#122600 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:32 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I don't understand the idea that right concentration is already there in every citta." > > Scott: That's because this is not correct. Concentration is with each moment - it functions in each moment as it does; it's not 'right' every time. Not all moments of consciousness are kusala, nor are all kusala moments of consciousness satipa.t.thaana. No need to place concentration on a pedestal nor chase after it. I have appreciated these clarifications. Just want to clarify that this was not my idea, but was quoted in an earlier post from one of the Abhidhamma sections. Perhaps it was a misquote. > Dhammasa"nga.ni: > > "What on that occasion is self-collectedness (citass' ekagataa)? The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought, which that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, unperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and power of concentration,right concentration - this is the self-collectedness that there then is [referring to kusala citta]." This seems to say that right concentration is present in all kusala cittas. Is this correct? This says that right concentration is present in the kusala citta. > Scott: The description of this mental factor is the same for when it arises with akusala citta, except that 'wrong concentration' is used in place of 'right concentration.' No big deal. Just a mental factor with characteristic and function. Except that right concentration is a path factor - it is different than simply kusala concentration. Why would rigth concentration be present in every kusala citta? Again, this seems contradictory. Not every kusala citta is part of the path. > Atthasaalinii: > > "...This concentration, known as one-pointedness of mind, has non-scattering (of itself) or non-distraction (of associated states) as characteristic, the welding together of coexistent states as function...and peace of mind or knowledge as manifestation...It is distinguished by having ease as proximate cause. Like the steadiness of the flame of a lamp in the absence of wind..." > > Scott: This is all it does in each moment. Peace of mind & concentration caused by ease? Sounds a lot like jhana. Rob E. -- - - - - - - - - - #122601 From: han tun Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:44 pm Subject: Those who faced Death with calm and equanimity hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and others, There is a Jaataka story that touches my heart. It is about how a Brahmin and his family, who dwell on the thought of death, face the death with calm and equanimity. It is lengthy, but I cannot break it up into installments without spoiling the story. No. 354. Uraga Jaataka Translated by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil Once upon a time when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares, the Bodhisatta was born in a brahmin household, in a village outside the gates of Benares, and rearing a family he supported them by field labour. He had two children, a son and a daughter. When the son was grown up, the father brought a wife home for him from a family of equal rank with his own. Thus with a female slave they composed a household of six: the Bodhisatta and his wife, the son and daughter, the daughter-in-law and the female slave. They lived happily and affectionately together. The Bodhisatta thus admonished the other five; "According as ye have received, give alms, observe holy days, keep the moral law, dwell on the thought of death, be mindful of your mortal state. For in the case of beings like ourselves, death is certain, life uncertain: all existing things are transitory and subject to decay. Therefore take heed to your ways day and night." They readily accepted his teaching and dwelt earnestly on the thought of death. Now one day the Bodhisatta went with his son to plough his field. The son gathered together the rubbish and set fire to it. Not far from where he was, lived a snake in an anthill. The smoke hurt the snake's eyes. Coming out from his hole in a rage, it thought, "This is all due to that fellow," and fastening upon him with its four teeth it bit him. The youth fell down dead. The Bodhisatta on seeing him fall, left his oxen and came to him, and finding that he was dead, he took him up and laid him at the foot of a certain tree, and covering him up with a cloak, he neither wept nor lamented. He said, "That which is subject to dissolution is dissolved, and that which is subject to death is dead. All compound existences are transitory and liable to death." And recognizing the transitory nature of things he went on with his ploughing. Seeing a neighbour pass close by the field, he asked, "Friend, are you going home?" And on his answering "Yes," he said, "Please then to go to our house and say to the mistress, "You are not to-day as formerly to bring food for two, but to bring it for one only. And hitherto the female slave alone has brought the food, but to-day all four of you are to put on clean garments, and to come with perfumes and flowers in your hands." "All right," he said, and went and spoke these very words to the brahmin's wife. She asked, "By whom, Sir, was this message given?" "By the brahmin, lady," he replied. Then she understood that her son was dead. But she did not so much as tremble. Thus showing perfect self-control, and wearing white garments and with perfumes and flowers in her hand, she bade them bring food, and accompanied the other members of the family to the field. But no one of them all either shed a tear or made lamentation. The Bodhisatta, still sitting in the shade where the youth lay, ate his food. And when his meal was finished, they all took up fire-wood and lifting the body on to the funeral pile, they made offerings of perfumes and flowers, and then set fire to it. But not a single tear was shed by any one. All were dwelling on the thought of death. Such was the efficacy of their virtue that the throne of Sakka manifested signs of heat. Sakka said, "Who, I wonder, is anxious to bring me down from my throne?" And on reflection he discovered that the heat was due to the force of virtue existing in these people, and being highly pleased he said, "I must go to them and utter a loud cry of exultation like the roaring of a lion, and immediately afterwards fill their dwelling place with the seven treasures." And going there in haste he stood by the side of the funeral pyre and said, "What are you doing?" "We are burning the body of a man, my lord." "It is no man that you are burning," he said. "Methinks you are roasting the flesh of some beast that you have slain." "Not so, my lord," they said. "It is merely the body of a man that we are burning." Then he said, "It must have been some enemy." The Bodhisatta said, "It is our own true son, and no enemy," "Then he could not have been dear as a son to you." "He was very dear, my lord." "Then why do you not weep?" Then the Bodhisatta, to explain the reason why he did not weep, uttered the first two stanzas: (1) "Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past, E'en as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. (2) No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." (1) "Uragova taca.m ji.n.na.m, hitvaa gacchati sa.m tanu.m; Eva.m sariire nibbhoge, pete kaalakate sati. (2) ".Dayhamaano na jaanaati, ~naatiina.m paridevita.m; Tasmaa eta.m na socaami, gato so tassa yaa gatii"ti. Sakka on hearing the words of the Bodhisatta, asked the brahmin's wife, "How, lady, did the dead man stand to you?" "I sheltered him ten months in my womb, and suckled him at my breast, and directed the movements of his hands and feet, and he was my grown up son, my lord." "Granted, lady, that a father from the nature of a man may not weep, a mother's heart surely is tender. Why then do you not weep?" And to explain why she did not weep, she uttered a couple of stanzas: (3) "Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go; E'en as he came, he went. What cause is here for woe? (4) No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." (3) "Anavhito tato aagaa, ananu~n~naato ito gato; Yathaagato tathaa gato, tattha kaa paridevanaa. (4) ".Dayhamaano na jaanaati, ~naatiina.m paridevita.m; Tasmaa eta.m na socaami, gato so tassa yaa gatii"ti. On hearing the words of the brahmin's wife, Sakka asked the sister: "Lady, what was the dead man to you?" "He was my brother, my lord." "Lady, sisters surely are loving towards their brothers. Why do you not weep?" But she to explain the reason why she did not weep, repeated a couple of stanzas: (5) "Though I should fast and weep, how would it profit me? My kith and kin alas! would more unhappy be. (6) No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." (5) "Sace rode kisaa assa.m, tassaa me ki.m phala.m siyaa; ~Naatimittasuhajjaana.m, bhiyyo no aratii siyaa. (6) ".Dayhamaano na jaanaati, ~naatiina.m paridevita.m; Tasmaa eta.m na socaami, gato so tassa yaa gatii"ti. Sakka on hearing the words of the sister, asked his wife: "Lady, what was he to you?" "He was my husband, my lord." "Women surely, when a husband dies, as widows are helpless. Why do you not weep?" But she to explain the reason why she did not weep, uttered two stanzas: (7) "As children cry in vain to grasp the moon above, So mortals idly mourn the loss of those they love. (8) No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." (7) "Yathaapi daarako canda.m, gacchantamanurodati; Eva.msampadameveta.m, yo petamanusocati. (8) ".Dayhamaano na jaanaati, ~naatiina.m paridevita.m; Tasmaa eta.m na socaami, gato so tassa yaa gatii"ti. Sakka on hearing the words of the wife, asked the handmaid, saying, "Woman, what was he to you?" "He was my master, my lord." "No doubt you must have been abused and beaten and oppressed by him and therefore, thinking he is happily dead, you weep not." "Speak not so, my lord. This does not suit his case. My young master was full of long-suffering and love and pity for me, and was as a foster child to me." "Then why do you not weep?" And she to explain why she did not weep, uttered a couple of stanzas: (9) "A broken pot of earth, ah! who can piece again? So too to mourn the dead is nought but labour vain. (10) No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." (9) "Yathaapi udakakumbho, bhinno appa.tisandhiyo; Eva.msampadameveta.m, yo petamanusocati. (10) ".Dayhamaano na jaanaati, ~naatiina.m paridevita.m; Tasmaa eta.m na socaami, gato so tassa yaa gatii"ti. Sakka after hearing what they all had to say, was greatly pleased and said, "Ye have carefully dwelt on the thought of death. Henceforth ye are not to labour with your own hands. I am Sakka, king of heaven. I will create the seven treasures in countless abundance in your house. Ye are to give alms, to keep the moral law, to observe holy days, and to take heed to your ways." And thus admonishing them, he filled their house with countless wealth, and so parted from them. ---------- Then Lord Buddha said: "At that time Khujjuttaraa was the female slave, Uppalava.n.naa the daughter, Raahula the son, Khemaa the mother, and I myself was the brahmin." ---------- Han: This story is also the background story for Dhammapada Verse 212. 212. Piyato jaayatii soko, piyato jaayatii bhaya.m, Piyato vippamuttassa natthi soko kuto bhaya.m. 212. Affection begets sorrow, affection begets fear. For him who is free from affection there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him? (translated by Daw Mya Tin) Han: Yes, if only I can be free from affection there will be no sorrow. But it is very difficult for me to do so. In Myanmar we usually call affection as "san-yo-zin" (from Paa.li word Sa.myojana). We have a song that says that although it has just three little words, it is very strong and it is very difficult for a puthujjana to cut it. That is why "piyehi vippayogo dukkho" (separation from those we love is suffering) is included in Dukkha Saccaa. with metta and respect, Han #122602 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 nilovg Dear Alex, Op 15-feb-2012, om 17:56 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > "An individual of the Neyya class can become a Sotpanna in this > present life, if he faithfully practises the bodhipakkhiya-dhamma > comprising satipatthana (four Applications of Mindfulness), > sammapadhana (Right Exertion), etc. If he is lax in his practice, > he can become a Sotapanna only in his next existence after being > reborn in the deva planes. If he dies while still aloof from these > (bodhipakkhiya-Dhammas) he will become a total loss so far as the > present Buddha Sasana is concerned, but he can still attain release > from worldly ills if he encounters the Sasana of the next Buddha." ------- N: I appreciate the text quote, it is a reminder not to be indolent, but continue to listen, to study, to consider, to begin to be aware of any dhamma appearing through one of the six doors. To me that is a beginning of pa.tipatti, practice. The listening is not in vain if understanding grows at those moments. Slowly we understand a little more, each time. But how much more is to be learnt, also details help. The four right efforts: these arise when there is mindfulness and understanding of whatever reality appears. ------ Nina. #122603 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 14-feb-2012, om 20:25 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > But the question of how kusala does arise in the moment is an > interesting one; and the question of how greater accumulations of > kusala lead to longer spates of kusala moments arising so that the > path progresses is also very interesting, and important. ------- N: When we listen to the right friend in Dhamma and we become interested in the teachings, we begin to understand what kusala is and what akusala. It is so easy to confuse lobha and kusala, they seem so close. It is understanding that sees the value of kusala and this is the condition that pure, sincere kusala can arise. We come to know what pure generosity is, as different from clinging to some gain for ourselves. Kusala citta arises and then falls away and it is accumulated from one citta to the next one. This is a condition for its arising again. Also kusala citta accompanied by right understanding of realities can arise again and again, stemming from listening to the Dhamma. Thus, understanding is accumulated very gradually. When we understand that the development of the Path is momentary, namely at the moment there is right awareness and understanding of a reality as naama or as ruupa, there can be more of such moments. I am careful to use the word progress on the path. There is no self who makes progress, and progress may induce one to believe that this can proceed rapidly. Better not to think of any progress, just the present moment. That is all. ------ Nina. #122604 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" nilovg Dear Alex, Op 15-feb-2012, om 3:11 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > 18. "That person considers improperly thus: 'Did I exist in the > past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I > in the past?[15] In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the > subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist > in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the > future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?' > > "Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I > exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I ? From where has this > soul come? Where will this soul go?'" ------ N: What we read here are examples of doubt about realities. Your discussion was about the non-self. There are many texts about personality belief: sakkaya di.t.thi. This pertains to each of the khandhas: four ways in which a "self" conceives each of the khandhas and this is refuted. Then see Dhammapada: all dhammas are anattaa. The only way to have understanding of such texts is being aware of the dhamma appearing at this moment. Understanding how it is conditioned. Like seeing now. If there is no eyesense and visible object and if these do not associate, there could not be any seeing. More understanding of ayatanas, dhammas that associate, can help us to have more understanding of anattaa. Otherwise we read texts and dispute different interpretations and then we always are engaged with theoretical understanding. ------- Nina. #122605 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Those who faced Death with calm and equanimity nilovg Dear Han, Op 16-feb-2012, om 10:44 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > 212. Affection begets sorrow, > affection begets fear. > For him who is free from affection > there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him? > (translated by Daw Mya Tin) > > Han: Yes, if only I can be free from affection there will be no > sorrow. But it is very difficult for me to do so. In Myanmar we > usually call affection as "san-yo-zin" (from Paa.li word > Sa.myojana). We have a song that says that although it has just > three little words, it is very strong and it is very difficult for > a puthujjana to cut it. > > That is why "piyehi vippayogo dukkho" (separation from those we > love is suffering) is included in Dukkha Saccaa. > --------- > Thank you, this is a very important Jataka and Christine referred to it long ago. Nobody wept, and I was considering this. As you say, hard to apply this. Only the anaagaami has such strong understanding that all dosa and unpleasant feeling have been eradicated. Even ariyans who are not anaagaami can die of a broken heart, as Rob K. often referred to. I passed on your last instalment about death to Lodewijk and he appreciates it very much. He wanted me to print it out for him. He always appreciates your wisdom, he said. ------- Nina. #122606 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Scott, Op 14-feb-2012, om 5:11 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > You want discussion and yet discussants don't discuss - they > repeatedly state the same message without ever varying it. There is > no wish to discuss, as far as I can tell. ------- N: All people here sincerely study and when not satisfied with the answer they insist with the dilemma. I think that is very good. Why doubt people's sincerity? Scott, I found your posts where you are not so personal, really excellent. Like about your dying cat, very human. And also some other posts, they gain so much when you are not thinking of 'they and me'. Without noticing this we all are inclined to think of 'they and me', and it is helpful to know that that is conceit. But you know this, and of course we all have conceit until arahatship has been reached. ------ Nina. #122607 From: han tun Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Those who faced Death with calm and equanimity hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your useful comments and for your kind words. with metta and respect, Han --- On Thu, 2/16/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Thank you, this is a very important Jataka and Christine referred to it long ago. Nobody wept, and I was considering this. As you say, hard to apply this. Only the anaagaami has such strong understanding that all dosa and unpleasant feeling have been eradicated. Even ariyans who are not anaagaami can die of a broken heart, as Rob K. often referred to. I passed on your last instalment about death to Lodewijk and he appreciates it very much. He wanted me to print it out for him. He always appreciates your wisdom, he said. ------- Nina. #122608 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:19 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (122283) > > > =============== > > RE: Well, in a technical way, a moment of kusala could arise here and there as individual moments and pass completely unnoticed, though they will add a drop to the kusala tendency, but I would take it that when kusala accumulates to the point where it becomes a steadier tendency through accumulation, then we would see some sort of manifestation of kusala in a longer series of moments, due to the greater accumulated tendency. So if we notice that someone very clearly reaches out to someone to help them in a moment of spontaneous and sincere compassion, would that conventional event represent the accumulation of kusala, or would the accumulation and manifestation of kusala always be so fleeting that no one would be able to discern its results except someone who perceives dhammas directly? > > =============== > > J: Kusala can only be 'seen' by panna, that is to say, the panna of the person in whom the kusala arises (this includes panna of the level of samatha as well as of vipassana). > > It is not really possible to know from observing the actions of another the extent to which those acts are motivated by kusala. Well, I understand that we can't have that kind of certainty, and that it's not really a question of observation of someone else, but I'm just wondering whether that relationship exists - in other words, can the accumulation of kusala result in the "doing" of meritorious actions. Would there be potentially at least a kind of kusala kamma patha that would express as those rupas that we interpret as acts of generosity, good humor, etc.; keeping in mind that we can't know whether that is the case in any given instance. And for ourselves, would we possibly find ourselves experiencing more positive "action rupas" as kusala accumulates? I would imagine at least that these sorts of tendencies would show in the rupas that we see as our everyday conventional lives. For instance, I don't imagine that arahats would be often found hanging around drinking in bars or cursing and playing dice on a regular basis, and that we'd more likely find them doing things that are conventionally benign or helpful - but maybe I'm wrong about that... I recall that Sarah said that she would never kill an insect as it would involve such negative kamma, and that kind of struck me that this is a conventional pronouncement that yet has some definite meaning because of the kusala cetana that is involved. There's a certain level of evolution there, reflected in that conventional "vow" if you will. Sarah's "cittas" you could say just know that that cetana and those rupas are to be avoided, and maybe that understanding has accumulated to the point where she really won't kill an insect. That pattern of akusala is mainly defeated at this point in her understanding. Not to overly use Sarah as an example, but I thought this one was handy, and it really did strike me as being telling in a way for how accumulations may express themselves. After all, the cetana and the rupas of "killing an insect" does reflect a kind of ignorance and aversion that eventually has to go! > But I'm not sure whether the issue you have in mind relates only in the context of the observed acts of another, as you have described it, or whether it concerns the development of kusala generally. If the latter, perhaps you could restate the question. Thanks. Well, I'm very interested in the general development of kusala as well. On the dhamma level in which this really takes place, I guess we would start to experience longer periods of kusala cittas arising and start to lose some of the extended periods of suffering that attend so much attachment and aversion as well as the poisons and cittas arising from the akusala roots [as pt pointed out and I'm now incorporating in my vocabulary - learning gradually... :-) ] So if there are longer periods of peacefulness and right concentration and ease and clear seeing arising in more arising moments of these kusala cittas, then there's an overall sense of being in a different phase of life, I would think, and the cittas learning what is peaceful instead of what is painful and arising with increasing accumulations. I would guess that eventually it is like the snowball heading downhill and it will become easier for this to develop, but that it will be a long while of experiencing an uphill sort of climb as the cittas go up and down and all around, experiencing akusala and kusala by rapid turns. > > =============== > > RE: I am talking about what you are talking about - kusala accumulations leading to more kusala. If there is a series of kusala moments that represent a greater accumulation of kusala, that would be the kusala result. But I wonder if we can see the echo of this in conventional metta and acts of compassion, at least when it really does have kusala behind it? > > =============== > > J: The point is that it is just not possible to know to what extent an observed conventional act of compassion is accompanied by kusala. I understand. Still - there may be a correspondency, even though we can't say "yes, there it is!" Or there may be subtle or not-so-subtle akusala behind a conventional action, as I think you are implying. > (BTW, in terms of the teachings, the relationship between previous moments of kusala and subsequently arising moments of the same kusala is that of 'natural decisive support condition' (Pali: pakatuppanissaya). The latter are not said to be the 'result' of the former. The term 'result' usually refers to vipaka citta.) That is something good to think about. What is the difference between conditionality, such as the NDSC you mention, versus a "cause." Maybe you could say a little more about how conditionality works as opposed to causation...? > > =============== > > > J: I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of deducing the nature of cittas from the conventional action. The teaching is about directly knowing cittas as they arise. Perhaps you could expand on the significance of the approach you're putting forward. > > > > RE: How does one directly know cittas? Isn't there some gradual development there as well? And how does that take place? > > =============== > > J: The question, "How does one directly know cittas?" is the question everyone would like to know the answer to :-)). :-) > However, there's no simple or straightforward answer. The fact is that cittas can only be known by the mental factor of panna, and panna arises by a set of conditions that do not include the deliberate attempting to have it arise. > > You are right about the gradual nature of the development of the path. > > Everything begins (and keeps on beginning) with hearing the teachings appropriately explained and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. Really a good discussion -- from my standpoint. I appreciate the exchange! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122609 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Thank you, Nina! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: When we listen to the right friend in Dhamma and we become > interested in the teachings, we begin to understand what kusala is > and what akusala. It is so easy to confuse lobha and kusala, they > seem so close. It is understanding that sees the value of kusala and > this is the condition that pure, sincere kusala can arise. We come to > know what pure generosity is, as different from clinging to some gain > for ourselves. Kusala citta arises and then falls away and it is > accumulated from one citta to the next one. This is a condition for > its arising again. > Also kusala citta accompanied by right understanding of realities can > arise again and again, stemming from listening to the Dhamma. Thus, > understanding is accumulated very gradually. > When we understand that the development of the Path is momentary, > namely at the moment there is right awareness and understanding of a > reality as naama or as ruupa, there can be more of such moments. I am > careful to use the word progress on the path. There is no self who > makes progress, and progress may induce one to believe that this can > proceed rapidly. Better not to think of any progress, just the > present moment. That is all. = = = = = = = = = = #122610 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: What we read here are examples of doubt about realities. Sure. But teaching that "there is no self" is explained by the Buddha to Ananda to be annihilationist view (SN44.10) . The Buddha taught anatta. >Dhp all dhammas are anattaa. This still doesn't say that "there is no self" which the Buddha considered to be annihilationist view. When we check Dhp quote in full, it appears to suggest anatta as a strategy. One considers all dhammas to be not-self in order to remove clinging rather than get stuck on metaphysical anihhiliatinist view of "there is no self". With metta, Alex #122611 From: Lukas Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:49 am Subject: tragedy of addictions szmicio Dear friends, Not good with me, I am drinking all the time. I wake up and feel I must drink. Now I feel very weak, my body is weak, I drink one bear and I am so drunk. Best wishes Lukas #122612 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:16 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > >But there is some caution about whether there is akusala >cetana >behind the desire to develop the path. > >=================== > > There can be less-than-ideal aspiration such as to practice Dhamma to be reborn in heaven. But even this is not akusala. It is just not the best goal to strive after and it still leaves one vulnerable to bad kammavipaka that can ripen some time later. > > But even here, it *can* be used skillfully. Do you remember Nanda's story? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.02.irel.html > > In AN4.159 craving and conceit can be used as stimulus for developing the path. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html > > So even with "akusala" things one can still use it for the path. > Akusala is almost a given mental reaction for most people, so we might as well use "lemons to make a lemonade" rather than give up and wait for better times in some vague future. > > I believe that if one doesn't do the best one can NOW saying ("lets wait till accumulations are right), then the better situation will NOT arise. Better circumstances happen when you set the causes for them to happen. I tend to agree with this, but I understand the opposing view as well. I do agree that Buddha taught how to use meditation and other life situations to develop the path. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #122613 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > A good quote: > > "The other extreme is when other people encourage you to give up exerting any control over anything at all. They tell you to try not to have desire for anything; just accept everything as it is, and be content that that's all you can do. This, of course, makes it impossible to practice the path. You simply try to clone awakening: You hear that an awakened person has no desire, so you tell yourself to have no desire; an awakened person has no preferences, so you tell yourself to have no preferences. This is twisting the horns of a cow in trying to get milk and seeing that no milk is coming out, so you say, "Oh, well, there must be no way of getting milk because I've been twisting the horn for a long time. So I should just accept the fact that milk is unattainable." > > That's an unskillful use of the not-self perception. > > The Buddha's strategy in using the perception of not-self is to train you to understand accurately what does lie under your control and what doesn't; abandoning what doesn't; and then using what level of control you do have in a skillful direction so that you can ultimately put an end to suffering." What kind of control do you think can be exerted, and how does such exertion take place? Buddha did clearly state that the khandas were not-self because they absolutely could not be controlled, and therefore were not connected to the idea that one might have of self. It shows the false assignment of control to a self that clearly is not connected to the objects it wishes to control, so that self-concept is a delusion. I still would like to know: if all khandas are not-self, and are therefore not self, what else is there to exercise control? Is there anything that is not contained within the khandas? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122614 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:25 am Subject: Re: tragedy of addictions epsteinrob Hi Lukas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, > Not good with me, I am drinking all the time. I wake up and feel I must drink. Now I feel very weak, my body is weak, I drink one bear and I am so drunk. I suggest that it is time for you to check into rehab or go to a hospital to get help. This is not a situation you can handle on your own. If you can't get there yourself, call someone right away and get someone to take you. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #122615 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Nina, all, > > >N: What we read here are examples of doubt about realities. > > Sure. But teaching that "there is no self" is explained by the Buddha to Ananda to be annihilationist view (SN44.10) . The Buddha taught anatta. > > >Dhp all dhammas are anattaa. > > This still doesn't say that "there is no self" which the Buddha considered to be annihilationist view. > > When we check Dhp quote in full, it appears to suggest anatta as a strategy. One considers all dhammas to be not-self in order to remove clinging rather than get stuck on metaphysical anihhiliatinist view of "there is no self". As one of the terrible literalists in this group, I don't make up stories about what the Buddha really meant when he said something. He taught very clearly that all khandas are anatta. He did so in great detail and demonstrated why this is so, one khanda at a time. Such a detailed study, with no hint that it was a strategy, does not suggest that this was merely a strategic artifice, but that he really meant it as an analysis of all experience. It seems to me that those who try to create the possibility that perhaps the khandas are really not anatta, but it is just a way of detaching not based on the truth, and perhaps the Buddha did not believe there was no self, are creating a back door by which the self-view can be reinstated and held onto, so one doesn't have to face the stark reality of anatta. Anatta is not-self. It isn't anything else. I am equally suspicious of all terms and translations that seem to place self back in the picture, such as "own-being" as a translation of sabhava, so I am not just prejudiced against this idea, but of any backtracking on the reality of anatta. It is my opinion that if one doesn't accept anatta as the central truth of reality, then one does not really understand the Buddha's message. When Buddha says that he will not state "there is no self" he did not say he was refraining from this because there *is* a self, but because he did not want to say something that would tend to verify the annihilationist view *to the annihilationists* who were involved in the discussion. He may very well have been saying that they would take it the wrong way. He also said that he will not say that there *is* a self because that would tend to feed the beliefs of the eternalists. So what I get out of that is that it is a tricky subject no matter what you say, and so he didn't want to feed deluded views by making a definitive statement. The statement has to be made more clear through detailed analysis, and the detailed analysis is where he says that every single khanda is not one's self or a part of self, and that they are all anatta, every single one. Again, I ask you what is left over if all the khandas are anatta. Is there anything else that is not within the khandas? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122616 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:27 am Subject: Just checking re no-control truth_aerator Hello RobertE, >RE:What kind of control do you think can be exerted, and how does >such >exertion take place? >================================ Kusala and Akusala kamma for example. >Buddha did clearly state that the khandas were not-self because they >absolutely could not be controlled, No control was stated in the context of (SN 22.59) : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html "since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction," [and same for other 4 aggregates]. One cannot force body only to be perpetually young and beautiful, never get sick at all, experience ONLY pleasant feelings, have only happy mental states, etc. As for control The Buddha has said: "Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' ... Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html Lets re read AN3.61 . It denies that past causes one to be killer, thief, unchaste, etc. With best wishes, Alex #122617 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, > He taught very clearly that all khandas are anatta. Yes. And if He wanted, these hundreds of cases were perfect opportunity for 6th statement, "thus there is no self (natthatta). But this would contradict SN44.10 Buddha was interested in empirical reality and what to do with it, treat it as not-self. Not-self (Anatta) is not the same as No-Self (natthatta). >Anatta is not-self. Right. But there is difference between "not" and "no" I accept Anatta as central. But natthatta was called to be Annihilationist view by the Buddha to Ananda. >When Buddha says that he will not state "there is no self" he did >not say he was refraining from this because there *is* a self, but >because he did not want to say something that would tend to verify >the annihilationist view *to the annihilationists* who were involved >in the discussion. >============================ The Buddha gave this explanation to Ananda, who was stream enterer and NOT annihilation. Ananda who understood dependent origination would have grasped such teaching properly. Anatta as a strategy is not a backdoor for Self. Rather it is a tool to help reduce craving at the proper times. In MN#2 speculations about the Self or its non-existence are classified as inappropriate reflection. The appropriate reflection is not "self doesn't exist" but 4NT. With metta, Alex #122618 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:47 am Subject: Infinite is Friendliness! bhikkhu5 Friends: Infinite Friendliness promotes a Peaceful Living in Happiness! Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees. Non-violence is happiness in this world: Harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 Train yourself in doing only good that lasts and brings great happiness. Cultivate generosity, a peaceful living, and a mentality of infinite friendliness. Itivuttaka 16 Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Sutta Nipâta I, 8 May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings one and all, without exception, experience good fortune only. May they not fall into any harm. Anguttara Nikâya II, 72 Who is hospitable, open and friendly, Generous, gentle and unselfish, A guide, an instructor, a leader, Such a one to honour may attain. Digha Nikâya 31 For one who deliberately & aware develops Universal Friendliness Seeing the fading away of clinging, All chains are worn down & broken. Itivuttaka 27 <...> Infinite is Friendliness! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #122619 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:04 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (122324) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > Part II. > ... > > J: Regarding "the arahat goes back and forth experientially from dhammas to conventions (so that they can eat, talk to people)". That is not a description I've met before. Can you remember where you saw it? > > RE: That's just my understanding of what is said, that the arahat experiences dhammas directly, but also has concepts arise and is able to regard himself and other people in the conventional way, although without delusion. An arahat knows clearly that no person exists, that there are just dhammas, yet he is able to talk, teach, eat, etc. Is that not your understanding? > =============== J: I have no problem with what you've just said here, except to point out that the seeing of things without delusion is achieved at the first stage of enlightenment, sotapatti-magga. With the eradication of wrong view at sotapattimagga, all subsequent thinking (and conceptualising) is freed of any influence of previously held deluded ideas regarding the way things are in truth and reality. So it is not a matter of the enlightened being "going back and forth experientially from dhammas to conventions", as you put it in your earlier post. Just as for the unenlightened being, there continues to be the experience of objects through the sense-doors followed by multiple mind-door moments that 'process' those sense-door experiences. > =============== > > J: Moments of intention accompanying deeds are significant. These moments are either kamma or they accumulate and may become kamma later. > > RE: Well if that is so, why would you object to my idea that we can use the way we behave in the conventional world as signposts to the dhammas that are arising? If I punch someone in the face in anger, that's a pretty good sign that there are akusala dhammas accompanying that action, and vice versa, if I treat people with kindness and it is sincere, that there is an accumulation of kusala accompanying it? > > I understand that something may seem kusala and really be akusala, but that doesn't mean that there is no correspondence as a general principle. > =============== J: You are suggesting that, as a general rule, a person's mind-state can be deduced from the nature of the conventional act being done. I don't see any significance in this as regards the development of the path (especially given the qualifications and exceptions to the general rule that you have identified). As far as I know, the texts do not mention such a proposition either. What is its significance for you? Jon #122620 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "All people here sincerely study and when not satisfied with the answer they insist with the dilemma..." Scott: I guess that that would include me, and I am not satisfied. This is, clearly, my problem... Scott. #122621 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:20 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Rob E, Rob E: > I would if I understood what it meant. I don't understand how something can be non-existent and "free of time" at the same time. If it just means it doesn't exist in time because it doesn't exist at all, that is indeed redundant and gives a misleading impression that there is some special relationship between time and the concept. Suk: We talk about time even though it is only a concept, and we make reference to other concepts and react to them even though they do not exist. This is because realties rise and fall away while performing various functions, one following another on and on. Thinking is one of those realities at which time concepts are the object of consciousness. So on one hand we have realities that are said to rise and fall away one following another, hence the the sense of time. On the other hand we refer to concepts even though they do not exit but often mistaken to be so. It is only the Dhamma that can point out to us this distinction between concept and reality and how time is determined by one and not the other. So is there really anything wrong in stating that a concept does not exist in time or that it is time-freed in a Dhamma discussion? If you have a problem with the further qualification, why not to saying anything at all with regard to concepts including that they do not exist? ========== > > S: Again, this is emphasizing the difference between concept and reality. As you know the idea of "emptiness" is used by the Mahayana indiscriminately, to apply to everything, including concepts. So in pointing out sabhava with regard to realities, we are saying that the general characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta (sunnata) applies only to realities with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and cause and not to concepts. Rob E: > I understand pointing out that only dhammas have characteristics and I understand that point. But that does not explain the precious-sounding attribution of "own-being" instead of just saying "real" or "existent." No matter how you slice it own-being has a misleading sense of importance and ownership, which defeats the feeling of unimportance and detachment. I am trying to deal with the term here, not the meaning that it *should* indicate, which is fine. Suk: This is funny. While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!? But then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand Anatta and have ended up making 'selves' out of dhammas….. ======= > > S: Howard for example, has been making this point here for many years, but I don't think that there is any ground for this, but more a case of being caught up in philosophy. Indeed it is the argument by Mahayana in their attempt to promote "Emptiness", which to me is not a result of understanding, but infatuation with the particular concept. ;-) Rob E: > But that is my point - that svabhava seems to have its own sense of infatuation for dhammas as being special and substantial. Two wrongs don't make a right. Suk: But you misunderstood my point. I wasn't pointing to the use of the term "emptiness", but to the understanding behind the concept and reason why it was taught. In the Tipitaka the term sunnata is also used, but with a different meaning from the Mahayana. With regard to Sabhava (and not svabhava as conceived of by you and Mahayana), this has been taught by the same people who have gone to great lengths to explain how the reality now has already fallen away by the time it is known. You do not even understand this. So really the fear of infatuation with the use of the particular term is only yours. And this is only a part of the objection towards the general understanding, namely, one which the Theravada commentaries expound. ====== Rob E: > When you talk about anatta, specific characteristics of dhammas and distinguish them, talk about their functions, their rising and falling away - all descriptive of their reality, that is all fine and helps the understanding. But when you summarize that reality by using the two words own and being -- two words that smack of substantiality and eternalism much more than almost anything I can think of -- I can't say that this term is helpful or stands well for the realities you are describing. Suk: Well, I think the problem is that when you say that you "understand" the other descriptions, it is not really pariyatti understanding, but more as a philosophical position. If it was pariyatti understanding, it would be with reference to the reality now where no words need to be had. Likewise if sabhava was understood as referring to the present moment reality, you'd not think to object to the term. The "being" and "own" simply point to the dhamma, any dhamma which appears and understood as "real" and different from another dhamma. Indeed it is with the kind of perception that substantialism and eternalism is directly addressed. You are philosophizing about it all and hence the proliferation on to thinking that correcting the terms can lead to right understanding. ======= Rob E: It seems ornate rather than simple, and triumphal rather than simple. Suk: You think too much and wrongly. ;-) ====== Rob E: I have no problem with the realities, just the term used to indicate them. I'm not a big fan of "paramatha" either. "Ultimate" has the sense of special and wonderful, not just "final" or "real" as it should. So personally I suspect that some self-view has crept into the creation of these terms and "perfumed" them. Suk: Is it 'paramatha' or the English translation, 'ultimate'? If the latter, what do you propose in its place? If the former, then I'd suggest that you are not really in the position to question it, given how little understanding there is of present moment realities. But again why are you questioning this when you know that it means final and real? Should this not instead encourage continued study aimed at direct understanding and insight? ====== > > It appears that the objection and argument with regard to self-view creeping in is without any basis. It is in understanding a dhamma as dhamma, each different from the other as against a 'whole', that self-view is directly addressed. Sabhava is one way in which impersonal elements and the difference between them are emphasized. On the other hand, taking concepts for real is attanuditthi with attasanna. Rob E: > I am talking about the term only, not the intention or the specific realities described and distinguished. If you really think "own-being" has a feeling of detachment and simplicity, then I am very surprised. It sounds like something special and entity-related to me, no matter how I try to justify it. Again, it is the term and its flavor or "perfume" that I am talking about. And to me it has a strong emanation that is off key. Suk: Well, as I suggested earlier, yours is interest in philosophizing and not in understanding the present moment reality and this is where the problem is. Detachment is the function of alobha cetasika which arises with any level of panna, including pariyatti. If the importance of studying the present moment is not seen, changing the terms to suit one's taste will only result in more attachment instead of detachment. I know that we've been through this debate before…. ======= Rob E: > Well I think we should be able to account to the indisputable fact that we spend much of our time thinking about them. So rather than getting verbal hair-splitting about the meanign of the word "existence," we should talk about what *kind* of existence they have. They obviously exist as a part of the content of thought, and not as realities, so we should talk about what the difference is, not create verbal self-contradictions like saying something is "non-existent" yet it is present in thought, yet it doesn't arise or fall, so it is "time-freed." These kinds of terms butting up against each other create a very confusing mess which has not just caught me, but many more educated members of this list, in its web of weird terminological contradictions. Suk: On the other hand there are those who read the same thing and are motivated to study the present moment. And although this mostly happens at the intellectual level, the understanding here is that it is characteristic of dhammas that are to be known directly such that while thinking about dhammas, the thinking as a reality is what should be known and not the concepts thought about. It is strange the kind of objection, given that the person who is making it insists on going by ideas about 'meditation' and another time, place and posture, something which clearly goes at the expense of understanding what appears "now" and reflects lack of understanding about the nature of dhammas! :-/ ====== > > So really, how bad can saying that concepts are time-freed be when this in fact points to the fact that concepts *do not exist*? Rob E: > It doesn't point to it, it confuses it. And saying they don't exist is also confusing, since they are part of thought. The whole thing is confusing. We can't even talk about how they come into thought because then it seems like we're saying "they arise" when they don't. And yet there they are running our lives through thoughts about cars, bodies, people etc. Instead of being able to say how these concepts come into thought and wield such influence on our thoughts, we have to walk on eggshells or run the risk of using the wrong term. And there is no right term to talk about their illusory "existence." It's a mess! Suk: Perhaps you need to agree first that CONCEPTS DO NOT RUN OUR LIVES, ONLY DHAMMAS EXIST AND PERFORM FUNCTIONS. The suggestion that concepts arise or come into existence is wrong because we maintain at the same time that only dhammas rise and fall and exist? This then means that at any time, there are only realities and that at no time, do concepts exist. A keyboard is object of consciousness, but only citta, cetasika and rupa rise and fall away. This is the same every time that keyboard is conceived of, namely that in reality only dhammas exist with the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. So to say that a keyboard is 'time freed' is a reminder to any level of understanding that it is only dhammas that are rising and falling away. What's the problem with this!? ======== Rob E: > Well being is a dangerous word to use since it usually implies a depth of existence or quality. So why use it as a term for what something is? It's either misleading or else its sneaking a sense of self into the dhamma. Either way it's difficult, and combined with "own" which implies ownership on the part of a self, it's deadly. Suk: I made a comment regarding this above somewhere. ======= Rob E: > That's a good point, but I still don't see why those terms are there at all. Own-being is not necessary. It is a dangerous label no matter what it stands for. It is redundant of characteristic but with much more unnecessary implicativeness. Suk: A linguist, a philosopher or a scholar studying the Texts have a different perspective with regard to the terms used from that of a Dhamma student. ====== Rob E: > Okay, well that all seems fine and is helpful. I still think the way we talk about concepts, though, is difficult. Suk: I think as understanding increases it becomes easier. By this I do not mean the ability to explain, but rather that doubt as to the difference between reality and concept decreases. ====== Rob E: > No, I'm just looking at what is there - thoughts do take place and they do have these objects. I'd just like to be able to talk about this fact without falling into "illegal terminology." Suk: And this is solved only by developing more understanding about realities and not through changing the terms that have been part of the Theravada tradition for more than 2000 years which those we should respect have not thought to change. ======= Rob E: > It's also difficult to make progress when there is no legal way to talk about something. Suk: A third person observer might wonder, "This fellow Rob E has been around for more than 12 years and seen how Nina, Sarah and others have used these terms. Why doesn't he just go along with those particular understandings instead of trying to change and come up with some more legal expression? Is not his sense of urgency misplaced?";-) ======= Rob E: I understand the way in which concepts do not exist - they don't refer to anything that actually is out there. No cars, bodies etc. They are "just thoughts." But of course they do exist as thoughts! It is the concept that we think exists as a reality that is said to "not exist" and I understand that. Suk: Again "not exists" means "not exists", whether out there or as object of consciousness. "Existence" applies only to realities during their three phases of rising, persisting and falling away. And your last sentence should be, "It is the concepts that we think about, that is said to not exist". Thinking simply thinks it does not take the thoughts for real. This latter is the function of wrong view. ======= Rob E: But to say they "don't exist" even as concepts is just frustrating. Suk: So you want to say that concepts exist as concepts? Fine, so long as exist here means that they are simply objects of consciousness and not as in how realities are said to exist. ====== Rob E: When I say they exist as thoughts, I mean they *only* exist as thoughts, but we should be able to talk about them that way, because they are indeed the content of thinking, even though they are wrong view and don't exist in the world. Suk: To think about concepts is not wrong view. To think that they exist, is. I can think about getting up from my seat and getting ready to go out somewhere. This in my case must be mostly with ignorance and attachment, but is there also wrong view? Maybe not at all. Metta, Sukin #122622 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Dear Nina, > N: Own being, sa-bhava is just an unfortunate translation from Pali. > Bhava means nature, and with its own nature means rather, as Sukin > explains, with its own characteristic, nothing more than that. Kh > sujin speaks often about sabhava dhammas (in Thai: sepaap tham) as > just: realities with their own characteristics. Thank you Nina. You have in all these years written so much about conditionality, the understanding about which implies that no reality can arise without certain other realities arising together with it. And it also means that all realities rise and fall away completely in an instant. Why should someone who gets this message from reading your works think that there is danger in the concept of sabhava in leading to making dhammas into little selves each self-existing? I take this opportunity to thank you for your great contributions to the development of Right Understanding. You are a good Dhamma friend to us all. Metta, Sukin #122623 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Azita, > Azita: Isn't it because of these realities with their own characteristics that concepts come about? If there were no realities there would be no concepts. > Mayb thats me making it too simple, however its the way I understand realities and concepts. I think that without some degree of right understanding of the way realities 'operate' then there will be confusion as to how concepts come to be, Yes, I think the study of realities is the only worthy endeavor with regard to the development of Right Understanding. Metta, Sukin #122624 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti ptaus1 Hi Scott, > pt: "Not sure I can add anything new to what I've already said..." > > Scott: Except whether or not you consider a concept to have some sort of 'reality.' I think I just figured out what you're after, sorry it took this long - I imagine you basically want my opinion on the matter. Problem is I don't really have a distinct opinion on this one, so I can only report things I read/heard that I think I understand, and others that I don't really understand. E.g. processes of cittas in relation to this issue make sense to me, whereas statements like "concepts are/n't real" only make vague or no sense to me at the moment. There seem to be three ways of reasoning on the non/reality of concepts that I could identify, neither of which I fully understand: 1. if we say that "concepts are outside the range of panna", and we also say that "panna penetrates what's real", then it seems that concepts are not real because they are not penetrated by panna during insight (whereas dhammas are). 2. if we say that "panna can tell the difference between dhamma and concept", and we say "panna penetrates what's real" then it seems that concepts are real because panna can known them as distinct from dhammas (though I don't understand how if they don't have characteristics). 3. if we just say "concepts are outside the range of panna", then it seems the issue of non/reality of concepts is irrelevant to insight, because panna can never know one way or the other because concepts (and their non/reality) will always be outside its range/concern and so we can only speculate on non/reality of concepts (which is basically concepts about concepts, rather than concepts about dhammas like in pariyatti). I think point 1 is generally accepted here as correct, though I'm not entirely sure if that's all there is to it, or there's more. Point 2 is probably just a logic problem that comes out of explaining the first point. Point 3 I don't know whether it's correct or not, but it does seem the most appealing to me in terms of sidestepping the whole issue. If you like, for purposes of discussion, I could adopt point 3 solely, whereas you can adopt one of the first two points and then we could discuss further to see if that helps anyone with understanding things. Best wishes pt #122625 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna moellerdieter Hi Robert E, you wrote: Is there anything that is not contained within the khandas? yup.., Avijja - Sankhara with Metta Dieter #122626 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:04 pm Subject: Re: tragedy of addictions - how to get help. szmicio Hi Rob E, > I suggest that it is time for you to check into rehab or go to a hospital to get help. This is not a situation you can handle on your own. If you can't get there yourself, call someone right away and get someone to take you. L: You know any other countries in EU, that I can have treatement there? In Poland we dont have a good system,the only place I can get a direct help is mental instituation, but I dont want to go there, very hard enviranment. Best wishes Lukas #122627 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:13 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti scottduncan2 Sukin, Suk: "...This is funny. While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!?..." Scott: Yes. I do get it. I was watching this documentary on the life of the Buddha and heard so much boodist nonsense and wrong-view - able to recognize it as such because of discussing Dhamma on the list - that I had to stop the transmission. As anyone can tell, I'm more than frustrated with the current assemblage of discussants who are the foils on the list. Mahayanists, Pedants, and Puggalavaadins. And by this I mean the views, and in particular the repetitive onslaught of misunderstanding complete with concepts about 'petulant and protected naysayers' whose presence is maintained at the expense of equally conceptual 'alienated supporters' - a reference to the concept known as me. Ha ha. What do *you* think the point is in repeating one more thing to these so-called discussants? Nina thinks they are 'serious.' I disagree, without meaning disrespect to Nina. Here you are again, after a break, doing it so painstakingly. Why? Scott. #122628 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti jonoabb Hi Scott (and Sukin) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Sukin, > > Suk: "...This is funny. While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!?..." > > Scott: Yes. I do get it. I was watching this documentary on the life of the Buddha and heard so much boodist nonsense and wrong-view - able to recognize it as such because of discussing Dhamma on the list - that I had to stop the transmission. As anyone can tell, I'm more than frustrated with the current assemblage of discussants who are the foils on the list. ... > > What do *you* think the point is in repeating one more thing to these so-called discussants? Nina thinks they are 'serious.' I disagree, without meaning disrespect to Nina. Here you are again, after a break, doing it so painstakingly. Why? > =============== J: I know you are frustrated with the repeated posts from certain members questioning the orthordox Theravadin interpretation of the Tipitaka, but I don't see that delving into 'why' of that with other posters going to lead to useful dhamma discussion. Of course, discussion at a general (Dhamma) level is always possible. But the most likely outcome is more personal remarks of the kind we are trying to avoid. There are plenty of other threads that promise a more useful exchange. Why not come in on one of those? I agree with Nina's comments about your daily life sharings. Weekend coming up. Have a good one :-)) Jon PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness. #122629 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:59 pm Subject: Re: tragedy of addictions sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >L: Not good with me, I am drinking all the time. I wake up and feel I must drink. Now I feel very weak, my body is weak, I drink one bear and I am so drunk. > >R: I suggest that it is time for you to check into rehab or go to a hospital to get help. This is not a situation you can handle on your own. If you can't get there yourself, call someone right away and get someone to take you. ... S: I agree with Rob that you clearly need professional help. At the very least, check if there is a group of "Alcoholics Anonymous" in Gdansk or Warsaw that you can attend regularly. These days the Groups usually cater to those who are not Christian, I believe. The point is to have the group support on a daily basis. At least you recognise your serious (medical) problem. The sooner you get help and get over this - meaning no more alcohol at all, given the addiction, the better. At least you realise why the Buddha stressed the danger of alcohol/drugs as addictive intoxicants. Like with any other medical problem, understanding dhammas does not mean not seeking out the professional help we need. Quite the contrary - it's all part of daily life. Sigalovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn31.html "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in indulging in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness: (i) loss of wealth, (ii) increase of quarrels, (iii) susceptibility to disease, (iv) earning an evil reputation, (v) shameless exposure of body, (vi) weakening of intellect. (More in U.P. under "Drinking" Metta Sarah ===== #122630 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti nilovg Dear Jon, Op 17-feb-2012, om 8:44 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, > while when there's kusala there's no tiredness. ----- N: There is a good one! When kusala citta arises, no worry, life is really lighter. Not so much thinking of stories about this person or that person. They are all conditioned dhammas anyway. ------ Nina. #122631 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Scott, Op 17-feb-2012, om 1:34 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Scott: I guess that that would include me, and I am not satisfied. > This is, clearly, my problem... ------ N: We know in theory that people are conditioned dhammas, and it is not always easy to really apply this in life. If we could, at all times, life would be so much easier. No aversion about what others do or say. It helps though, not to think much about persons, just about sharing Dhamma we learnt. You studied so many texts with the Pali, and others can profit from that. ------- Nina. #122632 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" nilovg Dear Alex and Rob E, Op 16-feb-2012, om 21:01 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > >Dhp all dhammas are anattaa. > > This still doesn't say that "there is no self" which the Buddha > considered to be annihilationist view. > > When we check Dhp quote in full, it appears to suggest anatta as a > strategy. One considers all dhammas to be not-self in order to > remove clinging rather than get stuck on metaphysical > anihhiliatinist view of "there is no self". -------- N: Alex, I think Rob E has explained very well that anattaa is not a strategy: Rob: ------- Nina. #122633 From: "philip" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:49 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti philofillet Hi Jon. all > PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness. I trust this doesn't mean you are telling people to have kusala, but sounds like it somehow. I think we should get used to disharmony on this list, with a few rare periods of peace there has always been bickering and name calling, at least since I've been here. (Oops, that sounds self-indicting!) Better to have bickering than attempts to control other people's behaviour in subtly wrong ways, such as those pointed metta passage posts a few back. Why are we so attached to the "milk and water" thing? Cuz it is pleasant, there is attachment to it. Fair enough. But let's not rush to equate harmonious discourse on tge list with kusala, we know how rare kusala is. Why don't we just admit we prefer harmonious discourse, we like it, with attachment - which is of course akusala. IMHOFWIWBYOL (bring your own lobha) phil #122634 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti nilovg Dear Sukin, Thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Nina. Op 17-feb-2012, om 5:44 heeft sukinderpal narula het volgende geschreven: > I take this opportunity to thank you for your great contributions > to the development of Right Understanding. You are a good Dhamma > friend to us all. #122635 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Dear Nina, I don't believe that anatta teaches that there is atta. It doesn't and it wasn't my intent. What I do believe it teaches is to let go of whatever dhamma that arises and thus there will be more peace. What strikes me is that the Buddha refused to say "natthatta". The reason for that was that it sided with annihilationists. The Buddha has explained this to Ananda who was very spiritually mature, so all arguments that "Buddha did not want to be misunderstood" falls apart. I don't think Ananda would misunderstand such a crucial matter. Buddha rejected "atta exists" and "atta does not exist". But He taught anatta. What I believe anatta means is that we should treat everything as anatta in order to let go of clinging. With best wishes, Alex #122636 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" moellerdieter Hi Alex, you wrote: Buddha rejected "atta exists" and "atta does not exist". But He taught anatta. What I believe anatta means is that we should treat everything as anatta in order to let go of clinging. D: Alex , there is a nice essay by Ven. Nyanaponika The Wheel Publication No. 11 http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh011-p.html Anatta and Nibbana which concerns some of your considerations and may be of help to you for further discussion. with Metta Dieter #122637 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:38 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti scottduncan2 Jon, J: "...but I don't see that delving into 'why' of that with other posters going to lead to useful dhamma discussion..." Scott: The Dhamma in the question is to wonder about the nature of the apparent 'persistence' in repeating and repeating a certain message in response to fixed wrong view, not about 'other posters.' Is 'trying to teach' kusala? Is 'teaching' the aim? Why would I want to 'teach' anyone? Is 'trying to help' kusala? Is 'helping' the aim? Why would I want to 'help' anyone? Is one to act like a Dhamma missionary? Is 'trying to respond in a certain style' kusala? Is there necessarily akusala in seeing a certain view for what it is - wrong? And then, when it is expressed over and over in the same form no matter in what sort of style a reply is couched, is pointing this out akusala? What if I don't feel like helping or teaching anyone as part of what 'discussing' is for me? Is that akusala? Is that wrong? Am I supposed to want to teach or help in order to post here? Or is it 'dhamma discussion' to wonder about this as well? This seems to me to be very 'everyday' stuff, since I'm engaged with the list as part of my 'everyday.' Seems fair to discuss. J: "...PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness." Scott: And, while true, kusala is not to be controlled. You say this to teach me? To help me? To merely point out that there is a desired, socially acceptable way to discuss that looks 'kusala?' It isn't Dhamma to say the one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar but who says I want to catch flies? Scott. #122638 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti scottduncan2 Nina, N: "There is a good one! When kusala citta arises, no worry, life is really lighter. Not so much thinking of stories about this person or that person. They are all conditioned dhammas anyway." Scott: And when it doesn't arise? While true, to merely state the above is a trueism, and to suggest this in relation to a certain way of responding is no different than 'practice' as wrongly conceived by 'practitioners.' This seems to be a call to 'practice' a certain way of being no matter what is actually arising. This is superficial if it is You said to me years ago, when I was naively struggling with the same dhammas that everyone on the list deals with, that the solution was not silence in the face of akusala. Has this now changed? Is there actually a 'should' in the message after all? I think that no matter the intellectual knowledge - and I mean pariyatti as I believe I now am understanding it - there is still the attraction to form and appearances. The way I understand the Dhamma conditions thinking about appearances differently than it does for you or for Jon. Scott. #122639 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Nina, N:" We know in theory that people are conditioned dhammas..." Scott: This may or may not be pariyatti. This can no more be 'used' to control dhammas than can 'anatta as a strategy,' yet it seems as if this is what is being suggested. N: "...It helps though, not to think much about persons, just about sharing Dhamma we learnt. You studied so many texts with the Pali, and others can profit from that." Scott: Is 'not to think much about persons' a strategy to be implemented? Why should I necessarily want to 'share Dhamma?' And what says I have 'learnt' it? One time the study of texts is said to be useful, at others it is said not to be. Which is it? Or 'when' is it? What, in all of this discussing, is pariyatti? Scott. #122640 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:39 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello Dieter, all, Can you please quote particularly relevant passages from that link? How do you think we should interpret what the Buddha meant by: "there is a self" is eternalism "there is no self" is annihilationism. Anatta is what Buddha teaches. - SN44.10 What do you think is the difference between natthatta and anatta? And in MN#2 rather than considering "Am I", "Am I not", "there is no self for me", one should consider 4NT? With best wishes, Alex #122641 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" moellerdieter Hello Alex, you wrote: Can you please quote particularly relevant passages from that link? D: I wished you would do ;-) the essay starts with "This world, Kaccana, usually leans upon a duality: upon (the belief in) existence or non-existence.. Avoiding these two extremes, the Perfect One shows the doctrine in the middle: Dependent on ignorance are the kamma-formations.. By the cessation of ignorance, kamma-formations cease.. (SN 12:15) " .. further up to you .... with Metta Dieter .. ----- Original Message ----- From: truth_aerator To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:39 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" Hello Dieter, all, Can you please quote particularly relevant passages from that link? How do you think we should interpret what the Buddha meant by: "there is a self" is eternalism "there is no self" is annihilationism. Anatta is what Buddha teaches. - SN44.10 What do you think is the difference between natthatta and anatta? And in MN#2 rather than considering "Am I", "Am I not", "there is no self for me", one should consider 4NT? With best wishes, Alex #122642 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:35 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti jonoabb Hi Scott --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Jon, > > J: "...but I don't see that delving into 'why' of that with other posters going to lead to useful dhamma discussion..." > > Scott: The Dhamma in the question is to wonder about the nature of the apparent 'persistence' in repeating and repeating a certain message in response to fixed wrong view, not about 'other posters.' > =============== J: Well I still don't see the usefulness of 'wondering about the nature of' the mental states involved in this case (although it can be useful sometimes), but that's just a personal view. > =============== > J: "...PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness." > > Scott: And, while true, kusala is not to be controlled. You say this to teach me? To help me? To merely point out that there is a desired, socially acceptable way to discuss that looks 'kusala?' It isn't Dhamma to say the one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar but who says I want to catch flies? > =============== J: The tiredness remark was apropos your comment in an earlier message that you were 'just tired of' certain postings to the list. Jon #122643 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello Dieter, all, >D:the essay starts with "This world, Kaccana, usually leans upon a >duality: upon (the belief in) existence or non-existence.. Avoiding >these two extremes, the Perfect One shows the doctrine in the middle: >Dependent on ignorance are the kamma-formations.. By the cessation of >ignorance, kamma-formations cease.. (SN 12:15) " > .. > further up to you .... Wouldn't teaching "There is No self" allign with view of non-existence, the wrong view the Buddha didn't teach? So it seems to support the rejection of "there is no self" (but neither does it affirm atta, in which I don't believe). With metta, Alex #122644 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:39 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > ...it is not a matter of the enlightened being "going back and forth experientially from dhammas to conventions", as you put it in your earlier post. Just as for the unenlightened being, there continues to be the experience of objects through the sense-doors followed by multiple mind-door moments that 'process' those sense-door experiences. This is a little confusing. If the arahat is able to see dhammas directly that means she or he can discern the individual dhammas arising one after the other at lightning speed, as he has the panna and other factors to do so. So at such time as he is doing so, wouldn't he be incapable of doing anything else? Maybe I am confused. If there is a rupa that arises, and then it is followed by a number of namas, those are still all individual dhammas, and the arahat, as I understand it, would be able to experience all of them directly as they occur. In other words he is able to experience from "moment to moment" without any breaks, whether it is rupa or nama that is arising. So in order to 'conceptualize,' which is distinct from namas that are experienced directly, his attention has to go from dhammas to concepts does it not? And then when not conceptualizing, the attention would be back on dhammas again. As I understand it, there is no possibility of experiencing two things at the same time, so it seems that it is either dhamma or concept at a given moment. Am I wrong about this? Speculating further, if I perceive a "monk," see his "body," "talk to him," etc., there are two possibilities - either I am experiencing the concepts involved so I can communicate with that "person," or I am experiencing a bunch of rupas and namas which do not add up to that concept unless I have a moment of conceptualizing. So it seems either/or to me. Am I off-track on this? > > =============== > > > J: Moments of intention accompanying deeds are significant. These moments are either kamma or they accumulate and may become kamma later. > > > > RE: Well if that is so, why would you object to my idea that we can use the way we behave in the conventional world as signposts to the dhammas that are arising? If I punch someone in the face in anger, that's a pretty good sign that there are akusala dhammas accompanying that action, and vice versa, if I treat people with kindness and it is sincere, that there is an accumulation of kusala accompanying it? > > > > I understand that something may seem kusala and really be akusala, but that doesn't mean that there is no correspondence as a general principle. > > =============== > > J: You are suggesting that, as a general rule, a person's mind-state can be deduced from the nature of the conventional act being done. > > I don't see any significance in this as regards the development of the path (especially given the qualifications and exceptions to the general rule that you have identified). > > As far as I know, the texts do not mention such a proposition either. > > What is its significance for you? The significance for me is that if we are dealing with one world, either rightly or wrongly identified at any given moment, rather than two separate realities that have no relation, it's a lot easier to make sense of both what we experience and what is experienced when the perception and understanding are purified. It is a continuum rather than a split. Since there are many references here to experiencing concepts being based on the unacknowledged or indirect experience of dhammas, it makes more sense to see conceptual reality as as distorted conglomeration of the flow of dhammas, rather than a complete alternative. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122645 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:48 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Wouldn't teaching "There is No self" allign with view of non-existence, the wrong view the Buddha didn't teach? So it seems to support the rejection of "there is no self" (but neither does it affirm atta, in which I don't believe). In my understanding, when the words "there is no self" are used, it can refer to two cases that actually occur in reality: 1. a (number of) citta(s) that have a concept of self as object, accompanied with wrong view. 2. a (number of) citta(s) that have a (nimitta of) a dhamma (that has just fallen away in the previous mind door process) such as feeling (or any other khanda), which is accompanied with panna which understands the anatta nature of feeling. Afaik, the sutta quote you and Dieter are discussing refers to the first case (wrong view), whereas when people here on the list use "there is no self", I take it they are usually referring to the second case - the arising of right view that understands anatta at the time. Best wishes pt #122646 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:03 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > you wrote: > Is there anything that is not contained within the khandas? > > yup.., Avijja - Sankhara Hm...I would like to hear the explanation of this by others - too complicated for me! Sankhara is one of the kandhas. I am not sure how ignorance is defined or categorized, or how that link in DO is understood, but it seems to me that ignorance as a concrete element is a cetasika. Not sure how it fits in with the khandas. P.S. How did the Buddha define "the All?" Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #122647 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:05 am Subject: Re: tragedy of addictions - how to get help. epsteinrob Hi Lukas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > I suggest that it is time for you to check into rehab or go to a hospital to get help. This is not a situation you can handle on your own. If you can't get there yourself, call someone right away and get someone to take you. > > L: You know any other countries in EU, that I can have treatement there? In Poland we dont have a good system,the only place I can get a direct help is mental instituation, but I dont want to go there, very hard enviranment. Sorry that I do not know the specific systems or places in Europe. I hope you can find this through friends or through a web search. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122648 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" moellerdieter Hello Alex, all, you wrote: 'Wouldn't teaching "There is No self" allign with view of non-existence, the wrong view the Buddha didn't teach? So it seems to support the rejection of "there is no self" (but neither does it affirm atta, in which I don't believe).' my point of view: the Buddha shows the doctrine in the middle .. instead of 'self' there is this dynamic process of conditioned interrelated mental and corporal phenomena (dhamma) which are without substance of their own (anatta ) and evanescent (anicca) . There is of course will involved , i.e. the delusioned/ignorant kamma force which conditions the group of upadana khandas and its following links (Law of Dependent Orgination), keeping us in samsara . The way out , the cessation of this law , is the 8fold Noble Path , starting with mundane right understanding ( the conventional truth /the person ) with the aim to reach the supramundane right understanding , the Path of the Noble Ones, using the guidelines of the sila, samadhi, panna path training. As I understand K.S. , this should be seen from the angle of satipatthana , knowing what is nama and rupa dhamma, their arising and ceasing, recognizing their characteristic and be mindful of the state of consciousnes (citta coloured by wholesome/unwholesome cetasika). My observation is that sati is at its best when the idea of self / volition is (at least momentary ) absent, which assumes a certain level of Tranquillity /Samatha . To reach this state of non action , the base for awareness seeing things as they are , there is action necessary as described by the instructions of the training. with Metta Dieter . . #122649 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:22 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello Pt, >A: Wouldn't teaching "There is No self" allign with view of >non-existence, the wrong view the Buddha didn't teach? So it seems >to support the rejection of "there is no self" (but neither does it >affirm atta, in which I don't believe). > >In my understanding, when the words "there is no self" are used, it can refer to two cases that actually occur in reality: > > 1. a (number of) citta(s) that have a concept of self as object, accompanied with wrong view. > 2. a (number of) citta(s) that have a (nimitta of) a dhamma (that has just fallen away in the previous mind door process) such as feeling (or any other khanda), which is accompanied with panna which understands the anatta nature of feeling. > >Afaik, the sutta quote you and Dieter are discussing refers to the >first case (wrong view), whereas when people here on the list use >"there is no self", I take it they are usually referring to the >second case - the arising of right view that understands anatta at >the time. > > Best wishes > pt It is very complex reply. The Buddha was clear that natthatta is wrong (anihhilationist) view, while anatta is correct one. Anatta is never equated to natthatta (there is no self). With best wishes, Alex #122650 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello Dieter, >Alex wrote: >'Wouldn't teaching "There is No self" allign with view of >non-existence, the wrong view the Buddha didn't teach? So it seems >to >support the rejection of "there is no self" (but neither does it >affirm atta, in which I don't believe).' >============================================================ >Dieter: my point of view: >the Buddha shows the doctrine in the middle .. >instead of 'self' there is this dynamic process of conditioned >interrelated mental and corporal phenomena (dhamma) which are >without >substance of their own (anatta ) and evanescent (anicca) . >=========================================== Conditional interrelated dhammas exist or not? Even if for split second, do they exist or not? As you see, like that it still appears to be within exist/don't exist dichotomy. Dependent origination starts with ignorance and ends with dukkha. To me its "middleness" seems to be more concerned with arising and cessation of suffering. A pragmatic rather than metaphysical consideration. With metta, Alex #122651 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:32 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE:This is a little confusing. If the arahat is able to see dhammas >directly that means she or he can discern the individual dhammas >arising one after the other at lightning speed, as he has the panna >and other factors to do so. So at such time as he is doing so, >wouldn't he be incapable of doing anything else? Maybe I am confused. >========================================================= These kinds of questions seem to arise when one takes the teaching to be metaphysical rather than pragmatic. IMHO, when it is said that Arahant sees directly, it means seeing "what has arisen" without any hindrances and other subjective biases to reinterpret it. With best wishes, Alex #122652 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:34 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > Rob E: > > I understand pointing out that only dhammas have characteristics and I understand that point. But that does not explain the precious-sounding attribution of "own-being" instead of just saying "real" or "existent." No matter how you slice it own-being has a misleading sense of importance and ownership, which defeats the feeling of unimportance and detachment. I am trying to deal with the term here, not the meaning that it *should* indicate, which is fine. > > > Suk: This is funny. I am glad you have a sense of humor. > While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!? I won't get into discussing other people's progress here. That would be just sharing my opinions. I would point out though as a general proposition that certainty and confidence can be a double-edged sword. It's great to be confident in that which you know and have verified; less useful to be confident about that which you merely believe. When I say "you" here, I mean "anyone," not you, "Sukin" or anyone else in particular. > But then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand Anatta and have ended up making 'selves' out of dhammas….. I don't know whether anyone has been doing that or not, but I do think that terminology has a flavor of self-view in it. If you don't see the words "own" and "being" as having a flavor of self, then you may disagree. But I don't see you actually considering or responding to my point in this case. I think it's fair to say that I am progressing at exactly the rate that my accumulations allow, and that is bound to be rather slow, but I am content with that, and will continue to explore as is needed by my tendencies. If you think I am too slow in developing greater knowledge, I sincerely apologize for disappointing you. I do not agree with you that I believe in "control," so I would like to correct you on that. I have not believed in personal "control" for a very long time. I also believe strongly in the reality of anatta. The fact that I believe that meditation is part of the path may make you think that I do believe in control, but that is your belief, not mine. > ======= > > > S: Howard for example, has been making this point here for many years, but I don't think that there is any ground for this, but more a case of being caught up in philosophy. Indeed it is the argument by Mahayana in their attempt to promote "Emptiness", which to me is not a result of understanding, but infatuation with the particular concept. ;-) > > Rob E: > > But that is my point - that svabhava seems to have its own sense of infatuation for dhammas as being special and substantial. Two wrongs don't make a right. > > Suk: But you misunderstood my point. > I wasn't pointing to the use of the term "emptiness", but to the understanding behind the concept and reason why it was taught. In the Tipitaka the term sunnata is also used, but with a different meaning from the Mahayana. What is the meaning of sunnata according to you? > With regard to Sabhava (and not svabhava as conceived of by you and Mahayana), I do not think it is correct to put me and Mahayana in the same sentence there. >...this has been taught by the same people who have gone to great lengths to explain how the reality now has already fallen away by the time it is known. You do not even understand this. So really the fear of infatuation with the use of the particular term is only yours. And this is only a part of the objection towards the general understanding, namely, one which the Theravada commentaries expound. I don't think you can assume what I do or don't understand by extrapolating from something you don't agree about. Better to stick to the subject and argue on the merits. Thanks. If you don't want to consider my point, that is your privilege. I don't see that you have considered it in what you say above. > ====== > Rob E: > > When you talk about anatta, specific characteristics of dhammas and distinguish them, talk about their functions, their rising and falling away - all descriptive of their reality, that is all fine and helps the understanding. But when you summarize that reality by using the two words own and being -- two words that smack of substantiality and eternalism much more than almost anything I can think of -- I can't say that this term is helpful or stands well for the realities you are describing. > > > Suk: Well, I think the problem is that when you say that you "understand" the other descriptions, it is not really pariyatti understanding, but more as a philosophical position. How would you know this? Do you have a basis for saying what I do or don't understand? If so, please explicate how you have figured this out. > If it was pariyatti understanding, it would be with reference to the reality now where no words need to be had. Well, that is kind of silly when we are in the middle of a discussion. Obviously we have to describe what we know or think or we can't communicate. If you prefer silence, just let me know. > Likewise if sabhava was understood as referring to the present moment reality, you'd not think to object to the term. I disagree. The reality being what it is does not make the term good or bad. The term may still be misleading even if the reality is understood. > The "being" and "own" simply point to the dhamma, any dhamma which appears and understood as "real" and different from another dhamma. Indeed it is with the kind of perception that substantialism and eternalism is directly addressed. You are philosophizing about it all and hence the proliferation on to thinking that correcting the terms can lead to right understanding. If you are sure that no one has been misled by the sense of that term, then you may be right. But I don't think that is the case. I guess we disagree! > ======= > > Rob E: > It seems ornate rather than simple, and triumphal rather than simple. > > Suk: You think too much and wrongly. ;-) That is your opinion, but your opinion about my thought process is not a discussion about the subject. If you have nothing to say about my substantive points, perhaps it is better to drop the subject. > ====== > Rob E: > I have no problem with the realities, just the term used to indicate them. I'm not a big fan of "paramatha" either. "Ultimate" has the sense of special and wonderful, not just "final" or "real" as it should. So personally I suspect that some self-view has crept into the creation of these terms and "perfumed" them. > > > Suk: Is it 'paramatha' or the English translation, 'ultimate'? I think that the translations may be involved. > If the latter, what do you propose in its place? If the former, then I'd suggest that you are not really in the position to question it, given how little understanding there is of present moment realities. Again,, I would like to know how you have access to my degree of understanding. Isn't it a given that one does not know this? I think you are making a mistake by making such statements. > But again why are you questioning this when you know that it means final and real? Should this not instead encourage continued study aimed at direct understanding and insight? My study continues, but understanding what the implication is of important terms is part of my study. > ====== > > > It appears that the objection and argument with regard to self-view creeping in is without any basis. It is in understanding a dhamma as dhamma, each different from the other as against a 'whole', that self-view is directly addressed. Sabhava is one way in which impersonal elements and the difference between them are emphasized. On the other hand, taking concepts for real is attanuditthi with attasanna. > > Rob E: > > I am talking about the term only, not the intention or the specific realities described and distinguished. If you really think "own-being" has a feeling of detachment and simplicity, then I am very surprised. It sounds like something special and entity-related to me, no matter how I try to justify it. Again, it is the term and its flavor or "perfume" that I am talking about. And to me it has a strong emanation that is off key. > > Suk: Well, as I suggested earlier, yours is interest in philosophizing and not in understanding the present moment reality and this is where the problem is. Again, it is presumptuous to keep bringing the discussion back to your opinion of my level of understanding. It is not necessary to do this, as it adds nothing to the content of the discusssion. Please exercise the patience and discipline to look at the things that are said and answer them for what they say and with what you think about them without making personal comments. Thank you. > Detachment is the function of alobha cetasika which arises with any level of panna, including pariyatti. If the importance of studying the present moment is not seen, changing the terms to suit one's taste will only result in more attachment instead of detachment. > > I know that we've been through this debate before…. Beside the point. > ======= > Rob E: > > Well I think we should be able to account to the indisputable fact that we spend much of our time thinking about them. So rather than getting verbal hair-splitting about the meanign of the word "existence," we should talk about what *kind* of existence they have. They obviously exist as a part of the content of thought, and not as realities, so we should talk about what the difference is, not create verbal self-contradictions like saying something is "non-existent" yet it is present in thought, yet it doesn't arise or fall, so it is "time-freed." These kinds of terms butting up against each other create a very confusing mess which has not just caught me, but many more educated members of this list, in its web of weird terminological contradictions. > > > Suk: On the other hand there are those who read the same thing and are motivated to study the present moment. And although this mostly happens at the intellectual level, the understanding here is that it is characteristic of dhammas that are to be known directly such that while thinking about dhammas, the thinking as a reality is what should be known and not the concepts thought about. > > It is strange the kind of objection, given that the person who is making it insists on going by ideas about 'meditation' and another time, place and posture, something which clearly goes at the expense of understanding what appears "now" and reflects lack of understanding about the nature of dhammas! :-/ This is your opinion, with which I disagree. I am growing weary of your continued aspersions, presumptions, extrapolations and personal comments about "me," rather than on the topic. If the subject at hand doesn't interest you, don't talk about it. I am going to take a break. Talk to you later. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122653 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:39 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hey Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Sukin, > > Suk: "...This is funny. While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!?..." > > Scott: Yes. I do get it. I was watching this documentary on the life of the Buddha and heard so much boodist nonsense and wrong-view - able to recognize it as such because of discussing Dhamma on the list - that I had to stop the transmission. As anyone can tell, I'm more than frustrated with the current assemblage of discussants who are the foils on the list. Mahayanists, Pedants, and Puggalavaadins. And by this I mean the views, and in particular the repetitive onslaught of misunderstanding complete with concepts about 'petulant and protected naysayers' whose presence is maintained at the expense of equally conceptual 'alienated supporters' - a reference to the concept known as me. Ha ha. > > What do *you* think the point is in repeating one more thing to these so-called discussants? Nina thinks they are 'serious.' I disagree, without meaning disrespect to Nina. Here you are again, after a break, doing it so painstakingly. Why? Despite being asked not to, you keep making public comments that are disparaging to other group members. That tends to start new conflicts. Since this is a moderated group, why don't we follow the requests of the moderators and discuss Dhamma issues only? Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122654 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:59 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" ptaus1 Hi Alex, > It is very complex reply. The Buddha was clear that natthatta is wrong (anihhilationist) view, while anatta is correct one. Sorry about complexity, i'll try express it a bit differently. I think the annihilationist view refers to the instance of arising of wrong view (ditthi) with citta, while anatta usually refers to the instance of arising of understanding (panna) with citta - it is panna that understands anatta nature of a khanda. > Anatta is never equated to natthatta (there is no self). I used to get the impression that people here equate anatta with natthatta, but upon closer inspection, I think most here use the words "there is no self" to refer to the instance of anatta, so to the arising of panna, (and possibly sometimes to Dhamma niyama), but not to the arising of ditthi (natthatta). The fact that the words used are virtually the same in both cases is probably just a language problem. So basically, it's cittas and cetasikas that make the difference, not the words that describe them. Best wishes pt #122655 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:16 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Hi Jon. all > > > PS A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness. > > I trust this doesn't mean you are telling people to have kusala, but sounds like it somehow. I think we should get used to disharmony on this list, with a few rare periods of peace there has always been bickering and name calling, at least since I've been here. (Oops, that sounds self-indicting!) Better to have bickering than attempts to control other people's behaviour in subtly wrong ways, such as those pointed metta passage posts a few back. > > Why are we so attached to the "milk and water" thing? Cuz it is pleasant, there is attachment to it. Fair enough. But let's not rush to equate harmonious discourse on tge list with kusala, we know how rare kusala is. Why don't we just admit we prefer harmonious discourse, we like it, with attachment - which is of course akusala. > > > IMHOFWIWBYOL (bring your own lobha) > > phil It's often said here that kusala develops through hearing about it and wisely considering it, and I think one of the aspects of wise consideration would be appreciation of kusala, and understanding of the drawbacks of aksuala. So, when people here encourage kusala and discourage akusala, it seems we automatically end up "hearing and considering" becuase it is essentially b4eing pointed out why kusala is worthy of appreciation and what are the drawback of akusala. But I remember in the beginning, I'd ask Sarah something about meditation, and she'd start telling me that it's all attachment and then about anatta, and I'd be like "What?! Don't tell me that, I want to hear about jhana, jhana is cool!" So, irritation, and basically not considering wisely on my part. I think when people we respect tell us about the value of kusala and drawbacks of akusala, it's safe to assume it's for our benefit - we are lucky enough to hear and consider (hopefully wisely) at the time. Sure, sometimes it will look as if they are telling us what to do (or not do), but this is likely our misperception alone due to our own attachments. Regarding disharmony and bickering on the list, I don't quite get it - out of the currently active members there are only Alex, Dieter and RobE who are questioning the general interpretation here. So they are in minority, and a tiny minority at that, and, without them, there'd be nothing much to discuss, and so, much less possibility for us to hear and consider. So if there is any bickering, I feel they are not to blame, since we're the ones who seem incapable of tolerating a minority, and a very helpful minority at that. Best wishes pt #122656 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:25 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello Pt, Thank you for your answer. I will have to digest it. With metta, Alex #122657 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:37 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >RE:This is a little confusing. If the arahat is able to see dhammas >directly that means she or he can discern the individual dhammas >arising one after the other at lightning speed, as he has the panna >and other factors to do so. So at such time as he is doing so, >wouldn't he be incapable of doing anything else? Maybe I am confused. > >========================================================= > > These kinds of questions seem to arise when one takes the teaching to be metaphysical rather than pragmatic. > > IMHO, when it is said that Arahant sees directly, it means seeing "what has arisen" without any hindrances and other subjective biases to reinterpret it. "What has arisen" is what I'm talking about, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Regarding metaphysics, I think the conclusion that "Buddha never said there is no self" is a metaphysical statement in its own right. I think the detailed analysis of the khandas shows the relation of self-view to experience more specifically and more definitively. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #122658 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:00 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Robert, all, >"What has arisen" is what I'm talking about, so I'm not sure what >you're saying. >===================== I believe that what is right now is the only reality that experientially matters. What lies (if anything) beyond it is speculation that is irrelevant to the actual experience. > >Regarding metaphysics, I think the conclusion that "Buddha never >said >there is no self" is a metaphysical statement in its own right. >I think the detailed analysis of the khandas shows the relation of >self-view to experience more specifically and more definitively. >================= Buddha has said that rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana are not self. He had an excellent opportunity to conclude with saying that "self doesn't exist", yet He kept avoiding saying that. This avoidance is very interesting. Even when He was speaking to wise monks who would not misinterpret Him saying that "self doesn't exist", the Buddha kept avoiding mentioning it. Don't you find it strange? Maybe there was some teaching point in that. We don't have, and may never have omniscience to know absolutely everything about every corner of the universe and in all times, but we can experience presently arisen experience and consider it as "not me, not mine, not my self". With best wishes, Alex #122659 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:23 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, all, > > >"What has arisen" is what I'm talking about, so I'm not sure what >you're saying. > >===================== > > I believe that what is right now is the only reality that experientially matters. What lies (if anything) beyond it is speculation that is irrelevant to the actual experience. What about sati sampajanna - clearly knowing what is occurring right now? Does it make a difference whether the present moment is experienced with delusion or with understanding? Here's a quote I grabbed from wikipedia: "In a correspondence between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace, Bodhi described Ven. Nyanaponika Thera's views on "right mindfulness" and sampajańńa as follows, "... I should add that Ven. Nyanaponika himself did not regard "bare attention" as capturing the complete significance of satipaṭṭhāna, but as representing only one phase, the initial phase, in the meditative development of right mindfulness. He held that in the proper practice of right mindfulness, sati has to be integrated with sampajańńa, clear comprehension, and it is only when these two work together that right mindfulness can fulfill its intended purpose." > >Regarding metaphysics, I think the conclusion that "Buddha never >said >there is no self" is a metaphysical statement in its own right. > >I think the detailed analysis of the khandas shows the relation of >self-view to experience more specifically and more definitively. > >================= > > Buddha has said that rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana are not self. He had an excellent opportunity to conclude with saying that "self doesn't exist", yet He kept avoiding saying that. Why does it matter? It only matters if you are trying to posit the existence of self, which itself would be a metaphysical presumption. Are you saying that there is a self, and if so, how do you describe or define it? Otherwise I don't get the point. The Buddha is pointing out that none of the processes that make up the personality and experience are "self," so why does it matter at all if he never says definitively "there is no self?" If he says all dhammas are anatta, isn't that enough? > This avoidance is very interesting. Even when He was speaking to wise monks who would not misinterpret Him saying that "self doesn't exist", the Buddha kept avoiding mentioning it. Don't you find it strange? Maybe there was some teaching point in that. What do you think the teaching point was in that case? If you are saying that the Buddha is thus implying that there is a self, please say so. > We don't have, and may never have omniscience to know absolutely everything about every corner of the universe and in all times, but we can experience presently arisen experience and consider it as > "not me, not mine, not my self". On that we all agree. Why the omission of another statement regarding self is a big deal in that case I am not sure. It is a metaphysical question, which you have said is the wrong way to approach the subject in any case. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122660 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:33 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ...The Buddha was clear that natthatta is wrong (anihhilationist) view, while anatta is correct one. Anatta is never equated to natthatta (there is no self). a. If natthatta = "there is no self," what is the translation of anatta - usually given as "no self or not self." I don't see the difference between "there is no self" and "no self." b. What in your view is the significance of refraining from saying "natthatta." If you say you don't believe in the existence of "atta" then why not say "natthatta" which would mean that the atta you don't believe in doesn't exist? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122661 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:45 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: ...Is there necessarily akusala in seeing a certain view for what it is - wrong? And then, when it is expressed over and over in the same form no matter in what sort of style a reply is couched, is pointing this out akusala? I don't know if it's akusala or not, but it is disruptive and will cause a reaction on the part of those who are implicated. Then we get into accusations and name-calling and that's not a Dhamma discussion. > What if I don't feel like helping or teaching anyone as part of what 'discussing' is for me? Is that akusala? Is that wrong? Am I supposed to want to teach or help in order to post here? Or is it 'dhamma discussion' to wonder about this as well? This seems to me to be very 'everyday' stuff, since I'm engaged with the list as part of my 'everyday.' Seems fair to discuss. Are you saying there shouldn't be any rules or guidelines here? Or that there should be no attention to right speech? It's a choice of the organizers of this group not to have chaos and turbulence. Is there something wrong with respecting that and just being relatively polite and impersonal? How does that really hamper the content of a substantive discussion? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122662 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:53 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: A.S. is fond of remarking/observing that akusala is very tiring, while when there's kusala there's no tiredness. > > I trust this doesn't mean you are telling people to have kusala, but sounds like it somehow. I think we should get used to disharmony on this list, with a few rare periods of peace there has always been bickering and name calling, at least since I've been here. (Oops, that sounds self-indicting!) Better to have bickering than attempts to control other people's behaviour in subtly wrong ways, such as those pointed metta passage posts a few back. > > Why are we so attached to the "milk and water" thing? Cuz it is pleasant, there is attachment to it. Fair enough. But let's not rush to equate harmonious discourse on tge list with kusala, we know how rare kusala is. Why don't we just admit we prefer harmonious discourse, we like it, with attachment - which is of course akusala. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is conducive to Dhamma discussion. It's not a question of being attached to calm and niceness but to focusing on topcis that are relevant to the Dhamma. Buddha engaged in strong and spirited debates with all sorts of people, but he did not tolerate chaotic or disrespectful behavior. Obviously if a crazy person came running over to him he could deal with it, but that was not the way the monks were expected to behave. It's not a false sense of control to have a basic commitment to having a decent discussion rather than having a food fight. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122663 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:38 am Subject: Just a Flash of Delight! bhikkhu5 Friends: Sparse & short pleasure, but long Tribulation! Pleasures obtained by contact at the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind all fade away and vanish instantly, when their contact ceases! They are all: Like a drop of honey on the edge of a razor blade: Short joy, but much pain! Like a show seen in a flash of lightening: Momentary and exceedingly brief! Like a drink made thin & tasteless: Dissatisfying, frustrating & disappointing! Like food all rotten inside or poisoned: Afflicting and causing problems later! Like a baited hook: First juicy, later torturing & tormenting and finally Fatal! Like an inner prison: Encaging, punishing, bonding, addicting and making mad! Like sleeping in an enemy's village: Dangerous, hazardous, treacherous & risky! Like a burning hollow tree: Agitated inside, feverish, frantic, violently painful! Like a chain of dry naked bare bones: Not healing any hunger, without nutrition! Like many days of drinking only salt water: Worsening any thirst & drying out! Please note the ceasing of sensation, whenever sensing & remember this danger! This is the primary hindrance to break, the first flood to cross: Sense-Desire! <...> Another Addict and yet Another Addiction! As the blessed Buddha often pointed out: Blissful is being without passions in this world, Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! Udana II, 1 Just a Flash of Delight! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122664 From: han tun Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:47 pm Subject: To Sarah hantun1 Dear Sarah, Venerable Bhikkhu Samahita had posted the following message: ---------- Pleasures obtained by contact at the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind all fade away and vanish instantly, when their contact ceases! They are all: Like a drop of honey on the edge of a razor blade: Short joy, but much pain! Like a show seen in a flash of lightening: Momentary and exceedingly brief! Like a drink made thin & tasteless: Dissatisfying, frustrating & disappointing! Like food all rotten inside or poisoned: Afflicting and causing problems later! Like a baited hook: First juicy, later torturing & tormenting and finally Fatal! Like an inner prison: Encaging, punishing, bonding, addicting and making mad! Like sleeping in an enemy's village: Dangerous, hazardous, treacherous & risky! Like a burning hollow tree: Agitated inside, feverish, frantic, violently painful! Like a chain of dry naked bare bones: Not healing any hunger, without nutrition! Like many days of drinking only salt water: Worsening any thirst & drying out! Please note the ceasing of sensation, whenever sensing & remember this danger! This is the primary hindrance to break, the first flood to cross: Sense-Desire! ---------- Han: From where do you think the Venerable got the above statements? I know MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta with ten similar similes. But the list is not the same. In MN 22, Sense desires are (1) like bare bones (atthikankaluupamaa), (2) like a lump of flesh (mamsapesuupamaa), (3) like a torch of straw (tinukkuupamaa), (4) like a pit of burning coals (angaarakaasuupamaa), (5) like a dream (supinakuupamaa), (6) like borrowed goods (yaacitakuupamaa), (7) like a fruit-bearing tree (rukkhaphaluupamaa), (8) like a butcher's chopping block (asisuunuupamaa), (9) like a stake of swords (sattisuuluupamaa), (10) like a snake's head (sappasiruupamaa). with metta and respect, Han #122665 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:51 pm Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >a.If natthatta = "there is no self," what is the translation of >anatta - usually given as "no self or not self." >I don't see the difference between "there is no self" and "no self." >=========================================================== Translation of anatta = not self. It is how we should relate to actual phenomena that arises. Natthata on the other hand, tends to delve into metaphysics beyond experience. >b.What in your view is the significance of refraining from saying >"natthatta." If you say you don't believe in the existence of >"atta" >then why not say "natthatta" which would mean that the atta >you don't >believe in doesn't exist? >============================================================ Buddha has recommended to focus in terms of 4NT rather than metaphysics of existence/non-existence . IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #122666 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: sabbe dhamma truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >A: This avoidance is very interesting. Even when He was speaking to >wise monks who would not misinterpret Him saying that "self doesn't >exist", the Buddha kept avoiding mentioning it. Don't you find it >strange? Maybe there was some teaching point in that. > >RE: What do you think the teaching point was in that case? >================================= I guess the teaching point was about what is happening now rather than static categories of existence/non-existence. Regarding "sabbe dhamma anatta/ all dhammas are not self" . Sabbe dhamma might NOT include absolutely everything imagined or unimagined. It doesn't have to include Nibbana. See AN10.58 "All phenomena are rooted in desire" "All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html Since Nibbana is not rooted in desire, it is outside of sabbe dhamma. Nibbana is the end of sabbe dhamma (all phenomena). Also, the all (sabba) has been taught as: ============================================================= "Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html ================================================================ What lies outside of 12 ayatanas cannot be explained as it is beyond range. I don't believe that one should sneak atta. No way. But all I am saying is that we are not omniscient. With best wishes, Alex #122667 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:17 pm Subject: Re: To Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Han, I'm very glad to partner you once more on any research projects. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Venerable Bhikkhu Samahita had posted the following message: > > ---------- > > Pleasures obtained by contact at the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind all fade away and vanish instantly, when their contact ceases! They are all: > Like a drop of honey on the edge of a razor blade: Short joy, but much pain! > Like a show seen in a flash of lightening: Momentary and exceedingly brief! > Like a drink made thin & tasteless: Dissatisfying, frustrating & disappointing! > Like food all rotten inside or poisoned: Afflicting and causing problems later! > Like a baited hook: First juicy, later torturing & tormenting and finally Fatal! > Like an inner prison: Encaging, punishing, bonding, addicting and making mad! > Like sleeping in an enemy's village: Dangerous, hazardous, treacherous & risky! > Like a burning hollow tree: Agitated inside, feverish, frantic, violently painful! > Like a chain of dry naked bare bones: Not healing any hunger, without nutrition! > Like many days of drinking only salt water: Worsening any thirst & drying out! > Please note the ceasing of sensation, whenever sensing & remember this danger! > This is the primary hindrance to break, the first flood to cross: Sense-Desire! > > ---------- > > Han: From where do you think the Venerable got the above statements? .... S: He didn't provide the source, but fortunately, it rang a bell and I think you'll find it's a free adaptation of the following from "A Treatise on the Paaramiis", commentary to Cariyaa-Pi.taka, under "Renunciation". I was referring to the translation in B.Bodhi's "All Embracing Net of Views" (Brahmajaala Sutta and commentaries), but see it's also on line here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html: (3) The perfection of renunciation is the wholesome act of consciousness which occurs renouncing sense pleasures and existence, preceded by the perception of their unsatisfactoriness and accompanied by compassion and skillful means. The bodhisattva should practice the perfection of renunciation by first recognizing the unsatisfactoriness in sense pleasures, etc., according to the following method: "For one dwelling in a home there is no opportunity to enjoy the happiness of renunciation, etc., because the home life is the dwelling place of all the defilements, because a wife and children impose restrictions (on one's freedom), and because the diverse crafts and occupations such as agriculture and trade lead to numerous entanglements. *****And sense pleasures, like a drop of honey smeared over the blade of a sword, give limited satisfaction and entail abundant harm. They are fleeting like a show perceived in a flash of lightning; enjoyable only through a perversion of perception like the adornments of a madman; a means of vengeance like a camouflaged pit of excrement; unsatisfying like a thin drink or the water moistening the fingers; afflictive like food which is inwardly rotten; a cause for calamity like a baited hook; the cause of suffering in the three times like a burning fire; a basis for bondage like monkey's glue; a camouflage for destruction like a murderer's cloak; a place of danger like a dwelling in an enemy village; food for the Maara of the defilements like the supporter of one's foes; subject to suffering through change like the enjoyment of a festival; inwardly burning like the fire in the hollow of a tree; fraught with danger like a ball of honey suspended from the bulrushes in an old pit; intensifying thirst like a drink of salt water; resorted to by the vulgar like liquor and wine; and giving little satisfaction like a chain of bones."***** Shall we look at the Pali too? > I know MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta with ten similar similes. But the list is not the same. > > In MN 22, > Sense desires are (1) like bare bones (atthikankaluupamaa), (2) like a lump of flesh (mamsapesuupamaa), (3) like a torch of straw (tinukkuupamaa), (4) like a pit of burning coals (angaarakaasuupamaa), (5) like a dream (supinakuupamaa), (6) like borrowed goods (yaacitakuupamaa), (7) like a fruit-bearing tree (rukkhaphaluupamaa), (8) like a butcher's chopping block (asisuunuupamaa), (9) like a stake of swords (sattisuuluupamaa), (10) like a snake's head (sappasiruupamaa). ... S: These are interesting too - we can see if any of the same terms are included in the above. Most of the similes above, starting with the drop of honey on the razor/sword-blade, we also find in other commentaries too. Metta Sarah #122668 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Just a Flash of Delight! sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, The following is interesting to consider further as well, even though it's been discussed before: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Blissful is being without passions in this world, > Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! > Udana II, 1 S: Here we have the reference. From Peter Masefield's translation of the Udana (ch 2, #1, Mucalinda): " 'Separation is bliss for the one who is satisfied, whose Dhamma has been heard, who beholds. Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m) is bliss, that control with respect to living beings in this world. Freedom from lust where this world is concerned is bliss, that transcendence of sense-desires. The driving out (vinayo) of the 'I am' conceit - this is indeed the highest bliss'." This was uttered by the Buddha soon after his seven day experiencing of the `bliss of liberation' (vimuttisukhapa.tisa.mvedi) to the brahmin youth. Notes from the Comy: ***** " 'Separation is bliss (sukho viveko)'; substrate spearation, reckoned as nibbana, is bliss. 'For the one who is satisfied (tu.t.thassa)': for the one who is satisfied by way of contentedness associated with the knowledge associated with the four paths. 'Whose Dhamma has been heard (sutadhammassa)': whose Dhamma has been made manifest, whose Dhamma has been heard far and wide. 'Who beholds: passato = passantassa' (alternative grammatical form) all this - that separation, or indeed whatever else there is to be beheld - with the eye of knowledge attained through his own power in the form of energy. 'Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m)': angerlessness; in this way it is the stage previous to loving kindness that is indicated. 'That control with respect to living beings (paa.nabhuutesu sa.myamo)': and that control with respect to beings '(sattesu)', meaning non-injury is bliss; in this way it is the stage previous to compassion that is indicated. "'Freedom from lust where the world is concerned is bliss (sukkhaa viraagataaloke'): being without lust where this world is concerned is also bliss. Of what sort? 'That transcendence of sense-desires (kaamaana.m samatikkamo)' means that that being without lust, that is spoken of as 'That transcendence of sense-desires', is also bliss; in this way it is the path of the non-return that is talked about. "'The driving out of the 'I am' conceit (asmimaanassa yo vinayo)': by this means, moreover, it is arahantship that is talked about. For arahantship is spoken of as 'the driving out, by way of tranquillization, of the 'I am' conceit'; and there is known no bliss behond this, for which reason he said 'This is indeed the highest bliss'. So did he bring that teaching to a climax by way of arahantship." [For more translations of the stanza, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24127] Metta Sarah ===== #122669 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:37 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (122525) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of MN43: > > > > ************************************ > > "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: > > the voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso > > manasikara)." > > ["MA: 'The voice of another' (parato ghosa) is the teaching of beneficial Dhamma. These two conditions are necessary for disciples to arrive at the right view of insight and the right view of the supramundane path....] > > ************************************ > > RE: Could you say a bit more about what constitutes or are the attributes of wise attention? > =============== J: 'Wise attention' is the translation of the Pali 'yoniso manasikaara'. 'Manasikaara' is one of those cetasikas (mental factors) that arises with every single citta. When arising with kusala citta, it's called 'yoniso mamasikaara', with akusala citta, 'ayoniso manasikaara'. It's essential function is the same in either case: it binds or joins the associated mental states to the object. The following is from the footnotes to MN2 (Sabbaasava Sutta, BB translation): **************************** "Wise attention (yoniso manasikaara) is glossed as attention that is the right means (upaaya), on the right track (patha). It is explained as mental advertence, consideration, or preoccupation that accords with the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as impermanent, etc. "Unwise attention (ayoniso manasikaara) is attention that is the wrong means, on the wrong track (uppatha), contrary to the truth, namely, attention to the impermanent as permanent, the painful as pleasurable, what is not self as self, and what is foul as beautiful." "Unwise attention, MA informs us, is at the root of the round of existence, for it causes ignorance and craving to increase; wise attention is at the root of liberation from the round, since it leads to the development of the Noble Eightfold Path." **************************** Hope this helps. Jon #122670 From: han tun Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Sarah hantun1 Dear Sarah, Three bows to you! I got it. I found two sources for the same material. A Treatise on the Paramis A Discourse from the Majjhima NikĂĄya Ácariya DhammapĂĄla Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_409_411.html A Treatise on the Paramis From the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka by Acariya Dhammapala translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html ---------------- (x) How are they to be practised? (3) The perfection of renunciation is the wholesome act of consciousness which occurs renouncing sense pleasures and existence, preceded by the perception of their unsatisfactoriness and accompanied by compassion and skilful means. The bodhisattva should practise the perfection of renunciation by first recognizing the unsatisfactoriness in sense pleasures, etc., according to the following method: “For one dwelling in a home there is no opportunity to enjoy the happiness of renunciation, etc., because the home life is the dwelling place of all the defilements, because a wife and children impose restrictions (on one’s freedom), and because the diverse crafts and occupations such as agriculture and trade lead to numerous entanglements. And sense pleasures, (i) like a drop of honey smeared over the blade of a sword, give limited satisfaction and entail abundant harm. (ii) They are fleeting like a show perceived in a flash of lightning; (iii) enjoyable only through a perversion of perception like the adornments of a madman; (iv) a means of vengeance like a camouflaged pit of excrement; (v) unsatisfying like a thin drink or the water moistening the fingers; (vi) afflictive like food which is inwardly rotten; (vii) a cause for calamity like a baited hook; (viii) the cause of suffering in the three times like a burning fire; (ix) a basis for bondage like monkey’s glue; (x) a camouflage for destruction like a murderer’s cloak; (xi) a place of danger like a dwelling in an enemy village; (xii) food for the Maara of the defilements like the supporter of one’s foes; (xiii) subject to suffering through change like the enjoyment of a festival; (xiv) inwardly burning like the fire in the hollow of a tree; (xv) fraught with danger like a ball of honey suspended from the bulrushes in an old pit; (xvi) intensifying thirst like a drink of salt water; (xvii) resorted to by the vulgar like liquor and wine; (xviii) and giving little satisfaction like a chain of bones.” Han: If I can find Paa.li text I will come back to you. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sat, 2/18/12, sarah wrote: S: He didn't provide the source, but fortunately, it rang a bell and I think you'll find it's a free adaptation of the following from "A Treatise on the Paaramiis", commentary to Cariyaa-Pi.taka, under "Renunciation". I was referring to the translation in B.Bodhi's "All Embracing Net of Views" (Brahmajaala Sutta and commentaries), but see it's also on line here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html: (3) The perfection of renunciation is the wholesome act of consciousness which occurs renouncing sense pleasures and existence, preceded by the perception of their unsatisfactoriness and accompanied by compassion and skillful means. The bodhisattva should practice the perfection of renunciation by first recognizing the unsatisfactoriness in sense pleasures, etc., according to the following method: "For one dwelling in a home there is no opportunity to enjoy the happiness of renunciation, etc., because the home life is the dwelling place of all the defilements, because a wife and children impose restrictions (on one's freedom), and because the diverse crafts and occupations such as agriculture and trade lead to numerous entanglements. *****And sense pleasures, like a drop of honey smeared over the blade of a sword, give limited satisfaction and entail abundant harm. They are fleeting like a show perceived in a flash of lightning; enjoyable only through a perversion of perception like the adornments of a madman; a means of vengeance like a camouflaged pit of excrement; unsatisfying like a thin drink or the water moistening the fingers; afflictive like food which is inwardly rotten; a cause for calamity like a baited hook; the cause of suffering in the three times like a burning fire; a basis for bondage like monkey's glue; a camouflage for destruction like a murderer's cloak; a place of danger like a dwelling in an enemy village; food for the Maara of the defilements like the supporter of one's foes; subject to suffering through change like the enjoyment of a festival; inwardly burning like the fire in the hollow of a tree; fraught with danger like a ball of honey suspended from the bulrushes in an old pit; intensifying thirst like a drink of salt water; resorted to by the vulgar like liquor and wine; and giving little satisfaction like a chain of bones."***** Shall we look at the Pali too? > I know MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta with ten similar similes. But the list is not the same. > > In MN 22, > Sense desires are (1) like bare bones (atthikankaluupamaa), (2) like a lump of flesh (mamsapesuupamaa), (3) like a torch of straw (tinukkuupamaa), (4) like a pit of burning coals (angaarakaasuupamaa), (5) like a dream (supinakuupamaa), (6) like borrowed goods (yaacitakuupamaa), (7) like a fruit-bearing tree (rukkhaphaluupamaa), (8) like a butcher's chopping block (asisuunuupamaa), (9) like a stake of swords (sattisuuluupamaa), (10) like a snake's head (sappasiruupamaa). ... S: These are interesting too - we can see if any of the same terms are included in the above. Most of the similes above, starting with the drop of honey on the razor/sword-blade, we also find in other commentaries too. Metta Sarah #122671 From: han tun Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a Flash of Delight! hantun1 Dear Sarah, I will study it and come back to you. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sat, 2/18/12, sarah wrote: From: sarah Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a Flash of Delight! To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, February 18, 2012, 11:41 AM Dear Han & all, The following is interesting to consider further as well, even though it's been discussed before: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Blissful is being without passions in this world, > Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! > Udana II, 1 S: Here we have the reference. From Peter Masefield's translation of the Udana (ch 2, #1, Mucalinda): " 'Separation is bliss for the one who is satisfied, whose Dhamma has been heard, who beholds. Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m) is bliss, that control with respect to living beings in this world. Freedom from lust where this world is concerned is bliss, that transcendence of sense-desires. The driving out (vinayo) of the 'I am' conceit - this is indeed the highest bliss'." This was uttered by the Buddha soon after his seven day experiencing of the `bliss of liberation' (vimuttisukhapa.tisa.mvedi) to the brahmin youth. Notes from the Comy: ***** " 'Separation is bliss (sukho viveko)'; substrate spearation, reckoned as nibbana, is bliss. 'For the one who is satisfied (tu.t.thassa)': for the one who is satisfied by way of contentedness associated with the knowledge associated with the four paths. 'Whose Dhamma has been heard (sutadhammassa)': whose Dhamma has been made manifest, whose Dhamma has been heard far and wide. 'Who beholds: passato = passantassa' (alternative grammatical form) all this - that separation, or indeed whatever else there is to be beheld - with the eye of knowledge attained through his own power in the form of energy. 'Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m)': angerlessness; in this way it is the stage previous to loving kindness that is indicated. 'That control with respect to living beings (paa.nabhuutesu sa.myamo)': and that control with respect to beings '(sattesu)', meaning non-injury is bliss; in this way it is the stage previous to compassion that is indicated. "'Freedom from lust where the world is concerned is bliss (sukkhaa viraagataaloke'): being without lust where this world is concerned is also bliss. Of what sort? 'That transcendence of sense-desires (kaamaana.m samatikkamo)' means that that being without lust, that is spoken of as 'That transcendence of sense-desires', is also bliss; in this way it is the path of the non-return that is talked about. "'The driving out of the 'I am' conceit (asmimaanassa yo vinayo)': by this means, moreover, it is arahantship that is talked about. For arahantship is spoken of as 'the driving out, by way of tranquillization, of the 'I am' conceit'; and there is known no bliss behond this, for which reason he said 'This is indeed the highest bliss'. So did he bring that teaching to a climax by way of arahantship." [For more translations of the stanza, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24127] Metta Sarah ===== #122672 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (122587) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > > >J:I agree that the Buddha described the path. > > A: And for what purpose He describes the path? > =============== J: The path is the way leading to escape from samsara. The use of the term 'path' here is of course metaphorical. It's a path in the sense that the various factors, when co-arising, lead to nibbaana. It is not a path in the sense of things to be done (followed). > =============== > >In other words, it's a description of the mental states and stages >involved. > > A: And this description is about what occurs when one follows the path. should be done. The suttas are clear, so is VsM. > =============== J: The texts do not talk about 'following the path', but rather about the development or cultivation of the path. > =============== > >J:The extract you've quoted here sets out a particular case, >namely, the case of the monk in whom samatha and vipassana are >already well developed. > >============== > > A: Where does it state that? Why would the Buddha keep teaching something irrelevant to us? Why doesn't the sutta say that "it is particular case of Bhikkhu named such and such". > =============== J: Regarding 'Where does it state that?', those are the opening words of the passage ("There is the case where [a monk/person] …"). Regarding 'Why doesn't the sutta say that "it is particular case of Bhikkhu named such and such".', it is not the case of a particular Bhikkhu named such and such, but of a class of persons that are then carefully described, namely, the monk/person who "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." This is a description of a person in whom both samatha and vipassana are already well developed. Jon #122673 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:55 pm Subject: Re: tragedy of addictions - how to get help. szmicio Dear all, Eh...again drunk...I really dont control that. Good that Luraya come at Monday. Best wishes Lukas #122674 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a Flash of Delight! hantun1 Dear Sarah, I found the following which I can understand very well. "Sukho viveko tu.t.thassa, sutadhammassa passato; Abyaapajja.m sukha.m loke, paa.nabhuutesu sa.myamo. Separation is bliss for the one who is satisfied, whose Dhamma has been heard, who beholds. Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m) is bliss, that control with respect to living beings in this world. [Peter Masefield] Blissful is detachment for one who is content, for one who has learned Dhamma and who sees; Blissful is non-affliction in the world, restraint towards living creatures. [John D. Ireland] Blissful is solitude for one who's content, who has heard the Dhamma, who sees. Blissful is non-affliction with regard for the world, restraint for living beings. [Thanissaro Bhikkhu] ---------- "Sukhaa viraagataa loke, kaamaana.m samatikkamo; Asmimaanassa yo vinayo, eta.m ve parama.m sukha"nti. Freedom from lust where this world is concerned is bliss, that transcendence of sense-desires. The driving out (vinayo) of the 'I am' conceit, this is indeed the highest bliss. [Peter Masefield] Blissful is passionlessness in the world, the overcoming of sensual desires; But the abolition of the conceit "I am" that is truly the supreme bliss. [John D. Ireland] Blissful is dispassion with regard for the world, the overcoming of sensuality. But the subduing of the conceit "I am" That is truly the ultimate bliss. [Thanissaro Bhikkhu] ---------- Han: Thank you very much for your kind assistance. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sat, 2/18/12, sarah wrote: Dear Han & all, The following is interesting to consider further as well, even though it's been discussed before: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Blissful is being without passions in this world, > Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! > Udana II, 1 S: Here we have the reference. From Peter Masefield's translation of the Udana (ch 2, #1, Mucalinda): " 'Separation is bliss for the one who is satisfied, whose Dhamma has been heard, who beholds. Harmlessness (abyaapajja.m) is bliss, that control with respect to living beings in this world. Freedom from lust where this world is concerned is bliss, that transcendence of sense-desires. The driving out (vinayo) of the 'I am' conceit - this is indeed the highest bliss'." This was uttered by the Buddha soon after his seven day experiencing of the `bliss of liberation' (vimuttisukhapa.tisa.mvedi) to the brahmin youth. #122675 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala, was Just checking nilovg Dear Scott, You bring up many points about kusala, its value, sharing Dhamma, helping, etc. I find it worth while to go into this. Op 17-feb-2012, om 15:32 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > > N:" We know in theory that people are conditioned dhammas..." > > Scott: This may or may not be pariyatti. This can no more be 'used' > to control dhammas than can 'anatta as a strategy,' yet it seems as > if this is what is being suggested. > ------- N: No, no strategy. We try to remember that whatever people say or do, no matter we like it or not, all that are just conditioned dhammas. The kusala cittas or akusala cittas that arise do so because of pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependent condition. In other words, accumulated inclinations of kusala or akusala condition their arising. This is so in our case and in the case of others. Important to remember, because this makes one more patient, more tolerant. Yes, first pariyatti level and this will lead to pa.tipatti level eventually. I do not talk about control here, but about conditions. --------- > > N: "...It helps though, not to think much about persons, just about > sharing Dhamma we learnt. You studied so many texts with the Pali, > and others can profit from that." > > Scott: Is 'not to think much about persons' a strategy to be > implemented? > ------- N: No, not at all. We just think of the value of Dhamma and this thing of value, why not share it? why just keep it to ourselves? ------ > S: Why should I necessarily want to 'share Dhamma?' > ------ N: :-)). Just share, do not think so much about it. ------- > S: And what says I have 'learnt' it? One time the study of texts is > said to be useful, at others it is said not to be. Which is it? Or > 'when' is it? What, in all of this discussing, is pariyatti? > ----------- > N: Discussing: As Sarah also said several times, the writing of posts helps us ourselves as well to consider more the Dhamma. Like I do now, consider more the cittas that want to share Dhamma. Of course a lot of akusala alternates with kusala, but this does not stop us. Why try to catch all those akusala moments? Pa~n~naa will know these more in detail when time comes, and this is no longer pariyatti. ------ S: Is 'trying to teach' kusala? Is 'teaching' the aim? Why would I want to 'teach' anyone? Is 'trying to help' kusala? Is 'helping' the aim? Why would I want to 'help' anyone? Is one to act like a Dhamma missionary? ------ N: Not at all! No missionary work. When helping, and (when performed with kusala citta) this is a meritorious action under siila (apart from refraining from akusala, respect and politeness), you do not think of yourself but of others' benefit. No time for doubt: should I, should I not. Same for generosity: not only giving material things, also rejoicing in others' kusala, such as their interest in the Dhamma. This is anumodana daana. And also: transference of merit, to let others know of your kusala, be they dead or alive, so that they can have kusala cittas. Do not be misled by the terms here, this is not a way of showing off, but it is done with kusala citta. -------- Kh Sujin said that she wants to help others to have kusala citta. I learnt a lot from the Thais. One cough, and ten pairs of hands reach out to give you medicine. They react so quickly, before you can wink an eye they help already with whatever you may need. This makes me think of the sobhana cetasikas that assist every kusala citta:lightness, wieldiness, quick to react. In India going around the holy places, and then on the last day we all would express anumodana to all people present by saying anumodana with clasped hands and a bow. Just rejoicing in others' kusala. There is not so much thinking and doubting should I or should I not, what is the purpose. Just do it, just rejoice! -------- S: And when it doesn't arise? While true, to merely state the above is a trueism, and to suggest this in relation to a certain way of responding is no different than 'practice' as wrongly conceived by 'practitioners.' This seems to be a call to 'practice' a certain way of being no matter what is actually arising. ------- N: Instead of practice we can say: application of the Dhamma in daily life. At times kusala may arise, at other times not. The friends we associate with are a condition for kusala citta. ------- S: This is superficial if it is You said to me years ago, when I was naively struggling with the same dhammas that everyone on the list deals with, that the solution was not silence in the face of akusala. Has this now changed? Is there actually a 'should' in the message after all? ------ N: I do not remember this. I do not think of should, just of spontaneous kusala, sharing Dhamma, not too much thinking. Just do it! ------- S:I think that no matter the intellectual knowledge - and I mean pariyatti as I believe I now am understanding it - there is still the attraction to form and appearances. The way I understand the Dhamma conditions thinking about appearances differently than it does for you or for Jon. ----------- N: Too much thinking makes life very complicated. Let us just perform kusala as much as we are able to, and just rejoice! Nina. #122676 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:12 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, >J: Regarding 'Where does it state that?', those are the opening >words >of the passage ("There is the case where [a monk/person] …"). > >Regarding 'Why doesn't the sutta say that "it is particular case of >Bhikkhu named such and such".', it is not the case of a particular >Bhikkhu named such and such, but of a class of persons that are then >carefully described, namely, the monk/person who "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." >============================================================== A class of persons is a generality. We all belong to Homo Sapiens. It doesn't alter the fact that Buddha has described a path to be followed. Only when one follows a certain path can there be description of a path developing. Why path is developing? Because one follows it. All those descriptions are of actions that happen only because one undertakes them. With best wishes, Alex #122677 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala, was Just checking moellerdieter Dear Nina, just a question between ( from a well written posting of yours) you wrote: 'The kusala cittas or akusala cittas that arise do so because of pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependent condition. In other words, accumulated inclinations of kusala or akusala condition their arising.' D: would you agree , that in terms of D.O. accumulated inclinations are presented by avijja -sankhara which conditions the (kusala/akusala) citta in a way by ( kusala/akusala ) cetasika ? I am refering to this issue because we started to talk about the static analysis and the streaming process of the consciousness, which was a major point of Venerable Nyanaponika's writings : not to neglect that analysis deals with what has been, but in reality there is no static moment in this flow of phenomena and therefore the dynamic should be included in the studies as soon as possible,.. I noted critical comments when I posted matters concerning the Law of Dependent Origination and it seems to me that base knowledge of D.O. like proclaimed by the Maha Nidana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html cannot necessarily be assumed. Looking forward to learn how you see that.. with Metta Dieter #122678 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala, was Just checking scottduncan2 Dieter, D: "... I am refering to this issue because we started to talk about the static analysis and the streaming process of the consciousness, which was a major point of Venerable Nyanaponika's writings : not to neglect that analysis deals with what has been, but in reality there is no static moment in this flow of phenomena and therefore the dynamic should be included in the studies as soon as possible,.. I noted critical comments when I posted matters concerning the Law of Dependent Origination..." Scott: I consider that a rigid adherence to notions regarding 'the Law of Dependent Origination' is an impediment to right view. The above exemplifies this rigidity. The 'law of Dependent Origination' is not meant to explain the entirety of conditionality. This is where the above noted view goes wrong. The inappropriate misunderstanding of 'the Law of Dependent Origination' concerns the fact that it is in reference to what happens in only one 'existence.' It is a description that is global only. In the above, 'the Law of Dependent Origination' is misused because it is incorrectly taken to be a template or model that is descriptive of conditional relations. It is most definitely not. Conditional relations is the complete and correct exposition of the way it is. Pa.t.thaana of the Abhidhamma is the full description of the full 24 conditions, and the complexity of the permutations and combinations of their interactions. States are shown to be related to other states as conditions and conditioning forces. Ignore this, as is done above when fixated on 'the Law of Dependent Origination' and the view is wrong. This 'law of Dependent Origination' is a mere subset of the whole of the description found in Pa.t.thaana. Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment is wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow or dynamic are concepts. Scott. #122679 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:57 pm Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >a.If natthatta = "there is no self," what is the translation of >anatta - usually given as "no self or not self." > >I don't see the difference between "there is no self" and "no self." > >=========================================================== > > Translation of anatta = not self. It is how we should relate to actual phenomena that arises. > > Natthata on the other hand, tends to delve into metaphysics beyond experience. > > > >b.What in your view is the significance of refraining from saying >"natthatta." If you say you don't believe in the existence of >"atta" >then why not say "natthatta" which would mean that the atta >you don't >believe in doesn't exist? > >============================================================ > > Buddha has recommended to focus in terms of 4NT rather than metaphysics of existence/non-existence . My interest is also in applying anatta to arising phenomena. However, I think that if you assert that "Buddha never said there was no self" that is also delving into metaphysics just as much as saying "There is no self." Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #122680 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:08 pm Subject: Re: sabbe dhamma epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >A: This avoidance is very interesting. Even when He was speaking to >wise monks who would not misinterpret Him saying that "self doesn't >exist", the Buddha kept avoiding mentioning it. Don't you find it >strange? Maybe there was some teaching point in that. > > > >RE: What do you think the teaching point was in that case? > >================================= > > I guess the teaching point was about what is happening now rather than static categories of existence/non-existence. > > > Regarding "sabbe dhamma anatta/ all dhammas are not self" . > > Sabbe dhamma might NOT include absolutely everything imagined or unimagined. It doesn't have to include Nibbana. See AN10.58 > > "All phenomena are rooted in desire" > "All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html > > Since Nibbana is not rooted in desire, it is outside of sabbe dhamma. > Nibbana is the end of sabbe dhamma (all phenomena). Hm...so you are saying that nibbana is not a dhamma? What is it then? > Also, the all (sabba) has been taught as: > > ============================================================= > "Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html > ================================================================ > > What lies outside of 12 ayatanas cannot be explained as it is beyond range. I don't believe that one should sneak atta. No way. But all I am saying is that we are not omniscient. I think that clearly Nibbana is outside of the All. Yet it is defined as a dhamma. Nibbana is known as the only unconditioned dhamma, which is why it is not part of the All. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #122681 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:14 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: Could you say a bit more about what constitutes or are the attributes of wise attention? > > =============== > > J: 'Wise attention' is the translation of the Pali 'yoniso manasikaara'. > > 'Manasikaara' is one of those cetasikas (mental factors) that arises with every single citta. When arising with kusala citta, it's called 'yoniso mamasikaara', with akusala citta, 'ayoniso manasikaara'. > > It's essential function is the same in either case: it binds or joins the associated mental states to the object. > > The following is from the footnotes to MN2 (Sabbaasava Sutta, BB translation): > > **************************** ...> "Unwise attention, MA informs us, is at the root of the round of existence, for it causes ignorance and craving to increase; wise attention is at the root of liberation from the round, since it leads to the development of the Noble Eightfold Path." > **************************** > > Hope this helps. Yes, thanks very much. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122682 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala, was Just checking scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N:" No, no strategy. We try to remember that whatever people say or do, no matter we like it or not, all that are just conditioned dhammas...I do not talk about control here, but about conditions." Scott: 'We try to remember' sounds like a strategy to me. I say *if* we remember then things unfold according to this, but if this is *not* remembered then what? Radio silence? 'Meditators' talk of 'setting up conditions - and we know this is clearly wrong. How is 'trying to remember' not like 'setting up conditions?' N: "... We just think of the value of Dhamma and this thing of value, why not share it? why just keep it to ourselves?" Scott: Yes, okay. We 'think of the value of the Dhamma' and this is a given. I would suggest that discussants on the list have many motives for participation. Let's say that 'valuing the Dhamma' is only one of them and that this obviously still allows for the diverse opinions being expressed. And I find myself in agreement with your take on the Dhamma but this puts me in opposition to certain other views repeatedly expressed on the list. How is disagreement to be avoided? It is inevitable. Those who don't see it as we do, disagree and we think that they are wrong. These discussants seem to value the Dhamma, true, but more so, they seem to value their own divergent opinions as well, and constantly put them forward. Were this not the case, there would be no discussion. It seems to me that it is the dealing with this fact that is causing so much trouble. Discussants who do not see eye-to-eye with you and me find themselves rather nonplussed whenever disagreements occur. What is the solution here? Silence again? There would be no list. N: "Discussing: As Sarah also said several times, the writing of posts helps us ourselves as well to consider more the Dhamma. Like I do now, consider more the cittas that want to share Dhamma. Of course a lot of akusala alternates with kusala, but this does not stop us. Why try to catch all those akusala moments? Pa~n~naa will know these more in detail when time comes, and this is no longer pariyatti." Scott: Why try to catch all those akusala moments? It seems to me that one is accused of acting out of akusala if one disagrees. I frankly don't know what 'cittas that want to share the Dhamma' are, since I don't feel like I 'want to share the Dhamma.' I want to discuss it, which includes, on this list, confronting those I think are wrong. N: "Not at all! No missionary work. When helping, and (when performed with kusala citta) this is a meritorious action under siila (apart from refraining from akusala, respect and politeness), you do not think of yourself but of others' benefit. No time for doubt: should I, should I not... Do not be misled by the terms here, this is not a way of showing off, but it is done with kusala citta." Scott: No, of course not 'showing off' but I am not aware of wanting to help anyone when I discuss here. Who am I to help anyone? I don't know anything. I do seem to have a strong sense of what the Dhamma is and what it is not, and respond accordingly. I don't happen to mind much when there is a whole lot of what I consider to be childish behaviour in response to what I say. I don't think that my knowledge of the Dhamma is such that it can 'benefit' others. I don't think of 'others' since 'others' are on their own. If anything, I think of the Dhamma. I know what I think is right and know what I think is wrong, Dhamma-wise, and say so. This is not appreciated. N: "Kh Sujin said that she wants to help others to have kusala citta..." Scott: I am not Kh. Sujin. I don't know what that means, 'to help others have kusala citta.' N: "Instead of practice we can say: application of the Dhamma in daily life. At times kusala may arise, at other times not. The friends we associate with are a condition for kusala citta." Scott: The only 'friends we associate with' *are* kusala cittas. I can't help finding that certain discussants on the list - the idea of them - is a condition for akusala citta. I don't consider other discussants to be realities in the ultimate sense. If the idea of other discussants does not condition kusala, perhaps I should simply disengage. N: "Too much thinking makes life very complicated. Let us just perform kusala as much as we are able to, and just rejoice!" Scott: While I agree with the sentiment, I consider the above to be an aphorism. You suggest that I 'think too much' and, in this, I suggest that this is convenient and applies to you as well as anyone on the list. While the statement is true, until 'too much thinking' is actually not happening, it is nothing more than words. If 'too much thinking' does not happen for you, then, yes, this is something to rejoice in. Forgive me if I doubt that this is the case. We are, after all, as Alex notes, only homo sapiens. Ha ha. Scott. #122683 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:49 am Subject: In the Sangha's Presence! bhikkhu5 Friends: Contemplating the Unique Qualities of the Sangha: Perfectly training is this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's Noble disciples! Training the right way, the true way, the good way, the direct way! Therefore do these eight kinds of individuals, these four Noble pairs, deserve both gifts, sacrifice, offerings, hospitality & reverential salutation with joined palms, since this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's Noble disciples, is an unsurpassable and forever unsurpassed field of merit, in this world, for this world, to honour, support, respect and protect... The blessed Buddha said: As long as he recollects these special qualities of the Sangha in this way, defined as 'having entered on the good way', then: On that occasion his mind cannot be obsessed by greed, or obsessed by hate, or obsessed by delusion; his mind possess an unassailable integrity, when being inspired by this Noble Sangha (AN III 286). When a bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of the Community, he is respectful and deferential towards the Community. He attains fullness of faith! He has much happiness and bliss. He conquers fear & dread. He is able to endure pain. He feels as if he were living in the Sangha's presence. When dwelling in the recollection of the Sangha's special qualities his body becomes indeed as worthy of veneration as an Uposatha house, where the Sangha has met. His mind inclines only towards the attainment of this Community's special qualities. Furthermore: When he encounters an opportunity for transgression, he has awareness of conscience and shame as vivid as if he were face to face with the elder Theras of the Noble Sangha. And if he can penetrate no higher, he is at least headed for a happy destiny. Vism I 221 Now when a man is truly wise, His constant task will surely be, This recollection of the Sangha, Blessed with such mighty potency! Vism I 218 EMERGENCE OF HARMONY Pleasant is the arising of a Buddha. Pleasant is the teaching of the Dhamma. Pleasant is peace and unity in the Sangha. Pleasant is the harmony of those united therein. Dhammapada Illustration 194 Background Story 194 MEDITATION-3 Ever are the true disciples of the Buddha well awake & quite aware. Constantly they meditate both day and night on the Sangha . Dhammapada Illustration 298 Background Story 296-301 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122684 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:16 pm Subject: Re: "he should leave it by night or by day." sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: So can we agree that whatever words are used in the Teachings, >there are only the arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas >now - no Atta, no Person, no Sarah, no Alex, no Buddha? > >========================================================== > >A: Buddha has NEVER stated "the is no Self" or "I am not". Moreover it is wrong attention as is said in MN#2. So no wonder that awakening is so far away when people keep indulging in metaphysical views (there is self, there is no self). .... S: You said below that when you wrote "One can" do XYZ, that you were speaking "conventionally" and suggested that the Buddha also is speaking conventionally when referring to "One", "Me", "You" and so on in the Suttas. So back to the "One" can - is this a conventional usage whilst knowing that really there are only khandhas, only names and rupas falling away or is there really an idea that there is a Person that can perform? > > S: "One" can? > > .... > >A: Conventionally speaking. Again, the Buddha often said that he/she should do this and that. Are you going to criticize the Buddha for teaching Atta? Metta Sarah ===== #122685 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, I'm appreciating your discussions with Nina. One quick "butt in" here: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > N:We discussed this with Acharn Sujin who said: "Can síla and samĺdhi be > fully developed without pańńĺ?" > > D: Years ago I nerved Dhamma friends with the claim that the Buddha never > proclaimed the 8fold Noble Path in a way that moral must come first before > understanding ( who would submit oneself to a moral, one doesn't understand > ?) . At that time I had read a book by A.Spiro (?), who claimed it was > Buddhagosa who introduced the approach of the path in the middle (sila > :3,4,5) before going on with samadhi 6,7,8 as the support for panna 1,2 ) , > adding evidence to what I supposed a commentarial misinterpretation. > Well I was wrong not seeing that one thing is the path of the Noble Ones , > the supramundane holy one , in which samma ditthi is the forerunner of all > the links 1-8, now accessible. And the other is the training aiming to > enter the former. .... S: I think you were right in the first place:) Samma ditthi is the forerunner no matter we are talking about the mundane or the supra mundane path. Without understanding, there cannot be any development of morality or samadhi. <...> > Wrong is as well that the training sequence- 3456712- is only found in the > commentaries. The nun Dhammadinna specified : > ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html ) : > And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, & discernment] > included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold > path included under the three aggregates?''The three aggregates are not > included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble > eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right > action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, > right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of > concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of > discernment." > > which was confirmed by the Buddha. .... S: Again, without right view, no development of any of the Right factors. As Nina has mentioned, sila is purified first at the stage of sotapanna, but this is through the development of satipatthana or vipassana. Again, samadhi is perfected at the stage of anagram, but only through the highly developed wisdom and eradication of all attachment to sense objects as a result. ... > Acharn Sujin refered to 'fully developed ' : I agree , sila and samadhi > will certainly not perfected without Panna . > Having in mind that the teaching is -as emphasised - gradual ,so wisdom is > a development of the path training/path penetration. ... S: I see now that you agree. I think we can put it that it is the development of wisdom which leads to the "path training/path penetration". This is why it's so valuable to keep discussing what right understanding is and what the objects of right understanding are at this moment. Metta Sarah ===== #122686 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Those who are afraid of death and those who are not sarahprocter... Dear Han & All, Thank you for your presentation: > Today, I wish to present AN 4.184 Abhaya Sutta: Fearless > translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html ... S: I also appreciate the two suttas concerning Anathapindiaka, SN 55: 26 (6) and 55: 27 (7). In the first one, Anathapindika, already a sotapanna, tells Sariputta how he's ill and not getting better and has strong painful feelings. Sariputta reminds him that he has confidence in the Buddha, Sangha, that he doesn't have the immorality of worldliness which can lead to rebirth in woeful planes, that he doesn't have wrong view which again can lead to rebirth in such planes. After being reminded of the path and the liberation, the pains subsided instantly. In the next sutta, Anathapindika tells Ananda about the illness and pain. Ananda says: "Householder, for the uninstructed worldling who possesses four things there is fright, there is trepidation, there is fear of imminent death.[Bodhi note: samparaayika.m mara.nabhaya.m. Spk: samparaayahetuka.m mara.nabhaya.m, which might mean 'fear of death caused (by expectations for ) the next life.] "Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling has distrust towards the Buddha, and when he considers within himself that distrust towards the Buddha, there is fright, trepidation, and fear of imminent death. "Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling has distrust towards the Dhamma, and when he considers within himself that distrust towards the Dhamma, there is fright, trepidation, and fear of imminent death. "Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling has distrust towards the Sangha, and when he considers within himself that distrust towards the Sangha, there is fright, trepidation, and fear of imminent death. "Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling is immoral, and when he considers within himself that immorality, there is fright, trepidation, and fear of imminent death. "For the uninstructed worldling who possesses these four things there is fright, trepidation, and fear of imminent death." Then, of course, we read about the opposites, just as in the earlier Sutta. Anathapinika says at the end: " ' I am not afraid, Venerable Ananda. Why should I be afraid? For, venerable sir, I possess confirmed confidence in the Buddha....in the Dhamma......in the Sangha. And as to these training rules for the laity taught by the Blessed One, I do not see within myself any that has been broken.' Ananda says: " 'It is a gain for you, householder! It is well gained by you, householder! You have declared, householder, the fruit of stream-entry.' " Whether a bhikkhu, like Ananda or a householder, like Anathapindika, the freedom from fear is just the same through the development of the Path and the firm confidence in the Triple Gem as resulting from this development. Metta Sarah ===== #122687 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, (Scott & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > The thing is the Abhidhamma and suttas have many things which we cannot directly experience, yet I would suggest they are useful to know. > Take the case of spontaneously born beings: I think it is part of right view to know they exist. ... S: Just back to this first example which I overlooked before. We can say it's conventional right view (sammuti sacca) to say there are "spontaneously born beings". Is it samma ditthi? That would depend on whether there was the arising of any panna whilst saying so. If we just repeat something we've read in a text without any understanding (even at the pariyatti level) of dhammas, of realities, at that moment, I don't see there being any samma ditthi. Another brief exchange from the first session in Bangkok last month: ***** Rob: I just think there's a difference in activities. Some activities demonstrate severe wrong view, some have got more chance of being the right track - some activities like reading an Abhidhamma book. Jon: How does it help to classify activities in that way? Isn't it more important to understand what wrong view and right view are? Rob: Well, that's what the Abhidhamma tends to do. That's why I think that way. But I see that people read Abhidhamma and don't get anywhere, so they need to be pointed out about the present moment.... KS: Reality. ********* Metta Sarah ==== #122688 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Those who are afraid of death and those who are not hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for quoting the two suttas: SN 55.26 Anaathapi.n.dika sutta (1) and SN 55. 27 Anaathapi.n.dika sutta (2). I read them and I have learnt a lot from them, thanks to you. I have noted your remark with appreciation: [Whether a bhikkhu, like Ananda or a householder, like Anathapindika, the freedom from fear is just the same through the development of the Path and the firm confidence in the Triple Gem as resulting from this development.] I have also noted that in the first sutta, Ven Saariputta thanked Anaathapi.n.dika with the following verses. "Yassa saddhaa tathaagate, acalaa suppati.t.thitaa; Siila~nca yassa kalyaa.na.m, ariyakanta.m pasa.msita.m. "When one has faith in the Tathaagata, Unshakable and well established, And good conduct built on virtue, Dear to the noble ones and praised; ---------- "Sa"nghe pasaado yassatthi, ujubhuuta~nca dassana.m; Adaliddoti ta.m aahu, amogha.m tassa jiivita.m. "When one has confidence in the Sangha, And view that has been rectified, They say that one is not poor, That one's life is not vain; ---------- "Tasmaa saddha~nca siila~nca, pasaada.m dhammadassana.m; Anuyu~njetha medhaavii, sara.m buddhaanasaasana"nti. "Therefore the person of intelligence, Remembering the Buddha's Teaching, Should be devoted to faith and virtue, To confidence and vision of the Dhamma." ---------- I like those verses. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sun, 2/19/12, sarah wrote: Dear Han & All, Thank you for your presentation: S: I also appreciate the two suttas concerning Anathapindiaka, SN 55: 26 (6) and 55: 27 (7). #122689 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:17 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > > 1) According to Comy, merely hearing and considering dhamma works only for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu. > > 2)We are no longer them. Only neyya, padaparama remain. > > 3) Neyya needs to engage in actual Practice (as opposed to mere listening and considering) to reach Sotapanna. > > > "An individual of the Neyya class can become a Sotpanna in this present life, if he faithfully practises the bodhipakkhiya-dhamma comprising satipatthana (four Applications of Mindfulness), sammapadhana (Right Exertion), etc. If he is lax in his practice, he can become a Sotapanna only in his next existence after being reborn in the deva planes. If he dies while still aloof from these (bodhipakkhiya-Dhammas) he will become a total loss so far as the present Buddha Sasana is concerned, but he can still attain release from worldly ills if he encounters the Sasana of the next Buddha." > http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm > =============== J: I'd be interested to see the Commentary passage you have in mind in you point (1) above. Thanks. Jon #122690 From: Lukas Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:28 pm Subject: Ignorance and forgetfulness. An extract from Dhamma talks. szmicio Dear friends, I've heard this from March 2011 Dhamma discussions: L: Next to moha, ignorance and forgetfulness, lack of sati, there is also a wrong view, ditthi, that hinders very much a Path. I think when wrong view doesnt arise, there is a more conditions for panna, amoha and sati, that is not forgetfulness of realities. That is a right view, samma-ditthi, that understands. But isnt it amoha and samma-ditthi the same? Best wishes Lukas #122691 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:04 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I'm a little confused about right concentration accompanying every citta, whether kusala or akusala. That seems to lead to a possibility of a citta arising with both right concentration and distractedness, agitation, restlessness, etc. - factors that would seem to be its opposites or antagonists. > =============== J: I think Scott and others have resolved your confusion already. Kusala concentration can only accompany a kusala citta. (A reference to 'right concentration' may, depending on the context, be a reference to the concentration that accompanies any kusala citta or, more narrowly, to the NEP factor of that name.) Of course, the factor of concentration also accompanies each akusala citta, so there is still the question of the co-arising of concentration and the factor of restlessness, etc. Happy to discuss further if there is still any confusion. Jon #122692 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:21 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "... We can say it's conventional right view (sammuti sacca) to say there are 'spontaneously born beings'. Is it samma ditthi? That would depend on whether there was the arising of any panna whilst saying so. If we just repeat something we've read in a text without any understanding (even at the pariyatti level) of dhammas, of realities, at that moment, I don't see there being any samma ditthi..." Scott: Would it be fair to say that discussions on the list are, for the most part, about 'conventional right view (sammuti sacca)?' In other words, there are right ways and there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa, and it is this that is the main focus of discussion. Is sammuti sacca a necessary forerunner, that is, is it part of pariyatti in some way? Scott. #122693 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:03 am Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE: My interest is also in applying anatta to arising phenomena. >======================================== So we can apply it only to what is experiencible, not absolutely everything that we my never experience. >However, I think that if you assert that "Buddha never said there >was >no self" that is also delving into metaphysics just as much as >saying >"There is no self." >================= Refusal to answer "Is there no self" does NOT mean the opposite. It is simply an incorrect question. Buddha has often refused to answer speculative questions. Does this mean that Buddha had metaphysical views? No. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html And the reason is far less exciting and esoteric: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html ""So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html#poison =================================================================== With best wishes, Alex #122694 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:23 am Subject: Re: sabbe dhamma truth_aerator Hello RobertE, >RE: Hm...so you are saying that nibbana is not a dhamma? What is it >then? >============= Lets say the fire ran out of fuel and got fully extinguished. Does extinguished "fire" exist as some sort of phenomenon? Can we even call this a phenomenon? Same with Nibbana. With best wishes, Alex #122695 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:27 am Subject: Re: "he should leave it by night or by day." truth_aerator Dear Sarah, > .... > S: You said below that when you wrote "One can" do XYZ, that you >were speaking "conventionally" and suggested that the Buddha also is >speaking conventionally when referring to "One", "Me", "You" and so >on in the Suttas. > >So back to the "One" can - is this a conventional usage whilst >knowing that really there are only khandhas, only names and rupas >falling away or is there really an idea that there is a Person that >can perform? > >S: "One" can? >========================================= You are mixing up conventional and ultimate analysis. When we talk about something it is good to stick to one type of analysis and not deliberately mix it up to create incorrect conclusions. When we talk using conventional speech, then yes. Person does and can do things including practice etc. When we talk using technical terms, then it is khandha ayatana dhatu. With best wishes, Alex #122696 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:29 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, > > http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm > > =============== > > J: I'd be interested to see the Commentary passage you have in mind >in you point (1) above. Thanks. > > Jon >================ The link is above where I took this. With best wishes, Alex #122697 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:08 am 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. > > ... > > I'm a little confused about right concentration accompanying every citta, whether kusala or akusala. That seems to lead to a possibility of a citta arising with both right concentration and distractedness, agitation, restlessness, etc. - factors that would seem to be its opposites or antagonists. > > =============== > > J: I think Scott and others have resolved your confusion already. Kusala concentration can only accompany a kusala citta. (A reference to 'right concentration' may, depending on the context, be a reference to the concentration that accompanies any kusala citta or, more narrowly, to the NEP factor of that name.) Well, they did resolve the first part, but the part that you mention in parentheses really clears it up for me. Knowing that right concentration can sometimes merely be a synonym for kusala concentration helps clear up that quote that was bothering me. > Of course, the factor of concentration also accompanies each akusala citta, so there is still the question of the co-arising of concentration and the factor of restlessness, etc. Happy to discuss further if there is still any confusion. Well, what do you think about that? I think what it would suggest to me is that the concentration that arises with a kusala citta could maybe be *bad* concentration that is not so effective. Maybe it is still holding together and focusing certain factors, but may also be agitated or spotty concentration that would make sense arising with restlessness, inattention or agitation. Does that make any sense? If you had blurry, fairly ineffective concentration arising with restlessness, agitation and delusion, it would still be concentration, but it would be the kind you have when you haven't slept or are trying to read something without your glasses. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122699 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:21 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob K, (Scott & all), > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > The thing is the Abhidhamma and suttas have many things which we cannot directly experience, yet I would suggest they are useful to know. > > > Take the case of spontaneously born beings: I think it is part of right view to know they exist. > > ... > > S: Just back to this first example which I overlooked before. We can say it's conventional right view (sammuti sacca) to say there are "spontaneously born beings". Is it samma ditthi? That would depend on whether there was the arising of any panna whilst saying so. If we just repeat something we've read in a text without any understanding (even at the pariyatti level) of dhammas, of realities, at that moment, I don't see there being any samma ditthi. > > ----------------- > Dear sarah Of course by defition if there is no panna at any moment then sammaditthi is absent. Not sure why you specify the view above though: if somone says there is only name and rupa but there is no panna it is the same. The real point is whether anyone could believe and say" there are no spontaenously arisen beings" and be having panna: i would say that is impossible. Likewise if they said and thought that "there is nama and rupa that can be controlled" : it shows wrong view is present Robert > > Another brief exchange from the first session in Bangkok last month: > > ***** > > Rob: I just think there's a difference in activities. Some activities demonstrate severe wrong view, some have got more chance of being the right track - some activities like reading an Abhidhamma book. > > > > Jon: How does it help to classify activities in that way? Isn't it more important to understand what wrong view and right view are? > > > > Rob: Well, that's what the Abhidhamma tends to do. That's why I think that way. But I see that people read Abhidhamma and don't get anywhere, so they need to be pointed out about the present moment.... > > > > KS: Reality. > > > > ********* > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ==== > > > #122700 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:16 pm Subject: Re: Short on "no-control" epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > > >RE: My interest is also in applying anatta to arising phenomena. > >======================================== > > So we can apply it only to what is experiencible, not absolutely everything that we my never experience. > > > > >However, I think that if you assert that "Buddha never said there >was >no self" that is also delving into metaphysics just as much as >saying >"There is no self." > >================= > > Refusal to answer "Is there no self" does NOT mean the opposite. It is simply an incorrect question. > > Buddha has often refused to answer speculative questions. Does this mean that Buddha had metaphysical views? No. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html I was not talking about Buddha not answering; I was talking about you seeming to make a negative proposition out of his silence. If you say "Buddha never said there is no self" that is different than saying "Buddha did not want to talk about whether or not there is a self because it leads to speculative thought." I think the latter is a valid point, but the former statement seems to imply that there is a self. In other words, I am talking about the way you seemed to frame the issue. I have no problem with the way the Buddha framed it. > And the reason is far less exciting and esoteric: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html > > ""So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. > > "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. > > "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. Well I see by your quote that the Buddha was pretty clear about not wanting to make metaphysical declarations. That doesn't bother me, as I agree that the application of anatta to actual moments of clinging, etc., is what counts. But I think you make a good point that talking about whether or not a self exists as as general proposition seems to have been off of his chosen agenda. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #122701 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:06 pm Subject: Re: sabbe dhamma epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > >RE: Hm...so you are saying that nibbana is not a dhamma? What is it >then? > >============= > > > Lets say the fire ran out of fuel and got fully extinguished. Does extinguished "fire" exist as some sort of phenomenon? Can we even call this a phenomenon? > > Same with Nibbana. How does Buddha define nibbana? And is there a distinction between nibbana and parinibbana? Obviously nibbana can take place without ending the life or further experience of the one who experiences it. So what is it that ceases in nibbana, as opposed to parinibbana, and is it permanent? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #122702 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:01 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 scottduncan2 All, This opinion is a regurgitation of a modern guy's (Maung Lwin) opinion of a slightly less modern guy's (Ledi Sayadaw) opinion on a web-site with an ad selling: 'How to do Meditation. Discover 3 ways to experience deeper meditation in minutes...' http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm This is not a reference to any recognized Commentary. Scott. #122703 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:20 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Well, what do you think about that? I think what it would suggest to me is that the concentration that arises with a kusala citta could maybe be *bad* concentration that is not so effective..." Scott: No. There is no restlessness and agitation arising with kusala citta. By definition, when these are present, it is akusala citta. R: "...If you had blurry, fairly ineffective concentration arising with restlessness, agitation and delusion, it would still be concentration, but it would be the kind you have when you haven't slept or are trying to read something without your glasses." Scott: No. Akusala citta has an object, all the accompanying mental factors have the same object. Concentration would be concentration, performing the same function in each case. The citta would also include restlessness or whatever akusala mental factor happened to be along for the ride, performing it's separate function. Scott. #122704 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Scott, > Scott: Yes. I do get it. I was watching this documentary on the life of the Buddha and heard so much boodist nonsense and wrong-view - able to recognize it as such because of discussing Dhamma on the list - that I had to stop the transmission. As anyone can tell, I'm more than frustrated with the current assemblage of discussants who are the foils on the list. Mahayanists, Pedants, and Puggalavaadins. And by this I mean the views, and in particular the repetitive onslaught of misunderstanding complete with concepts about 'petulant and protected naysayers' whose presence is maintained at the expense of equally conceptual 'alienated supporters' - a reference to the concept known as me. Ha ha. > > What do *you* think the point is in repeating one more thing to these so-called discussants? Nina thinks they are 'serious.' I disagree, without meaning disrespect to Nina. Here you are again, after a break, doing it so painstakingly. Why? S: You are asking me to reveal my akusala motives, ;-) just kidding. But more seriously, the following is what I think. Like any other time of the day, reading and responding on DSG is with mixed motives. At the end of it however, I get a sense of having spent my time fruitfully in being able to sort out my thoughts. Just until recently I used to think like PT, that it is good to have discussants who don't agree with A. Sujin around since without them, there would be little to discuss. Although this is true, I however do not think in these terms anymore. The reason is perhaps that now there is more confidence that "learning" happens regardless of what situation we find ourselves in. What is heard and thought about is not important so long as one understands that it is all anatta and that the aim is to understand the dhammas rising and falling away through all the six doorways. This of course does not mean that I do not choose on DSG, which posts to read and which not to. I do and do not read the ones by those other discussants except occasionally. And when I respond to any one of them, I stick only to reading their responses to my posts and not any other ones. And why do I even bother? I get into a discussion thinking that I could correct a particular misunderstanding, although this never happens. What else is involved must as mentioned before, be a mix of both good and bad intentions, but this is only a guess which itself says, how great the ignorance is. Metta, Sukin #122705 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Robert E, > Suk: This is funny. R: I am glad you have a sense of humor. S: I do not see any value in lobha. ==== > While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!? R: I won't get into discussing other people's progress here. That would be just sharing my opinions. I would point out though as a general proposition that certainty and confidence can be a double-edged sword. S: I was referring to Saddha. Are you talking about some special mental factor that can be both good and bad or are you just thinking in terms of some conventional understanding? ===== R: It's great to be confident in that which you know and have verified; less useful to be confident about that which you merely believe. S: There are two kinds of Saddha, one with reference to kusala in general and the other to the Path. Both however arises with the citta and have nothing to do with anything being verified or with forming a belief. ===== > But then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand Anatta and have ended up making 'selves' out of dhammas….. R: I don't know whether anyone has been doing that or not, but I do think that terminology has a flavor of self-view in it. S: But you should be taking this into consideration! If Ken H, Scott and Alberto do not have a problem with sabhava, this is because they think more in terms of developing understanding about "realities". This and not a concern about terminology, is Dhamma study. ===== R: If you don't see the words "own" and "being" as having a flavor of self, then you may disagree. S: What if I was weak in English and Pali was what I thought about the Dhamma in. Would you still insist that I discuss these two words and their combination as part of a Dhamma discussion? ====== R: But I don't see you actually considering or responding to my point in this case. S: But I have, except that I drew your attention to the matter of developing more understanding about present moment realities and away from concern about terminology. If you insist on the latter, then I'd suggest that there are others with stronger basis in both English and Pali with whom you can discuss. And perhaps I'd then see the point of it, but so far, no. ;-) ====== R: I think it's fair to say that I am progressing at exactly the rate that my accumulations allow, and that is bound to be rather slow, but I am content with that, and will continue to explore as is needed by my tendencies. S: Just a warning, and to myself as well, let us not be fooled by any feeling of contentment. ====== R: If you think I am too slow in developing greater knowledge, I sincerely apologize for disappointing you. S: I don't know about slow or fast. I think less in terms of a general picture than specific ideas expressed. ====== R: I do not agree with you that I believe in "control," so I would like to correct you on that. I have not believed in personal "control" for a very long time. I also believe strongly in the reality of anatta. The fact that I believe that meditation is part of the path may make you think that I do believe in control, but that is your belief, not mine. S: Yes it is my belief that those who believe in 'meditation' as being right practice, this is from self-view and belief in control. You are saying that you do not believe in control but that 'meditation' was nevertheless taught by the Buddha. So what you are suggesting is that a decision to meditate and doing it can go together with the understanding regarding the uncontrollability of dhammas. Without appeal to authority, can you then explain to me how this is the case? ======= R: What is the meaning of sunnata according to you? S: It is synonymous with Anatta. Quote: "The Buddha said to ananda "'empty is the world'. And what is empty of the self and of what belongs to the self? the eye Ananda is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Visible object is empty of self and what belongs to self. Eye consciousness is empty of self and what belongs to self. Eye contact is empty of self and what belong to self. whatever feeling arising from that contact is empty of self.. [and the same for all the other doors]" ====== > With regard to Sabhava (and not svabhava as conceived of by you and Mahayana), R: I do not think it is correct to put me and Mahayana in the same sentence there. S: I had been using the pali 'sabhava' and you introduced the sanskrit 'svabhava' in your response. ====== >...this has been taught by the same people who have gone to great lengths to explain how the reality now has already fallen away by the time it is known. You do not even understand this. So really the fear of infatuation with the use of the particular term is only yours. And this is only a part of the objection towards the general understanding, namely, one which the Theravada commentaries expound. R: I don't think you can assume what I do or don't understand by extrapolating from something you don't agree about. S: I look at view and I see view expressed everywhere. ====== R: Better to stick to the subject and argue on the merits. Thanks. S: My focus is on view and not anything else. If your approach towards the concept of sabhava is with wrong view, it is the wrong view that I am interested in discussing. And again, if you want to discuss only the terminology and not bring view into the picture, then it is better that you do it with someone else. ====== R: If you don't want to consider my point, that is your privilege. I don't see that you have considered it in what you say above. S: I have considered, only not within the limits of what you insist. ====== > Suk: Well, I think the problem is that when you say that you "understand" the other descriptions, it is not really pariyatti understanding, but more as a philosophical position. R: How would you know this? Do you have a basis for saying what I do or don't understand? If so, please explicate how you have figured this out. S: To me, sign of any level of right understanding is the attention to "now". The connecting line between suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna is this and not what is verbalized. Any confidence / saddha that is present is reflected in this reference point. Therefore if anyone responded correctly in terms of theory, but never referring to the present moment, this to me is sign of lack of understanding. And if one went on to believe in the idea of meditation, this in fact reflects "wrong" understanding and shows lack of confidence with regard to the present moment being the only valid object of study. ======= > If it was pariyatti understanding, it would be with reference to the reality now where no words need to be had. R: Well, that is kind of silly when we are in the middle of a discussion. Obviously we have to describe what we know or think or we can't communicate. If you prefer silence, just let me know. S: Again, you have been here so long where this idea has been expressed quite a few times before. "No words" does not mean no thinking or verbal expression of the thoughts. It means that when the characteristic of a reality is object of understanding, at that time no words are needed, and what is understood is worth more than any number of words used to describe it. Thinking happens all the time, so being silent is not going to help anyone to better understand. The "noise" I object to is not the thinking nor the expression, but the attachment and wrong understanding which continually fails to see the importance of developing right understanding with regard to the present moment reality. Where no words are needed….;-) ======= > Likewise if sabhava was understood as referring to the present moment reality, you'd not think to object to the term. R: I disagree. The reality being what it is does not make the term good or bad. The term may still be misleading even if the reality is understood. S: There may perhaps be a better term, but you want to busy yourself and involve others with finding out what that term is, or should we be encouraging each other to understand the reality now? If the understanding of reality is weak or not even present, what sense it makes to question the term? You say that sabhava is opposed to detachment, but do you know the characteristic of detachment or simply have an idea about it. If you don't know detachment then what you are doing is playing with ideas only. And while detachment comes with right understanding about the present moment reality, your giving priority with regard to terminology must as far as I can see, therefore come from attachment of some kind. ====== > The "being" and "own" simply point to the dhamma, any dhamma which appears and understood as "real" and different from another dhamma. Indeed it is with the kind of perception that substantialism and eternalism is directly addressed. You are philosophizing about it all and hence the proliferation on to thinking that correcting the terms can lead to right understanding. R: If you are sure that no one has been misled by the sense of that term, then you may be right. But I don't think that is the case. I guess we disagree! S: Of course there would be many who read the word wrongly, Mahayanists for example. But this is not because of the term, but lack of understanding with regard to Dukkha, the Cause and the Path. ======= > Rob E: > It seems ornate rather than simple, and triumphal rather than simple. > > Suk: You think too much and wrongly. ;-) R: That is your opinion, but your opinion about my thought process is not a discussion about the subject. If you have nothing to say about my substantive points, perhaps it is better to drop the subject. S: So you draw the line when and where you want to and I should just follow? ====== > If the latter, what do you propose in its place? If the former, then I'd suggest that you are not really in the position to question it, given how little understanding there is of present moment realities. R: Again, I would like to know how you have access to my degree of understanding. Isn't it a given that one does not know this? I think you are making a mistake by making such statements. S: Is it a mistake if the judgement applies to me as well? How much understanding with regard to the nature of dhammas we have that puts us in the position to question such concepts as Sabhava? We have hardly begun to crawl as far as Dhamma knowledge is concerned, don't you think? ======= > But again why are you questioning this when you know that it means final and real? Should this not instead encourage continued study aimed at direct understanding and insight? R: My study continues, but understanding what the implication is of important terms is part of my study. S: The common denominator between the levels of understanding pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha is seeing that the present moment reality is the only valid object of true knowledge. ====== > Suk: Well, as I suggested earlier, yours is interest in philosophizing and not in understanding the present moment reality and this is where the problem is. R: Again, it is presumptuous to keep bringing the discussion back to your opinion of my level of understanding. It is not necessary to do this, as it adds nothing to the content of the discusssion. Please exercise the patience and discipline to look at the things that are said and answer them for what they say and with what you think about them without making personal comments. Thank you. S: This is a Dhamma discussion where views become highlighted and should be the object of interest. It does not take any level of wisdom to see that in fact *all* the discussions here is about this. Whether you are guilty of philosophizing or not you can defend yourself. But that someone prefers doing this over any interest in studying the present moment is reflection of wrong understanding is what I believe and am ready to defend. And while you accuse me of wrongly making a statement about your level of wisdom, what of this telling me to "exercise patience and discipline" whatever your objective may be? What you perceive as 'personal' was in fact the intention to draw your attention to what is judged as wrong attitude so that it could be corrected. So maybe you should not have taken it personally… ======= > Detachment is the function of alobha cetasika which arises with any level of panna, including pariyatti. If the importance of studying the present moment is not seen, changing the terms to suit one's taste will only result in more attachment instead of detachment. > > I know that we've been through this debate before…. R: Beside the point. S: What is beside the point, the matter in the first paragraph or the one in the second? I can elaborate on both if you want. ======= > Suk: On the other hand there are those who read the same thing and are motivated to study the present moment. And although this mostly happens at the intellectual level, the understanding here is that it is characteristic of dhammas that are to be known directly such that while thinking about dhammas, the thinking as a reality is what should be known and not the concepts thought about. > > It is strange the kind of objection, given that the person who is making it insists on going by ideas about 'meditation' and another time, place and posture, something which clearly goes at the expense of understanding what appears "now" and reflects lack of understanding about the nature of dhammas! :-/ R: This is your opinion, with which I disagree. I am growing weary of your continued aspersions, presumptions, extrapolations and personal comments about "me," rather than on the topic. If the subject at hand doesn't interest you, don't talk about it. S: The topic of "view" always interests me and view was what was being alluded to in what you judged as 'personal comment'. ====== R: I am going to take a break. Talk to you later. S: Good, so I get a break as well. ;-) Sukin #122706 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:28 am Subject: Urge for Sensing Blocks! bhikkhu5 Friends: Urge for Sensing blocks the Way to Freedom: At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Desire & lust for the ability * to see forms obstructs & corrupts the mind! Desire and lust for the ability to hear sounds; Desire and lust for the ability to smell smells; Desire and lust for the ability to taste flavours; are also obstructing corruptions for the mind! Bhikkhus, the desire and lust for the ability to speculation on mental objects is also an obstructing corruption for the mind! When a bhikkhu has overcome and all left these obstructing mental corruptions, his mind inclines towards inward withdrawal! A mind prepared thus by withdrawal becomes fit and open for those higher mental states, that are to be realized by direct experience and immediate knowledge. Note*: This can & should be freely exchanged, expanded & enhanced by these objects: Visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile & mental consciousness, contact, feeling born of sense contact, perception born of contact, intention for, and craving for whatever sensual object existing or even just imagined ... <...> Any kind of greed, desire, & lust has obvious side effects of Pain! Blissful is being without passions in this world, Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! Udana II, 1 Like a moth flying into the flame... Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya SN 27(1+2) III 232 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Sensing Blocks! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122707 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 19-feb-2012, om 5:02 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > > N:" No, no strategy. We try to remember that whatever people say or > do, no matter we like it or not, all that are just conditioned > dhammas...I do not talk about control here, but about conditions." > > Scott: 'We try to remember' sounds like a strategy to me. I say > *if* we remember then things unfold according to this, but if this > is *not* remembered then what? Radio silence? 'Meditators' talk of > 'setting up conditions - and we know this is clearly wrong. How is > 'trying to remember' not like 'setting up conditions?' > ------ N: No strategy, that sounds insincere, doesn't it? I explain. We try to remember: we often forget, but sometimes we remember. It is advisable, good to remember, it is the truth the Buddha taught. If it is not remembered, then what? We may be overcome by aversion, no good! But we are not perfect. ------ S: > > N: "... We just think of the value of Dhamma and this thing of > value, why not share it? why just keep it to ourselves?" > > Scott: Yes, okay. We 'think of the value of the Dhamma' and this is > a given. I would suggest that discussants on the list have many > motives for participation. > ----- N: Wy should we mind? When giving something, why think of the receiver? Kusala is kusala and it cannot be changed when it is wrongly received. An example: we did many things for my late father, but he did not always appreciate it. But we should not mind. It is the kusala citta that matters. Nobody else can change that. When I write about the Thais' kusala and their attitude, this may not be appreciated by all, but that does not matter. Some people may find it useful, others not. ------- > S: Let's say that 'valuing the Dhamma' is only one of them and that > this obviously still allows for the diverse opinions being > expressed. And I find myself in agreement with your take on the > Dhamma but this puts me in opposition to certain other views > repeatedly expressed on the list. How is disagreement to be > avoided? It is inevitable. Those who don't see it as we do, > disagree and we think that they are wrong. > ----- N: Again some will appreciate, others will not. No problem here. Why think so many stories about those who disagree? ------ > > S: These discussants seem to value the Dhamma, true, but more so, > they seem to value their own divergent opinions as well, and > constantly put them forward. Were this not the case, there would be > no discussion. It seems to me that it is the dealing with this fact > that is causing so much trouble. Discussants who do not see eye-to- > eye with you and me find themselves rather nonplussed whenever > disagreements occur. What is the solution here? Silence again? > There would be no list. > ------ N: It depends on the citta at that moment what one will do. It depends on the time (right time or wrong time) and the occasion. Best to speak with kusala citta and all doubts about what to do will be solved. Why mind so much about what others think and say? If there are questions let us do the best we can in answering, that is all we can do. ------ > > > Scott: I frankly don't know what 'cittas that want to share the > Dhamma' are, since I don't feel like I 'want to share the Dhamma.' > I want to discuss it, which includes, on this list, confronting > those I think are wrong. > .... I don't think of 'others' since 'others' are on their own. If > anything, I think of the Dhamma. I know what I think is right and > know what I think is wrong, Dhamma-wise, and say so. This is not > appreciated. > ------- N: Good to think just of the Dhamma. Appreciation or not, let us not expect anything. No expectations. Such a good lesson from Kh Sujin. She often said this to me. -------- > > N: "Kh Sujin said that she wants to help others to have kusala > citta..." > > Scott: I am not Kh. Sujin. I don't know what that means, 'to help > others have kusala citta.' > ------- N: Yes, all the time, but this is a long story. To understand this, it helps to live in Thailand. All India trips were so carefully prepared, hearing in the bus recordings about the Buddha's life, suitable lectures at the holy places, paying respect in the right way to the Buddha's relics. That is, not with attachment, but to remember and renew our resolution (adi.t.thaana) to continue developing right understanding, no matter what happens in our life. -------- > > N: "Instead of practice we can say: application of the Dhamma in > daily life. At times kusala may arise, at other times not. The > friends we associate with are a condition for kusala citta." > > Scott: The only 'friends we associate with' *are* kusala cittas. > ------ N: Very good, glad to be reminded. This way of discussing is good, just continue! -------- > I can't help finding that certain discussants on the list - the > idea of them - is a condition for akusala citta. I don't consider > other discussants to be realities in the ultimate sense. If the > idea of other discussants does not condition kusala, perhaps I > should simply disengage. > > N: "Too much thinking makes life very complicated. Let us just > perform kusala as much as we are able to, and just rejoice!" > > Scott: While I agree with the sentiment, I consider the above to be > an aphorism. > ------ N: You may think that this is easily said. I learnt this from the Thais, and it may seem too simple. I understand your feelings. If you like you can read about simple kusala in daily life, a translation of a book by Kh Sujin. -------- > S: You suggest that I 'think too much' and, in this, I suggest that > this is convenient and applies to you as well as anyone on the list. > ------- N: I mean making matters too complicated, thinking stories about others, questioning whether and if one should share Dhamma, or whether it is possible to helping others to have kusala citta. But all such thinking is conditioned, I understand. Very, very gradually we may see that it is not helpful to think with aversion stories about others, it is so tiring, as we can find out. ------- Nina. #122708 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala, was Just checking nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 18-feb-2012, om 18:35 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > you wrote: > > 'The kusala cittas or akusala cittas that arise do so because of > pakatupanissaya paccaya, natural strong dependent condition. In > other words, accumulated inclinations of kusala or akusala > condition their arising.' > > D: would you agree , that in terms of D.O. accumulated inclinations > are presented by avijja -sankhara which conditions the (kusala/ > akusala) citta > in a way by ( kusala/akusala ) cetasika ? > ------- N: As Scott explained, do not neglect the Pa.t.thaana of the Abhidhamma when studying the D.O. The Visuddhimagga itself points to this. For each of these links we have to take into account the manifold conditions, there is not just one condition operating. It is all more intricate then one would think at first sight. Compare Vis. ChXVII, 65 and Tiika: Text Vis.: Here it might be said: 'Let us then firstly agree that ignorance is a condition for formations. But it must now be stated for which formations, and in which way it is a condition'. -------- N: The Tiika states that, while in doubt, he asks, ‘for which formations, and in which way it is a condition?' There are many kamma- formations. Ignorance is a condition for them, but not in the same way for all of them. The Tiika states that there are twenty links of the Dependent Origination and the nature of the condition for each of the conditioned dhammas is to be taught. ---------- Text Vis.: Here is the reply: 'Twenty-four conditions have been stated by the Blessed One as follows'. ------- N: The Tiika states that when he asked about the nature of the condition of ignorance, with the desire to analyse the nature of all dhammas that are conditions, it is said, that the Blessed One stated the twentyfour conditions. [The 24 Conditions] ------- Only after dealing with each class of condition, it explains the links of the D.O., from Vis. Ch XVII, 101 on. -------- D: > I am refering to this issue because we started to talk about the > static analysis and the streaming process of the consciousness, > which was a major point of Venerable Nyanaponika's writings : not > to neglect that analysis deals with what has been, but in reality > there is no static moment in this flow of phenomena and therefore > the dynamic should be included in the studies as soon as possible,.. > -------- N: As tot Ven. Nyanaponika's approach of analysis and synthesis, I do not take so much to those terms. He also states that 'the Dhammasanga.ni is essentially a book of classifications and definitions'. When we think of the time his book has been written, it was good he drew attention to the Abhidhamma. But I do not agree with his approach to the Dhammasanga.ni, it repeats time and again: 'At a time when kusala dhamma has arisen...' This is now, at this moment. ----------- > > D: I noted critical comments when I posted matters concerning the > Law of Dependent Origination and it seems to me that base knowledge > of D.O. > like proclaimed by the Maha Nidana Suttahttp:// > www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html cannot > necessarily be assumed. > > ------- > N: I do not understand your question. I tried the link and found this complicated reading. ---------- Nina. #122709 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:41 pm Subject: about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies nilovg Dear friends, ------ Here an untitled message, just flew away uncontrolled. I copied a phrase of Scott. Nina. --------- > Scott: Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment is > wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall > away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow or > dynamic are concepts. #122710 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 17-feb-2012, om 22:03 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I am not sure how ignorance is defined or categorized, or how that > link in DO is understood, but it seems to me that ignorance as a > concrete element is a cetasika. Not sure how it fits in with the > khandas. ------- N: Ignorance, moha cetasika is included in sankharakkhandha. This khandha includes all cetasikas, except feeling and sa~n~naa. ----- Nina. #122711 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:40 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Well, what do you think about that? I think what it would suggest to me is that the concentration that arises with a kusala citta could maybe be *bad* concentration that is not so effective..." > > Scott: No. Typo alert. I meant akusala citta. The concentration that arises with an *akusala* citta could be *bad* concentration. I think the rest of my thought makes sense with that correction, [even though you still disagree with it.] Otherwise, it is really out to lunch. > There is no restlessness and agitation arising with kusala citta. By definition, when these are present, it is akusala citta. Yup. Sorry for stupid mistake. > R: "...If you had blurry, fairly ineffective concentration arising with restlessness, agitation and delusion, it would still be concentration, but it would be the kind you have when you haven't slept or are trying to read something without your glasses." > > Scott: No. > > Akusala citta has an object, all the accompanying mental factors have the same object. Concentration would be concentration, performing the same function in each case. The citta would also include restlessness or whatever akusala mental factor happened to be along for the ride, performing it's separate function. Is concentration kusala-neutral? It doesn't have more or less effectiveness? You can have wrong understanding, for instance - wouldn't that be akusala understanding? If there is right concentration, isn't there also wrong concentration? Just asking... - Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122712 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Sarah, all, you wrote: 'I'm appreciating your discussions with Nina. One quick "butt in" here: D: always wellcome .. S: ' see now that you agree. I think we can put it that it is the development of wisdom which leads to the "path training/path penetration". This is why it's so valuable to keep discussing what right understanding is and what the objects of right understanding are at this moment. D: Because the Path application/training is of highest importance , let me add excerpts from 2 essays (recommended to read in full) Bhikkhu Bodhi introduces right view by following: (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html ) : The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps, comparable to the intertwining strands of a single cable that requires the contributions of all the strands for maximum strength. With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Considered from the standpoint of practical training, the eight path factors divide into three groups: (i) the moral discipline group (silakkhandha), made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; (ii) the concentration group (samadhikkhandha), made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration; and (iii) the wisdom group (pańńakkhandha), made up of right view and right intention. These three groups represent three stages of training: the training in the higher moral discipline, the training in the higher consciousness, and the training in the higher wisdom.[4] The order of the three trainings is determined by the overall aim and direction of the path. Since the final goal to which the path leads, liberation from suffering, depends ultimately on uprooting ignorance, the climax of the path must be the training directly opposed to ignorance. This is the training in wisdom, designed to awaken the faculty of penetrative understanding which sees things "as they really are." Wisdom unfolds by degrees, but even the faintest flashes of insight presuppose as their basis a mind that has been concentrated, cleared of disturbance and distraction. Concentration is achieved through the training in the higher consciousness, the second division of the path, which brings the calm and collectedness needed to develop wisdom. But in order for the mind to be unified in concentration, a check must be placed on the unwholesome dispositions which ordinarily dominate its workings, since these dispositions disperse the beam of attention and scatter it among a multitude of concerns. The unwholesome dispositions continue to rule as long as they are permitted to gain expression through the channels of body and speech as bodily and verbal deeds. Therefore, at the very outset of training, it is necessary to restrain the faculties of action, to prevent them from becoming tools of the defilements. This task is accomplished by the first division of the path, the training in moral discipline. Thus the path evolves through its three stages, with moral discipline as the foundation for concentration, concentration the foundation for wisdom, and wisdom the direct instrument for reaching liberation. D: please note the last sentence. The Path to Peace by Ajahn Cha http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed019.htm Sila, samadhi and panna are the names given to the different aspects of the practice. When you practise sila, samadhi and panna, it means you practise with yourselves. Right sila exists here, right samadhi exists here. Why? Because your body is right here! You have hands, you have legs right here. This is where you practise sila. It's easy to reel off the list of wrong kinds of behaviour as found in the books, but the important thing to understand is that the potential for them all lies within us. Your body and speech are with you right here and now. You practise moral restraint, which means taking care to avoid the unskilful actions of killing, stealing and sexual misconduct. For instance, in the past you may have killed animals or insects by smashing them with an axe or a fist, or perhaps you didn't take much care with your speech: false speech means lying or exaggerating the truth; coarse speech means you are constantly being abusive or rude to others -'you scum,' 'you idiot,' and so on; frivolous speech means aimless chatter, foolishly rambling on without purpose or substance. We've indulged in it all. No restraint! In short, keeping sila means watching over yourself, watching over your actions and speech. So who will do the watching over? Who will take responsibility for your actions? Who is the one who knows before you lie, swear or say something frivolous? Contemplate this: whoever it is who knows is the one who has to take responsibility for your sila. Bring that awareness to watch over your actions and speech. That knowing, that awareness is what you use to watch over your practice. To keep sila, you use that part of the mind which directs your actions and which leads you to do good and bad. You catch the villain and transform him into a sheriff or a mayor. Take hold of the wayward mind and bring it to serve and take responsibility for all your actions and speech. Look at this and contemplate it. The Buddha taught us to take care with our actions. Who is it who does the taking care? The practice involves establishing sati, mindfulness, within this 'one who knows.' The 'one who knows' is that intention of mind which ...snip unquote Perhaps we can agree on (quoting from another list a comment refering to the sequence , ' Peter ':) "I understand them to arise like a spiral. Some panna is the basis for some sila. Some sila is the basis for some samadhi. Some samadhi is the basis for more panna. More panna is the basis for more sila. More sila is the basis for more samadhi. More samadhi is the basis for even more panna, etc. " , can't we ? with Metta Dieter #122713 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:29 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Suk: This is funny. > > R: > I am glad you have a sense of humor. > > S: I do not see any value in lobha. Neither do I. What does that have to do with the above comments? You said you think "it is funny" that, according to you, I have been here longer than Scott and others, yet have made less progress, as I still believe in control, etc. In other words, you tell a story about me, then assert that it is true, then give your opinion about it. All of this is imagination, deluded thinking and nonsense. You don't speak about specifics or acknowledge our disagreements, instead, like many others here, you merely assume you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you has a serious problem with their understanding. It would do you much better to discuss Dhamma topics on the merit, not to cast aspersions about other list members and keep your personal opinions about their progress and personality to yourself. It's wrong speech, and deluded thinking, and I am no longer interested in hearing such disparaging, prejudiced, disrespectful talk about myself or anyone else. If you want to keep talking on that level, please talk to someone else. We have recently been asked not to make personal comments, and there is a good reason for that. Yet Scott asserts his right to say whatever he pleases and says he doesn't care for such rules and regulations. You go straight ahead characterizing me in a personal way and saying how "funny" and unfortunate my "belief in control" and lack of progress are. I guess you think I am mentally deficient. Well, that is fine, but from now on keep it to yourself. Those of you who think your understanding is so great, but think you can say anything you want whether it is wrong speech, causes dissension or is merely mean and prejudiced, have a lot to learn about what is important on the path. Keeping a harmonious and educational tone in discussions and sticking to topics that promote understanding should be the basic ABC's, yet some group members who are supposedly "advanced" indulge themselves in all kinds of wrong speech, insult and imagination about other people's progress, with no regard at all for what the Buddha said about such behavior. I guess that is because of the prevailing view that it doesn't matter what you do at all in conventional living, as long as you understand in some vague intellectual way that there are "only dhammas." That's the bottom line and everything else is "do as you please" and indulge your baser desires. I am fed up with such talk, and such behavior. In general I am trying to follow the moderators' lead and keep such arguments off the list, and I apologize for not doing so. But to leave your public comments about me on the list and not respond would cause a wrong impression about what you have said. When I am not treated to such comments I do not initiate them any more, but it is not right to leave your comments on-list without a response. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122714 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:01 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: ""...Is concentration kusala-neutral?" Scott: If a mental factor arises with kusala citta is that mental factor 'kusala-neutral?' R: "...It doesn't have more or less effectiveness?" Scott: Concentration is concentration. 'Effectiveness' is irrelevant. R: "...If there is right concentration, isn't there also wrong concentration?..." Scott: If? A man waits in the shadows across the street from his lover's house watching for the man she is with to leave so that he can go in and kill her. He is thinking about her infidelity and staring at the door, waiting for it to open. He is totally focused. Scott. #122715 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:03 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti scottduncan2 Sukin, Cool. Thanks. S: "You are asking me to reveal my akusala motives..." Scott. #122716 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti moellerdieter Hi RobE, all, you wrote: 'Those of you who think your understanding is so great, but think you can say anything you want whether it is wrong speech, causes dissension or is merely mean and prejudiced, have a lot to learn about what is important on the path. Keeping a harmonious and educational tone in discussions and sticking to topics that promote understanding should be the basic ABC's, yet some group members who are supposedly "advanced" indulge themselves in all kinds of wrong speech, insult and imagination about other people's progress, with no regard at all for what the Buddha said about such behavior. I guess that is because of the prevailing view that it doesn't matter what you do at all in conventional living, as long as you understand in some vague intellectual way that there are "only dhammas." That's the bottom line and everything else is "do as you please" and indulge your baser desires. I am fed up with such talk, and such behavior. D: you say it .. RobE: In general I am trying to follow the moderators' lead and keep such arguments off the list, and I apologize for not doing so. But to leave your public comments about me on the list and not respond would cause a wrong impression about what you have said. When I am not treated to such comments I do not initiate them any more, but it is not right to leave your comments on-list without a response D: on the other hand : does the moon care when .... bark at it? ;-) with Metta Dieter . #122717 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 scottduncan2 Dieter, D: "...Perhaps we can agree on (quoting from another list a comment refering to the sequence , ' Peter ':) 'I understand them to arise like a spiral. Some panna is the basis for some sila. Some sila is the basis for some samadhi. Some samadhi is the basis for more panna. More panna is the basis for more sila. More sila is the basis for more samadhi. More samadhi is the basis for even more panna, etc. ' , can't we ?" Scott: Bh. Bodhhi and Ajahn Chah believe in ' practice' and are wrong. This spurious quote from some other list is a view which Howard repeatedly espoused - this notion of a 'spiral.' What this says is that there is a sequence, however it spirals and swirls. This is a belief founded on a repudiation of mental factors as realities which arise conascently (a condition) and serve as conditions for the arising of subsequent realties (also another condition). This is a belief in a 'process' over a moment. This denies the existence of states as realities. Since you are using this quote, how do you understand the terms 'siila,' 'samadhi,' and 'pa~n~naa?' Since the discussion is about Abhidhamma, if these are not considered to be based on specific mental factors, then this is not a discussion about Abhidhamma. The 'spiral' view, as I've mentioned, has always repudiated states as realities. What is *your own view*? Do *you* think that siila must come first, then samadhi, and then pa~n~naa? Scott. #122718 From: Lukas Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:02 am Subject: Peace szmicio Dear friends, Luraya came today, bringing with her a lot of metta and understanding for me. So I feel realy light now, out of my problems. Best wishes Lukas #122719 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:43 am Subject: Even is Equanimity! bhikkhu5 Friends: Balanced Equanimity is the Tenth Mental Perfection: Equanimity characteristically induces & promotes impartial neutrality... Its function is to look upon things with an even unreactive indifference! Its manifestation is the gradual stilling of both attraction & repulsion.. Its proximate cause is seeing, that all inherit the results of their actions. Its effect is utter purification & perfection of all other mental qualities, by ending both discontent & delight, thereby providing the necessary equal calm required for their complete assessment & accomplishment. Equanimity means Unaffectable.. Equanimity means Unprovokable.. Equanimity means Undisturbable.. Equanimity means Unexcitable.. Equanimity means Imperturbable.. Equanimity means Disengaged.. Equanimity means Disentangled.. Equanimity means Detached.. Equanimity means Immovable.. Equanimity means Unbeatable.. Equanimity means Untemptable.. Equanimity means Wholly Immune.. Equanimity means Indifferent.. Equanimity means Impartial.. Equanimity means Unbiased.. Equanimity means Disinterested.. Equanimity means Balanced.. Even like a smiling mountain! Cool Calm is the ultimate Balm! The Threefold Equanimity (Upekkhâ): If Indifferent towards: Internal states & external phenomena, Living beings & lifeless things, Past, present & future events, How can one be hurt, upset, disturbed or distressed? Calm is his mind. Calm is his speech. Calm is his action. So is the Tranquility; So is the Equanimity; Of one freed by the Insight Of right Knowledge. Dhammapada 96 Although a man is richly dressed and adorned, if he is in peace, at ease, in equanimity, calmed, composed, controlled, celibate and harmless towards all beings, then verily he is a Holy One, a recluse, a sage ... Dhammapada 142 Equanimity towards one's own internal states - that is indeed a link to Enlightenment. Equanimity regarding external phenomena & conditions - that is indeed also a link to Enlightenment. Samyutta Nikâya V Bojjhanga-samyutta. Such noble friend finally develops the link to awakening that is Equanimity during Awareness of in-&-out breathing, which protects against damaging mental states, tends to detachment, to ceasing, tends to release & culminates in complete self-surrender... If, friends, Awareness of in-&-out breathing, is so cultivated and so made much of, it is indeed of great fruit, of great advantage! One whose Awareness of breathing in-&-out is perfected, well developed, and gradually brought to refined growth thus, according to the teaching of the Buddha, such one illuminates the entire world, just like the full moon freed from clouds. Samyutta Nikâya V Anapana-samyutta. The Blessed One once said: Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a Noble One is there the unsurpassable development of the senses? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, or what is disagreeable, or what is both agreeable & disagreeable. He recognizes that: This agreeable thing has arisen in me, or this disagreeable thing... or this both agreeable & disagreeable thing, has arisen in me: And that is constructed, conditioned, coarse & dependently co-arisen! But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, namely even & equal equanimity! Instantly, that arisen agreeable or disagreeable thing ceases, and Equanimity takes its calm stance! Just as a man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or when open, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, Equanimity make whatever arisen agreeable thing... or disagreeable thing... or both agreeable & disagreeable thing cease right there, and Equanimity takes its even stance! In the discipline of The Noble One, this is called the unsurpassable development of the senses with regard to visible forms cognizable by the eye. Similar is the supreme development of the other senses. MN 152 With the fading of rapturous joy, he remains in equanimity, aware & alert, still physically sensitive to bodily pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare: 'In aware Equanimity, one abides in pleasure...' With the stilling of pleasure & pain as with the earlier disappearance of elation & frustration, he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: sole Awareness purified by equanimity, - neither pleasure nor pain - This is called Right Concentration... The elimination of both sensual desires & of discontent, the ejection of laziness, the calming of all regrets, just this pure Equanimity being aware of all mental properties exactly at the moment they appear: That I call the direct knowledge of release the breakthrough from ignorance. Sutta Nipâta V 13: Udaya's Questions Equanimity is 'Tatra-majjhattata', which designates the evenly balanced keeping to the moderate middle of all things. It has as characteristic, that it affects the balance of consciousness and mental properties as a single function of single taste, which prevents both overt excessiveness and any lack or insufficiency. Equanimity thereby puts an end to biased partiality by manifesting moderation well within range of the properly reasoned midway. Visuddhimagga XIV The Buddha once explained: I would make my bed in a charnel ground, with a skeleton for my pillow.. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears! While others, exultant & thrilled brought me offerings of food, caskets of perfume & incense and garlands of flowers! Yet I do not recall, that I ever showed any partiality towards any of them... I was the same to them all! Neither arousing any fondness nor any aversion! This was my ultimate perfection of equanimity... MN 12 Lomahamsanapariyaya The Hair-raising Presentation Cariyapitaka III 15 <...> More of the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_10_mental_perfections_(parami)_in_thre e_levels.htm Even is Equanimity! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122720 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:23 am Subject: Re: Peace philofillet Hi Lukas > Luraya came today, bringing with her a lot of metta and understanding for me. So I feel realy light now, out of my problems. Glad to hear it, Lukas. There will be more problems but graduallu understanding will deepen so there is more detachment from them. In the meantime, methods that involve increasing ratherr than decreasing attachment, such as meditation, they might be helpful in freeing you from your alcohol addiction. But really treatment/rehab is best. And of course understanding is best of all. Phil #122721 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti philofillet Hi Dieter, Rob E all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" > > D: on the other hand : does the moon care when .... bark at it? ;-) > Exactly. No need for so much whining, it doesn't help. Just understand that if people (such as me) use wrong speech it is their akusala kamma patha and it arises due to conditions beyond tgeir and of course beyond your control. Deploring it does nothing except demonstrate the deplorers lack of understanding of Dhamma, at the monent of whining, at least. Whining (conditioned by dosa and moha)as well as understanding and other kusala factors that arise to prevent it at any moment are also conditioned nama, arising beyond control. Phil #122722 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:17 am Subject: nibbana truth_aerator Hello RobertE, >How does Buddha define nibbana? >======== "The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called Nibbana." SN 38.1 Please note that it is defined as absence of... As I understand it, Nibbana is not a "new thing". It is absence of all that which brings dukkha whether potential or actual. >And is there a distinction between nibbana and parinibbana? Typically parinibbana is used when Arhat has died. With best wishes, Alex #122723 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:20 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Scott, >Scott:This opinion is a regurgitation of a modern guy's (Maung Lwin) >opinion of a slightly less modern guy's (Ledi Sayadaw) opinion on a >web-site with an ad selling: 'How to do Meditation. Discover 3 ways >to experience deeper meditation in minutes...' > http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm >================================ Please don't engage in Ad Hominem and focus only on those issues that I am talking about. >Scott: This is not a reference to any recognized Commentary. What about passages in AN, puggalapannati, and Bodhipakkhiya Dipani' by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw . with best wishes, Alex #122724 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Jon, Alex & all), > >Scott:This opinion is a regurgitation of a modern guy's (Maung Lwin) >opinion of a slightly less modern guy's (Ledi Sayadaw) opinion on a >web-site with an ad selling: 'How to do Meditation. Discover 3 ways >to experience deeper meditation in minutes...' > > http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm > >================================ > >Scott: This is not a reference to any recognized Commentary. > > >A: What about passages in AN, puggalapannati, and Bodhipakkhiya Dipani' by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw . > .... I gave this quote before: AN, Bk of 4s, X1V, iii(133) Quick-Witted (PTS) "Monks, these four persons are found existing in the world. What four? He who learns by taking hints [uggha.tita~n~nu= (brief-learner)= sankhepa~n~nu]: he who learns by full details [vipa~ncit~n~nu (diffuse-learner)= vitthaarita~n~nu]: he who has to be led on (by instruction)[neyyo=netabba]: he who has just the word (of the text) at most [padaparamo=vya~njana-padam eva parama.n assa, one who learns by heart, is word-perfect but without understanding it]. These are the four." **** #36592, Rob K wrote: Again in the Netti (746)it says that the Buddha teaches insight [alone] to one who is guidable (neyya) and teaches in detail to neyya. At this time (acording to the texts) there are only padaparama and neyya. The extremely wise types with high accumulations of parami are called Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu are now extinct (this is tangentially explained in the commentary I quoted earlier). Padaparama cannot attain in this life, although they can in future lives.. We, at this time, - so the Theravada commentaries say- are either padaparama or neyya and we need many details so we have to study and consider a great deal as a condition for understanding. From Ledi sayadaw http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm ""(1) A Ugghatitannu : an individual whoˇ encounters a Buddha in person, and who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through the mere hearing of a short concise discourse. (2) A Vipancitannu: an individual who ˇ encounters a Buddha in person, but ˇ who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the short discourse is expounded to him at some length. At the present day, only the following Neyya and Padaparama classes of individuals remain. (3) A Neyya : an individual who needs ˇ to study the sermon and the exposition, and then ˇ to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years, to attain the Paths and the Fruits during*** this lifetime if he tries hard with guidance from the right teacher. (4) A Padaparama : is an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this lifetime can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana. ""endquote Ledi sayadaw. **** Nina wrote: >"According to the 'Designation of Human Types", Puggala Pańńatti of the Abhidhamma, there are four types of people: 1: ugghatitańńu, who already during a given explanation penetrates the truth. Think of Ven. Assaji and Ven. Saariputta: after just a few words theyattained: all dhammas that arise from a cause... 2. vipacitańńu: who realizes the truth after a more detailed explanation. 3. neyya puggala as I explained, after much guidance. The Co. adds: noble friendship with a kaliyanamitta, asking questions, yoniso manaasikaara. These are also conditions mentioned in the suttas. 4. padaparama, as explained, someone who understands the pariyatta, but does not attain." ***** S: I can check and give the exact quotes from the Netti and Puggala Pannatti later if you like. Metta Sarah p.s see "neyya" in U.P. ====== #122725 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti jonoabb Hi Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Dieter, Rob E all > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" > > > > D: on the other hand : does the moon care when .... bark at it? ;-) > > > > > Exactly. No need for so much whining, it doesn't help. Just understand that if people (such as me) use wrong speech it is their akusala kamma patha and it arises due to conditions beyond tgeir and of course beyond your control. Deploring it does nothing except demonstrate the deplorers lack of understanding of Dhamma, at the monent of whining, at least. Whining (conditioned by dosa and moha)as well as understanding and other kusala factors that arise to prevent it at any moment are also conditioned nama, arising beyond control. > =============== J: Regarding your comment, "Deploring it does nothing except demonstrate the deplorers lack of understanding of Dhamma", my own thoughts exactly as I read your message :-)) We are asking everyone to refrain from messages such as yours, and to keep the discussion to Dhamma matters. Do hope you can see the benefit for all of doing so. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Jon #122726 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 17-feb-2012, om 22:03 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I am not sure how ignorance is defined or categorized, or how that > > link in DO is understood, but it seems to me that ignorance as a > > concrete element is a cetasika. Not sure how it fits in with the > > khandas. > ------- > N: Ignorance, moha cetasika is included in sankharakkhandha. This > khandha includes all cetasikas, except feeling and sa~n~naa. Thank you, Nina. In the cycle of DO, is ignorance also the moha cetasika, or is it a different factor? Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122727 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:47 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: ""...Is concentration kusala-neutral?" > > Scott: If a mental factor arises with kusala citta is that mental factor 'kusala-neutral?' > > R: "...It doesn't have more or less effectiveness?" > > Scott: Concentration is concentration. 'Effectiveness' is irrelevant. > > R: "...If there is right concentration, isn't there also wrong concentration?..." > > Scott: If? A man waits in the shadows across the street from his lover's house watching for the man she is with to leave so that he can go in and kill her. He is thinking about her infidelity and staring at the door, waiting for it to open. He is totally focused. That's a good example, but doesn't apply to the case where concentration arises with distractedness, agitation and other factors that are contrary to its function. What happens then? Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122728 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: on the other hand : does the moon care when .... bark at it? ;-) Maybe not, but it may be affected by various tides and other factors, and a dog will be affected if you bark at it. Depends on whether your actions are on the same scale and type as the recipient. I agree that barking at the moon would be more futile. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #122729 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm Subject: Re: nibbana epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > > >How does Buddha define nibbana? > >======== > > > "The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called Nibbana." SN 38.1 > > Please note that it is defined as absence of... > > As I understand it, Nibbana is not a "new thing". It is absence of all that which brings dukkha whether potential or actual. > > > >And is there a distinction between nibbana and parinibbana? > > Typically parinibbana is used when Arhat has died. My point was that nibbana, as opposed to parinibbana, is experienced while the Arahat is still alive, therefore it is either not complete cessation of consciousness, or else it is a moment or more of complete cessation of experience that is temporary. Which do you think it is, and what is your understanding of how this takes place, prior to the death of the arahat, and as part of his experience? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122730 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:20 pm Subject: Re: nibbana truth_aerator Hello RobertE, >My point was that nibbana, as opposed to parinibbana, is experienced >while the Arahat is still alive, >====================== Is a fully quenched flame (due to lack of fuel) a new positively existing reality? No. Same I believe is with daily life "experience" of nibbana for the Arhat. Nibbana is "experienced" as state without dukkha brought by greed, anger or delusion. I don't believe that Arahat magically flies to Planet X or is somehow in a perpetual trance. Arhat simply does not experience any kilesas and all dukkha brought by them. With metta, Alex #122731 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti philofillet Hi Jon and all > > > > > > Exactly. No need for so much whining, it doesn't help. Just understand that if people (such as me) use wrong speech it is their akusala kamma patha and it arises due to conditions beyond tgeir and of course beyond your control. Deploring it does nothing except demonstrate the deplorers lack of understanding of Dhamma, at the monent of whining, at least. Whining (conditioned by dosa and moha)as well as understanding and other kusala factors that arise to prevent it at any moment are also conditioned nama, arising beyond control. > > =============== > > J: Regarding your comment, "Deploring it does nothing except demonstrate the deplorers lack of understanding of Dhamma", my own thoughts exactly as I read your message :-)) Good! Let's understand that there are conditioned dhammas at work, that is best. > > We are asking everyone to refrain from messages such as yours, and to keep the discussion to Dhamma matters. Do hope you can see the benefit for all of doing so. My post was about dhammas, if you wish to moderate my posts ( check them first before putting them up) to make sure they meet yourstandards of behaviour tgat is perfectly acceptable to me, perhaps that is best because I won't make any promises to behave well, that's not how kusala behaviour develops, sorry. Panna has to develop naturally to ynderstand the d of a and the a of k! Phil > Thanks in advance for your cooperation. #122732 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:40 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, I believe that the request for ancient commentarial textual support was requested for the opinion that 'practice' is required for one's such as us *as stated in the commentaries*. This was not given. These other sources you give are fine, although I fail to see any support for the above noted idea. Ledi Sayadaw is not an 'ancient commentator' as far as I am concerned. Scott. #122733 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:59 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "That's a good example, but doesn't apply to the case where concentration arises with distractedness, agitation and other factors that are contrary to its function. What happens then?" Scott: It applies. The guy in the story is very agitated *and* very concentrated. Rob, *each* mental factor arising with citta has it's own function in relation to an object. In this case there are any number of distinct mental factors arising with akusala citta. Each performs it's separate function. The mental factor of concentration pulls all the mental factors together, bearing on the same object - this is it's sole function no matter what the particular constellation of mental factors are conascent with it. You are suggesting that mental factors cancel each other out. This is due to thinking in terms of wholes and continuities. This is in error. Scott. #122734 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:45 pm Subject: A little gift philofillet Hi mods and all Here is a little gift to possibly (probably not) assist in improving your opinion of me because of course attachment to self-image and people's opinion of me is what keeps me keeping on! Also, a gesture of hope that the "meditators" are truly interested in Abhidhamma, as is requested in the group's description. Maybe you have seen it already, but it is a neat bilingual presentation of the matrix from Dhs. http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Texts-and-Translations/Abhidh\ amma-Matika/Abhidhamma-Matika.pdf Phil #122735 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Alex & Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > I believe that the request for ancient commentarial textual support was requested for the opinion that 'practice' is required for one's such as us *as stated in the commentaries*. This was not given. .... Alex wrote: " 1) According to Comy, merely hearing and considering dhamma works only for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu." Jon replied: " I'd be interested to see the Commentary passage you have in mind in you point (1) above. Thanks." Alex gave references to "AN, puggalapannati, and Bodhipakkhiya Dipani' by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw ." and some detail. I gave some fuller detail which I believed to be what he had "in mind", including : AN, Bk of 4s, X1V, iii(133) Quick-Witted (PTS) "Monks, these four persons are found existing in the world. What four? He who learns by taking hints [uggha.tita~n~nu= (brief-learner)= sankhepa~n~nu]: he who learns by full details [vipa~ncit~n~nu (diffuse-learner)= vitthaarita~n~nu]: he who has to be led on (by instruction)[neyyo=netabba]: he who has just the word (of the text) at most [padaparamo=vya~njana-padam eva parama.n assa, one who learns by heart, is word-perfect but without understanding it]. .... > Scott: I believe that the request for ancient commentarial textual support was requested for the opinion that 'practice' is required for one's such as us *as stated in the commentaries*. ... Ledi Sayadaw is not an 'ancient commentator' as far as I am concerned. ...... ...... Sarah:I 'm just trying to assist with the textual sources for the discussion. That's all. Here's one brief one: Netti 748: "Herein, the Blessed One teaches the True Idea in brief to a person who gains knowledge by what is condensed, in brief and in detail to one who gains knowledge by what is expanded, and in detail to one who is guidable." There is much more detail, but I don't have the Pali alongside, so it's difficult to follow at times. For the Puggala Pannatti quote, I expect it's the same as the one in AN above. I don't have the commentary, but Nina added that "the Co. adds: noble friendship with a kaliyanamitta, asking questions, yoniso manaasikaara.". >Scott: These other sources you give are fine, although I fail to see any support for the above noted idea. Ledi Sayadaw is not an 'ancient commentator' as far as I am concerned. ... Sarah: >I agree that Ledi Sayadaw is not "an ancient commentator" and that one has to read his texts carefully. Sometimes the English text commentaries themselves and even the Pali are not available (for example, just now, I failed to find the Pali for the Netti), however, which would be one reason that Rob K, Han, Alex and many others here often refer to Ledi Sayadaw or other summaries/commentaries of them. I don't think it's helpful to give a 'blast' when that is their best effort to provide the source, but that's just my opinion. Although commentaries and sub-commentaries are much more available now than 20 or 30 years ago, they are still very limited in translation as you know. Metta Sarah ====== #122736 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:54 pm Subject: Re: A little gift sarahprocter... HI Phil, Dieter & all A great gift, thanks! Can you (or Pt) put it in the Links section too? Perhaps we can look at short sections together sometime. Would be great to have a bi-lingual presentation for all the texts, wouldn't it? Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Texts-and-Translations/Abhidh\ amma-Matika/Abhidhamma-Matika.pdf > #122737 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Robert E, > > Suk: This is funny. > > R: > I am glad you have a sense of humor. > > S: I do not see any value in lobha. Rob: Neither do I. What does that have to do with the above comments? Suk: My finding your position funny was an instance of lobha and your remark was therefore to the effect that it is good that I have lobha. My response then was just a reminder about the akusala nature of the lobha. But now you say that you do not value lobha either, so I ask, why did you make that comment in the first place? ===== Rob: You said you think "it is funny" that, according to you, I have been here longer than Scott and others, yet have made less progress, as I still believe in control, etc. In other words, you tell a story about me, then assert that it is true, then give your opinion about it. Suk: Don’t forget funny is funny "to me" and it wouldn’t be to you. Therefore any explanation given was to show how it was so to me and I would not expect you to also find it funny. But let’s go back to the original post. Quote: I understand pointing out that only dhammas have characteristics and I understand that point. But that does not explain the precious-sounding attribution of "own-being" instead of just saying "real" or "existent." No matter how you slice it own-being has a misleading sense of importance and ownership, which defeats the feeling of unimportance and detachment. I am trying to deal with the term here, not the meaning that it *should* indicate, which is fine. Suk: This is funny. While those like Scott, Ken H, Phil and Lukas grow more and more confident with regard to their understanding about Anatta. You, who have been here longer (more than 12 years) than any of them but still continue to believe in control, want to correct a concept which they, not only are quite comfortable with, but in fact find useful!? But then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand Anatta and have ended up making 'selves' out of dhammas….. Suk: The reason I mentioned these names and not Sarah, Nina and Jon for example, is because like you, they got to hear about sabhava the way that it is understood here only on this list. And since they don’t have a problem, then you should not either, given especially your greater familiarity with the way it is used and any explanations given in the past. My mentioning their right understanding and your wrong understanding was to highlight the difference in attitude towards the concept and not as you think, to show your lack of progress. And I do this “knowing” that you will not see it the way I do with regard to who has right understanding and who wrong, hence my last comment, re: “But then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand…” Indeed I could have taken your objection to sabhava as reflecting lack of concern as to how others understand it, or else suggesting that people such as Nina, Jon and Sarah who have been studying the Dhamma for longer than you have and the ones to introduce the concept to this list, are so deluded as to not see the wrongness of it, and that you are doing us all a favor by pointing this out, but I did not. But if I did and was correct in my assessment of the situation, would this not then mean that you are doing worse than what you accuse me of? Yes I did comment on your level of understanding; however my intention was to highlight wrong vs. right understanding therefore I would be surprised if I was moderated for what I said. But of course, I am generally quite autistic when it comes to interaction with other people, and as I admitted before, there is always quite a bit of akusala intentions involved, in which case, I apologize. :-) ===== Rob: All of this is imagination, deluded thinking and nonsense. You don't speak about specifics or acknowledge our disagreements, instead, like many others here, you merely assume you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you has a serious problem with their understanding. Suk: You of course would say that I “assume” that I am right. However my own perception is based not on the fact of disagreement, but rather that you are wrong in a particular way and I know how and why. I may be wrong about this, but I’ll know this only if I become convinced through your or anyone else’s comments that this is the case and so far this has not happened. Instead what you continue to say just adds to the perception of you being wrong….. ===== Rob: It would do you much better to discuss Dhamma topics on the merit, not to cast aspersions about other list members and keep your personal opinions about their progress and personality to yourself. It's wrong speech, and deluded thinking, and I am no longer interested in hearing such disparaging, prejudiced, disrespectful talk about myself or anyone else. If you want to keep talking on that level, please talk to someone else. Suk: One thing I know, the rightness or wrongness of any action through body, speech and mind has to do with whether the intention is conditioned by kusala or akusala roots. A reference to your or anyone else’s understanding and making a comparison can be with the intention of pointing out the difference in view. Therefore if I do this with right view, it can’t be akusala, can it…? ===== Rob: We have recently been asked not to make personal comments, and there is a good reason for that. Suk: Yes, and this is what I wrote about the moderators’ actions here but left out in my letter to Scott yesterday: “I think that Sarah and Jon running this list is a perfect example of right attitude towards any situation, one which is in line with right understanding about dhammas and also keeping in mind general social etiquette. If I can be allowed to express myself, so can anyone else. My not liking someone’s comment is not better than their not liking mine.” ===== Rob: Yet Scott asserts his right to say whatever he pleases and says he doesn't care for such rules and regulations. You go straight ahead characterizing me in a personal way and saying how "funny" and unfortunate my "belief in control" and lack of progress are. I guess you think I am mentally deficient. Well, that is fine, but from now on keep it to yourself. Suk: And now you know that I was not deriving pleasure from the perception of your lack of progress. But should I refrain from making such kind of comments? What if I find it difficult to discuss any other way, should I decide to stop commenting altogether then? ===== Rob: Those of you who think your understanding is so great, but think you can say anything you want whether it is wrong speech, causes dissension or is merely mean and prejudiced, have a lot to learn about what is important on the path. Keeping a harmonious and educational tone in discussions and sticking to topics that promote understanding should be the basic ABC's, yet some group members who are supposedly "advanced" indulge themselves in all kinds of wrong speech, insult and imagination about other people's progress, with no regard at all for what the Buddha said about such behavior. I guess that is because of the prevailing view that it doesn't matter what you do at all in conventional living, as long as you understand in some vague intellectual way that there are "only dhammas." That's the bottom line and everything else is "do as you please" and indulge your baser desires. Suk: I know that you mean to simply point out what you perceive as wrong. But no, you are wrong about our motivations. And you are also making a statement regarding what constitutes the Path which I happen to disagree with, and this we can discuss if you like. ===== Rob: I am fed up with such talk, and such behavior. In general I am trying to follow the moderators' lead and keep such arguments off the list, and I apologize for not doing so. But to leave your public comments about me on the list and not respond would cause a wrong impression about what you have said. When I am not treated to such comments I do not initiate them any more, but it is not right to leave your comments on-list without a response. Suk: Remember, there are many things I don’t like with regard to how you discuss here, even when you do so within limits of the rules set. This of course does not mean that there should not be any rules, of course there must be. But perhaps as in the case of the precepts, because we understand that it is all Anatta, we should not have a bullheaded approach to those rules. After all, there are only dhammas and all experience is an opportunity to develop right understanding. ;-) Metta, Sukin #122738 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Performing of kusala. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > N: "Too much thinking makes life very complicated. Let us just > > perform kusala as much as we are able to, and just rejoice!" ... > N: You may think that this is easily said. I learnt this from the > Thais, and it may seem too simple. I understand your feelings. > If you like you can read deeds_of_merit1.html> about simple kusala in daily life, a > translation of a book by Kh Sujin. I'm glad you mentioned this - I looked it up and found some other very good writings there as well. Hope it's okay to read some of the other pieces, as well as this one. I plan to look at 'deeds of merit,' it seems like an important subject. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #122739 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:38 pm Subject: Re: nibbana epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > >My point was that nibbana, as opposed to parinibbana, is experienced >while the Arahat is still alive, > >====================== > > Is a fully quenched flame (due to lack of fuel) a new positively existing reality? No. > > Same I believe is with daily life "experience" of nibbana for the Arhat. Nibbana is "experienced" as state without dukkha brought by greed, anger or delusion. I don't believe that Arahat magically flies to Planet X or is somehow in a perpetual trance. Arhat simply does not experience any kilesas and all dukkha brought by them. If all dhammas are dukkha and the arahat continues to experience dhammas, how does he avoid experiencing dukkha as well? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #122740 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, I appreciate all your discussions with Rob E, especially knowing how difficult it is for you to type long posts. Just one point that may lead to misunderstanding/offence: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > Suk: This is funny. > While those like ...... ... > Suk: The reason I mentioned these names and not ..... is because like you, they got to hear about sabhava the way > that it is understood here only on this list. And since they don't have > a problem, then you should not either, given especially your greater > familiarity with the way it is used and any explanations given in the > past. My mentioning their right understanding and your wrong > understanding was to highlight the difference in attitude towards the > concept and not as you think, to show your lack of progress. ... Sarah: I think it might be more helpful to just say something like "some" don't have a problem (with the term sabhava or its many translations), while others do. This way it's less personal. And yes, comparing understandings is likely to lead to misunderstanding/offence too as I think we may have discussed once or twice before. As we know, it's never a matter of X's understanding anyway.....just dhammas! Sabhava (and its various translations) has always been a tricky one, especially for those familiar with Mahayana. So it's helpful to patiently explain again and again (as KS always does with us!!), rather than to suggest anyone "should" not have a problem. I know it's not meant as a "put-down" of any kind, but it can read like that! Looking forward to more of your discussions on dhammas:-) Metta Sarah p.s we really appreciated our trip to KK last month - thanks for all your assistance with the arrangements. ==== #122741 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti sukinderpal Hi Sarah and Rob E, > I appreciate all your discussions with Rob E, especially knowing how > difficult it is for you to type long posts. > > Just one point that may lead to misunderstanding/offence: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , Sukinder > wrote: > > > > > > Suk: This is funny. > > While those like ...... > ... > > Suk: The reason I mentioned these names and not ..... > is because like you, they got to hear about sabhava the way > > that it is understood here only on this list. And since they don't have > > a problem, then you should not either, given especially your greater > > familiarity with the way it is used and any explanations given in the > > past. My mentioning their right understanding and your wrong > > understanding was to highlight the difference in attitude towards the > > concept and not as you think, to show your lack of progress. > ... > Sarah: I think it might be more helpful to just say something like > "some" don't have a problem (with the term sabhava or its many > translations), while others do. This way it's less personal. And yes, > comparing understandings is likely to lead to misunderstanding/offence > too as I think we may have discussed once or twice before. As we know, > it's never a matter of X's understanding anyway.....just dhammas! > > Sabhava (and its various translations) has always been a tricky one, > especially for those familiar with Mahayana. So it's helpful to > patiently explain again and again (as KS always does with us!!), > rather than to suggest anyone "should" not have a problem. I know it's > not meant as a "put-down" of any kind, but it can read like that! > Yes lack of patience, which would not be so were there more accumulated panna or else more metta. And since this is not going to change anytime soon, it is good to have you and Jon as moderators of this group. ;-) Regarding the suggestion that Rob E should not have a problem with sabhava, you would have seen that I did support this with certain arguments and therefore the comparison was not totally without base. Metta, Sukin #122742 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 21-feb-2012, om 7:21 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I'm glad you mentioned this - I looked it up and found some other > very good writings there as well. Hope it's okay to read some of > the other pieces, as well as this one. I plan to look at 'deeds of > merit,' it seems like an important subject. ------ N: The link was not complete, because the other parts were missing. I asked Alan and he sent me the complete text. I send it off line. If you have any remarks, welcome. Nina. #122743 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 21-feb-2012, om 3:44 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Thank you, Nina. In the cycle of DO, is ignorance also the moha > cetasika, or is it a different factor? ------ N: It is moha cetasika, but in this context avijjaa is used. Moha is used in particular when dealing with akusala roots, muula or hetu. As the first link of the dependent origination, avijjaa, a-vijjaa, not knowing or understanding, is used. Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 58: [(i) Ignorance] 58. According to the Suttanta method 'ignorance' is unknowing about the four instances beginning with suffering. According to the Abhidhamma method it is unknowing about the eight instances [that is to say, the above-mentioned four] together with [the four] beginning with the past; for this is said: 'Herein, what is ignorance? It is unknowing about suffering, [unknowing about the origin of suffering, unknowing about the cessation of suffering, unknowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering], unknowing about the past, unknowing about the future, unknowing about the past and future, unknowing about specific conditionality and conditionally-arisen states' (cf. Dhs. 1162). ------- Nina. #122744 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies moellerdieter Dear Nina, (all), you wrote: ------ Here an untitled message, just flew away uncontrolled. I copied a phrase of Scott. Nina. --------- > Scott: Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment is > wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall > away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow or > dynamic are concepts. D: let us go by the book ;-) : assuming it is your view too (?) , you contradict Ven. Nyanaponika who stated: ".. according to the Buddha the very reverse is true: change or flux is real , and the single state pictures (that is ,individuals, atoms ,etc) are illusory " In good Buddhist tradition that is not done without canonical evidence (Maha Padesa) , just a reminder of DN 1 ( DN 16 excerpt) "... an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.' "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu - or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu - or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve Hence to claim ''Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu ", i.e. Venerable Nyanaponika , calls for canonical proof to the forum . Looking foward to that ;-) with Metta Dieter I #122745 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:22 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 scottduncan2 Sarah, S: "Alex wrote: '1) According to Comy, merely hearing and considering dhamma works only for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu.'..." Scott: I consider the references to be inadequate. I have made this point. Jon made his request for Commentarial support *after* being given the link in question. Do you suggest that support has been given for this statement above? If so, then this would suggest a change in the way you are seeing things. It would suggest that you concur with Alex, and find that he has adequately made his case using Commentarial sources. It would suggest that you agree that none of us need bother with 'hearing and considering dhamma' since it will not have an effect. Scott. #122746 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- On Tue, 21/2/12, scottduncan2 wrote: >S: "Alex wrote: '1) According to Comy, merely hearing and considering dhamma works only for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu.'..." >Scott: I consider the references to be inadequate. I have made this point. Jon made his request for Commentarial support *after* being given the link in question. >Do you suggest that support has been given for this statement above? .... S: I haven't made any comment about this - I'm leaving that to the original discussants. I was just trying to help provide any sources for further discussion. >If so, then this would suggest a change in the way you are seeing things. It would suggest that you concur with Alex, and find that he has adequately made his case using Commentarial sources. It would suggest that you agree that none of us need bother with 'hearing and considering dhamma' since it will not have an effect. .... Sarah: See above. I've made no comment - I'll leave that to Jon & Alex. Metta Sarah ====== #122747 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Suk: The reason I mentioned these names and not Sarah, Nina and Jon for > example, is because like you, they got to hear about sabhava the way > that it is understood here only on this list. And since they don't have > a problem, then you should not either, given especially your greater > familiarity with the way it is used and any explanations given in the > past. So do you think we should all have the same views about matters of Dhamma, and if there is general agreement about a term, then everyone should fall in line and agree with it too? How would that lead to more discernment or to a more enriching discussion in terms of Dhamma knowledge? If we merely quote the Pali dictionary and agree that the definitions are complete, that doesn't seem to be very useful to me in terms of learning. Exploring and debating those things which are not clear, have implications or have disagreements, seems more fruitful than just adopting a common view, or even an uncommon one. > My mentioning their right understanding and your wrong > understanding was to highlight the difference in attitude towards the > concept and not as you think, to show your lack of progress. And I do > this "knowing" that you will not see it the way I do with regard to who > has right understanding and who wrong, hence my last comment, re: "But > then you may be saying that in fact none of us really understand…" Well, I think that when you attack my point instead of considering it, that does not leave a lot of opening for discussion or exploration. Nina resolved the issue for me very quickly and easily, in the middle of the conversation. Instead of invalidating what I said about sabhava, she pointed out that the English translation that is normally used is not so direct, and that the direct translation of sabhava is pointing out that each dhamma has its own specific characteristic. This I have no problem with, and so I think there may be some point in my objection to the usual translation. You assumed that I was indulging in wrong view without really looking into it at all. Isn't it possible, translation aside, that my concern is a genuine one for something that may suggest a sense of self, and that my understanding of the unique reality of a dhamma and its characteristic is not the issue, but the tone of the expression is? You did not even consider this, but I think that rather than being about me, it is actually a valid subject for concern. We could have had a worthwhile discussion about *that subject* and actually looked into what the expression suggests and how it is used. Instead of having such a "Dhamma discussion" you chose to use the occasion to critique my understanding. Every time someone does this instead of reflecting on the topic, it is a lost opportunity and it turns the occasion into one of personal bickering and judgmentalism, instead of a chance to consider a point of Dhamma. > Indeed I could have taken your objection to sabhava as reflecting lack > of concern as to how others understand it, or else suggesting that > people such as Nina, Jon and Sarah who have been studying the Dhamma for > longer than you have and the ones to introduce the concept to this list, > are so deluded as to not see the wrongness of it, and that you are doing > us all a favor by pointing this out, but I did not. What you said was somewhat similar to this idea anyway - that I was out of line with the generally accepted view of sabhava, that I was more interested in my own idea or opinion than what was obviously correct, that I was holding onto my own idea of control, etc., etc. None of that has anything to do with whether the translation "own-being" has the right implication or not. I'm still interested in discussing that, but now that I've got an alternate translation from Nina, I'm content to use that. > correct in my assessment of the situation, would this not then mean that > you are doing worse than what you accuse me of? If you're correct about a whole lot of speculations that aren't true? Who knows? I do know what did take place, but I can't speculate on what might be the case if a, b, c and d were really w, x, y and z. That is a really far-out argument to consider that is not rooted in the actuality of our conversation. Anyway, if by chance I had a "wrong view" of sabhava, that would not make me "doing something worse" than making a bunch of accusations about another person. They are apples and oranges. If I have wrong view, I can't really change that, but my spiritual friends can help me understand better - not by attacking me, but by following the discussion and explaining what they know. Isn't that what the sangha is for? It's not just for hanging around agreeing with everyone who already has your same opinion, sometimes called "preaching to the choir." > Yes I did comment on your level of understanding; however my intention > was to highlight wrong vs. right understanding therefore I would be > surprised if I was moderated for what I said. Wrong vs. right understanding can be easily pointed out without making a personal comment. It may be less satisfying, but much easier to discuss. All I have to do is say "I believe this view is wrong because of x, y and z," rather than say "You, person X, are stubborn, slow, wrong and mired in self-view." It's not that difficult, if we can resist the satisfaction of putting the other person down. > But of course, I am > generally quite autistic when it comes to interaction with other people, > and as I admitted before, there is always quite a bit of akusala > intentions involved, in which case, I apologize. :-) Well I'm sure I have plenty to apologize for too - no doubt! More later. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122748 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Performing of kusala. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 21-feb-2012, om 7:21 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I'm glad you mentioned this - I looked it up and found some other > > very good writings there as well. Hope it's okay to read some of > > the other pieces, as well as this one. I plan to look at 'deeds of > > merit,' it seems like an important subject. > ------ > N: The link was not complete, because the other parts were missing. I > asked Alan and he sent me the complete text. I send it off line. > If you have any remarks, welcome. Oh thanks! I will download the version you sent me and hopefully it will work with no problem. I appreciate it! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122749 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 21-feb-2012, om 3:44 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Thank you, Nina. In the cycle of DO, is ignorance also the moha > > cetasika, or is it a different factor? > ------ > N: It is moha cetasika, but in this context avijjaa is used. Moha is > used in particular when dealing with akusala roots, muula or hetu. As > the first link of the dependent origination, avijjaa, a-vijjaa, not > knowing or understanding, is used. > > Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 58: > > [(i) Ignorance] > > 58. According to the Suttanta method 'ignorance' is unknowing about the > four instances beginning with suffering. According to the Abhidhamma > method it is unknowing about the eight instances [that is to say, the > above-mentioned four] together with [the four] beginning with the past; > for this is said: 'Herein, what is ignorance? It is unknowing about > suffering, [unknowing about the origin of suffering, unknowing about the > cessation of suffering, unknowing about the way leading to the cessation > of suffering], unknowing about the past, unknowing about the future, > unknowing about the past and future, unknowing about specific > conditionality and conditionally-arisen states' (cf. Dhs. 1162). > ------- Thank you! That is a helpful clarification. It shows how the same basic mental factor can occur in both contexts and how they are labeled, but are essentially the same factor. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122750 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:32 am Subject: Re: nibbana truth_aerator Hello RobE, > >RE:If all dhammas are dukkha and the arahat continues to experience >dhammas, how does he avoid experiencing dukkha as well? >============== There are 3 types of dukkha. Arahant has no dukkha connected with kilesas. Bodily pain, and having to maintain mind&body still remain. Samsara is rotten to the core. Only Parinibbana is total freedom from all kinds of dukkha, gross and subtle. With best wishes, Alex #122751 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:52 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (122608) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: It is not really possible to know from observing the actions of another the extent to which those acts are motivated by kusala. > > RE: Well, I understand that we can't have that kind of certainty, and that it's not really a question of observation of someone else, but I'm just wondering whether that relationship exists - in other words, can the accumulation of kusala result in the "doing" of meritorious actions. Would there be potentially at least a kind of kusala kamma patha that would express as those rupas that we interpret as acts of generosity, good humor, etc.; keeping in mind that we can't know whether that is the case in any given instance. > =============== J: I understand your question to be this: "If there is an increase in the accumulated tendency for kusala of a particular kind, is there likely to be an increase in the number of conventional acts of kusala of that particular kind?". (Hope I've got this right.) There is no simple answer to that question, since there are many factors at play. All that can be said is that if the tendency for a particular kind of kusala is strengthened, that will be one condition among many for that kind of kusala to arise more often and in a stronger form. > =============== > RE: And for ourselves, would we possibly find ourselves experiencing more positive "action rupas" as kusala accumulates? I would imagine at least that these sorts of tendencies would show in the rupas that we see as our everyday conventional lives. For instance, I don't imagine that arahats would be often found hanging around drinking in bars or cursing and playing dice on a regular basis, and that we'd more likely find them doing things that are conventionally benign or helpful - but maybe I'm wrong about that... > =============== J: I'm puzzled by your reference here to arahants, since they have eradicated all akusala tendencies and no longer lead the household life. > =============== > RE: I recall that Sarah said that she would never kill an insect as it would involve such negative kamma, ... Sarah's "cittas" you could say just know that that cetana and those rupas are to be avoided, and maybe that understanding has accumulated to the point where she really won't kill an insect. That pattern of akusala is mainly defeated at this point in her understanding. Not to overly use Sarah as an example, but I thought this one was handy, and it really did strike me as being telling in a way for how accumulations may express themselves. After all, the cetana and the rupas of "killing an insect" does reflect a kind of ignorance and aversion that eventually has to go! > =============== J: I do not see the development of the path as necessarily involving the defeat of successive 'patterns of akusala' prior to the attainment of the first path consciousness. The development of the path is characterised by the gaining of a clearer understanding of dhammas as they truly are, specifically their characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. There is also a consequential lessening/weakening of the defilements, but this does not take any particular form or follow any particular pattern, as far as I know. > =============== > RE: Well, I'm very interested in the general development of kusala as well. On the dhamma level in which this really takes place, I guess we would start to experience longer periods of kusala cittas arising and start to lose some of the extended periods of suffering that attend so much attachment and aversion as well as the poisons and cittas arising from the akusala roots [as pt pointed out and I'm now incorporating in my vocabulary - learning gradually... :-)] > =============== J: Congratulations on managing to incorporate the lingo so seamlessly :-)) As mentioned above, it's difficult to generalise about patterns of kusala. All we can say is that with the development of kusala there will be more conditions for the arising of kusala citta. > =============== > RE: So if there are longer periods of peacefulness and right concentration and ease and clear seeing arising in more arising moments of these kusala cittas, then there's an overall sense of being in a different phase of life, I would think, and the cittas learning what is peaceful instead of what is painful and arising with increasing accumulations. I would guess that eventually it is like the snowball heading downhill and it will become easier for this to develop, but that it will be a long while of experiencing an uphill sort of climb as the cittas go up and down and all around, experiencing akusala and kusala by rapid turns. > =============== J: Regarding "an overall sense of being in a different phase of life, I would think, and the cittas learning what is peaceful instead of what is painful and arising with increasing accumulation" (and so on), this is not at all how it's described in any of the texts. As I mentioned above, the development of the path is characterised by the gaining of a clearer understanding of dhammas as they truly are, specifically their characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Could we wish for anything more? > =============== > > J: The point is that it is just not possible to know to what extent an observed conventional act of compassion is accompanied by kusala. > > RE: I understand. Still - there may be a correspondency, even though we can't say "yes, there it is!" Or there may be subtle or not-so-subtle akusala behind a conventional action, as I think you are implying. > =============== J: What would be the usefulness/significance of a *possible* correspondence (between the development of kusala and an increase in the number of conventional kusala acts)? > =============== > > J: (BTW, in terms of the teachings, the relationship between previous moments of kusala and subsequently arising moments of the same kusala is that of 'natural decisive support condition' (Pali: pakatuppanissaya). The latter are not said to be the 'result' of the former. The term 'result' usually refers to vipaka citta.) > > RE: That is something good to think about. What is the difference between conditionality, such as the NDSC you mention, versus a "cause." Maybe you could say a little more about how conditionality works as opposed to causation...? > =============== J: Conditionality is the broader term, encompassing influence of any shade. Causation I think of as being at one end of the spectrum of conditionality. > =============== > RE: Really a good discussion -- from my standpoint. I appreciate the exchange! > =============== J: Thanks, Rob. Me too :-)) Jon #122752 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:11 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (122588) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > > 1) According to Comy, merely hearing and considering dhamma works only for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu. > > 2)We are no longer them. Only neyya, padaparama remain. > > 3) Neyya needs to engage in actual Practice (as opposed to mere listening and considering) to reach Sotapanna. > > > "An individual of the Neyya class can become a Sotpanna in this present life, if he faithfully practises the bodhipakkhiya-dhamma comprising satipatthana (four Applications of Mindfulness), sammapadhana (Right Exertion), etc. If he is lax in his practice, he can become a Sotapanna only in his next existence after being reborn in the deva planes. If he dies while still aloof from these (bodhipakkhiya-Dhammas) he will become a total loss so far as the present Buddha Sasana is concerned, but he can still attain release from worldly ills if he encounters the Sasana of the next Buddha." > http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/individu.htm > =============== Thanks for your later message confirming that the passage at the link given here is the 'Comy' referred to in your point #1. Unfortunately, the passage at that link is not based on any of the Commentary texts. As far as I know, there is no commentarial basis for the distinction you make in your points #1 and 3 above. The factors necessary for the development of the path and the attaining of enlightenment are the same for all beings (except, in their final lives, for the Bodhisattas). Jon #122753 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti jonoabb Hi Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Jon and all > ... > > We are asking everyone to refrain from messages such as yours, and to keep the discussion to Dhamma matters. Do hope you can see the benefit for all of doing so. > > Ph: My post was about dhammas, if you wish to moderate my posts ( check them first before putting them up) to make sure they meet yourstandards of behaviour tgat is perfectly acceptable to me, perhaps that is best because I won't make any promises to behave well, that's not how kusala behaviour develops, sorry. > =============== J: Thanks for the offer to be moderated -- a first for this list and, I suspect, for any list!! I am touched by the confidence shown in our moderating skills :-)) Seriously though, I know you make this offer out of an appreciation of the importance of furthering an interest -- one's own and that of others -- in the teachings (and that, after all, is why there are guidelines in the first place). Thanks for the support for the list; much appreciated. > =============== > Ph: Panna has to develop naturally to ynderstand the d of a and the a of k! > =============== J: Afraid I have to admit defeat on "the d of a and the a of k". Please put me out of my misery:-)) Jon #122754 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:40 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Thanks for your good comments and questions here - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Sarah: "... We can say it's conventional right view (sammuti sacca) to say there are 'spontaneously born beings'. Is it samma ditthi? That would depend on whether there was the arising of any panna whilst saying so. If we just repeat something we've read in a text without any understanding (even at the pariyatti level) of dhammas, of realities, at that moment, I don't see there being any samma ditthi..." > > Scott: Would it be fair to say that discussions on the list are, for the most part, about 'conventional right view (sammuti sacca)?' In other words, there are right ways and there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa, and it is this that is the main focus of discussion. Is sammuti sacca a necessary forerunner, that is, is it part of pariyatti in some way? .... Sarah: As you say "there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa", but if there is no panna, it's not pariyatti and doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna at such a time. For example, if we chant/read a text in Pali without any understanding of the dhammas being referred to, how is it different to chanting/reading anything else with ignorance and attachment? As for discussions here or anywhere else, it all comes down to the dhammas now as at any other time. It's not about the 'situation', such as 'forests', 'discussions', 'texts', it's about the understanding of dhammas at this very moment, such as seeing, visible object, attachment, irritation - whatever appears. As Sukin wrote recently: *** "To me, sign of any level of right understanding is the attention to "now". The connecting line between suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna is this and not what is verbalized. Any confidence / saddha that is present is reflected in this reference point. " also: " "No words" does not mean no thinking or verbal expression of the thoughts. It means that when the characteristic of a reality is object of understanding, at that time no words are needed, and what is understood is worth more than any number of words used to describe it." Metta Sarah ===== #122755 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, Thanks for your further comments. I may have misunderstood your initial comments. > >R: The thing is the Abhidhamma and suttas have many things which we cannot directly experience, yet I would suggest they are useful to know. Take the case of spontaneously born beings: I think it is part of right view to know they exist. ... > > S: Just back to this first example which I overlooked before. We can say it's conventional right view (sammuti sacca) to say there are "spontaneously born beings". Is it samma ditthi? That would depend on whether there was the arising of any panna whilst saying so. If we just repeat something we've read in a text without any understanding (even at the pariyatti level) of dhammas, of realities, at that moment, I don't see there being any samma ditthi. > > > ----------------- >R: Of course by defition if there is no panna at any moment then sammaditthi is absent. ... S: So when we say "it is part of right view to know they exist", it is right theory, but not pariyatti when there is no panna. It may not even be kusala, in which case there's no use. In other words, I was just stressing that it comes down to the citta now, whatever words are spoken. ... > Not sure why you specify the view above though: if somone says there is only name and rupa but there is no panna it is the same. .... S: Yes, the same applies - again, it may just be the repeating of words with ignorance. In the first example, it may be more apparent ( there may well be an idea of beings as existing, for example), but we can see the same applies to whatever we say or think - again it's the dhammas, not the words. ... > > The real point is whether anyone could believe and say" there are no spontaenously arisen beings" and be having panna: i would say that is impossible. .... S: I'd say 'it depends! After all, in the ultimate sense, only namas and rupas, no beings of any kind. It's like the "no mother, no father, no Buddha, no NIna" discussions. ... >Likewise if they said and thought that "there is nama and rupa that can be controlled" : it shows wrong view is present ... S: Most likely, but I think AS would first ask them what they mean? More precious is the direct understanding of dhammas that can be known now regardless. Metta Sarah ===== #122756 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 21-feb-2012, om 17:41 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > > Scott: Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment > is > wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they > fall > > away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow or > > dynamic are concepts. > > D: let us go by the book ;-) : > > assuming it is your view too (?) , you contradict Ven. Nyanaponika > who stated: ".. according to the Buddha the very reverse is true: > change or flux is real , and the single state pictures (that > is ,individuals, atoms ,etc) are illusory " > -------- N: I find these terms not so clear. Single state pictures? It is not a matter of contradicting. It depends what is understood by these terms. And BTW, the quote of Scott: isn't it true that flow and dynamic are concepts? When using these words, what do we mean by these? As Scott says: The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall away to be succeeded by the next moment. N: See, let us understand the present moment, there is no other moment to be understood. Now I quote Sarah: N: How do we understand this very moment, no matter it is called flow , dynamic or single state pictures. ------- > D: Hence to claim ''Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's > utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu ", i.e. > Venerable Nyanaponika , > > calls for canonical proof to the forum . > ------ N: Again, this seems like discussing persons. Not so useful. Let us rather discuss flow and dynamic or other terms that are used. > ----- Nina. #122757 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies moellerdieter Dear Nina, (all) let me start from the end : you wrote: (D: Hence to claim ''Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu ", i.e. Venerable Nyanaponika , calls for canonical proof to the forum . Looking foward to that ;-) N: Again, this seems like discussing persons. Not so useful. D: well , with a ' ;-) ' .. not really a 'Holy Inquisition ' , nevertheless the issue needs to be clarified. So the question is: did the Buddha teach ' change or flux is real ' as the Venerable stated? If yes , Scott's statement "Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment > is > wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow or dynamic are concepts." which you support , cannot be accepted. If not , please show us by canonical evidence , i.e. respective quotations , that the doubt in the proposition of this Elder Bhikkhu is justified. I think that is fair to ask, isn't it? . N: I find these terms not so clear. Single state pictures? It is not a matter of contradicting. It depends what is understood by these terms. D: I think it is quite clear :"In that way sequence in time appears to bare and qualified analysis like a cinema in which a great number of single static pictures are substituted quickly enough to produce in the spectator the effect of moving pictures. This illustration, after Bergson, is very frequently used in literature with or without the implication, that, properly speaking, motion or change is illusory , or a reality of a lesser degree, while only the single static pictures, that is , self identical physical and/or psychic (time) atoms have genuine reality.But according to the Buddha the very reverse is true: change or flux is real , and the single state pictures (that is ,individuals, atoms ,etc) are illusory " N:And BTW, the quote of Scott: isn't it true that flow and dynamic are concepts? When using these words, what do we mean by these? D: concepts? The flux is reality , phenomena are not static in a way of succession of single moments . We recognize this flowing in contact with the 6 senses media and - in no other way I can see - the flow and dynamic of the Law of Dependent Origination. N:As Scott says: The realities are to be found in the moment, until they fall away to be succeeded by the next moment. N: See, let us understand the present moment, there is no other moment to be understood. D: quoting : "Bare analysis starts , or pretends to start, its investigation by selecting singly objects, existing in the sector of time which is called "present".The present is certainly "the only reality" in the sense of existence , but it is a very illusive "reality" which is constantly "on the move" from an "unreal"future to an "unreal" past. But strictly speaking , the object analysis when it is considered , already belongs to the past and no longer to the present. This is stated by the commentators of old " just it is impossible to touch with one's finger tip that very same finger , so too, the arising , continuing and ceasing of a thought , cannot be known by the same thought" (commentary to M.N. Anupada Sutta). This statement that, strictly speaking, a thought has not a present but a past object, hold good even if we have in mind the much wider term of "serial present" (santatipaccupana) , that is, the perceptible sequence of severals of consciousness which alone is actually experienced as "at present" , and if we ignore the so-called "momentary present" (khanapaccuppana) which consists of a single practically imperceptible moment of consciousness" N:Now I quote Sarah: N: How do we understand this very moment, no matter it is called flow , dynamic or single state pictures. D: The Venerable's point is : there is no' this very moment 'which you can call reality, because it is dynamic, a flow . It is already gone when you start to analyse it (single state pictures) , so the later is illusory in respect to reality not the former . It is like stopping an arrow in the air.. B.T.W: My point was and is that we need to involve in our investigation (of the 'Here-and-Now') the dynamic of the Law of Dependent Origination, the flow of mental and physical phenomena . with Metta Dieter . #122758 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:08 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "As you say 'there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa'..." Scott: I also mentioned that there are *right* ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa. Do you think that this is the case? Scott. #122760 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:31 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Scott & all, Typo correction - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Scott: Would it be fair to say that discussions on the list are, for the most part, about 'conventional right view (sammuti sacca)?' In other words, there are right ways and there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa, and it is this that is the main focus of discussion. Is sammuti sacca a necessary forerunner, that is, is it part of pariyatti in some way? > .... > Sarah: As you say "there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa", but if there is no panna, it's not pariyatti and doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna at such a time. For example, if we chant/read a text in Pali without any understanding of the dhammas being referred to, how is it different to chanting/reading anything else with ignorance and attachment? > > As for discussions here or anywhere else, it all comes down to the dhammas now as at any other time. It's not about the 'situation', such as 'forests', 'discussions', 'texts', it's about the understanding of dhammas at this very moment, such as seeing, visible object, attachment, irritation - whatever appears. <....> Sarah: My first line should have read: "As you say, 'there are right ways and there are wrong ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa',......" Apologies for any confusion Metta Sarah ======= #122761 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:39 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: I also mentioned that there are *right* ways to think about the Dhamma even in the absence of pa~n~naa. Do you think that this is the case? .... S: See my typo note just sent - I saw my mistake just as I was going to bed, but was too tired to correct it then. Also see my note to Rob K. If there's no panna at any level whilst thinking/reciting the Dhamma, then it doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna, to pariyatti or patipatti, does it? The words may be right, the Teachings are right, but it's the citta that matters, especially the understanding at this moment, regardless of the activity. If there is attachment/aversion/ignorance now whilst thinking about/reading the Dhamma, it's not *right*, is it? Metta Sarah ==== #122762 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:58 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. > > RE: And for ourselves, would we possibly find ourselves experiencing more positive "action rupas" as kusala accumulates? I would imagine at least that these sorts of tendencies would show in the rupas that we see as our everyday conventional lives. For instance, I don't imagine that arahats would be often found hanging around drinking in bars or cursing and playing dice on a regular basis, and that we'd more likely find them doing things that are conventionally benign or helpful - but maybe I'm wrong about that... > > =============== > > J: I'm puzzled by your reference here to arahants, since they have eradicated all akusala tendencies and no longer lead the household life. That fits within the point I am trying to make. "Arahants having eradicated all akusala tendencies and no longer leading the household life" means that the purification of the cittas has resulted in altered conventional behavior. "No longer leading the household life" is a change in conventional behavior, which apparently is a sign of the path having developed to its completion. > > =============== > > RE: I recall that Sarah said that she would never kill an insect as it would involve such negative kamma, ... Sarah's "cittas" you could say just know that that cetana and those rupas are to be avoided, and maybe that understanding has accumulated to the point where she really won't kill an insect. That pattern of akusala is mainly defeated at this point in her understanding. Not to overly use Sarah as an example, but I thought this one was handy, and it really did strike me as being telling in a way for how accumulations may express themselves. After all, the cetana and the rupas of "killing an insect" does reflect a kind of ignorance and aversion that eventually has to go! > > =============== > > J: I do not see the development of the path as necessarily involving the defeat of successive 'patterns of akusala' prior to the attainment of the first path consciousness. > > The development of the path is characterised by the gaining of a clearer understanding of dhammas as they truly are, specifically their characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. That's fine, but in fact one cannot understand dhammas as they are without the development of such kusala qualities as sampajana, satipatthana, panna/vipassana, etc. - so inherent in the idea that what is important is to "understand dhammas as they truly are" is in fact the development of kusala. One can't happen without the other. The idea that is often cited that one can see equally well into the reality of an akusala dhamma as into a kusala one is certainly true, but in order to do so in either case the reflective cittas that follow and arise with the panna that understands would have to be kusala ones. Prior to the development of a certain degree of kusala, that understanding will not take place. So development of kusala is crucial, not just understanding, as if it existed separate from kusala. > There is also a consequential lessening/weakening of the defilements, but this does not take any particular form or follow any particular pattern, as far as I know. Are you saying that refraining from killing insects has no definite relation to the path? That would be hard to understand, since it takes an advanced understanding to refrain from such killing. Also, isn't it true that refraining from killing and other akusala activities or kamma pathas become permanent at certain stages, and doesn't that represent a certain level of progress from which there is no falling back? When Sarah says she would never kill an insect because of the kamma that reflects her firm understanding of what that represents, and that only happens at a certain level of understanding. Is that not so? > > =============== > > RE: Well, I'm very interested in the general development of kusala as well. On the dhamma level in which this really takes place, I guess we would start to experience longer periods of kusala cittas arising and start to lose some of the extended periods of suffering that attend so much attachment and aversion as well as the poisons and cittas arising from the akusala roots [as pt pointed out and I'm now incorporating in my vocabulary - learning gradually... :-)] > > =============== > > J: Congratulations on managing to incorporate the lingo so seamlessly :-)) I'm sure it leaves much to be desired, but I'm glad you approve. That's very generous. > As mentioned above, it's difficult to generalise about patterns of kusala. All we can say is that with the development of kusala there will be more conditions for the arising of kusala citta. I'm sure there's no general way or order in which things occur for everyone. Yet I find it hard to think that at certain points akusala arisings and experiences as well as actions will gradually get outmoded. I know that once a stream-enterer reaches that stage and those beyond it, certain behaviors and experiences are said to be impossible after that point. Is that not so? And if so, what do you think such conventional changes represents, if not the level of understanding and insight of the cittas that are arising as "powers," or whatever the appropriate word is, for that which does not fall back at that point. [Thought I'd try to incorporate the "powers" lingo in there, one of my new favorites.] > > =============== > > RE: So if there are longer periods of peacefulness and right concentration and ease and clear seeing arising in more arising moments of these kusala cittas, then there's an overall sense of being in a different phase of life, I would think, and the cittas learning what is peaceful instead of what is painful and arising with increasing accumulations. I would guess that eventually it is like the snowball heading downhill and it will become easier for this to develop, but that it will be a long while of experiencing an uphill sort of climb as the cittas go up and down and all around, experiencing akusala and kusala by rapid turns. > > =============== > > J: Regarding "an overall sense of being in a different phase of life, I would think, and the cittas learning what is peaceful instead of what is painful and arising with increasing accumulation" (and so on), this is not at all how it's described in any of the texts. > > As I mentioned above, the development of the path is characterised by the gaining of a clearer understanding of dhammas as they truly are, specifically their characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Could we wish for anything more? Understanding the the three marks or characteristics and consequent detachment is the ultimate I am sure. However, it is also true that along the way some of the kusala attributes become "powers" that are always accessible and do not fall back at that point, and there are other changes that do not fall back and mark the level of insight that the person is at. Though I don't have quotes, I know that this has been discussed here a number of times in different threads. So there are stages of progress as well as the development of understanding, and also, as I ruminated before, one cannot have greater understanding of anatta etc. until the kusala qualities of insight, etc., have reached a certain point, so accumulation of kusala is always the prerequisite for such understanding to take place. Do you disagree with that? > > =============== > > > J: The point is that it is just not possible to know to what extent an observed conventional act of compassion is accompanied by kusala. > > > > RE: I understand. Still - there may be a correspondency, even though we can't say "yes, there it is!" Or there may be subtle or not-so-subtle akusala behind a conventional action, as I think you are implying. > > =============== > > J: What would be the usefulness/significance of a *possible* correspondence (between the development of kusala and an increase in the number of conventional kusala acts)? Well for one thing, if the conventional kusala acts are in fact the reflection or embodiment of the arising of kusala dhammas, then it makes those actions more meaningful, rather than beside the point. And the other important implication would be that those conventional representatives of kusala dhammas would also represent the path and what is taking place in the world of dhammas. That would give us conventional folks a little more access to what is happening prior to strong insight and understanding of dhammas themselves. > > =============== > > > J: (BTW, in terms of the teachings, the relationship between previous moments of kusala and subsequently arising moments of the same kusala is that of 'natural decisive support condition' (Pali: pakatuppanissaya). The latter are not said to be the 'result' of the former. The term 'result' usually refers to vipaka citta.) > > > > RE: That is something good to think about. What is the difference between conditionality, such as the NDSC you mention, versus a "cause." Maybe you could say a little more about how conditionality works as opposed to causation...? > > =============== > > J: Conditionality is the broader term, encompassing influence of any shade. Causation I think of as being at one end of the spectrum of conditionality. That's a really clear distinction which is quite helpful. Does causation proper exist in some cases, or is it always a matter of co-arising conditionality? > > =============== > > RE: Really a good discussion -- from my standpoint. I appreciate the exchange! > > =============== > > J: Thanks, Rob. Me too :-)) :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #122763 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:54 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, >As far as I know, there is no commentarial basis for the distinction >you make in your points #1 and 3 above. >======= Unfortunately I do not have some of the sources cited in that site, so I cannot check. Did you? In the suttas there were cases like Bahiya who attained all four maggapahalas within minutes of hearing the Buddha. It seems like Bahiya was Ugghatitannu. He didn't have to engage in long and strenuous practice as is outlined in many suttas. With best wishes, Alex #122764 From: "philip" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:54 am Subject: Two kinds of saddha philofillet Hi Nina I was interested to hear A.Sujin talk about two kinds of saddha. The first is maybe pokkathi(?) saddha and is akin to tanha, the second is bhava saddjha. It makes sense that there is a kind of confidence that is akin to tanha or lobha. At KK I said that there is confidence for me that panna will develop through understanding seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting rather than through attempting to sort out cetasikas (though I am attempting to do that with this question) but that "confidence" is probably all about wanting understanding, akin to tanha. On the other hand, there coyld be moments of right understanding with saddha that is bhava saddha. What is bhava saddha?I think it might be as different from the conventional meaning of "cinfidence" as properly understood karuna is from the conventionally held meaning of "compassion.". Could I ask you to add a few thoughts when you have time? No hurry, back next week, thanks. Phil #122765 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:20 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. ptaus1 Hi Sarah (Scott, RobK), > S: Also see my note to Rob K. If there's no panna at any level whilst thinking/reciting the Dhamma, then it doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna, to pariyatti or patipatti, does it? The words may be right, the Teachings are right, but it's the citta that matters, especially the understanding at this moment, regardless of the activity. If there is attachment/aversion/ignorance now whilst thinking about/reading the Dhamma, it's not *right*, is it? I was wondering whether thinking/talking about Dhamma can actually be kusala at all in the absence of panna? From memory, a citta is kusala only if it's basically dana, sila or bhavana. In the absence of panna, then bhavana is out of the question I think (there's no pariyatti either). So then, the only other way I could think of that thinking/talking about Dhamma could be kusala is if it's basically dana. Here though, since there's no panna, the predominant factor would be metta, and possibly patience, right? So in conventional terms, sharing Dhamma with the aim of helping the other person, while the Dhamma teaching itself is basically only repeated without any understanding (panna) really at the time - so neither pariyatti, nor patipatti at the time, right? Further, a question about a related issue - if panna is lacking at a certain moment, this would not exclude conventional understanding (intellectual understanding, logic, etc, based on perception and memory, but not panna) occurring at the time? In other words, there might be understanding of Dhamma in terms of logic and intellectualising, but this does not necessarily imply there's panna as a mental factor actually occurring at the time even on the pariyatti level, right? In other words - intellectual understanding of a certain Dhamma issue does not necessarily imply there's pariyatti happening at the time, right? And to connect this to the first issue - intellectual/logical understanding of a Dhamma issue without panna at the time does not make it kusala (unless possibly if it is expressed as dana in a way)? Best wishes pt #122766 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:21 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "...If there's no panna at any level whilst thinking/reciting the Dhamma, then it doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna, to pariyatti or patipatti, does it? The words may be right, the Teachings are right, but it's the citta that matters, especially the understanding at this moment, regardless of the activity. If there is attachment/aversion/ignorance now whilst thinking about/reading the Dhamma, it's not *right*, is it?" Scott: My point is this: Since discussion on a list can *only* be about right or wrong intellectual grasp of the Dhamma, it is hardly conducive to discussion on this basis to keep stating truisms about the moment. I agree with you, but the moment is impossible to bring to a page and so discussion is limited to the time-honoured tradition of saying, in essence, 'I'm right and you are wrong and this is why' - at the level of ideas that are either right or wrong. When you mix the two, you curtail discussion. When you handcuff your supporters, you limit discussion. When you allow discussants with divergent views all sorts of latitude then you get what I consider to be unreasonable demands that holders of views we consider to be correct (the stated views of the list) not only support these views with textual material but also that we accept that the divergent views are *not* the views in need of textual support. And not, as proof, the opinions of modern interpreters of the Dhamma, but the list's acknowledged and accepted sources of adequate textual proof - including the Commentaries. When you do all of this, you alienate your supporters and will wind up discussing the Dhamma with those with unchanging views all by yourself. I think that the responsibility is on the purveyors of views which diverge from ours to prove them, not to make us disprove theirs. Scott. Scott. #122767 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Pt, Good to read your comments again! --- On Thu, 23/2/12, ptaus1 wrote: S:....>If there's no panna at any level whilst thinking/reciting the Dhamma, then it doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna, to pariyatti or patipatti, does it? The words may be right, the Teachings are right, but it's the citta that matters, especially the understanding at this moment, regardless of the activity. If there is attachment/aversion/ignorance now whilst thinking about/reading the Dhamma, it's not *right*, is it? .... PT> I was wondering whether thinking/talking about Dhamma can actually be kusala at all in the absence of panna? From memory, a citta is kusala only if it's basically dana, sila or bhavana. In the absence of panna, then bhavana is out of the question I think (there's no pariyatti either). ... S: Exactly ... >So then, the only other way I could think of that thinking/talking about Dhamma could be kusala is if it's basically dana. Here though, since there's no panna, the predominant factor would be metta, and possibly patience, right? So in conventional terms, sharing Dhamma with the aim of helping the other person, while the Dhamma teaching itself is basically only repeated without any understanding (panna) really at the time - so neither pariyatti, nor patipatti at the time, right? .... S: Yes, certainly can be dana and metta- reciting texts to someone ill, finding a reference for someone on the list, giving dhamma books, repeating what one's heard, even if not understood. I'm thinking of the sutta about a monk who taught the Dhamma - his students understood it, but he didn't. So, dana, but not pariyatti in that case. Kusala, but not leading out of the cycle. Anyone can repeat 'namas and rupas', but it depends on the present understanding always as to whether there's any value in what is said. ..... >Further, a question about a related issue - if panna is lacking at a certain moment, this would not exclude conventional understanding (intellectual understanding, logic, etc, based on perception and memory, but not panna) occurring at the time? In other words, there might be understanding of Dhamma in terms of logic and intellectualising, but this does not necessarily imply there's panna as a mental factor actually occurring at the time even on the pariyatti level, right? .... S: Right. Hence, we can "logically" calculate the various cittas in a process or count the 28 rupas, but there may be no pariyatti involved at all. There are 'experts' in Abhidhamma study who do not relate it to practice, patipatti, at this moment at all. ... >In other words - intellectual understanding of a certain Dhamma issue does not necessarily imply there's pariyatti happening at the time, right? ... S: Right. Again, it comes down to the (kusala) understanding at that, this or any other time, no matter the topic or occasion. There may be a lot of attachment instead to 'working it out', just like a scientist has to working out the theory or any scholar might have for following an analysis. Again, it's only panna now that can know the citta, the reality, the object of understanding. I think that "hearing the Dhamma" means hearing that it is about the reality now. .... >And to connect this to the first issue - intellectual/logical understanding of a Dhamma issue without panna at the time does not make it kusala (unless possibly if it is expressed as dana in a way)? .... S: I think the danger here is that we end up talking about just another situation rather than really understanding what appears now whilst wondering, thinking, doubting about the issue. Certainly, if there's no panna, no understanding of dhammas, whilst wondering/logically understanding, then unlikely to be kusala unless there's dana or assistance to others at such a time. So the path always comes back to 'now' - to understanding seeing, hearing, thinking, like, dislike, sense objects, now. Metta Sarah ===== #122768 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:55 pm Subject: Re: Pt's visit by car - this moment does not mean crashing into trees! sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Sarah: - thirasa~n~naa, strong sa~n~naa or firm remembrance as the proximate cause of sati. What are the "nuts and bolts" of this. > > pt: My main interest here was whether strong sanna arises before sati and thus conditions it, or does it arise at the same time as sati. As I understood Sarah and Jon (S&J), "strong sanna" is basically just another name for sanna that arises together with sati. So, sanna can be both kusala and akusala, and if it's arising with kusala citta and sati, then it's "strong sanna" or "strong perception". .... S: Just to say that whilst in Bangkok, I checked this detail with K.Sujin on "strong sanna" (thirasa~n~naa) as condition for sati. Yes, as discussed, it is the sanna arising with sati and panna in the development of insight, conditioned by understanding. There can also be thirasa~n~naa which is akusala, such as when there is wrong concentration. ... > This basically goes contrary to the belief in some meditative circles that if you focus on something (like your foot), that's what "strong perception" is all about, and that's what will condition sati to arise at some point later, so you just gotta sit there and concentrate. Of course, if strong perception arises at the same time as sati, then it's a completely different story. ... S: If it's strong perception arising with ignorance and attachment, it'll just lead to more of the same. ... > So how does kusala sanna actually develop? ... S: Only with the development of understanding. > > > Sarah: Discussion about listening to the Dhamma and considering it carefully, sa~n~naa of what has been heard as conditioning sati. Also the firm sa~n~naa that arises with sati conditioning it too. > > pt: The intellectual dilemma that always creeps in is the "first origin" of sati, panna, etc. But, there's not discernible beginning to samsara, so there was sati at some point before. Accordingly, there was strong sanna with it, and therefore, these can condition the same in the future. And if there's hearing of dhamma and wise considering - well, that's the actual development of strong sanna and sati now, and condition for more of the same in the future. >... S: The last sentence sounds correct. The concerns about "first origin' lead nowhere! ... > But, without hearing dhamma, no development as such, right? So, otherwise there can only be sati by inclination (like in metta moments that are not accompanied by panna, so no development as such). ... S: Correct. ... > > One thing that I'm not fully clear on yet - say I'm talking and thinking about dhamma, but this is with akusala cittas. Then, sanna that arises with these cittas still wouldn't count as development of strong sanna, panna, etc, even though I'm thinking "about dhamma", right? In other words, it's not about the content of the thoughts so to speak, but about cittas, i.e. the way in which the topic is contemplated, right? .... S: Exactly right and just the point I'm discussing with others too. .... > > > Sarah: Nothing to do with repeating a phrase or mantra or sutta repeatedly, trying to have strong sa~n~naa. The desire for results always creeps in. > > pt: Again, this refers to some ideas in meditative circles regarding emphasis on concetration without really knowing if it is kusala or not - basically, if you just sit there and concentrate (with sanna that is not "strong", so not kusala, so therefore akusala), this will never develop "strong sanna", because strong sanna is only kusala. In other words, akusala sanna does not exercise/improve/develop/condition more kusala sanna, even though they are both called "sanna". So you can sit there and concentrate for a long time, but that will not develop kusala sanna (nor kusala concetration for that matter) in any way. In fact, if kusala sanna and kusala concetration do actually arise during the sitting, it will be in spite of your trying and concentrating. ... S: Exactly so. Accumulating strong akusala sanna is dangerous, especially if there is the view that it's kusala and part of the path. It can lead to all kinds of mental and physical disturbances. ... > Anyway, that's how I understood S&J on this topic. Next topic - kasinas, jhana and concentration. ... S: Thx again for the comments and good summary. Also, great to have you back. Any dhamma discussion in Serbia? Metta Sarah ----- #122769 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:10 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Thanks for your further comments - good for consideration. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Sarah: "...If there's no panna at any level whilst thinking/reciting the Dhamma, then it doesn't lead to any accumulation of panna, to pariyatti or patipatti, does it? The words may be right, the Teachings are right, but it's the citta that matters, especially the understanding at this moment, regardless of the activity. If there is attachment/aversion/ignorance now whilst thinking about/reading the Dhamma, it's not *right*, is it?" > > Scott: My point is this: Since discussion on a list can *only* be about right or wrong intellectual grasp of the Dhamma, it is hardly conducive to discussion on this basis to keep stating truisms about the moment. I agree with you, but the moment is impossible to bring to a page and so discussion is limited to the time-honoured tradition of saying, in essence, 'I'm right and you are wrong and this is why' - at the level of ideas that are either right or wrong. .... Sarah: What I'm suggesting (and keep harping on about) is that if we are only concerned about the "right or wrong intellectual grasp of the Dhamma" (and regardless of what kind of cittas are involved whilst considering/discussing), then it seems that the practice, (the pariyattti and patipatti) are divorced from daily life at this very moment whilst having such discussion or consideration. With regard to the "I'm right an you are wrong and this is why", far more precious than finding the right words or the right commentary reference is the understanding at this very moment. Without an emphasis on the direct understanding now, regardless of what the textual reference seems to indicate, our studies are of little value, aren't they? For example, if we find all the evidence to show that "I'm right and you are wrong", but it's all "in the book" and there's no understanding now, no kindness or generosity now, then is there any value in it? ..... > I think that the responsibility is on the purveyors of views which diverge from ours to prove them, not to make us disprove theirs. .... S: I think, as Nina has suggested, the best thing is to help explain what we understand to be right, give any support that may be helpful, with kindness and without expectations of how others *should* behave. The problem always comes back to 'our' cittas, never the 'other's'. This is why I always try to give a reminder to all of us to understand the citta now, even as we write and speak. When you patiently explain about conditioned dhammas or give a transcript or textual reference, it's very helpful for us all. Metta Sarah ======= #122770 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > .....But to leave your public comments about me on the list and not respond would cause a wrong impression about what you have said. When I am not treated to such comments I do not initiate them any more, but it is not right to leave your comments on-list without a response. .... S: It often seems like that, but I find all the reminders on equanimity helpful. Ven Samahita recently gave some useful quotes in #122719. I've been reflecting on the reminders on equanimity in MN 1148, Indriyabhaavanaa Sutta ( ~Naa.namoli, Bodhi transl). " 'Now, Aananda, how is there the supreme development of the faculties in the Noble One's Discipline? Here, Aanand, when a bhikkhu sees a form with the eye, there arises in him what is agreeable and disagreeable. He understands thus: 'There has arisen in me what is agreeable , there has arisen what is disagreeable. But that is conditioned, gross, dependently arisen; this is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, equanimity.' The agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease in him and equanimity is established. " 'Just as a man with good sight, having opened his eyes might shut them or having shut his eyes might open them, so too concerning anything at all, the agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease just as quickly, just as rapidly, just as easily, and equanimity is established. This is called in the Noble One's Discipline the supreme development of the faculties regarding forms cognizable by the eye.' " [S: Commentary notes given by the translators make it clear that it is the equanimity of insight (vipassan'uppekkhaa) being referred to. ] S: The same is said for the other sense doors down to: " 'Again, Aananda, when a bhikkhu cognizes a mind-object with the mind, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable. He understands thus:....and equanimity is established. Just as if a man were to let two or three drops of water fall onto an iron plate heated for a whole day, the falling of the drops might be slow but they would quickly vaporise and vanish, so too concerning anything at all, the agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease just as quickly, just as rapidly, just as easily, and equanimity is established. This is called in the Noble One's Discipline the supreme development of the faculties regarding ideas cognizable by the mind.' " At this stage the Buddha is not yet even referring to the understanding of the ariyan disciples. [A commentary note given indicates that in this context a) agreeable state (manaapa) and b) disagreeable state (amanaapa) refer to a) wholesome and unwholesome states of mind associated with joy and b) with unwholesome states associated with aversion on account of the desirable/undesirable objects appearing. The 'agreeable and disagreeable' seems to refer to states of mind associated with equanimity.] Metta Sarah ===== #122771 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, Thank you for your quotes and comments. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Bhikkhu Bodhi introduces right view by following: (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html ) : <....>Thus the path evolves through its three stages, with moral discipline as the foundation for concentration, concentration the foundation for wisdom, and wisdom the direct instrument for reaching liberation. > > D: please note the last sentence. .... S: Yes, this is a common viewpoint. However, there can be no purity of sila or samadhi without the development of right understanding of dhammas from the outset. This is why they can never be purified without the development of satipatthana and the attainment of the vipassana nanas and enlightenment. ... > > Perhaps we can agree on (quoting from another list a comment refering to the sequence , ' Peter ':) "I understand them to arise like a spiral. Some panna is the basis for some sila. Some sila is the basis for some samadhi. Some samadhi is the basis for more panna. More panna is the basis for more sila. More sila is the basis for more samadhi. More samadhi is the basis for even more panna, etc. " , can't we ? .... S: I'd like to discuss this further if and when 'Peter' joins/rejoins us! Metta Sarah ====== #122772 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > S: I'm wondering if there's some misunderstanding between mundane/supramundane right view on the one hand and absolute truths/conventional truths on the other? It seems that you may be conflating mundane view and conventional truths? > > D: is there any ? It is understanding which determines our view of the world and so is the language . > Conventíonal is the personal encounter , our lifestory , mother , father , consequences of action, etc. which the Buddha called mundane right understanding /view. .... S: When the Buddha referred to mundane right understanding, he was referring to the development of the path, to the development of satipatthana. No matter what words might be used, it is the undersanding of realities, the understanding of the khandhas that is being referred to. In order to communicate, conventional terms must be used, but it is not the conventional view of the world that is being referred to. We don't need to hear a Buddha to understand about the use of conventional terms or what is often referred to as 'worldly wisdom'. ... > > (Just to briefly summarise the terms as used by some of us and in the texts as I understand them: > >S: 1. Mundane right view (lokiya sammaa di.t.thi) refers to the sammaa di.t.thi of the path which is not supramundane (lokuttara samma di.t.thi). Usually, such as in MN 117, it is satipa.t.thaana/vipassanaa that is being referred to. It is not "conventional understanding" or the "conventional world" that is being referred to. The objects of (lokiya) samma di.t.thi (mundane right view) in these contexts are always paramattha dhammas, i.e naamas and ruupas, one at a time. > > D: the view of the householder , of the laity is refered to , their conventional understanding. .... S: No, it is the right understanding of the path, the development of satipatthana, regardless of whether it is a bhikkhu or householder involved. It's not the conventional understanding at all, but the understanding of paramattha dhammas, but not the supramundane understanding at moments of enlightenment. Even after enlightenment, the sotapanna still develops mundane right view, satipatthana. Mundane here just means of this realm, not 'supra' or outside this realm, as in the case of the lokuttara cittas. It does not mean 'ordinary'. ... > > Please compare: > " And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. " > > "And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path." ... S: There are lots of detailed commentary passages and helpful comments on this sutta in U.P. under "Maha-cattarisaka Sutta (MN 117)". The passages are referring to satipatthana/vipassana with anusayas not yet eradicated and moments of enlightenment when the anusayas are eradicated at various stages, as Nina and I have mentioned. > > ' a factor of the path' , the supramundane path of Noble Ones (approach by the mundane Noble Path , i.e. the training towards it (sila, samadhi ,panna) > > By 'analysis of qualities ' ..qualities of what? the qualities of the 6 senses media I assume (I wonder whether the Pali word indicates another context) .... S: Understanding of dhammas - yes, the inner and outer ayatanas, paramattha dhammas. Metta Sarah ====== #122773 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Satipatthana is without doubt important ...we may however not neglect the beginning of the sutta: > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!" > > "Yes, lord," the monks replied. > > The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you noble right concentration with its supports and requisite conditions. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak." > > "Yes, lord," the monks replied. > > The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors - right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness - is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions. [1] "Of those, right view is the forerunner ..... .... S: yes, satipatthana - all supporting path factors arising together (minimum five at a time), supporting each other. "Of those, right view is the forerunner" - this means that right view is essential and the main factor conditioning the other factors. It is the right understanding of namas and rupas which we discuss so much. Metta Sarah ====== #122774 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. nilovg Dear Sarah, This is exactly how I feel. AS you wrote before: I always appreciate your reminders as I do Kh Sujin's about this moment. Books or articles that do not help me to understand this moment are of less and less interest to me. Nina. Op 23-feb-2012, om 7:10 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > With regard to the "I'm right an you are wrong and this is why", > far more precious than finding the right words or the right > commentary reference is the understanding at this very moment. > Without an emphasis on the direct understanding now, regardless of > what the textual reference seems to indicate, our studies are of > little value, aren't they? For example, if we find all the evidence > to show that "I'm right and you are wrong", but it's all "in the > book" and there's no understanding now, no kindness or generosity > now, then is there any value in it? > ..... > > > I think that the responsibility is on the purveyors of views > which diverge from ours to prove them, not to make us disprove theirs. > .... > S: I think, as Nina has suggested, the best thing is to help > explain what we understand to be right, give any support that may > be helpful, with kindness and without expectations of how others > *should* behave. The problem always comes back to 'our' cittas, > never the 'other's'. This is why I always try to give a reminder to > all of us to understand the citta now, even as we write and speak. #122775 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 22-feb-2012, om 19:00 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > did the Buddha teach ' change or flux is real ' as the Venerable > stated? > > If yes , Scott's statement > "Belief that a 'flow' or a 'dynamic' supersedes the moment > is > > wrong. The realities are to be found in the moment, until they > fall away to be succeeded by the next moment. Any ideas about flow > or dynamic are concepts." > which you support , cannot be accepted. > > If not , please show us by canonical evidence , i.e. respective > quotations , that the doubt in the proposition of this Elder > Bhikkhu is justified. > I think that is fair to ask, isn't it? > --------- N: You posted parts of Ven. Nyanaponika's book, and wanted discussion. Now, some terms I find not so clear, and, without disrespect of the Venerable One, I do not find any wrong to mention this. I used this book a lot and quoted from it, but when rereading, it may happen that I do not find myself with all he writes. Possible? I do not want to prove anything with canonical evidence, since I am disinclined to debate. I am not a great debater. ----- > > D: concepts? The flux is reality , phenomena are not static in a > way of succession of single moments . We recognize this flowing in > contact with the 6 senses media and - in no other way I can see - > the flow and dynamic of the Law of Dependent Origination. > ------ > D: But strictly speaking , the object analysis when it is > considered , already belongs to the past and no longer to the > present. This is stated by the commentators of old " just it is > impossible to touch with one's finger tip that very same finger , > so too, the arising , continuing and ceasing of a thought , cannot > be known by the same thought" (commentary to M.N. Anupada Sutta). > This statement that, strictly speaking, a thought has not a present > but a past object, hold good even if we have in mind the much wider > term of "serial present" (santatipaccupana) , that is, the > perceptible sequence of severals of consciousness which alone is > actually experienced as "at present" , and if we ignore the so- > called "momentary present" (khanapaccuppana) which consists of a > single practically imperceptible moment of consciousness" > ----- N: I agree with the commentary. I can refer to our discussions on nimitta. Realities arise and fall away so fast and the sign, nimitta remains. Still, it is possible to be aware of the characteristic of a reality that has just gone. -------- > > D: The Venerable's point is : there is no' this very moment 'which > you can call reality, because it is dynamic, a flow . It is already > gone when you start to analyse it (single state pictures) , so the > later is illusory in respect to reality not the former . It is like > stopping an arrow in the air.. > ------ N: Yes, but still possible to be aware of its characteristic. Just the terms flow, dynamic, I am less enthusiastic about. Single state pictures. Why pictures? ------- > > > D: B.T.W: My point was and is that we need to involve in our > investigation (of the 'Here-and-Now') the dynamic of the Law of > Dependent Origination, the flow of mental and physical phenomena . > ------- N: First we have to understand just one naama or ruupa as it appears now. D.O. is so complex, we have to understand many types of conditions first, as stated by the Vis. ------- Nina. > #122776 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:40 pm Subject: Re: Those who are afraid of death and those who are not glenjohnann Dear Han (Sarah, Nina and others) Han, I have been appreciating your series on death, both your posting of parts of the texts and your comments as well as others' contributions. It is helpful to reflect on these things and to remember how development of understanding leading to more confidence in the Dhamma is so important. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you very much for quoting the two suttas: SN 55.26 Anaathapi.n.dika sutta (1) and SN 55. 27 Anaathapi.n.dika sutta (2). I read them and I have learnt a lot from them, thanks to you. > > I have noted your remark with appreciation: [Whether a bhikkhu, like Ananda or a householder, like Anathapindika, the freedom from fear is just the same through the development of the Path and the firm confidence in the Triple Gem as resulting from this development.] > > I have also noted that in the first sutta, Ven Saariputta thanked Anaathapi.n.dika with the following verses. > > "Yassa saddhaa tathaagate, acalaa suppati.t.thitaa; > Siila~nca yassa kalyaa.na.m, ariyakanta.m pasa.msita.m. > > "When one has faith in the Tathaagata, > Unshakable and well established, > And good conduct built on virtue, > Dear to the noble ones and praised; > ---------- > "Sa"nghe pasaado yassatthi, ujubhuuta~nca dassana.m; > Adaliddoti ta.m aahu, amogha.m tassa jiivita.m. > > "When one has confidence in the Sangha, > And view that has been rectified, > They say that one is not poor, > That one's life is not vain; > ---------- > "Tasmaa saddha~nca siila~nca, pasaada.m dhammadassana.m; > Anuyu~njetha medhaavii, sara.m buddhaanasaasana"nti. > > "Therefore the person of intelligence, > Remembering the Buddha's Teaching, > Should be devoted to faith and virtue, > To confidence and vision of the Dhamma." > ---------- > I like those verses. > > with metta and respect, > Han > > --- On Sun, 2/19/12, sarah wrote: > Dear Han & All, > > Thank you for your presentation: > > S: I also appreciate the two suttas concerning Anathapindiaka, SN 55: 26 (6) and 55: 27 (7). > #122777 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two kinds of saddha nilovg Dear Phil, Op 23-feb-2012, om 1:54 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I was interested to hear A.Sujin talk about two kinds of saddha. > The first is maybe pokkathi(?) saddha and is akin to tanha, the > second is bhava saddjha. ------- N: Saddhaa is a sobhana cetasika accompanying each sobhana citta. It cannot be akusala or akin to tanhaa. This issue is not clear to me at all. We should ask Sarah if she attended this talk? Nina. > #122778 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:52 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "What I'm suggesting (and keep harping on about) is that if we are only concerned about the 'right or wrong intellectual grasp of the Dhamma' (and regardless of what kind of cittas are involved whilst considering/discussing), then it seems that the practice, (the pariyattti and patipatti) are divorced from daily life at this very moment whilst having such discussion or consideration." Scott: I reiterate that I totally get and agree with the point you 'keep harping about.' On a discussion list it will always 'seem' that pariyatti and patipatti are 'divorced' since it only the words we use; you cannot know what was going on while I wrote mine, nor can I know what went on while you wrote yours. You do harp, but you don't only repeat that it is just the moment. I think you are stoically avoiding the point here. Discussion, that is that which is not simply repeating a certain message, involves right and wrong ideas about Dhamma. Can you comment on this point? Remember, I get it about 'the moment.' S: "With regard to the 'I'm right an you are wrong and this is why', far more precious than finding the right words or the right commentary reference is the understanding at this very moment. Without an emphasis on the direct understanding now, regardless of what the textual reference seems to indicate, our studies are of little value, aren't they? For example, if we find all the evidence to show that "I'm right and you are wrong", but it's all "in the book" and there's no understanding now, no kindness or generosity now, then is there any value in it?" Scott: Direct understanding occurs on a plane that is and always will be divorced from this list's mode of communication. In this morning's posts there are places where both you and Nina disagreed, using words, with views expressed. You wrote 'no' to Dieter, and Nina told Dieter that she wasn't interested in a battle of references *and* that she considers a particular modern commentator of whom Dieter is enamoured to be incorrect. You may include the mantra about 'the moment' but you also say 'you are wrong, I am right, and this is why.' There is no way around the fact that in each case both you and Nina said to Dieter, 'I am right, you are wrong.' Not using the exact words does not change the fact that you both disagree with him. He clearly disagrees with you, demanding that you prove yourself right. I am referring to these aspects of discussion. You can consider that the 'in the moment, daily life' thing is implicit, at least when you are discussing with me. I am saying that disagreement cannot be held to be somehow politically incorrect. You disagree with me now, don't you (no matter how carefully you want to couch it - or disguise it)? S:" I think, as Nina has suggested, the best thing is to help explain what we understand to be right, give any support that may be helpful, with kindness and without expectations of how others *should* behave. The problem always comes back to 'our' cittas, never the 'other's'. This is why I always try to give a reminder to all of us to understand the citta now, even as we write and speak..." Scott: Hey. not totally cool of you. You are moderating my posts. You have an expectation of how I should behave. You *are* thinking about 'my cittas' when you do. You check each post I write to judge as to the cittas you imagine composed it. You do this because it was demanded by others, whose cittas you are also minding in the process. I don't care - moderate away I don't complain - but my point is that you can't suggest that discussants have no expectations while having your own. I don't care because none of us are exempt from having these expectations. What are your opinions about the inevitability that discussions will always be about 'right' and 'wrong,' cannot include the ineffable moment because it simply doesn't translate onto the screen, and can't even occur if they are only to be filled with repeated statements about the moment. Scott. #122779 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies moellerdieter Dear Nina, (all). you wrote: 'N: You posted parts of Ven. Nyanaponika's book, and wanted discussion. ' D: yes and I appreciate the feedback although you chose Scott's rejection of my posting . It is difficult for me to understand that you agree with the argument 'Any ideas about flow > or dynamic are concepts." Is samsara , our 'passing through , journeying , perpetual wandering , continous movement , contiunous flowing' (= translations I found) ,i.e. our life in this circle of birth , death, (re)birth... a concept? Who can deny that our life is like 'a river flowing down' .. ' (AN 7.70) "nadisoto viya," like a flowing stream ' excerpt): "Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains - limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death." We are ageing and will die due to this dynamic , no concept but reality . N:Now, some terms I find not so clear, and, without disrespect of the Venerable One, I do not find any wrong to mention this. I used this book a lot and quoted from it, but when rereading, it may happen that I do not find myself with all he writes. Possible? D: Of course it is possible .. sometimes it is the way how it is explained not to one's liking. Part of his writings is addressed to the schools of bare and qualified analysis. If I understand right , these schools follow the Theory of Moment (ksa-na-vadda) , assuming in line with Scott's statement 'The realities are to be found in the moment, until they > fall away to be succeeded by the next moment' But in fact, as the Venerable proved , the realities can not be found in the moment , as it is the past what is found for analysis due to the flux. So it is indeed a concept (of reality) just opposite to the claim. . N:I do not want to prove anything with canonical evidence, since I am disinclined to debate. I am not a great debater. D: we are discussing the aspects of anicca , which defintely is no concept , but in reality flowing/ dynamic I suppose you can agree to that .. N: I agree with the commentary. I can refer to our discussions on nimitta. Realities arise and fall away so fast and the sign, nimitta remains. Still, it is possible to be aware of the characteristic of a reality that has just gone. D: that is a good point ..nimitta is the concept of mental formation, isn't it? But I agree we need that as a base for investigation.. having the flux in mind . N:: Yes, but still possible to be aware of its characteristic. Just the terms flow, dynamic, I am less enthusiastic about. Single state pictures. Why pictures? D: please compare with above mentioned translations of samsara .. why do you consider the terms flow , dynamic not fitting? The single state pictures (of a movie) are just a simile .."like a cinema in which a great number of single static pictures are substituted quickly enough to produce in the spectator the effect of moving pictures' are compared to 'The realities are to be found in the moment, until they > fall away to be succeeded by the next moment" . You may say otherwise a great number of single static nimittas instead of pictures... ( D: B.T.W: My point was and is that we need to involve in our > investigation (of the 'Here-and-Now') the dynamic of the Law of > Dependent Origination, the flow of mental and physical phenomena .) > ------- N: First we have to understand just one naama or ruupa as it appears now. D: in respect to the statement we discuss , it seems to me that one tree is investigated after another but still no idea that one is journeying in the forest.. N:D.O. is so complex, we have to understand many types of conditions first, as stated by the Vis. D: is Vis.M. refering here to the Patthana ? As Venerable Nyanatiloka stated , Abhidhamma in order to be benefitial , needs good knowledge of the Sutta Pitaka. Therefore I suggested to take Nidana Sutta as a pre condition. It is less complex when we go though it in chapters. with Metta Dieter #122780 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:19 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: ...I've been reflecting on the reminders on equanimity in MN 1148, Indriyabhaavanaa Sutta ( ~Naa.namoli, Bodhi transl). > > " 'Now, Aananda, how is there the supreme development of the faculties in the Noble One's Discipline? Here, Aanand, when a bhikkhu sees a form with the eye, there arises in him what is agreeable and disagreeable. He understands thus: 'There has arisen in me what is agreeable , there has arisen what is disagreeable. But that is conditioned, gross, dependently arisen; this is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, equanimity.' The agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease in him and equanimity is established. Thanks, Sarah. Even beyond any particular situation, this is very good to read, and understand that potentially, within any and all conditions equanimity is still possible and can be established suddenly. Good to know this. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #122781 From: "philip" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two kinds of saddha philofillet Hi Nina > > I was interested to hear A.Sujin talk about two kinds of saddha. > > The first is maybe pokkathi(?) saddha and is akin to tanha, the > > second is bhava saddjha. > ------- > N: Saddhaa is a sobhana cetasika accompanying each sobhana citta. It > cannot be akusala or akin to tanhaa. This issue is not clear to me at > all. We should ask Sarah if she attended this talk? Not to worry. The "pokkathi saddha" that she said is akin to tanha is obviously not saddha, we know that. We also know there is lobha everywhere, only a few moments of openings in the dome of lobha. So clearly most of what people take for "saddha" re Dhamma is rooted in wanting, that's all. No need for further discussion on this, if I happen to come across that talk again ( I didn't note the date) I will post it. Phil #122782 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:59 am Subject: The Supreme Triumph! bhikkhu5 Friends: Daily Words of the Buddha: The Blessed Buddha once said: Sabbadânam dhammadânam jinâti Sabbarasam dhammaraso jinâti Sabbaratim dhammarati jinâti Tanhakkhayo sabbadukkham jinâti. The Supreme Triumph: The gift of Dhamma surpasses all other presents. The taste of Dhamma excels every other flavour. The delight of Dhamma exceeds any other happiness. Eradication of craving conquers any and all suffering... <....> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122783 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Two kinds of saddha sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Phil, --- On Thu, 23/2/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >P: I was interested to hear A.Sujin talk about two kinds of saddha. > The first is maybe pokkathi(?) saddha and is akin to tanha, the > second is bhava saddjha. ------- >N: Saddhaa is a sobhana cetasika accompanying each sobhana citta. It cannot be akusala or akin to tanhaa. This issue is not clear to me at all. We should ask Sarah if she attended this talk? .... S: I can only think that A.Sujin was talking about a natural accumulation of saddha vs bhavana - the development of saddha with panna. If Phil can let us know the date of the audio discussion, we can check. Meanwhile, I don't know if the following very old post of mine following a discussion with A.Sujin on saddha is relevant, #26622 ***** "RobM: >Saddha is one of the "controlling faculties" that exercise leadership over the accompanied mental states. Other controlling faculties include wisdom, energy, concentration and mindfulness. There must be a balance of the controlling faculties: - Too much saddha and too little wisdom leads to blind faith - Too little saddha and too much wisdom leads to cunning - Too much saddha and too little energy leads to no exertion - Too little saddha and too much energy leads to no resolve - Too much saddha and too little concentration makes one easily distracted - Too little saddha and too much concentration inhibits absorption (jhana) - Too much saddha and too little mindfulness does not provide a foundation - Too little saddha and too much mindfulness does not allow comprehension< =============== Sarah: Support from texts is easy to find. For example, in the commentary and sub-commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (SS), which we went through on DSG, we read (p.139 Soma transl): “He who is very strong in faith and feeble in wisdom becomes a person who believes in foolish people who have no virtue, persons who are not trustworthy. He who has very strong wisdom and feeble faith gets crafty-minded, and is like a drug-produced disease that cannot be cured. Such a person thinks that wholesome karma arises with just the intention to do good. Going along the wrong way, by a species of thought beyond the limits of reason, and doing neither almsgiving nor other similar good deeds, he is born in a state of woe. By the equipollence of faith and wisdom one believes only in those like the Buddha who are worthy of trust because there is a reason for trusting them........” Many other examples are given in the text for the other states. ***** My question, which I raised in Bangkok, was how there can be too much confidence or too much wisdom, for example. Also, surely saddha cannot develop without wisdom and so often if there are thoughts about ‘balancing faculties’, it is with an idea of self or selection again. There were further questions too. We had several discussions and many examples were given. Just like in this example above from the Tika to the SS, people may think they know more than they really do,’beyond the limits of reason’, having studied a lot from the Abhidhamma or other texts or being able to recite in Pali, for example, but with little saddha or sati. It may be panna, but at an intellectual level only, so that there are bound to still be lots of doubts and wavering an no real insight. Conversely, someone may prostrate before a Buddha image many times a day and have a lot of saddha, but very little understanding of the teachings. The saddha is genuine, but there can be lots of wrong understanding in between, leading to the following of foolish people etc as mentioned in the Tika. A.Sujin mentioned that at moments of satipatthana, the faculties are balanced already, not just at noble path moments as I’d understood. Presumably this is why we read about the examples in the Tika to the SS. When there is no satipatthana, they are unbalanced. Samatha/samadhi and vipassana are a ‘coupling’. This doesn’t refer to jhana level samadhi and vipassana. There are many levels of samadhi and sati. At vipassana nana, samatha and vipassana appear together and show the characteristics of namas and rupas at that moment. ..... In SN, Mahaavagga,45 Maggasa.myutta,4 (The Brahmin)Bodhi transl we read about the ‘divine vehicle in this Dhamma and Discipline’, ie the Noble Eightfold Path, ‘the unsurpassed victory in battle’: “Its qualities of faith and wisdom Are always yoked evenly together. Shame is its pole, mind its yoke-tie, mindfulness the watchful charioteer. The chariot’s ornament is virtue, Its axle jhana*, energy its wheels; Equanmimity keeps the burden balanced, Desirelessness serves as upholstery. Good will, harmlessness, and seclusion: These are the chariot’s weaponry, Forbearance its armour and shield, As it rolls towards security from bondage. This divine vehicle unsurpassed Originates from within oneself. The wise depart from the world in it, Inevitably winning the victory.” ***** * “BB:jhaanakkho. Spk: ‘The axle made of jhaana by way of the five jhana factors accompanying insight’. The five jhana factors are thought, examination, rapture, happiness, and one pointedness of mind. Though when fully mature they bring the mind to the first jhana, these factors are also present, though less prominently, in the concentration that accompanies insight meditation.” " (end old post) ***** Metta Sarah ===== #122785 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Photo of ivan and elle rjkjp1 I uploaded a photo of Ivan and Elle at wat Bovorniwet. Same temple where Kevin ordained about three ago. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/photos/album/2012842897/pic/15087\ 65068/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=121&count=20&dir=asc #122786 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 23-feb-2012, om 20:02 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > 'N: You posted parts of Ven. Nyanaponika's book, and wanted > discussion. ' > > D: yes and I appreciate the feedback although you chose Scott's > rejection of my posting . ------ N: Did I? ------ > > D: It is difficult for me to understand that you agree with the > argument 'Any ideas about flow > or dynamic are concepts." ------ N: Is flow or dynamic a paramattha dhamma or a concept? If we want to know this, we have to consider what paramattha dhammas are: one object as it experienced through one doorway at a time. Different from thinking. Through which doorway can flow or dynamic be directly experienced? I find that this whole discussion is becoming too complicated. Die Suppe wird mir zu heisz, if you know what I mean. Text from commentaries you quoted are fine. Flow can be used as a simile, nothing wrong. Shall we leave it at that? Nina. #122787 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:17 pm Subject: what I heard. nilovg Dear friends, we have discussed before this passage of the Satipa.t.thaanasutta (M I, 10) as translated by Ven. Soma, the Way of Mindfulness: "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" = Vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam. <"In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world [loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling. As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world." Covetousness stands for sense desire; and grief, for anger. As sense desire and anger are the principal hindrances, the abandoning of the hindrances is stated by the overcoming of covetousness and grief. With covetousness are abandoned the satisfaction rooted in bodily happiness, delight in the body, and the falling into erroneous opinion which takes as real the unreal beauty, pleasure, permanence and substantiality of the body. With the overcoming of grief are abandoned the discontent rooted in bodily misery, the non-delight in the culture of body-contemplation, and the desire to turn away from facing the real ugliness, suffering, impermanence and insubstantiality of the body.> I am referring to this, because Kh Sujin gave an explanation pertaining to the present moment. At the moment of right awareness sense-desire and anger are absent already. We do not have to worry about overcoming them first. There is no attachment to the dhamma that appears and no aversion. No preference for any object and no aversion towards akusala dhamma that presents itself as object. As to the world, the five khandhas, at the moment of right awareness one does not take any object that appears for self. ------ Nina. #122788 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 23-feb-2012, om 14:52 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > There is no way around the fact that in each case both you and Nina > said to Dieter, 'I am right, you are wrong.' Not using the exact > words does not change the fact that you both disagree with him. He > clearly disagrees with you, demanding that you prove yourself > right. I am referring to these aspects of discussion. ----- N: He is wrong, I am right. Oh, this is all so black and white. It can become an endless, fruitless discussion. That is why I want to keep out of such discussions now. Rather: why not remind one another of what is really essential? More understanding of the characteristics of realities as they appear one at a time? Such reminding is possible on a list. I see it and I take to these reminders, read them first. Life is too short. ----- Nina. #122789 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies moellerdieter Dear Nina, all, you wrote: N: Did I? D: you didn't ? ;-) ------ > > D: It is difficult for me to understand that you agree with the > argument 'Any ideas about flow > or dynamic are concepts." ------ N: Is flow or dynamic a paramattha dhamma or a concept? If we want to know this, we have to consider what paramattha dhammas are: one object as it experienced through one doorway at a time. Different from thinking. Through which doorway can flow or dynamic be directly experienced? D: the flow/dynamic is aspect of anicca , which is a fact: the reality of our journey from (re)birth up to the present moment. The flow is recognized by change , its energy the kamma force and by contact with the 6 senses media we are conscious of this streaming here- and- now...assumed the doors are open .. ;-) The D.O. describes this dynamic process of conditioned / interrelated mental and corporal phenomena we experience. N:I find that this whole discussion is becoming too complicated. Die Suppe wird mir zu heisz, if you know what I mean. D: yes..it needs time I accept of course , Nina ..but not without regret ;-) NText from commentaries you quoted are fine. Flow can be used as a simile, nothing wrong. Shall we leave it at that? D: above confirms your point of view: flow means concept ;-) well, you can use the media of the flow as a simile , like a river , like electricity ..etc. , but not the reality of flow/movement. So perhaps you may agree to ' a river can be used as a simile of the flow /dynamic of human life ' ? ... let us leave the last word to the Buddha : "Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains - limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death." (A.N. 7.70) with Metta Dieter #122790 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:56 am Subject: Immaculate Integrity! bhikkhu5 Friends: Purification by Knowledge & Vision of the Way! As one repeats, develops and cultivates that equanimity about constructions, faith becomes more resolute, energy better exerted, awareness much better established, and mind better and deeper concentrated, as a consequence of, that this equanimity around all phenomena & formations grows more refined! This insight, leading to emergence, is called aloofness, which itself can eclipse even the delicate unified equanimity gained from a subtle mental unification... Experiencing disgust makes greed gradually fade away. With the fading away of greed, clinging evaporates. One is thereby liberated by this mental release. Purification by knowledge & vision of this way is the principal factor of purity! It is conforming to what is mentally utterly unpolluted... It is for this precious immaculate integrity, that this Noble life is lived under the Blessed Buddha! DN III 288, MN I 139, 147, III 220 The Greatest Sage did thus proclaim: This insight stilled, refined and purified! This round of rebirth's abysmal pit of pain, Is vast, entangling, deceptive and terrible! Any wise man should strive all the best he can, When hoping emergence from suffering to gain. Vism 671 <...> Immaculate Integrity! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #122791 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] about Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh Studies nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 24-feb-2012, om 18:00 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > let us leave the last word to the Buddha : > "Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its > current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a > moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it > goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human > beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains - limited, > trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this > [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For > one who is born there is no freedom from death." (A.N. 7.70) ------ N: Thanks for the text, this is a good reminder not to be negligent as to the development of understanding now. It moves me in particular as I am very impressed by the trials of our royal family and the condition of Prince Friso. It is similar to what Sarah went through when her friend had an accident. This is what I meant in former posts, such reminders are good and helpful. Better than long debates. ------ Nina. #122792 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (122644) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: ...it is not a matter of the enlightened being "going back and forth experientially from dhammas to conventions", as you put it in your earlier post. Just as for the unenlightened being, there continues to be the experience of objects through the sense-doors followed by multiple mind-door moments that 'process' those sense-door experiences. > > RE: This is a little confusing. If the arahat is able to see dhammas directly that means she or he can discern the individual dhammas arising one after the other at lightning speed, as he has the panna and other factors to do so. So at such time as he is doing so, wouldn't he be incapable of doing anything else? Maybe I am confused. > > If there is a rupa that arises, and then it is followed by a number of namas, those are still all individual dhammas, and the arahat, as I understand it, would be able to experience all of them directly as they occur. In other words he is able to experience from "moment to moment" without any breaks, whether it is rupa or nama that is arising. > > So in order to 'conceptualize,' which is distinct from namas that are experienced directly, his attention has to go from dhammas to concepts does it not? And then when not conceptualizing, the attention would be back on dhammas again. As I understand it, there is no possibility of experiencing two things at the same time, so it seems that it is either dhamma or concept at a given moment. Am I wrong about this? > =============== J: First, to repeat a point made in previous posts, the mis-apprehension of dhammas is eradicated at the first stage of enlightenment, and from that point on there is no mis-taking of dhammas, meaning no taking of people and things as being 'real'. So it's not just the arahant who conceptualises without any trace of wrong understanding. Secondly, although the sotapanna has developed awareness of dhammas to a certain stage, and the arahant to an even greater stage, there is no suggestion in the texts of 'discerning individual dhammas arising one after the other at lightning speed'. It is my understanding that as regards the discernment of individual dhammas, 'individual dhammas' means discernment of multiple dhamma-moments of a particular kind of dhamma, not of individual dhamma-moments of that dhamma. Thirdly, even when there is 'continuous' awareness/insight, there will be other mind-moments (such as sense-door and thinking mind-door experiences) arising intermixed with the awareness/insight moments. So to summarise, the person of well-developed insight continues to have conceptualising mind-moments arising as before but does so with less (or no) mis-understanding as to the true nature of dhammas. > =============== > RE: Speculating further, if I perceive a "monk," see his "body," "talk to him," etc., there are two possibilities - either I am experiencing the concepts involved so I can communicate with that "person," or I am experiencing a bunch of rupas and namas which do not add up to that concept unless I have a moment of conceptualizing. So it seems either/or to me. Am I off-track on this? > =============== J: As mentioned above, the development of insight means that any conceptualising will be better informed, but not that there is necessarily less conceptualising. > =============== > > J: You are suggesting that, as a general rule, a person's mind-state can be deduced from the nature of the conventional act being done. > > ... > > What is its significance for you? > > RE: The significance for me is that if we are dealing with one world, either rightly or wrongly identified at any given moment, rather than two separate realities that have no relation, it's a lot easier to make sense of both what we experience and what is experienced when the perception and understanding are purified. It is a continuum rather than a split. Since there are many references here to experiencing concepts being based on the unacknowledged or indirect experience of dhammas, it makes more sense to see conceptual reality as as distorted conglomeration of the flow of dhammas, rather than a complete alternative. > =============== J: There is at least some aspect of the Dhamma taught by the Buddha that can be verified by direct experience right now. In my view it is better to begin to understand what can be directly understood and/or confirmed than to try and conceptualise the whole scheme of things (e.g., continuum vs. split, distorted conglomeration vs. complete alternative -- it may be that neither of the 2 options being considered is apt!). Jon #122793 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (122676) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, > > > >J: Regarding 'Where does it state that?', those are the opening >words >of the passage ("There is the case where [a monk/person] …"). > > > >Regarding 'Why doesn't the sutta say that "it is particular case of >Bhikkhu named such and such".', it is not the case of a particular >Bhikkhu named such and such, but of a class of persons that are then >carefully described, namely, the monk/person who "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." > >============================================================== > > > A: A class of persons is a generality. We all belong to Homo Sapiens. > > It doesn't alter the fact that Buddha has described a path to be followed. Only when one follows a certain path can there be description of a path developing. Why path is developing? Because one follows it. > =============== J: As I mentioned before, the texts refer to a path that is to be cultivated or developed, not followed. The reason for this is that (a) the 8 *factors* of the path (Pali: magganga) are mental factors that co-arise at path moments, and (b) it is the *development* of path-moments comprising those factors that leads to nibbaana. There is no 'following' to be done. > =============== A: All those descriptions are of actions that happen only because one undertakes them. > =============== J: If the path factors were 'descriptions of actions to be undertaken', it would mean that persons who had never heard the Dhamma could develop the path. This does not accord with the teaching being available only during a Buddha-era. Jon #122794 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "He is wrong, I am right. Oh, this is all so black and white. It can become an endless, fruitless discussion. That is why I want to keep out of such discussions now. Rather: why not remind one another of what is really essential? More understanding of the characteristics of realities as they appear one at a time? Such reminding is possible on a list. I see it and I take to these reminders, read them first. Life is too short." Scott: The 'right' and 'wrong' aspect of discussions has been a part of the list ever since I joined. This is because there is a right way to understand the Dhamma and there is a wrong way. This cannot be made to evaporate. I recall, when I arrived on the list, that I was met by a particular group of discussants, essentially opposed to the views that you and I see as correct, who were vociferous, direct, challenging, and very much into forcing debates. I learned, to my dismay, that these insistent characters were not to be opposed too much, because they were somehow desired as participants, no matter their comportment. I don't mind this, up to a point. When challenged, this sort of discussant inevitably loses composure. It was happening then, it happens to this day. Now I can see that you prefer to remind people of the importance of the moment. You also get frustrated with those who refuse to budge on their own views and persist in wanting to drag you into debate. Dieter was wanting to drag you into debate. You stop discussing with Dieter. You have with me. This is fine. However, when there are discussants who don't see it as do we, and there are still, these discussants prefer to state and re-state their opposition to what we see as the right way of viewing the Dhamma. As has been noted many times, they are very welcome indeed to do so. This being the case, I fail to see how any 'discussion' can take place when countering these incessant opposite opinions is not desirable. These opinions that are contrary to the stated opinions of the list are seen as necessary to the continued expression of what you, or I, or Sarah, might see as correct. It is, as you say in apparent frustration, 'black and white.' In truth life might be, as you suggest, too short, but this is a 'discussion' list. Is discussion now to be replaced by the repetitive expression of how more understanding of the moment is what is required? I agree. What of Dieter, Alex, Rob E.? They don't agree with this, and keep saying so. Are they to be left alone? Told the same thing over and over again? Challenged? Discussed with somehow? What is to be done? Scott. #122795 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:56 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (122697) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > J: Of course, the factor of concentration also accompanies each akusala citta, so there is still the question of the co-arising of concentration and the factor of restlessness, etc. Happy to discuss further if there is still any confusion. > > RE: Well, what do you think about that? I think what it would suggest to me is that the concentration that arises with a kusala citta could maybe be *bad* concentration that is not so effective. Maybe it is still holding together and focusing certain factors, but may also be agitated or spotty concentration that would make sense arising with restlessness, inattention or agitation. Does that make any sense? > > If you had blurry, fairly ineffective concentration arising with restlessness, agitation and delusion, it would still be concentration, but it would be the kind you have when you haven't slept or are trying to read something without your glasses. > =============== J: As Scott has explained, it is nothing to do with the concentration mental factor doing its job less effectively. We have to remember that while conventional terms such as 'concentration' and 'restlessness' are used to label cetasikas, any conventional term will carry connotations that are inappropriate in the context of mental factors that are momentary in nature. Jon #122796 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:07 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, >A:It doesn't alter the fact that Buddha has described a path to be >followed. Only when one follows a certain path can there be >description of a path developing. Why path is developing? Because >one follows it. >============================================= > >J:As I mentioned before, the texts refer to a path that is to be >cultivated or developed, not followed. >=========== How is "path that is to be cultivated or developed" is not intentional cultivation? >J:The reason for this is that (a) the 8 *factors* of the path (Pali: >magganga) are mental factors that co-arise at path moments, >============================================== Where is this said by the Buddha in the suttas? >J:and (b) it is the *development* of path-moments comprising those >factors that leads to nibbaana. There is no 'following' to be done. >=============================== Even assuming that these are "path moments" how can the occur? What needs to intentionally be cultivated/developed for these path moments to occur? >J:If the path factors were 'descriptions of actions to be >undertaken', it would mean that persons who had never heard the >Dhamma could develop the path. >=================================================== Person who has never heard the Dhamma would not know what to do and how to properly view things to become an Arahant. With best wishes, Alex #122797 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > >Discussion, that is that which is not simply repeating a certain message, involves right and wrong ideas about Dhamma. Can you comment on this point? Remember, I get it about 'the moment.' .... S: Yes, "right and wrong ideas about the Dhamma", but I think the Dhamma is a lot more subtle than suggesting that "right ideas" mean right understanding, even pariyatti. I really have no more to add to what I've written already. .... > What are your opinions about the inevitability that discussions will always be about 'right' and 'wrong,' cannot include the ineffable moment because it simply doesn't translate onto the screen, and can't even occur if they are only to be filled with repeated statements about the moment. ... S: I tend to disagree with the suggestion that in a discussion "it will always 'seem' that pariyatti and patipatti are 'divorced'.....". Whilst we all express what we consider to be 'right' at any time, the only real test is in the direct understanding at such a time, just like at any other time - at the present moment. If we express what is 'right', what seems to be in accordance with the texts, but with akusala cittas, we fail the test and while it appears 'right', in reality, there's no 'right'. The test always comes back to the citta now, the understanding now - not the 'other person' at all, no matter what we say or write. Metta Sarah ====== #122798 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >When Sarah says she would never kill an insect because of the kamma that reflects her firm understanding of what that represents, and that only happens at a certain level of understanding. Is that not so? ... S: Just to clarify a point that's been repeated a couple of times - I think I just said that since I was young I've not been inclined to kill insects. I don't think I said it was "because of the kamma" - just not the inclination to harm them, knowing how they'd like to live just like us. We may be reasonably virtuous in certain respects now or in this life, but what about next life if the understanding hasn't been sufficiently developed? There shouldn't be complacency - who knows what tests are in store or what accumulations may arise later or in another life? Metta Sarah ===== #122799 From: Lukas Date: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:13 pm Subject: How to start living? szmicio Dear friends, I am really confussed. I dont feel any hapiness or enjoyment in my life. I dont know how to lead my future life. I tried to study Dhamma more, but it seems it doesnt bring any understanding the last time. I recall times, that i spend reading and listening quite a lot each day, and I had that time a good foundation of Dhamma and a strenght to go throught the ups and downs of life. Also my addictions and past behaviours are accumulated in me so much, that it's very hard to bear the life. Except my addictions I hgave a lot of bad inclinations to enjoy bad behaviour, associate with bad company, have a lot of anger and aggresive behafiour, when there are conditions for it. It's very hard. Best wishes Lukas p.s How can I start to understand a Dhamma again, even a little?