - how does illusion arise, how do cittas create and cling to conceptual views and mistake them for reality, why do they keep being created by thought and seen as real by citta and how does this affect the path -- in detail; this would be interesting and worth going into. But no one is too interested in concepts and conventional activities except to quickly dismiss them and say "there are only dhammas." Well, fine, but that's not really understanding much about the way in which every one of us lives every day, with arms, legs, cars and other people running around as if they were real. I think we should either really look into the conventional world and how it arises, or else stick to talking about dhammas, not waste our time fighting back and forth with vague concepts about other concepts. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122179 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:15 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, Sarah, Nina - anyone who can help. > > ... > > > [J:] The issue is the idea that by doing some particular activity awareness/understanding can be induced to arise. If that view is mistaken, then no part of the activity can be the development of the path. > > > > [RE:] Well, it seems to me that the students of K. Sujin are firmly convinced that this is the case - that any conventional activity cannot create conditions that enhance the path, and while I understand the idea that self-view and control are associated with any purposeful activity attempting to create a path result, I do not understand all the steps of logic that lead to that conclusion. > > =============== > > J: OK, just to clarify that we are talking about *purposeful activity attempting to create a path result*, and not conventional activity of any other kind (as is often mis-attributed to me and others). > > > =============== > > [RE:] If in fact, all conventional activities are hallucinatory in nature and do not actually take place, and/or have no relation at all to the arising of dhammas, then I could understand the idea that no hallucinatory dream-activity could have a "real" result in the "real" world of dhammas. So I wonder if that is the basis for this belief? > > =============== > > J: What we take for conventional activities are in fact various dhammas, and these dhammas do condition other dhammas. Hope this answers your question. It's a good start! It raises questions about what we are really referring to when we think we are referring to conventional objects and activities. Are we referring to real series of dhammas arising, but mis-understanding them as static entities instead of passing moments? I'd like to know more about how this takes place and how we misperceive the dhammas that are actually showing up; what is conditioned and how this leads to other dhammas showing up, which are then misperceived in turn as more conceptually-conceived objects and activities. Am I on the right track or not? > > =============== > > [RE:] If on the other hand, kusala-seeming activities reflect some accumulation of kusala dhammas and there is a correlation between life circumstances and activities and the activity of accumulations of kusala taking place "under the surface" then you could see how my view that going deeper into that which is "kusala but conventional" could have an association with actual kusala. > > =============== > > J: I think the nub is the proposition you put forward here: That kusala-seeming activities reflect some accumulation of kusala dhammas, and is there accordingly a correlation between (a) life circumstances and activities and (b) the activity of accumulations of kusala taking place "under the surface". > > I don't see how this proposition can be maintained. It is apparent, is it not, that kusala-seeming activities can be done with wrong view? Nor did the Buddha ever make an assertion to the effect that you are arguing for. It's an inference drawn from the fact that the suttas were given in conventional language (he guards the sense-doors, he strives, etc.). But there's no actual doctrinal basis for its support. Well I'm just looking for what is really there. We experience conventionally most of the time, and probably will for many years or lifetimes, even if we begin to understand the nature of dhammas theoretically. So I am wondering what this conventional experience of life consists of, and how it is composed, and how we can see into it or see through it. I have the idea that Buddha was directing us to do this, so we could begin to discern more correctly based on the teachings; and I wonder how that teaching makes a dent on what we think is real, but really is not. I understand theoretically that kusala arises and when recognized creates more kusala and understanding, but I don't understand what relation this theoretical operation has to what we actually experience as human beings. It seems like a subject that is set aside, rather than applied to what we normally find in everyday life. I mean, we have the equipment, we can theoretically see, discern and understand, but it does not seem that this is frequently applied in our theoretical talks, except to say that understanding and kusala in general can arise anytime. > > =============== > > [RE:] It seems to me that there is such an association, although anything conventional obviously reflects a somewhat distorted or not fully developed understanding of the dhammas involved, but it seems to me that the Buddha's teachings on various practices for monks, lay-people and others regarding right livelihood, non-harmfulness, development of satipatthana, etc., have a strong aspect of doing certain things to create conditions for kusala results. > > =============== > > J: Firstly, only kusala deeds/actions (or, properly speaking, moments of consciousness) can bring kusala results. I have heard this many times, but how does this actually take place? How does kusala arise originally, and how does that create an action that results in more kusala arising? How does this accumulate and how does this show itself "in time" as it seems that according to this description kusala just pops up in what seems a random sort of occurrence but which really isn't. > Secondly, by 'kusala results' you perhaps mean moments of kusala consciousness. Moments of consciousness cannot be the 'result' of deeds. Then are we talking of a world that is consciousness only? And do the objects of consciousness also arise in accord with those moments of consciousness and what they allow because of their own "internal" conditions? Is there an interaction between citta and "the world" or are you saying they are totally set apart and have no interaction at all? What happens when a certain action does take place? If this represents dhammas then those dhammas do have a nature, even if the activity per se does not. So what effect takes place from the dhammas that are "contained" within what seems to be a conventional action? None at all? Or can we identify certain types of dhammas by the type of activity they seem to arise with? For instance, clearly if someone commits murder, there must be akusala citta that intends to kill someone, culminating in akusala kamma patha. So that seems like there is a relation of some kind between certain kinds of dhammas arising and a resultant "conventional action." Can you clarify this for me? > > =============== > > [RE:] From my knowledge so far, which is admittedly spotty, I see the level of dhammas as being the real moment-to-moment reality that is reflected in a shadowy way by the way things go conventionally, though it is not a one-to-one association. > > =============== > > J: If you see dhammas as being "the real moment-to-moment reality", that should mean that it's dhammas that are to be known (given that the teaching is all about knowing things as they truly are). Well, no one lives in a world of dhammas-only, even if that is all that really exists. It has been described that even the arahat goes back and forth experientially from dhammas to conventions so that they can eat, talk to people, etc., but they do so skillfully without delusion. So what is the proper view that we should take towards the conventional activities of living - none at all? Is what we eat, what we do, how we treat people, whether we kill or drink or follow vinaya, totally insignificant? Should we completely ignore conventional life as totally unimportant and consider all those teachings to be not part of Dhamma at all? > > =============== > > [RE:] While dhammas are not controlled and can't be manipulated, they do arise according to conditions and accumulations and they do have an orderly way of developing over time until they reach the stage of insight, powers, stream-entry etc., which are irrevocable stages that are not just subject to a hodge-podge of random dhammas. So there is an order of a sort created by conditions and accumulations as the path progresses. > > > > If you could explain to me how such an orderly development takes place over time - albeit a very long time - without any influence of any conventional choices, such as whether to read and study Dhamma, whether to meditate, whether to kill insects, animals or people, etc., and that all the foregoing are incidental and not associated with the path, perhaps I can understand how such a view is formulated. > > =============== > > J: (Not all dhammas develop; only those that are kusala and akusala.) > > So-called conventional choices do have effects, in the sense that, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, what we take for conventional activities are in fact various dhammas, and these dhammas do condition other dhammas. > > But obviously it's the dhammas rather than the apparent nature of the conventional activity that bring the result. Well what if meditation [sorry to bring it up] represents certain dhammas which condition other dhammas in turn -- which has been my view of the potential of meditation to create conditions for greater discernment; how is this off-track, and what kinds of dhammas *would* be represented by conventional activities, if I am barking up the wrong tree? > > =============== > > [RE:] Right now it seems like an ideological choice to dismiss any conventional activities that seem to be promoted by the Buddha, and to translate them into incidental reports that at the same time really point to the totally separate reality of dhammas. For instance, all the talk of jhana is just incidental to the fact that everyone happened to be developing jhana at that time and so it presented an example for the Buddha, rather than the promulgation of a practice tool. If there is a clearer logic as to how all the admonitions and practices that were spoken of by the Buddha [and Buddhaghosa, et al] are totally unrelated to the path, I would like to understand how that actually works. > > =============== > > J: Well here we come to a matter of interpretation. I've yet to see a passage quoted by you that is worded in the form of an admonition or practice, rather than as a description of kusala already developed (as understood in the commentarial tradition). I can't find a quote right now unfortunately, but I recall the Buddha saying "practice like your hair is on fire" and "strive unceasingly" or something to that effect. There are a number of statements like that, but I should hang onto these when I have them! I can't find them at the moment, but I have quoted them before. > As regards "jhana as a practice tool", this is also a matter of interpretation, since jhana was never spoken of in these terms by the Buddha (happy to look at any texts you'd care to bring up on this). I'll look around. I was looking at the Ananda sutta which follows a direct line from anapanasati to satipatthana to enlightenment factors to release, but not sure if that makes the point clearly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122180 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) nilovg Dear Han, Op 23-jan-2012, om 12:02 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > At that moment of intense pain, I could not think about any Dhamma, > any reflection. Even my loved ones who have dominated my thoughts > during my waking hours did not appear in my mind. I could think of > nothing else but pain. If I had died at that moment I would > probably be reborn in the lower planes. ----- N: Thank you for the series. And we wish to thank you also for your good wishes to both of us. I just would like to add a few thoughts, no debate and please, do not react. You need all your energy. I remember that you had such intense pain. We never know what kamma has in store for us, we cannot manage this. It is also a consolation: kamma and vipaaka. As to rebirth, a kamma of the past takes care of that already. There is no way to know where there will be rebirth. I am thinking of the often quote sutta (an Auspicious night), do not hanker after the past, the future has not come yet, but be aware of the present moment. I think we cannot prepare for death, this is merely thinking. But we can develop understanding of the dhamma appearing now, and that is the best preparation. Venerable Gunaratana spoke about momentary death: each citta arises and then falls away immediately. That is why Kh Sujin will answer our questions about preparation for death in this way: what about this moment now? There is seeing, and do we understand this already as different from thinking of persons who seem to stay? At the moment of awareness there is calm and peace, since calm accompanies each kusala citta. Nina. #122181 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 20-jan-2012, om 20:29 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > ------- > N: The Atthasālinī (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the > following definition of wrong view, diṭṭhi: "It has unwise > conviction as characteristic; perversion as > function; wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see > the ariyans as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the > highest fault." > > One believes that there is a person or thing that exists that can > last. One fails to see that there are only naama and ruupa that > arise and fall away. > > D: This passage of the commentary to the Dhammasangani refers not > directly to I-view . > ------ N: There are many kinds of wrong view, mentioned in the Brahmajalasutta. They are covered in the definition above by unwise conviction and perversion.Further on in the same section the co. explains a lot more about the types of wrong view. ------- > > D: However , when we consider , as you suggest '' One believes that > there is a person or thing that exists that can last' , the I-view > is covered by the term ditthi . > ------ Personality view, sakkaya di.t.thi is the foundation of all other kinds of wrong view. ------- > D: Ven. Narada noted : (*3) Mana too originates with the "I" - > conception connected with oneself. As such it also is present only > in types of consciousness rooted in attachment. Nevertheless, both > ditthi and mana do not arise simultaneously in one particular > consciousness. Where there is ditthi there is no mana. Commentaries > compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den. > Mana may arise in those four types of consciousness dissociated > with ditthi. But it does not follow that mana is ever present in > them.] > unquote > > The simile from subcommentaries , he refers to , is to explain Ven. > Anuruddhacariya's statement ( mana disassociated with ditthi). > Your quotation from Ven. Buddhagosa' s Atthasālinī doesn't say > so , so one may asked whether Ven. Anuruddhacariya interpreted or > cited > the Dhammasangani . > ------ N: Atthasaalinii, 256, the third type of lobha-muula-citta that is dissociated from wrong view; here conceit is mentioned. Here conceit is fancying... etc. --------- > > I am bit stubborn here , because so far it makes no sense to me to > disassociate mana from ditthi . > How can there be conceit without I-view..? It is like saying a > running nose and a cold disassociated. > ------ N: When we look at the stages of enlightenment where types of akusala are eradicated it may be clearer. The sotaapanna has no more di.t.thi, but has still conceit. Only the arahat has eradicated conceit. ------- > > > N:In the Khemaka-sutta (Kindred Sayings III, Khandhå-vagga, Middle > Fifty, Part 4, § 89) the difference between the wrong view of self > and conceit is explained: snip > > D: thanks for the quotation , Nina. This is indeed an important > sutta . > Let me quote SN 24.89 more detailed ( Thanissaro Bhikkhu)... > > This considered , I think , we may say , as personality belief is a > ditthi given up by the sotapanna , mana is disassociated with > ditthi for the Noble Ones , but only concerning the mind states of > those . > > Agreed? ;-) > ------- N: That would be very strange. ------- Nina. #122182 From: han tun Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina, I always value your very useful comments. I know that there is no way I can know where I will be reborn. That was why I used the word "probably". I know the often quoted sutta (an Auspicious night), but knowing is one thing and practicing is another. I must admit that I cannot always be understanding the dhamma that is appearing now. I am also reflecting on the momentary death (kha.nika mara.na). I will come back to this when I present the Eight Ways of Recollecting Death, as described in Chapter VIII of Visuddhi Magga. That reflection on momentary death is one big consolation for me. Please do give me you comments whenever you feel like it. I will always treasure your comments. Thank you very much. with respect, Han --- On Tue, 1/24/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: N: Thank you for the series. And we wish to thank you also for your good wishes to both of us. I just would like to add a few thoughts, no debate and please, do not react. You need all your energy. #122183 From: han tun Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:26 pm Subject: Buddhist View of Death (3) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and others, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist View of Death: An Interview with Bhante Gunaratana by Samaneri Sudhamma and Margot Born. --------------------- Samaneri Sudhamma: We've talked about two kinds of death -- moment-to-moment and "actual." At one point you were talking about letting go of grudges and greed and having a peaceful mind. Where were you headed with that? Bhante Gunaratana: I'd like to talk about permanent death, that is, dying never to be reborn again. You are tired of this birth and death, moment by moment and life by life. So one moment begins and ends and another begins and ends. One life begins and ends and another begins and ends. We get tired of all that. Then we want death, never to be born again. [Han: Here, Bhante was talking about Samuccheda mara.na, like the death of an Arahant, never to be reborn again.] Death causes birth because there's a desire to be reborn. As long as you have that desire, you will be reborn. When the desire to be reborn is exhausted, then you won't be reborn. [Han: The desire to be reborn (bhava ta.nhaa) is one of three main factors in Samudaya sacca, the origin of suffering, as Lord Buddha expounded in SN 56.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the other two factors being kaama ta.nhaa and vibhava ta.nhaa. The ta.nhaa (craving) and avijjaa (ignorance) form the two roots of the Dependent Origination.] And that leads us to the last stage of Enlightenment. ---------- Samaneri Sudhamma: When you were talking about death, you were talking about making the mind peaceful and you said something about "Let me have a peaceful mind. Let me have a peaceful death." Were you done with that? Bhante Gunaratana: Yes, but I do want to mention something else. When death is approaching, a person often has remorse, regret and guilt. That is another reason for fear. Since he knows that he's going to be reborn, since he's done a lot of wrong things, at the time of death, he remembers them. This is called "death-proximate thought." In death-proximate thought, in that split-second time of death, he remembers very vividly, like a flashing light, certain things that have happened. Death is still painful psychologically. Therefore, very compassionate people, when a person is going to die, help him to have a peaceful death by first telling him the good things he's done. For instance, if he's brought up children, the compassionate person can tell the dying person how much he's done for the children and about all the other good things he's done for others. They need to remind him of the good things he's done. If he has brothers and sisters, they also can say the good things he's done. Anything he's done, planting trees, cleaning the road, they can remind him of, with conviction. Secondly, they can ask him to think of a peaceful object, like the Buddha, a heavenly light, tranquillity and peace, the joy he's had in his life, to try to block off all the negative thoughts. Thirdly, if you have access to a religious person, a monk or a priest or someone like that, call him immediately to come and ask him to give a sermon. Although the dying person before that may have hated sermons, now he will listen to sermons, even willingly, because there's nothing else to do. So These are things for the dying person to do and for other people to do to help him die peacefully. [Han: Here, Bhante talked about "death-proximate thought" (aasanna kamma), and how the relatives need to remind the dying person of the good things he's done, or to let him think of a peaceful object, like the Buddha, so that he will have a wholesome aasanna kamma. But how reliable it is, we will see below.] ---------- Margot Born: I've been reading Philip Kapleau's "The Wheel of Birth and Death". He talks in a way that made me wonder about the self and the "no-self" and death. After reading him I thought, "How can death exist, if there's nothing to die?" Bhante Gunaratana: That sounds very abstract -- to say that there's nothing to die. That is the philosophical basis of what we're doing. In the final analysis, nothing exists. And when nothing exists, there's nothing to die. But you have to have a very powerful state of mind to have that thought at the moment of death. Long before death, when you're healthy, you can have these sorts of thoughts, but at the moment of death, all your senses are weak. Your thinking capacity is weak. When you're on the verge of death, everything is weak. According to the Abhidhamma [classical compilation of Buddhist psychology], there's a weak stream of thought. The conscious stream of thought is the shortest stream of thought. At other times, the stream of thought has seventeen moments. When death comes, the stream of thought has fifteen or twelve or thirteen moments. Because everything is weak, when you're almost dead, what is left is only a very little bit of your consciousness. You have no interest in anything at that stage. I don't think philosophy would work. [Han: How reliable is the efforts of the relatives to make his aasanna kamma wholesome? Bhante said that because everything is weak, when one is almost dead, what is left is only a very little bit of his consciousness, and that he may have no interest in anything at that stage. So Bhante does not think philosophy would work. Then what could one do? I, for one, will not depend too much on aasanna kamma (death-proximate kamma) but rather depend on my aacinna kamma (habitual kamma), the meritorious deeds one performs regularly. The books say that aacinna kamma can operate only if aasanna kamma is absent. But I would rather take that risk, than depending on aasanna kamma over which I will have no control. Whatever it may be, in the end, my past kusala kamma and my past akusala kamma will sort it out by themselves and come up with an appropriate result for my next rebirth. So, I do not have to worry. I will do the meritorious deeds as best as I can while I am still capable of doing it, and leave the results to my kamma.] ---------- Margot Born: I've also been reading Stephen Levine's "Who Dies? An Investigation of Conscious Living and Conscious Dying", and he says that if you can realize that there's nothing to hold onto anyway, you won't have such trouble letting go at the end. In his book he has many meditations about letting go. Bhante Gunaratana: That is a good idea. The person must be reminded of the fact that he has eaten so many times in his life and all those meals are gone. What of them is left now? All his activities, all of his thoughts, all of his material possessions are gone. So no matter how hard we try to hold onto something, it slips away from our grip. And it is a very good idea to make a person aware of this. The longer you mentally cling, the more painful it will be. It is just like tightening a fist. The harder you tighten your fist, the more painful it is. When you open your fist and loosen it you feel comfort and relief. Similarly, at this moment, if you released your anxiety, your tension, your tightening, you would feel the relief of pain, an easing. That's a good thought -- to let go of things. And that's another thing we do in Vipassana meditation. We let go. We enjoy when we enjoy, but we don't hang on. Eat, if it's tasty and enjoy the taste! But if it's not tasty, it's distasteful, don't hold onto that! [Han: Here, Margot Born and Bhante Gunaratana were talking about "letting go." The "letting go" or "relinquishment" is usually translated from the Paa.li word "pa.tinissagga." One may encounter the word "pa.tinissagga" in many suttas. I found it mentioned in MN 118 Aanaapaanasati sutta. 16. He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.' 'pa.tinissaggaanupassii assasissaamii'ti sikkhati, 'pa.tinissaggaanupassii passasissaamii'ti sikkhati. Pa.tisambhidaa Magga elaborates further on it. 574. How is that he trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment', he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment'? 575. Relinquishment: there are two kinds of relinquishment: relinquishment as giving up (pariccaaga pa.tinissaggo) and relinquishment as entering into (pakkhandana pa.tinissaggo). 576. It gives up materiality, thus it is relinquishment as giving up; cognizance enters into the cessation of materiality, nibbaana, thus it is relinquishment as entering into. 182. Katha.m "pa.tinissaggaanupassii assasissaamii"ti sikkhati, "pa.tinissaggaanupassii passasissaamii"ti sikkhati? Pa.tinissaggaati dve pa.tinissaggaa: pariccaagapa.tinissaggo ca pakkhandanapa.tinissaggo ca. Ruupa.m pariccajatiiti, pariccaagapa.tinissaggo. Ruupanirodhe nibbaane citta.m pakkhandatiiti, pakkhandanapa.tinissaggo.] ==================== To be continued. with metta, Han #122184 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:50 pm Subject: Discussions in Kaeng Kracan. 10 /3, 2011. (no 2). nilovg Dear friends, Vipassanaa ~naa.na. Kh S: When we talk about seeing, there is not one moment but many moments. When there is seeing there is no Khun Sarah, no room, there is nothing apart from that which is seen and the naama which has no shape or form and which experiences visible object. We can understand this, but it is not vipassanaa ~naa.na. Actually, vipassanaa ~naa.na is not different from what we have heard about it, but the reality appears right now, just as what we have heard about it. There is nothing left, no world, no people, nobody, only the reality which experiences and which is unlimited. Naama is unlimited whereas ruupa is limited. That particular sound, that particular hardness, these are ruupas that are limited. Naama is unlimited, there is no shape, no form, no boundary, nothing that can limit it. As to going to a quiet place in order to develop understanding: what is the result of going? One will not know reality right now, and this is the only way to understand conditioned reality. Sound is conditioned, hearing is conditioned. How can there be the understanding of conditionality if it is not developed in daily life? This kind of understanding will lessen attachment to realities. People try to find other ways instead of understanding realities right now. They do not know what the object of right understanding is. Attachment should be understood more and more, it clings all the time. One clings to the idea of being a good person. ------- Nina. #122185 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) nilovg Dear Han, Op 24-jan-2012, om 11:22 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I know the often quoted sutta (an Auspicious night), but knowing is > one thing and practicing is another. I must admit that I cannot > always be understanding the dhamma that is appearing now. ------ N: I am the same, but we have to learn with courage. It can be accumulated little by little, but so slowly that we hardly notice it. Never give up! -------- > > > H:I am also reflecting on the momentary death (kha.nika mara.na). I > will come back to this when I present the Eight Ways of > Recollecting Death, as described in Chapter VIII of Visuddhi Magga. > That reflection on momentary death is one big consolation for me. ------- N: the rebirthconsciousness that succeeds the dying consciousness is just like now: one citta falls away to be followed by the next one. It is so fast, before one realizes it there is the next life. And we have forgotten all about this life. Just as when we were born, we did not know the past life that was just gone. Kh Sujin said that one may fear the pain before dying, but not the transition itself, fast and painless. ------- Nina. #122186 From: han tun Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your further comments. It is noted with gratitude. with respect, Han #122187 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 moellerdieter Dear Nina , you wrote N: That would be very strange. D: yes , like the disassociation of a running nose and a cold.... ;-) (D: This passage of the commentary to the Dhammasangani refers not > directly to I-view .) > ------ N: There are many kinds of wrong view, mentioned in the Brahmajalasutta. They are covered in the definition above by unwise conviction and perversion.Further on in the same section the co. explains a lot more about the types of wrong view. N:Personality view, sakkaya di.t.thi is the foundation of all other kinds of wrong view. D: I recognize that it is time for an overview of the (cetasika) ditthi... (coming ..) our discussion will be easier when we agree on the term and come back to open questions , when it is ok with you... with Metta Dieter. #122188 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) moellerdieter Dear Nina and Han , I like to add .. you wrote: N: the rebirthconsciousness that succeeds the dying consciousness is just like now: one citta falls away to be followed by the next one. It is so fast, before one realizes it there is the next life. And we have forgotten all about this life. Just as when we were born, we did not know the past life that was just gone. Kh Sujin said that one may fear the pain before dying, but not the transition itself, fast and painless. D: asides weakness, I think it is fear which is obviously a problem of the dying consciousness , when the khandas disintegrate. For that we are advised to contemplate the "unavoidable fate " (i.e. when we are still strong). The respective text from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta serves as a guideline , though quite wellklnown , very worthwhile to recollect: 5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body - however it stands, however it is disposed - in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. [6] "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground - one day, two days, three days dead - bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'... "Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions - here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.' with Metta Dieter . #122189 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:04 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- <. . .> > RE: I agree with you. Since there is no sentient being and only presently arisen dhammas, that is the case no matter what we do. I am more interested in learning about dhammas here, whether I look at meditation and other activities the same way you do or not. If we talk about dhammas and you say "you know there are no 'activities' per se, just dhammas" that is something we can talk about. ------------ KH: I think that is an ideal starting point for a discussion. (And I hope Scott and others will join in.) We should be careful, however, not to digress from it. Everything we say in this discussion must be consistent with that starting point. ----------------- > RE: But when one says "You SHOULD do this, or you SHOULDN'T do that," then you are not understanding dhammas, you are just clinging to a view about activities. ---------------- KH: Yes, that is likely to be the case. It would also be possible, however, that the speaker is speaking conventionally while being mindful that there are really only dhammas. We'll have to watch for that. :-) ----------------------- > RE: [Just my view on views.] So why not stick to understanding what is happening in the moment, as everyone advises? ----------------------- KH: Yes, everyone advises that, but does everyone agree there are only dhammas? There is really nothing else "happening." Nothing else at all! -------------------- > RE: If we were ever to talk about what conventional activities really consist of, not in general but specifically - how does illusion arise, how do cittas create and cling to conceptual views and mistake them for reality, why do they keep being created by thought and seen as real by citta and how does this affect the path -- in detail; this would be interesting and worth going into. --------------------- KH: But if you remember our starting point, there are only dhammas: there are no conventional activities. Conventional activities consist neither of dhammas nor of anything else. There is *thinking* of conventional activities, and thinking is another word for certain dhammas performing their functions. So we could identify those dhammas. ----------------------------- > RE: But no one is too interested in concepts and conventional activities except to quickly dismiss them and say "there are only dhammas." Well, fine, but that's not really understanding much about the way in which every one of us lives every day, with arms, legs, cars and other people running around as if they were real. ------------------------------ KH: Who lives that way? Aren't there only dhammas? -------------------- > RE: I think we should either really look into the conventional world and how it arises, or else stick to talking about dhammas, not waste our time fighting back and forth with vague concepts about other concepts. --------------------- KH: Haven't we already agreed to do the latter? The conventional world is just a thought created by dhammas that think. As far as satipatthana is concerned there is nothing more to say about it. Ken H #122190 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -mana part 1 /2 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 24-jan-2012, om 17:14 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: I recognize that it is time for an overview of the (cetasika) > ditthi... (coming ..) > our discussion will be easier when we agree on the term and come > back to open questions , when it is ok with you... ------ N: Yes, of course. Whatever you like to do. Nina. #122191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (2) nilovg Dear Dieter, Thank you for the very appropriate quotes. Thinking, contemplating is not enough. There are these elements right now, and when we touch something, hardness may appear. There is no body there, just hardness that does not stay. It is an impersonal ruupa element. When the hardness causes painful feeling we think immediately: o, my body hurts. But gradually we can become familiar with different characteristics that appear one at a time. Nina. Op 24-jan-2012, om 18:06 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > 5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, > having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into > pieces, the monk contemplates this very body - however it stands, > however it is disposed - in terms of properties: 'In this body > there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire > property, & the wind property.' #122192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (3) nilovg Dear Han, thank you very much. Op 24-jan-2012, om 11:26 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Then what could one do? I, for one, will not depend too much on > aasanna kamma (death-proximate kamma) but rather depend on my > aacinna kamma (habitual kamma), the meritorious deeds one performs > regularly. The books say that aacinna kamma can operate only if > aasanna kamma is absent. But I would rather take that risk, than > depending on aasanna kamma over which I will have no control. > Whatever it may be, in the end, my past kusala kamma and my past > akusala kamma will sort it out by themselves and come up with an > appropriate result for my next rebirth. So, I do not have to worry. > I will do the meritorious deeds as best as I can while I am still > capable of doing it, and leave the results to my kamma.] > > ---------- > N: This is very well expressed. We cannot control aasanna kamma. > But relatives helping someone to have kusala cittas is still good, > also for the relatives themselves. They have kusala cittas while > doing so. > ------- > > [Han: Here, Margot Born and Bhante Gunaratana were talking about > "letting go." The "letting go" or "relinquishment" is usually > translated from the Paa.li word "pa.tinissagga." One may encounter > the word "pa.tinissagga" in many suttas. I found it mentioned in MN > 118 Aanaapaanasati sutta. > > 16. He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' > He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.' > > 'pa.tinissaggaanupassii assasissaamii'ti sikkhati, > 'pa.tinissaggaanupassii passasissaamii'ti sikkhati. > > Pa.tisambhidaa Magga elaborates further on it. > ---------- > N: I can add from the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 235): And with regard to the clause (XVI) contemplating relinquishment, the Visuddhimagga states: relinquishment is of two kinds too, that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relinquishment as entering into. Giving up is the giving up of defilements, and entering into is the entering into nibbna, the Visuddhimagga explains. We read: N: Letting go, pahaana, is a further stage of insight (pahaana pari~n~na), and this cannot be realized before the beginning stages, ~naata pari~n~na, full comprehension of what has been understood, and tiira.na pari~n~na, full investigating comprehension. Naama has to be realized as naama and ruupa as ruupa when they appear one at a time. That is the beginning. ---------- Nina. #122193 From: han tun Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist View of Death (3) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina, I cannot express how much I thank you, Nina. I have said before, and I will say it again. I really admire and respect your wealth of knowledge. I am still like a schoolboy, swaying to two extremes. For example, I previously believed that the relatives could help the dying man to have kusala cittas just before his death. Then I changed my mind and thought that it might not be useful. As the dying man is so weak he may not be able to hear what the relatives are saying. Then you struck the middle way. I like very much your comment that relatives helping someone to have kusala cittas is still good, also for the relatives themselves. They have kusala cittas while doing so. Thank you, Nina, for showing me the right way. Again, with regard to relinquishment, I have Visuddhimagga but I cannot read it all. I just happened to read what is written in Pa.tisambhidaamagga. I thought that was all. Then suddenly, you showed me that it is further elaborated in Visuddhimagga. I am now reading those paragraphs in Visuddhimagga with deep gratitude in my mind for your help. Your comment on three pari~n~na is also very useful. Please do continue to give me your wise comments on my serial presentations. Respectfully, Han --- On Wed, 1/25/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: This is very well expressed. We cannot control aasanna kamma. > But relatives helping someone to have kusala cittas is still good, > also for the relatives themselves. They have kusala cittas while > doing so. #122194 From: han tun Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:34 pm Subject: Buddhist View of Death (4) hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and others, This is the serial presentation of The Buddhist View of Death: An Interview with Bhante Gunaratana by Samaneri Sudhamma and Margot Born. -------------------- Samaneri Sudhamma: When you first talked about death, you said that there was conventional death and final death. Tell me about the final death! Bhante Gunaratana: The final death is the death of the enlightened person. An enlightened person has these thoughts. First, he thinks, "Well, I have done what was to be done. There's nothing more to do." This is the most exquisite, wonderful thought to have in mind. We can die at any moment. We don't have to wait to have this thought. Any moment we can think, "I have done so many things in my life. Those are the things I was supposed to do, and I have done them. What I'm doing now may be extra, extra duties in addition to my original duties. I can go very easily without these extra duties." Extra duties are an enlightened person's service to the world. They are not necessary for him, but the body and mind are there, and there are beings who support the body and mind, so why not live usefully and mindfully for their benefit, to support them. So he says, " For me there is nothing more to do. I have done everything." Secondly, and this is the enlightened person's rational thinking. It is based on the enlightened person's release of mind. He thinks, "I am liberated." This kind of thought appears in his mind without any effort, naturally. On the other hand, whenever he thinks of his body, he knows the nature of it and has no clinging. He's in a state of letting go of all things. Therefore he has nothing personal to hold onto -- no beings or thoughts or things like that. That also comes to him very naturally. But in some cases, in spite of all that letting go, a person still has the desire to be reborn. Perhaps he wants to be reborn in a better place or, if he's lived this life serenely, had an ideal life with an ideal wife, he might say, "I'd like to have this wife even in my next life. I want to be reborn to have the same kind of life I've had, to have the same comfort, the same emotional, spiritual satisfaction that made this life very peaceful. Therefore let me have this life again." Then no matter how noble the person is, the person will have the same life again. He will be reborn because, no matter how noble he is, he still has the desire. But an enlightened person is nobler than that. One who is liberated doesn't even have that desire. He knows that even that is mentally created. That is sankara [a mental formation, conditioned and impermanent]. Any sankara, no matter how wholesome it appears, is impermanent. Moreover, an enlightened person knows that his death is exhausted, that is, he will never die again. To die again, you have to be born again. "So this is my final death. This is my final birth. There is no more birth, no more death for me. There is nothing beyond this." He comes to this realization. So that is what is called the final death. When the enlightened person approaches his final death, he doesn't need any of those other consoling agents around him to help him, teachers and so forth to console his body and to console his mind. That person also doesn't have any of the memories of those death-proximate thoughts. An ordinary person remembers the things he's done, his kamma, and he has fears about where he'll be reborn. This is called a "sign." He will have a sign of the place where he is going to be born. This means that if at the moment of death, you're going to be reborn, you may see the human mother. If you're going to be reborn as an animal, you'll see the animal. Samaneri Sudhamma: Like a face? Bhante Gunaratana: Like a vision. Samaneri Sudhamma: A person? A womb? Bhante Gunaratana: If it's a human rebirth, maybe moisture, as in a womb. You might see a uterus and feel what it's like inside a uterus. If you're going to be reborn as a human you'll see that. If you're going to be reborn as a divine being, you'll see a peaceful place. But when final death is approaching, you don't see any of those signs. That's why it is called "Signless." There's no sign at that moment. And that is the Buddhist view of birth, death, and liberation. -------------------- Han: Towards the end of the above discussion, they were talking about the "signs" that appear before the dying person. Dr Mehm Tin Mon explained this in detail in his The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma. Mara.naasanna Nimitta (Kamma-related Objects at the Dying Moments) In the present life a person will be alive as long as the kusala-kamma (wholesome deed), which has given him rebirth in this life, keeps on supporting him, i.e., keeps on producing bhava"nga cittas (life continuum) as kamma-resultant. Just before that supporting kamma fades out, of the many kusala-kammas and akusala-kammas which compete with one another to have the chance of bearing kamma-resultant, one kamma will emerge as the winner. This successful kamma may appear in the life-continuum (mind-door) of the person as kamma-object. When this happens the person may recollect the good or bad action which he has performed in the past in connection with the successful kamma. The moral or immoral consciousness, experienced at that particular moment, arises now as a fresh consciousness. In other words, it is a recurring of the consciousness which one has experienced in performing the action. At times it may be a sign or symbol associated with the successful kamma that appears at one of the sense-doors. It may be one of the five physical objects viewed through one of the five doors as a present object, or viewed through the mind-door as a past object. This past or present object associated with the successful kamma is called "kamma-nimitta" or "sign of kamma". For example, let us suppose that a person listens to the Dhamma at his dying moment and this good kamma becomes the successful kamma to bear kamma-resultant for the next life. In this case, the present audible Dhamma words grasped through the ear becomes the "kamma-nimitta". In another case, let us suppose that a dying teacher sees through his mental eye (mano-vi~n~naa.na) the students he has taught. This is also "kamma-nimitta" in the form of a past object which appears at the mind-door. Or say, in another case, a dying butcher hears the groans of the cattle he has killed. This past audible object is also "kamma-nimitta" presented to him through the mind-door. At times some symbol of the place in which he is to be reborn according to the successful kamma may appear at the mind-door. For example, celestial beings or celestial mansions, etc., may appear to the dying person if he is to be reborn in one of the celestial abodes, or miserable people in hell or hellhounds, etc., may appear to him if he is to be reborn in hell. These objects related to the place of rebirth are known as "gati-nimitta" or "sign of destiny". Thus, when a person is dying, one of the three types of mara.naasanna-nimitta, namely, "kamma", "kamma-nimitta" or "gati-nimitta", will always appear at one of the six sense-doors. The person will die soon after and will be reborn in the next life. Then his pa.tisandhi-citta, bhava"nga-citta and cuti-citta in the new life will all grasp the mara.naasanna-nimitta of the past life. ---------- Han: Sayadaw U Nyanissara gave another example. Suppose a man had gone to Yangon Railway Station and bought a ticket and went to Mandalay. On his dying moment, if he sees in his mind the previous *act* of going to the railway station to buy the ticket, this is "kamma". If he sees in his mind the objects at the railway station that he had seen before, while buying the ticket, such as coaches, ticket booth, etc., this is "kamma-nimitta". If he sees in his mind Mandalay Hill or Mahaa-myat-muni pagoda in Mandalay, this is "gati-nimitta". ==================== Han: This is the End of The Buddhist View of Death: An Interview with Bhante Gunaratana by Samaneri Sudhamma and Margot Born. with metta and respect, Han #122195 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:47 pm Subject: Thanks for a great trip philofillet Hi all Back in my Bangkok hotel after a great trip to KK, wonderful discussions. The energy of A. Sujin to explain Dhamma, wow! And the amazing hospitality of Khun Deung Dhun (sp?) As I was saying to Sarah, I do intend to continue a try at more strictly limited internet use so I won"t launch into an account of any remembered discussion points. Thank you also Sarah and Jon for providing this website, which afforded the very valuable opportunity to listen to such a good Dhamma teacher as A. Sujin. Talk to you all again in a year or a few months, or next week, or in a minute when I realize I forgot to say something. But probably next year. Phil #122196 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:57 am Subject: What Causes Final Knowledge? bhikkhu5 Friends: What Induces the Final Knowledge? The Blessed Buddha once pointed out: 1: Considering the Transience of all Constructions, leads to final knowledge... 2: Contemplating the Pain within all passing states, leads to final knowledge... 3: Comprehending the Impersonality of all phenomena, leads to final knowledge... 4: Considering the advantage of Withdrawal by Detachment, leads to final knowledge... 5: Contemplating the Fading Away of Greed by fine Disillusion, leads to final knowledge... 6: Comprehending the Freedom, Bliss & Peace of Stilled Ceasing, leads to final knowledge... One endowed with Final Knowledge (Aññā ) knows: Rebirth has ceased, completed is this Noble life, done is what had to be done, there is no state of being higher, beyond, or after this... <....> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V 345], section 55:3 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html What Causes Final Knowledge? Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #122197 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:17 am Subject: Breath Meditation! bhikkhu5 Friends: How is constant Awareness Established only by Breathing? Sitting cross-legged, with straight back, elevated chin, in a silent place, the yogi remains focusing all attention on the touch point of air in his nostrils: Fully aware one inhales and fully aware one exhales... When inhaling a long breath, one notices just that... When exhaling a long breath, one notices just that... When inhaling a short breath, one notices just that... When exhaling a short breath, one notices just that... Experiencing the whole body, one inhales... Experiencing the whole body, one exhales... Calming all bodily activity, one inhales... Calming all bodily activity, one exhales... One trains thus: Experiencing joyous rapture, I will inhale... Experiencing joyous rapture, I will exhale... Experiencing a happy pleasure, I will inhale... Experiencing a happy pleasure, I will exhale... Experiencing all mental activity, I will inhale... Experiencing all mental activity, I will exhale... Calming all mental activity, I will inhale... Calming all mental activity, I will exhale... One trains thus: Experiencing & evaluating the present mood, I will inhale... Experiencing & evaluating the present mood, I will exhale... Satisfying, gladdening & elevating the mind, I will inhale... Satisfying, gladdening & elevating the mind I will exhale... Focusing & condensing the mind by concentration, I will inhale... Focusing & condensing the mind by concentration, I will exhale... Releasing the mind from any hindrance, I will inhale... Releasing the mind from any hindrance, I will exhale... One trains thus: Considering the impermanence inherent in all change, I will inhale... Considering the impermanence inherent in all change, I will exhale... Considering the detachment induced by disillusion, I will inhale... Considering the detachment induced by disillusion, I will exhale... Considering the stilled silence due to ceasing, I will inhale... Considering the stilled silence due to ceasing, I will exhale... Considering the open freedom of relinquishment, I will inhale... Considering the open freedom of relinquishment, I will exhale... This is how continuous Awareness is established just by breathing!!! Breathing meditation can bring the yogi into 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Jhna ... It is a unique praxis used by all Buddhas at their very Enlightenment!!! Details are found in this Meditation Manual: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/pdfs/anapanasati.pdf <....> Source: Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikya 118 npnasati: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #122198 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:48 am Subject: The Lamp! bhikkhu5 Friends: Having Free Choice of Emotional Response! The Blessed Buddha once explained: Bhikkhus, the concentration gained by Awareness by Breathing, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit & advantage. And how, Bhikkhus, is concentration by Awareness by Breathing developed & cultivated so that it is of great fruit & advantage? Bhikkhus, when a Bhikkhu, who has gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, there he sits down cross-legged, having straightened his body and back, & set up awareness around the nostrils, then just plainly aware of that itself he breathes in, and then just solely aware of only that breathing itself he breathes out... 1: Breathing in long, he knows, notes & understands: I inhale long! Breathing out long, he knows, notes & understands: I exhale long! ... ... ... ( steps 2-15) 16: He trains thus: Contemplating relinquishment, I will breathe in! He trains thus: Contemplating relinquishment, I will breathe out! It is, Bhikkhus, when Awareness by Breathing is trained, developed & refined in exactly this way that it is of great fruit & advantage! I too, Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while still a Bodhisatta , generally dwelt in this dwelling. Then neither did my body, nor did my eyes become tired & my mind, by not clinging, was freed from the mental fermentations ... Therefore, Bhikkhus, if a Bhikkhu wishes: May neither my body nor my eyes become tired & may my mind, by not clinging, become freed from the mental fermentations , this same concentration won by Awareness by Breathing should be closely attended to. Therefore, Bhikkhus, if a Bhikkhu wishes: May all the memories and motivations of the household life be left all behind by me, then this same concentration by Awareness by Breathing should be frequently trained and enthusiastically attended to. Therefore, Bhikkhus, if a Bhikkhu should come to wish: May I perceive only disgust in what is attractive & tempting... or May I perceive only beauty in what is repulsive & disgusting... or May I dwell unaffected in equanimity & quite aloof of both the attractive & the repulsive, just aware & clearly comprehending... then this same concentration by Awareness by Breathing should be cultivated often and devoted much wholehearted attention! <.....> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. [V:316-7] section 54: npnasamyutta. Thread 8: The simile of the Lamp! Free Choice of Emotional Response! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #122199 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:55 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ---------- > <. . .> > > RE: I agree with you. Since there is no sentient being and only presently arisen > dhammas, that is the case no matter what we do. I am more interested in > learning about dhammas here, whether I look at meditation and other activities > the same way you do or not. If we talk about dhammas and you say "you know > there are no 'activities' per se, just dhammas" that is something we can talk > about. > ------------ > > KH: I think that is an ideal starting point for a discussion. (And I hope Scott and others will join in.) We should be careful, however, not to digress from it. Everything we say in this discussion must be consistent with that starting point. Let's start by not assuming it to be the case, but also not digress from the topic. First let's find out what it means. When you say there are only dhammas, do you believe that there is nothing but dhammas in existence, or would you say that they are the only thing in human experience? In other words, is the entire world a pure illusion, a product of thought? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = =