#124000 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] spd 7 (know your defilements, and that you often want them) philofillet Dear Nina > N: After seeing or hearing there are usually defilements arising, > such as subtle clinging we do not notice. Ph: It is helpful to remember that the first javanas that arise after tge rebirth citta are rooted in lobha. It seems to me it is the stuff of life for citta processes, so to speaj, tge way oxygen is for living beings. --For example, hardness may > appear, and there may be conditions for mindfulness of this as a > reality, but there may also be attachment to hardness as belonging to > me. Pa~n~naa may gradually come to know this, and then one will see > that it is urgent to develop the way leading to the eradication of > the wrong view of self. THis was a reminder I recently heard on a > recording. Ph: There is lobha with ditthi and lobha without. Only the arahant (?) eradicates the latter, it is when panna sees the the former that there will be progress for us, the latter is so prevalent that it would not be helpful to aspire to get rid of it, do I understand that correctly? Thanks, when you have time. Phil > > #124001 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] spd 7 (know your defilements, and that you often want them) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 29-apr-2012, om 20:33 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > There is lobha with ditthi and lobha without. Only the arahant (?) > eradicates the latter, it is when panna sees the the former that > there will be progress for us, the latter is so prevalent that it > would not be helpful to aspire to get rid of it, do I understand > that correctly? --------- N: Correct. Wrong view is the first to go. But it is helpful to realize that we cling so much to wrong view of I and mine. If we do not know there is no way that it will ever be diminished. Therefore I appreciate it when Kh Sujin says: it is still you. We believe: sometimes there is non-forgetfulness of hardness that appears, "but it is still you". Excellent reminder. Nina. #124002 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:40 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > The distinction you are drawing here between "there is no conventional object" and "conventional object cannot be directly experienced as object of consciousness" reminds me of the distinction between "there is no self" and "all dhammas are not-self": technically a valid distinction but for ease of reference the looser form is more commonly used. I think that ease of reference can sometimes get us into trouble. In both of the cases above, I would not dismiss the difference in meaning of the two possible ways of looking at things. I think it makes a big difference for the path if we are setting aside the question of "outside reality" and saying that it is not in our purview for the path. For one thing, it leaves a possibility for valid scientific investigation and the quality of conventional life if we are not challenging the very existence of such. For the householder, it would mean, in my view, that there is some significance to how one lives one's life, in addition to how one follows the path and understands dhammas. For the monk, the difference in implication is somewhat less, as he has dedicated all his time and his entire existence to the realization of the Dhamma. It still obviously matters though how he lives, acts, treats his fellow monks and outside people as well, or there would be no Vinaya, as it would not be necessary. At the very least, the existence of rules of conventional living given by the Buddha suggest that conventional lifestyle, actions, etc. provide supporting conditions for following the path and development of the enlightenment factors. If conventional reality is merely and completely an illusion, a holographic hallucination with no relation to dhammas, and no relation to the path, then a serious Buddhist would have to be an idiot to pay any attention to it at all. One who believes this winds up as some folks around here do, with no regard for conventional reality at all - at least in theory. I also think there is significance to the Buddha saying "Dhammas are non-self" rather than saying "there is no self." While I don't believe there is a self left lurking around by such a way of speaking, I also don't believe that there is no reason why the Buddha chose to speak in that way. Either he is emphasizing the fact that it is the dhammas that are at issue, rather than "oneself," or else he is saying that whether or not there could or would be some form of self is beside the point, the point being that there is nothing in the world of human experience that is worth being attached to. In other words, we are not left with an ontological question of whether there is a self or not, an abstract question of speculation, but are left with a concrete understanding of how to deal with what exists and how we suffer by attaching to it. Some significance here, I think, as to what the path is about and what to pay attention to. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #124003 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:55 am Subject: Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Can you we have metta for the animals who are being slaughtered, even though we are not right in front of them at that moment, and can that lead to choices about whether or what kind of meat to eat? I think it is possible. Isn't metta in relation to a conceptual object, the idea of a being who is suffering? > ... > S: Usually when we think about the animals being slaughtered, isn't there distress, unease? Often what we take for metta or compassion is attachment or dosa. Again, it comes back to the present citta and only awareness and understanding now can know the present mental states. When there is metta, the citta is friendly, the feeling is never unhappy. Often when people think they are concerned about the suffering animals, it is really just their own discomfort that is of concern. I would guess that there is both, that there are moments of discomfort and distress, and also moments of compassion and caring for the animals, probably arising and falling in close succession. I doubt that someone would be very concerned with animal slaughter to the point of going vegetarian unless there was some genuine caring for the animals - but who knows. > > In any case, I understand the distinction between being present to what is arising now, and dealing with concepts, but the concept of animals in slaughterhouses represents a conceptual reality that may be worth considering in conventional reality. > ... > S: What is more meaningful, more precious, is the understanding of the thinking as a reality at such moments, arising and passing away. Usually we're lost in stories about people, things, animals without any awareness at all. In my view, as long as one is living in the world, so to speak, there is room for both, and both are valuable. I don't have much positive to say about someone who ignores the suffering around them on philosophical grounds. Of course, if someone is in isolation, committed to the path of awakening 24/7, then I would not expect them to pay a lot of attention to anything else. But for someone sitting at a nice resort, sipping a martini and daydreaming about the Dhamma, thinking that what is happening to other people or animals being insignificant does not strike me as right. It seems self-indulgent and callous, rather than committed to Dhamma. Will metta really arise if one is dismissive of the suffering of living beings? > This is why the Buddha's Teaching really goes against the grain, against the conventional way of seeing the world and its problems. I would agree with that to a good extent, but I think that there are certain important categories of kusala that are in relation to living beings, and if those areas are significant, then the compassion and caring that arises in relation to them is also part of the path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124004 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:54 pm Subject: spd 9 (due to vedana, akusala dhamma arises.) philofillet Dear group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "We should remember that if there were no feeling on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and experienced through the bodysense, there would not be anxiety and akusala dhamma would not arise. Hoevever, since feeling arises, there is clinging to feeling, holding on to it. One wants to obtain for oneself things that can condition pleasant feeling. Thus, akusala dhammas continue to arise, but one does not notice this." (end of passage) Phil #124005 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Pt), >R: ".....The Buddha even refers to the four jhanas figuratively as a kind of Nibbana: he calls them immediately visible Nibbana, factorial Nibbana, Nibbana here and now (A.iv,453-54)." > >From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch1.1 > >So there certainly are respectable teachers and scholars in the Buddhist community who support the view that jhana is not only a vehicle for development of the path, but emulates nibbana in its qualities. ... S: I'm not sure this is correct. I think the sutta he may be referring to is from AN 9s. There are a set of suttas in the section and they contain a lot of repetition. B.Bodhi translated an earlier one (IX, 36 'The Destruction of the Taints'), which refers to insight and enligthenment with jhana states as base, as objects of insight: "When it is said, 'I declare, O monks, that the destruction of the taints occurs in dependence on the first jhaana, ' for what reason is this said'? Here, monks, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a monk enters and dwells in the first jhaana, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. Whatever states are included there comprised by form, feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness: he views those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as non-self. Having viewed them thus, his mind then turns away from those states and focuses upon the deathless element: 'This is peaceful, this is sublime: that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana.'..." S: The same applies to the higher jhanas. It applies to whatever dhammas happen to arise and be experienced - all conditioned dhammas are just khandhas which are impermanent and so on. Another of the suttas in the series (IX, 42) describes sense objects as a noose. The monk is then described as abiding in the first jhana and so on, but these too are described as "the noose". Only when the defilements are completely destroyed through the understanding of all conditioned dhammas as a "noose", without further clinging, is there an escape from it. In the sutta which I believe s being referred to above (IX, 46), "Sandi.t.thikanibbaanasutta.m", I believe it is the same 'formula' that is followed - through the development of insight, the defilements are seen and eradicated and this is the way that nibbaana is immediately visible. I don't see the "four jhanas figuratively as a kind of Nibbana....". (While it's true that the lokuttara (supramundane) cittas arise with concentration of the degree of jhana absorption according to the prior attainments, this is another point). Metta Sarah ==== #124006 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Most Beautiful Bride yawares1 Dear Nina, While Tep and I was morning-walking, he told me about how nice you are and how you love Buddha's dhamma. And I would like to thank you for reading my story. Sincerely, yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Yawares, > I enjoyed this story very much. Thank you and anumodana, > Nina. > Op 29-apr-2012, om 15:34 heeft Yawares Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > I proudly present the most impressive, almost > > eternal love story > > of princess Yasodhara and prince Siddhattha > > > > > #124007 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:53 pm Subject: The Beautiful Golden Stupa of Kassapa Buddha yawares1 Dear Members, This is a beautiful story that I read for the very first time and I love love it very much! ********************** The Golden Stupa of Kassapa Buddha [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, MA] While travelling from Savatthi to Baranasi, the Buddha uttered Verses (195) and (196) of this book, with reference to a brahmin and the golden stupa of Kassapa Buddha. On one occasion, while the Buddha and his followers were on a journey to Baranasi they came to a field where there was a spirit-shrine. Not far from the shrine, a brahmin was ploughing the field; seeing the brahmin the Buddha sent for him. When he arrived, the brahmin made obeisance to the shrine but not to the Buddha. To him the Buddha said, "Brahmin, by paying respect to the shrine you are doing a meritorious deed."That made the brahmin very happy. After thus putting him in a favourable frame of mind, the Buddha, by his supernormal power, brought forth the golden stupa of Kassapa Buddha and let it remain visible in the sky. The Buddha then explained to the brahmin and the other bhikkhus that there were four classes of persons worthy of a stupa. They are: the Buddhas (Tathagatas) who are homage-worthy and perfectly self-enlightened, the Paccekabuddhas, the Ariya disciples, and the Universal Monarchs. He also told them about the three types of stupas erected in honour of these four classes of persons. The stupas where corporeal relics are enshrined are known as Sariradhatu cetiya; the stupas and figures made in the likeness of the above four personages are known as Uddissa cetiya; and the stupas where personal effects like robes, bowls, etc. of those revered personages are enshrined are known as Paribhoga cetiya. The Bodhi tree is also included in the Paribhoga cetiya. The Buddha then stressed the importance of paying homage to those who are worthy of veneration. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 195: He pays homage to those who are worthy of veneration, whether they are the Buddhas or their disciples who have overcome obstacles (to Insight Development) and have rid themselves of sorrow and lamentation. Verse 196: The merit gained by such a person who pays homage to those who have been freed from moral defilements and have nothing to fear, cannot be measured by anyone, as this much or that much. At the end of the discourse the brahmin attained Sotapatti Fruition. The stupa of Kassapa Buddha remained visible for seven more days, and people kept on coming to the stupa to pay homage and obeisance. At the end of seven days, as willed by the Buddha, the stupa disappeared, and in the place of the shrine erected to the spirits, there appeared miraculously, a big stone stupa. ***************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124008 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 2:42 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His... moellerdieter Hi Howard (Rob E), D: such mentality is conditioned ,not anatta but when the conditions no longer apply (i.e. they are changeable ) , the sway is gone --------------------------------------------- HCW: You are not using standard language, Dieter. D: what kind of standard, Howard ? HCW:EVERYTHING is anatta! To be anatta is independent of wisdom and of delusion. All phenomena are anatta, period. D: period .... I stumbled recently upon a nice wording , emphasising the liberal approach of the Buddha: "Every attempt is made to reflect the Buddha's teaching as accurately as possible but do question this accuracy - as you should with any dhamma presentation [see: Kalama Sutta " HCW:When there is delusion, sabbe dhamma anatta, and when there is no delusion, sabba dhamma anatta. The primary delusion, in fact, is imagining dhammas to be atta when, in fact, they are anatta. -------------------------------------------- D: "The primary delusion, in fact, is imagining dhammas to be atta " yes I like to repeat what I said before: such mentality is conditioned ,not anatta but when the conditions no longer apply (i.e. they are changeable ) , the sway is gone anatta becomes a fact We have talked about the issue of delusion several times. The point of a delusion is that it is taken for real - a fact -until its non- existence is proven.Like an oasis in the desert, which only shows to be a mirage when it is closer approached. The conditions do no longer apply ( aviija ..) , the attachment ceases discerning the 'fata morgana'. Now the real fact is known, anatta, and the personal view éxtinguished. sabbe dhamma anatta... refers to the 'real ' fact , but the former is still reality for us delusioned worldlings . HCW: It is also true, of course, that samsara is anatta.----------------------------------------------- D: nay ...Samsara means our wandering (kamma) in these lasting rounds of births and deaths, conditioned by ignorance/delusion, doesn't it? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, yes, but that means it is a compound of many conditioned phenomena, largely involving ignorance and the resultant craving and aversion, and all anatta. ******************************** D: is the delusion, say moha , anatta ? It seems to me that you have taken an angle of view of where we should be , rejecting where we are . One needs to keep both angles in mind. D: this compound of phenomena conditioned by avijja/moha & co. is what produces identification/ attachment. When the last straw/fetter of the Self delusion (mana) is abolished , at entrance of Arahantship , anatta is realized , the round of birth and death ends , samsara is not applying anymore. So samsara can not be anatta.. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: If samsara were not anatta, it would be atta, and there would be no escape from samsara! ---------------------------------------------- D: you take samsara as reality misperceived ... but samsara means our wandering as shown by D.O. , and when its key problem is solved (ignorance abolished) the elements of the chain break .. samsara doesn't apply anymore because the rounds came to an end. 'And what is the way to end the orgination of the whole mass of suffering : it is this 8 fold Noble Path..' =============================== I agree with Robert on this matter. There is a difference between a fact and a known fact, and I think this is a distinction you are not making, Dieter. A fact is a truth, a true statement, or an actual state of affairs. Whatever is a fact is so whether we know it to be or not. D: see about 'anatta created' in the previous post -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Anatta, the fundamental property of all dhammas, is never created. D: I think you did not use my reference: R.E. : It's confusing to say that anatta is created by realization. That is not so. D: confusing is that you imply that I stated 'anatta is created by realization' R.E:Anatta is not a realization; it is a stable characteristic of dhammas that is realized by insight and wisdom. D: well, before you said ' No-self is not created by enlightenment; it is realized by enlightenment.'(realization or not ? ) and I answered: yes , anatta isn't created by enlightenment; enlightenment concerns the uncreated ,unconditioned (nibbana) It is realized by enlightenment, because the I-delusion - abolishes, dissolves , extinguishes ( the 3 fires , in partic.moha respectively bhava tanha ) HCW:Now, as a matter of fact, there is no 'thing' called "anatta". When it is said that sabba dhamma anatta, what is meant is that nothing has or is self. The sentence 'Sabbe dhamma anatta' is an assertion of an absence. ------------------------------------------------- D: I agree , there is no thing like 'anatta ' , therefore it makes no sense to speak of nibbana anatta . Why do you think 'sabbe sankhara anatta ' has not been said ? How do you distinguish sankhara and dhamma in the standard (?) use :sabbe sankhara anicca , sabbe sankhara dukkha , sabba dhamma anatta. so far..... with Metta Dieter #124009 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 3:23 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His... epsteinrob Hi Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: a fact in the Teaching is something " When you know for yourselves." A fact is a fact whether you know it or not. You may not be certain about it, but that doesn't change whether it is a fact or not. If we take the Buddha's authority on anatta, we can work with the understanding of anatta, even if we haven't personally experienced it yet completely directly. We still talk about what the truth is. I talk about medical findings, even though I never opened up a person's body to see their heart beating, but I still believe a person has a heart and I can work with that assumption without seeing it myself. The principles of Buddhism are still there, even if I don't see it in front of my face. > Do we know anatta though knowing not having achieved/realized that yet ? (Arahant) Not the point. Two different points: Do we know what the teachings are? Yes. Have we fully realized and understood them? No. Let's keep those two areas separate. Then, if you want to say that all knowledge that is not directly realized is completely useless, then we can talk about that. Otherwise, mixing up what we know from the teachings and what we have personally realized is just confusing, not helpful. We don't say that anatta is not correct because we haven't personally realized it. We still know what it means, and we either believe it is the case or not. > A fact cannot be disputed. Now , how do you prove anatta to an opponent who claims: cogito ergo sum (..he would insist on 'here speaks atta about anatta') > or even worse : meet a solipsist. Who cares? It's not my job to convince everyone under the sun of what I think or know. Anatta is demonstrated by a logical investigation about what exists. Can we see a "self?" What does it look like? What does it do? If you follow these through, there is nothing at the end of the argument, no self either necessary or visible. It is just a general idea that doesn't add up to anything. If someone else wants to insist there is a self let them go ahead. It's not my job to correct everyone in the world. The Buddha both defines and proves that all things are not-self through a logical argument. He says "Can you control what happens? Can you control your own thoughts or feelings and stop them from arising? Can you cause something you like to come to you instantly because you want it?" Of course not. He then says that by definition something that you can't control or will or that won't fulfill your needs or expectations is not your self. He says if it were your self you could do all those things. Therefore it is not-self. That's the Buddha's argument. If you disagree with him or if you define self in a different way, one can have a different philosophy. So Buddha's discussion of what is or is not self is pretty specific to Buddhism and within that argument it is fairly logical to see how it works. We still all run around with an assumption of self because we are not fully enlightened, but we know this also. So we know what the reality is according to Buddha, and we also know we have a long way to go. That is fine, not really a problem. > So it is a matter of belief: we are are believing (and following ) the Teacher because his anatta doctrine makes ' more sense' than atta´(because of anicca, dukkha) and we can get an idea what indeed is going on, i.e. the Law of Dependent Origination. D.O. isn't anatta, it is a 'middle between a lasting soul and no soul at all' If you are saying there is some kind of provisional self or soul inbetween anatta and eternal self, I would disagree with this. The provisional sense of self is an illusion, not a reality. Anatta is still the case with all things that arise in samsara, whether we know it or not. You seem to think that delusion creates a temporary structure that is actual. To me, that temporary structure is imaginary. There are arising moments of experience, but there is no self in any of them, even if consciousness is deluded into thinking that there is always a self in the background. It's not there. ... > R.E. No-self is not created by enlightenment; it is realized by enlightenment. > > D: yes, anatta isn't created by enlightenment... > It is realized by enlightenment, because the I-delusion...dissolves... > > Now is anatta a fact or a theory for us to be realized? It is a fact, and it is also something to be directly realized. It is a theory if one is considering it as such, but according to the Buddha, it is a factually existing characteristic of every single dhamma that arises. They are all lacking a self or any connection to a self. That is a fact. It is not a theory. > I suggest that anatta isn't a fact, because the term 'fact' is a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved' The definition of a fact is something that actually exists and can be shown to be true, but the proof of a fact is secondary to it being true. A fact is true whether proven or not. Of course I may not convince you of a fact if I can't prove it. That does not make it less factual. It either is a fact or it is not. I can't prove to you actually that the floor is still in back of you when you are walking forward. But I can see it is true because I am facing the floor that you cannot see. So you either believe me or you don't, but it's still a fact. > But are we in the situation to prove ( i.e.shows others) that anatta is a fact? That is beside the point. First of all, something is a fact or not. Secondly, we can discuss whether we can prove it to someone else or not. Those are not part of the same point and they are not dependent on each other. If you build an argument based on secondary factors, it will just cause confusion. Is anatta true or isn't it? Secondly, can we prove it? Two separate discussions. It's a fact anyway, no matter what. It is a fact for the arahant and a theory to be believed by those not yet > (fully) liberated, isn't it? No. It is a fact, period, but not directly experienced by everyone. We can still understand and know that it is true, just as we know well enough that the sun is in the sky, even though we can't touch it or go there to prove it. > The disappearance of the fetter personality belief (Sotapanna) does not mean that detachment is completed. I don't know what that has to do with this point. > > D: the delusion (in) Self, I is the assumption of 'this I am, this is mine ' etc. , the identification with the khandas, conditioned by ignorant kamma force. And that makes it seem that anatta is not the case, that there is a self, but that is not true. It is deluded, which means it's wrong. "Wrong view" does not know facts, so you wouldn't want to say that delusion is the "fact" until it is dispelled. What is known in delusion is not factual, it is counter-factual, so it is wrong to say that there is no anatta until it is known. > (avijja sankhara ) . We speak of a sentient being when the 5 khandas are present . And this being is 'possessed' by delusion (in Self/I), which 'works through' > the elements of the D.O. chain. We speak of a sentient being when we misunderstand the five kandhas. The five kandhas impersonates a sentient being. It does not create one. That is Buddha's point. There is no "being," just kandhas! The "sentient being" is the illusion! > Rob E.: There is in fact no coherent being that is a 'sentient being.' Sentient being is a shorthand for physical organism + experience that is processed by consciousness in association with that organism, but there is no "being" created by either than organism or those experiences. > The understanding of anatta is that there is just impersonal consciousness having those experiences, not a being or a person. Do you agree that there is no coherent "entity" within the human organism, but just a series of processes? > > D: Robert you seem now taking a postion, which I - in discussion wth other members - try again and again to explain is impossible. > There is a reality which is mundane ..the conventional R. und D. , this communication ..this kamma > and there is a reality of the supermundane , that concerns this mental corporal consciousness, i.e. the khandas embedded in the D.O. dynamic of dhammas. > Both are valid in their own domain , like classical and nuclear physics. I am not talking from the mundane standpoint when I talk about what is actually real and existent. Of course, I can accept conditional reality and live in it every day, but I don't think it's true and actual, except as a kind of blurred vision of what actually exists. Once again, you are mixing the two realms and so it is difficult to talk coherently about either one of them. If we are talking about anatta, we are not talking about the view of conditional reality. We are then talking about how conditional view of reality is false. You can't say they are both valid at the same time that you are talking about anatta. That is like saying that atoms are not real because I do not see them in conventional reality and conventional reality is valid. It's valid, but it's not true when it comes to atoms, because the truth is that the milk carton is not a whole object as I see it; it is composed of atoms and a lot of space between them. So when I talk about drinking milk I will talk in conventional terms, but when I am talking about atoms, I will say that the conventional view of a whole milk carton is wrong. It is incorrect. So we shouldn't mix the conventional view that is valid for convention, and the ultimate view which is valid for the actual truth of what things are. > If you deny the mundane truth ( there is mother and father ..etc.) you imprison yourself in an ivory tower. > Please see as well the Sutta The Self Doer I don't deny the mundane truth when I am talking about mundane things. But I'm not going to try to drive myself crazy measuring the banana content of apples. It really doesn't apply. I don't go around telling my parents they don't really exist, and I also don't try to convince anatta that my parents are real. They are two different discussions, not the same realm. We can also talk about the relation of conventional objects to atoms, and we can talk about the relation of mother and father to dhammas and anatta, but that is a more complex discussion. It should not be used to decide whether anatta is true or not. Anatta is anatta. It is true all the time, but the convention of mother and father is not taken away by anatta. We just know that ultimately mother and father are conventions, which is what they are. > R.E:Deluded mind or consciousness [citta] could be called a deluded self, but that can also lead to a lot of confusion, particularly if you think that such a creation really does constitute a kind of self, even if temporary. That is why I don't choose to say "deluded self" because it creates the impression that an entity is created and then dissolved in Nibbana, when in fact there is no entity per se at all, ever, no matter what delusion consciousness is entertaining that there is such a self. If there is a deluded self, it is easy to also think there must be an enlightened self as well. This is not so odd, as some people have suggested that nibbana is a kind of enlightened self. > > > D: deluded self would here mean a pleonasm , wouldn't it? > The idea of a transcendental Self comes up from time to time , the argument if I recall correctly - the Buddha only stated that no self or I can be found , not that there is no self . The No I- and Not I discussion comes into my mind. In Germany we had a split in the Buddhist community last century due to the so-called anatta controversy. Mincing the Buddha's words is fine, but he did say that every dhamma was anatta, period. There's no exception to that. He didn't say there was no self, but he didn't leave any room for one either. So "self" is not a thing, I think, to the Buddha, it is a way of looking at dhammas, and seeing that they are free of any entity or entity-attachment or component. It's not just a matter of pronouncing abstractly that there is or isn't a self. He's more interested in the status of human experiences, and to show that there is no self in any of them, period. > > D: 'anatta itself' ? you call that a pleonasm, don't you? > I would say "the fact of anatta itself" which is what I mean, not that 'anatta' is a 'thing.' But it is a characteristic or property of all dhammas. > > the anatta realization happens when the mind is purified from the I delusion . Only then it can become a fact (the reasons I tried to explain above) ... > > Rob E.: I don't agree with you on this. Anatta is still a fact before enlightenment. Yes, we don't realize it directly yet, but there is still no self, even in delusion, even if we think there is. > > D: 'I don't agree ..' says Robert ....;-) > yes we disagree by the reasons I explained above We seem to disagree on what a "fact" is. That is more basic even than what is or isn't in Buddhism. So maybe we should agree on how to discuss a "fact." I am saying "what really is" or "what really happens" is a fact. You are saying a fact is "that which can be proven." Those are not going to help us if we keep using different senses of what is a fact. What I want to establish is not whether anatta can be proven or not, but whether it is a correct understanding. Either every single human experience is not-self, or else that is not the case. What do you think? ... > R.E:Anatta is not a realization; it is a stable characteristic of dhammas that is realized by insight and wisdom. > > > D: well, before you said ' No-self is not created by enlightenment; it is realized by enlightenment.' > (realization or not ? ) It is not created by being realized either. It is the fact, and it is also realized fully at the time of enlightenment. But that does not make it more or less the fact, the reality, the characteristic of every dhamma. That is just true no matter what, when or how. ... > RE:You would not say that microbes/bacteria were created by the invention of the microscope; they were discovered by the microscope. It is similar. > > D: clarified now? ;-) I don't know, is it? It's my analogy - do you agree with it or not? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124010 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 3:29 am Subject: Re: Dhs epsteinrob Hi pt. I think phenomenon is pretty great. It can include objects and events, but has the sense of experiences as well. Best, Rob E. - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > The translations I saw so far - state, phenomenon, reality, thing. - - - - - #124011 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2012 4:27 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 4/30/2012 12:43:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard (Rob E), D: such mentality is conditioned ,not anatta but when the conditions no longer apply (i.e. they are changeable ) , the sway is gone --------------------------------------------- HCW: You are not using standard language, Dieter. D: what kind of standard, Howard ? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't know, Dieter. I just can't follow you. If *any* mentality is not anatta, then it is atta and has or is self. But nothing is atta, Dieter, or so the Buddha taught. Moreover, whether delusion is active or not, it is a fact (presumably) that sabbe dhamma anatta. So, I assume you must be using language in an unusual way. -------------------------------------------- HCW:EVERYTHING is anatta! To be anatta is independent of wisdom and of delusion. All phenomena are anatta, period. D: period .... I stumbled recently upon a nice wording , emphasising the liberal approach of the Buddha: "Every attempt is made to reflect the Buddha's teaching as accurately as possible but do question this accuracy - as you should with any dhamma presentation [see: Kalama Sutta " ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, of course it is possible that the Buddha was wrong or that by 'Sabbe dhamma anatta' he meant something other than the obvious meaning. But I think not. ------------------------------------------------ HCW:When there is delusion, sabbe dhamma anatta, and when there is no delusion, sabba dhamma anatta. The primary delusion, in fact, is imagining dhammas to be atta when, in fact, they are anatta. -------------------------------------------- D: "The primary delusion, in fact, is imagining dhammas to be atta " yes I like to repeat what I said before: such mentality is conditioned ,not anatta but when the conditions no longer apply (i.e. they are changeable ) , the sway is gone anatta becomes a fact --------------------------------------------------- HCW: You just agreed that it is deluded to imagine that dhammas fail to be anatta, but here you say that a certain sort of mentality is NOT anatta! That is contradictory. Moreover, you say that this mentality is conditioned, i.e., sankhata, *instead* of anatta, which makes no particular sense. (In fact, being conditioned implies being anatta!) You finally say that when delusion in no longer in effect, *then* anatta holds. But that is also midleading, for there was NEVER a circumstance in which something was atta. So, I find myself just not understanding you on this matter, Dieter. ------------------------------------------------ We have talked about the issue of delusion several times. The point of a delusion is that it is taken for real - a fact -until its non- existence is proven. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: The delusion IS real - it occurs, again and again. It is the content of the delusion that is not. -------------------------------------------- Like an oasis in the desert, which only shows to be a mirage when it is closer approached. ------------------------------------------- HCW: The perception of oasis actually occurs - it is a real event, even though there is no oasis. -------------------------------------------- The conditions do no longer apply ( aviija ..) , the attachment ceases discerning the 'fata morgana'. Now the real fact is known, anatta, and the personal view éxtinguished. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, now the fact of anatta is known. But prior to awakening, it still was a fact. --------------------------------------------- sabbe dhamma anatta... refers to the 'real ' fact , but the former is still reality for us delusioned worldlings . --------------------------------------------- HCW: We are still deluded. But that all phenomena are anatta is nonetheless a fact. -------------------------------------------- HCW: It is also true, of course, that samsara is anatta.----------------------------------------------- D: nay ...Samsara means our wandering (kamma) in these lasting rounds of births and deaths, conditioned by ignorance/delusion, doesn't it? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, yes, but that means it is a compound of many conditioned phenomena, largely involving ignorance and the resultant craving and aversion, and all anatta. ******************************** D: is the delusion, say moha , anatta ? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Of course - the being deluded is anatta. -------------------------------------------- It seems to me that you have taken an angle of view of where we should be , rejecting where we are . ------------------------------------------ HCW: Not at all. I am simply distinguishing facts from known facts. ------------------------------------------- One needs to keep both angles in mind. D: this compound of phenomena conditioned by avijja/moha & co. is what produces identification/ attachment. When the last straw/fetter of the Self delusion (mana) is abolished , at entrance of Arahantship , anatta is realized , the round of birth and death ends , samsara is not applying anymore. So samsara can not be anatta.. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: If samsara were not anatta, it would be atta, and there would be no escape from samsara! ---------------------------------------------- D: you take samsara as reality misperceived ... but samsara means our wandering as shown by D.O. , and when its key problem is solved (ignorance abolished) the elements of the chain break .. samsara doesn't apply anymore because the rounds came to an end. 'And what is the way to end the orgination of the whole mass of suffering : it is this 8 fold Noble Path..' =============================== I agree with Robert on this matter. There is a difference between a fact and a known fact, and I think this is a distinction you are not making, Dieter. A fact is a truth, a true statement, or an actual state of affairs. Whatever is a fact is so whether we know it to be or not. D: see about 'anatta created' in the previous post -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Anatta, the fundamental property of all dhammas, is never created. D: I think you did not use my reference: R.E. : It's confusing to say that anatta is created by realization. That is not so. D: confusing is that you imply that I stated 'anatta is created by realization' R.E:Anatta is not a realization; it is a stable characteristic of dhammas that is realized by insight and wisdom. D: well, before you said ' No-self is not created by enlightenment; it is realized by enlightenment.'(realization or not ? ) and I answered: yes , anatta isn't created by enlightenment; enlightenment concerns the uncreated ,unconditioned (nibbana) It is realized by enlightenment, because the I-delusion - abolishes, dissolves , extinguishes ( the 3 fires , in partic.moha respectively bhava tanha ) HCW:Now, as a matter of fact, there is no 'thing' called "anatta". When it is said that sabba dhamma anatta, what is meant is that nothing has or is self. The sentence 'Sabbe dhamma anatta' is an assertion of an absence. ------------------------------------------------- D: I agree , there is no thing like 'anatta ' , therefore it makes no sense to speak of nibbana anatta . -------------------------------------------------- HCW: So, you presume that when the Buddha taught "Sabbe dhamma anatta" instead of just "Sabbe sankhara anatta", he meant the same thing? ------------------------------------------------- Why do you think 'sabbe sankhara anatta ' has not been said ? -------------------------------------------------- HCW: I think that it is for the precise purpose of asserting that nibbana also is anatta - not a self. (Unlike the Brahman of the Hindus.) --------------------------------------------------- How do you distinguish sankhara and dhamma in the standard (?) use :sabbe sankhara anicca , sabbe sankhara dukkha , sabba dhamma anatta. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: See above. In any case, what has this to do with there being no entity called "anatta"? ----------------------------------------------- so far..... with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124012 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2012 9:34 am Subject: Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi again, Dieter - In a message dated 4/30/2012 2:29:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: [Dieter] We have talked about the issue of delusion several times. The point of a delusion is that it is taken for real - a fact -until its non- existence is proven. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: The delusion IS real - it occurs, again and again. It is the content of the delusion that is not. ================================ Here I realize I misunderstood how you are using 'delusion'!! (My "bad"! LOL!) I realize now that what you were referring to when speaking of a delusion was what one is deluded *about* - the *content* of deluded thinking - rather than moha. We agree on this point, actually. It is the being deluded, the mental activity of moha, that occurs again and again. [That's how *I* was using 'delusion', and that, of course, does arise again & again.] What one is deluded *about* [What you meant by "a delusion," and what I called "the content of delusion" simply doesn't exist or occur at all, but is merely imagined. Man, it is amazing how much "differing" is really not differing at all in understanding, but is only a matter of using language differently! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124013 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 9:48 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: The same applies to the higher jhanas. It applies to whatever dhammas happen to arise and be experienced - all conditioned dhammas are just khandhas which are impermanent and so on. > > Another of the suttas in the series (IX, 42) describes sense objects as a noose. The monk is then described as abiding in the first jhana and so on, but these too are described as "the noose". Only when the defilements are completely destroyed through the understanding of all conditioned dhammas as a "noose", without further clinging, is there an escape from it. > > In the sutta which I believe s being referred to above (IX, 46), "Sandi.t.thikanibbaanasutta.m", I believe it is the same 'formula' that is followed - through the development of insight, the defilements are seen and eradicated and this is the way that nibbaana is immediately visible. I don't see the "four jhanas figuratively as a kind of Nibbana....". (While it's true that the lokuttara (supramundane) cittas arise with concentration of the degree of jhana absorption according to the prior attainments, this is another point). I think you make a good point in saying that all states are just impermanent dhammas and release is gained by understanding them as such; but I also think that the setting of the jhanas is seen to be a ground for peace and understanding, even though they have to be surpassed in a more complete release in nibbana. I also think that it is significant that a jhana level of concentration must accompany the lokuttara cittas. This suggests that concentration of the jhana level is a component of the supramundane attainment. Doesn't this also suggest that the development of jhana would be a supporting factor for enlightenment? Aside from the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about, I think my logic here is at least "okay." Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #124014 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 10:03 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His... epsteinrob Hi Dieter, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > H:I believe that nothing has self/own being/separate identity - that is, I believe it to be a fact that all phenomena are anatta. > > D: the system of D.O. shows the clinging, e.g. this greedily grap of pleasant phenomena conditioned by thirst which leads > to becoming (...of this perpetual wandering within the cycle , samsara), doesn't it? > D.O.is between soul and no soul , the system neither atta not anatta , it describes the origination of the whole mass of the suffering of the deluded/ignorant being, whose state of affairs isn't anatta . We cannot speak of samsara (the wandering in moment / life cycles,kamma) is anatta. I am thinking that this disagreement cannot really be resolved, because we have different understandings of what anatta means, and unless we agree on anatta, we cannot reach an understanding of what anatta is or isn't. Your understanding seems to be that anatta is a state that is reached when a person is no longer deluded, and before that there is a state of self-delusion which is the opposite of anatta. In other words, if I understand correctly, you understand anatta to be a state of affairs that comes into existence when delusion is no longer present. If that is the case, then anatta is either dependent on enlightenment, or else is another term for enlightenment. I see anatta as a characteristic of all arising experiences and structures of human life, in other words of all dhammas. In my view, the characteristic of anatta is something that is just true - it doesn't matter if one knows it or not. It is not diluted by delusion, and it is not intensified by enlightenment. It is a structure of the way things are, period. Unless there is something or someone that can resolve which way anatta should be spoken about, I think at this point we will just be going back and forth and repeating the same views, so I am inclined to let the discussion go at this point. What do you think? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124015 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 12:09 pm Subject: spd 10 (two meanings of bhuumi) philofillet Dear group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "As we have seen, the word 'bhuumi' (plane) can refer to the grade of citta as well as to the plane of existence for living beings. Summarizing, when bhuumi is used in the sense of grade of citta, there are these four bhuumis: kaamaavacara citta, ruupaavacara citta, aruupaavacara citta and lokuttara citta. When bhuumi is used in the sense of the place where living beings are born or the world where they live, there are thirty-one planes and these correspond with these different grades of citta: eleven kaama bhuumis, sixteen ruupa brahma planes and four aruupa-brahma planes." (p.177) (end of passage) Phil #124016 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 2 - rise and fall of cittas, vibhanga comy sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: There is no 'posture' in reality. Whether one is told not change ones posture or not has nothing to do with the understanding of dhammas as dukkha. We think in terms of 'self', 'body' and 'posture' and it is such ignorance the hides the truth of the arising and falling away of dhammas now. What arises and falls away is inherently dukkha. > > > D: no posture in the supermundane reality .. there 'posture' would not make any sense ... S: It's like the "anatta" discussions you're having with Howard and Rob E - whether there is any understanding or not, whether there is mundane or supramundane wisdom, whether one has ever heard of the Buddha's teachings or not, there are only namas and rupas, there is no table, no person, no posture in reality. Likewise, all dhammas are anatta, regardless of any understanding. ... > but I suppose we are talking about a different aspect of suffering. ("There are three kinds of suffering: (1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhatÄ�), (2) the suffering inherent in the formations (saá¹…khÄ�ra-dukkhatÄ�), (3) the suffering in change (vipariṇÄ�ma-dukkhatÄ�)" (S. XLV, 165; D. 33)." ... S: Yes, the first kind everyone knows about. We don't need a Buddha to tell us about dukkha-dukkha. The third one is more subtle, but it is the second one, sankhara dukkha which is the Truth of Dukkha - the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas, which only a Buddha can teach. Changing or not changing postures will not lead to any insight of dhammas as dukkha in this sense. ... > S: person, interactions, postures and so on are just ideas, not realities, not dhammas. > > D: you mean like wheels , axes, etc are not the chariot.. (?) ... S: A chariot is an idea too, also not a reality, not a dhamma. .... > S: Even now, the khandhas are impermanent. Citta now is different from citta a moment ago. The same applies to all the other dhammas. Feeling now is different from feeling a moment ago. One moment pleasant, the next moment unpleasant or neutral, on and on. > > > D: its 'content , the dhammas are different , but the function being 'conscious' isn't, is it? ... S: Each citta arises, is 'conscious' of its object and falls away. I don't know what you mean by "its content'. .... > > D: well , posturers are at one's command , aren't they? > ... > S: It's just an illusion that in reality there are postures and that those postures are subject to the command of a Self. In truth, there are just elements, just dhammas, which arise by conditions and fall away by conditions without any Self being able to exercise any power over them. > > D: think about 'The Self Doer' sutta , Sarah .. postures belong to the mundane reality ... S: We can read a Self into any sutta, but the truth is that there is no Self, no Doer, no One who can command anything. Postures are concepts - we can say they are sammutti sacca, conventional truth, which is what you mean, I think. .... > D: we have no disagreement about the necessity to penetrate,to understand the true nature of present dhammas , but we may not neglect that this understanding is supposed to be a mean leading towards disentchantment, dispassion and detachment . ... S: Yes, disentchantment, dispassion and detachment develop with right understanding. At the moment of understanding, there is detachment, there is dispassion. No need to do anything extra, no one to do anything! Metta Sarah ===== #124017 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 1, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: Re: The Most Beautiful Bride sarahprocter... Dear Yawares & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > This beautiful Sunday, I proudly present the most impressive, almost > eternal love story > of princess Yasodhara and prince Siddhattha. This long and deep-rooted > episode began in the > time of the Buddha Dipankara. I love this story very, very much. ... S: Many thx for sharing the wonderful account. You may also like to look at these saved messages in U.P. under "Yasodhara": http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18325 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18563 Thx again Metta Sarah ===== #124018 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 12:18 am Subject: The Handsome Goldsmith yawares1 Dear Members, This beautiful story made my heart jump with joy from the very minute that I read, up until I finished posting the story. ********************* The Handsome Goldsmith [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, MA] While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (285) of this book, with reference to a bhikkhu, a pupil of Thera Sariputta. Once, a young, handsome son of a goldsmith was admitted into the Order by Thera Sariputta. The young bhikkhu was given loathsomeness of the dead body as the subject of meditation by Thera Sariputta. After taking the subject of meditation he left for the forest and practised meditation there; but he made very little progress. So he returned twice to Thera Sariputta for further instructions. Still, he made no progress. So Thera Sariputta took the young bhikkhu to the Buddha, and related everything about the young bhikkhu. The Buddha knew that the young bhikkhu was the son of a goldsmith, and also that he had been born in the family of goldsmiths during his past five hundred existences. Therefore the Buddha changed the subject of meditation for the young bhikkhu; instead of loathsomeness, he was instructed to meditate on pleasantness. With his supernormal power, the Buddha created a beautiful lotus flower as big as a cart-wheel and told the young bhikkhu to stick it on the mound of sand just outside the monastery. The young bhikkhu, concentrating on the big, beautiful, fragrant lotus flower, was able to get rid of the hindrances. He was filled with delightful satisfaction (piti), and step by step he progressed until he reached as far as the fourth level of mental absorption (jhana). The Buddha saw him from his perfumed chamber and with his supernormal power made the flower wither instantly. Seeing the flower wither and change its colour, the bhikkhu perceived the impermanent nature of the flower and of all other things and beings. That led to the realization of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and the insubstantiality of all conditioned things. At that instant, the Buddha sent forth his radiance and appeared as if in person to the young bhikkhu and instructed him to get rid of craving (tanha). Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 285. Cut off your craving as one plucks an autumn lily with the hand. Nibbana has been expounded on by the Buddha; cultivate that Path which leads to it. At the end of the discourse the young bhikkhu attained arahatship. ******************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124019 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 12:45 am Subject: The Most Beautiful Bride yawares1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for reading my story. And I apologize for posting the story without checking the format by using PREVIEW first, and the story came out not right. Luckily, Tep teachs me to delete the old post and post the story again with beautiful format fitted the beautiful story of Theri Yasodhara that I love very very much. Sincerely, yawares #124020 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 1:35 am Subject: The Most Beautiful Bride [ New Format ] yawares1 Dear Members, This beautiful Sunday, I proudly present the most impressive, almost eternal love story of princess Yasodhara and prince Siddhattha. This long and deep-rooted episode began in the time of the Buddha Dipankara. I love this story very, very much. ******************** Yasodhara: The Most Beautiful Bride [From Relatives and Disciples of the Buddha by Radhika Abeysekera (excerpts)] Yasodhara was the daughter of King Suppabuddha and Queen Pamita. As King Suppabuddha was one of King Suddhodana's younger brothers, she was one of Prince Siddhattha's cousins. Yasodhara was born on the same day as Prince Siddhattha. She was exquisitely beautiful, with golden skin and blue-back hair that cascaded down to her feet. Prince Siddhattha was sixteen when His parents decided that it was a suitable time for Him to marry. As was the custom at that time, a great celebration was held and princesses from all over the country were brought in procession for the Prince to choose from. None of them attracted His attention. The Prince treated them with gifts but refused them all. The procession was almost finished when Yasodhara came rushing in, to inquire if there were any gifts left for her. The Prince then arose from His throne, and taking the pearl necklace that adorned His person, gently placed it around her neck. Prince Siddhattha chose His cousin, Yasodhara, to be His bride. At first King Suppabuddha was against the marriage. He knew that the wise men had foretold that Siddhattha would leave the palace and His crown to become a Buddha. He also felt that the gentle, compassionate Prince might not be skilled in warfare, and as such, not be suitable for his daughter. The princess, however, wanted to marry no one else but Siddhattha. King Suppabuddha, wishing to test Prince Siddhattha, arranged a tournament for Him to display His skills in archery, riding and swordsmanship. Sportsmen from all over the country gathered to challenge the Prince. Siddhattha, however, was an excellent sportsman. He excelled in all the events and ousted the best men in the country. King Suppabuddha therefore relented and gave his daughter in marriage to Prince Siddhattha. The relationship between princess Yasodhara and prince Siddhattha was long and deep-rooted. It had started long, long time ago at the time of the Dipankara Buddha. At that time, the Prince (Bodhisatta) was born as an ascetic by the name of Sumedha. After an exceedingly long period of practising the ten virtues, the Bodhisatta Sumedha had finally completed the eight requirements to receive the definite proclamation of Buddhahood from the Dipankara Buddha. Yasodhara, at that time, was born as a noble lady by the name of Sumitra. She saw Sumedha give eight handfuls of white jasmine flowers to the Buddha Dipankara, and the Buddha Dipankara gave the definite proclamation that He would be a Buddha by the name of Gotama, of the Sakyan caste, in the distant future. Cutting off her hair, she aspired to be His consort and helpmate and to support Him actively in His quest for Buddhahood. This strong aspiration and the meritorious deeds that she performed over a long period of time resulted in her being the Bodhisatta's consort and supporter throughout many births. During this very long period in which the Bodhisatta completed the virtues she actively supported His quest for perfection. In fact, her dying words reflected this devotion. She referred to the fact that she had been the wife of no other but Him during the entire period and had helped Him to achieve in 100,000 world cycles and four infinite periods what other Buddhas take eight and sixteen infinite periods to achieve. When the Buddha visited the palace in Kapilavatthu for the first time, all but Princess Yasodhara came to pay homage to Him. She held back, thinking, "Certainly if there is any virtue in me, the Noble Lord Himself will come to my presence." After the meal the Buddha, accompanied by His two male chief disciples, entered her chamber and sat down on the seat prepared for Him. He then said, "Let the king's daughter reverence me as she likes." On seeing the Buddha, Yasodhara came forward quickly, and clasping His ankles, placed her head on His feet and paid reverence to Him as she wished. Yasodhara's devotion to the Buddha was heralded by her father-in-law, King Suddhodana. He informed the Buddha of her devotion by saying, "When my daughter heard that you had taken to wearing simple yellow robes, she too gave up her jewels and wore yellow robes. When she heard that you had only one meal a day,she too had only one meal a day. When she heard that you slept on low, hard beds, she too gave up the luxurious palace couches and beds. And when she heard that you had given up garlands and perfume, she too gave up garlands and perfume. When her relatives sent messages of young men who wanted to support her she did not even look at a single one." The Buddha acknowledged this devotion by saying that it was not only in this birth that she had been devoted to him. And the Blessed One spoke kindly to Yasodhara, telling of her great merits inherited from former lives. She had indeed been again and again of great assistance to him. Her purity, her gentleness, her devotion had been invaluable to the Bodhisattva when he aspired to attain enlightenment, the highest aim of mankind. And so holy had she been that she desired to become the wife of a Buddha. This, then, was her karma, and it was the result of great merits. Her grief had been unspeakable, but the consciousness of the glory that surrounded her spiritual inheritance increased by her noble attitude during her life, would be a balm that will miraculously transform all sorrows into heavenly joy. Yasodhara gave up the household life and entered the order of bhikkhunis at the same time as Maha Pajapati Gotami .She attained Arahanthship and was declared the chief disciple among the theris who attained supernormal powers(mahaa-abhi~n~naa) to recall infinite eras of the past (mahaabhi~n~naappattaana.m). She was one of the four disciples of the Buddha who possessed such attainment, the others being Sariputta, Moggallana and Bakkula. She expressed her desire for this achievement in the time of Padumuttara Buddha. ----------------------- NOTE: In general, the Buddha's disciples could only recall up to 100,000 world cycles. Yasodara, the Buddha's two chief male disciples and the Elder Bakkula, however, had supernormal powers and could recall incalculable eras. The Yasodhara Theri passed away at the age of 78, prior to the Lord Buddha. ------------- She joined the Order under Pajapati Gotami in the company of Janapadakalyani (Nanda), and in the Order she was known as Bhaddakaccana Theri. Later, she developed insight and became an arahant. She could, with one effort, recall one asankheyya and one hundred thousand kappas (AA.i.205). ----------- The Apadana account mentions how, just before her death, at the age of seventy eight(two years before Buddha's Parinibbana), she took leave of the Buddha and performed various miracles. It also states that eighteen thousand arahants bhikkhunis, companions of Yasodhara, also died on the same day. ------ Yasodhara was once, after becoming a bhikkhuni, ill from flatulence. When R¨¢hula, as was his custom, came to visit her, he was told that he could not see her, but that, when she had suffered from the same trouble at home, she had been cured by mango juice with sugar. Rahula reported the matter to his preceptor, Sariputta, who obtained the mango juice from Pasenadi. When Pasenadi discovered why the mango juice had been needed, he arranged that from that day it should be regularly supplied. The Jataka relates how, in a past birth too, Sariputta had come to Rahulamata's rescue. *The Supatta Jataka, where Sariputta, at Rahula's request, obtained for her from Pasenadi rice with ghee, flavoured with red fish. This was for abdominal pain. ---------- [edit] Legends [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] In many legends of the Buddha's life, Yashodhara met Siddhartha Gautama for the first time in a previous life, in the time of Dipankara Buddha, when the Bodhisatta was born as Sumedha, she was a brahmin maiden, Sumitta by name. One day, while waiting in the city of Paduma for the Buddha Dipankara, Sumedha tried to buy flowers as an offering to the Enlightened One, but soon learned that the king already bought all the flowers for his own offering. Yet, as Dipankara was approaching, Sumedha spotted a girl named Sumitta holding eight lotuses in her hands. He spoke to her with the intention of buying one of her flowers, but she gave him all of the lotuses, which he, in turn, offered to the Buddha. Dipankara, in declaring that Sumedha would ultimately become the future Buddha Gautama, added that Sumitta would be his companion in several lives. ----- Names The meaning of the name Yasodhara (Sanskrit) [from yasas "glory, splendor" + dhara "bearing" from the verbal root dhri "to bear, support"] is Bearer of glory. The names she has been called besides Yashodhara are: Yashodhara Theri (doyenne Yashodhara), Bimbadevi, Bhaddakaccana and Rahulamata (mother of Rahula). In the Pali Canon, the name Yasodhara is not found; there are two references to Bhaddakaccana. ******************* Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124021 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 1:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) moellerdieter Hi Howard,Rob E ( Sarah) you wrote: Here I realize I misunderstood how you are using 'delusion'!! (My "bad"! LOL!) I realize now that what you were referring to when speaking of a delusion was what one is deluded *about* - the *content* of deluded thinking - rather than moha. We agree on this point, actually. It is the being deluded, the mental activity of moha, that occurs again and again. [That's how *I* was using 'delusion', and that, of course, does arise again & again.] What one is deluded *about* [What you meant by "a delusion," and what I called "the content of delusion" simply doesn't exist or occur at all, but is merely imagined. Man, it is amazing how much "differing" is really not differing at all in understanding, but is only a matter of using language differently! D: I suppose there are quite some misunderstandings involved , possibly from my side as well, not to talk about my level of proper English . Hence I see that more as an adjustment of assumptions than a correction ..;-) The issue of anatta proves always to be on top of misunderstandings , especially if we talking about 'facts'. Difficult field which we know by the suttas ..and different views to a topic which - if I recall it correctly - the Buddha declared not useful for contemplation: Am I?Am I not? ( I think because the (I-pocessed) mind plays games...this' mirror in the mirror' ) Nevertheless sooner or later the issue arises...in connection with .. For the benefit of common understanding, let me repeat what we may possibly agree on. There are two right views , mundane and supermundane ...the former concerns the person in society ( conventional truth) whereas latter refers to khandas and their embedment into the dynamic of Dependent Orgination. It shows how the deluded mind works (avijja- sankhara-vinnaya-nama/rupa....), momentary and without interruption within this round of....... death, birth.... death. . Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? I think it depends : -not ,because D.O. refers to the first and second Noble Truth ,- yes , anatta by its contents ( i.e. the phenomena of the senses media, the All, no core, no substance can be found ) So ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. And due to the same reason we can not say the nature of samsara is anatta , because samsara refers our wandering/action, which ends at arahantship/enlightenment. You as well as Robert stated that I am not using the term ' fact ' correctly . I still doubt that in respect to its use with anatta. Doing a bit of google research, it seems no general meaning is agreed upon the term , but philosophers, scientists , scholars etc..developed their own version ( see Wiki and other sources below.) More complexity even when theories of truth must be considered , but I don't think our interest goes that far.. ;-) waiting for your feedback .. the issue of sabbe sankhara to follow with Metta Dieter Emile Durkheim essay What is a social fact? http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/TheoryWeb/readings/DurkheimFactFo\ rm.html How did Russel define the word Facts in this world and how did he classified these facts http://www.preservearticles.com/2012030625303/how-did-russel-define-the-word-fac\ ts-in-this-world-and-how-did-he-classified-these-facts.html Moral Facts Richmond Journal of Philosophy 12 (Spring 2006)Paul Sheehy Page 1 of 12 Moral Facts http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp12_sheehy.pdf Popper's Fact-Standard Dualism Contra 'Value-Free' Social Science Karl R. Popper http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1965430 　 #124022 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2012 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Robert & Sarah) - In a message dated 5/1/2012 11:58:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard,Rob E ( Sarah) you wrote: Here I realize I misunderstood how you are using 'delusion'!! (My "bad"! LOL!) I realize now that what you were referring to when speaking of a delusion was what one is deluded *about* - the *content* of deluded thinking - rather than moha. We agree on this point, actually. It is the being deluded, the mental activity of moha, that occurs again and again. [That's how *I* was using 'delusion', and that, of course, does arise again & again.] What one is deluded *about* [What you meant by "a delusion," and what I called "the content of delusion" simply doesn't exist or occur at all, but is merely imagined. Man, it is amazing how much "differing" is really not differing at all in understanding, but is only a matter of using language differently! D: I suppose there are quite some misunderstandings involved , possibly from my side as well, not to talk about my level of proper English . -------------------------------------------- HCW: Your command of English is remarkable!! --------------------------------------------- Hence I see that more as an adjustment of assumptions than a correction ..;-) The issue of anatta proves always to be on top of misunderstandings , especially if we talking about 'facts'. Difficult field which we know by the suttas ..and different views to a topic which - if I recall it correctly - the Buddha declared not useful for contemplation: Am I?Am I not? ( I think because the (I-pocessed) mind plays games...this' mirror in the mirror' ) Nevertheless sooner or later the issue arises...in connection with .. For the benefit of common understanding, let me repeat what we may possibly agree on. There are two right views , mundane and supermundane ...the former concerns the person in society ( conventional truth) whereas latter refers to khandas and their embedment into the dynamic of Dependent Orgination. It shows how the deluded mind works (avijja- sankhara-vinnaya-nama/rupa....), momentary and without interruption within this round of....... death, birth.... death. . Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: That all phenomena are anatta is simply a fact (I believe). The delusion is the delusive belief (and sense of) atta. And it is conditioned not by anatta but by avijja. ---------------------------------------------- I think it depends : -not ,because D.O. refers to the first and second Noble Truth ,- yes , anatta by its contents ( i.e. the phenomena of the senses media, the All, no core, no substance can be found ) So ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished ------------------------------------------ HCW: I would claim a correction is appropriate here: No Self is abolished, for there IS NONE AND NEVER WAS. What are abolished are 1st: belief in self, and finally: sense of self. --------------------------------------------- , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: No. Anatta is a fact - Sabbe dhamma anatta! It IS the state of affairs. It is ALWAYS the state of affairs, but we are often confused about the truth of it. ---------------------------------------------- And due to the same reason we can not say the nature of samsara is anatta , because samsara refers our wandering/action, which ends at arahantship/enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: We can and *should* say that (every element of) samsara is anatta. If not, then it is atta! ------------------------------------------------ You as well as Robert stated that I am not using the term ' fact ' c orrectly . I still doubt that in respect to its use with anatta. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: By 'fact' we mean whatever is actually the case. You, it seems, mean by it whatever is *known* to be the case. ---------------------------------------------- Doing a bit of google research, it seems no general meaning is agreed upon the term , but philosophers, scientists , scholars etc..developed their own version ( see Wiki and other sources below.) More complexity even when theories of truth must be considered , but I don't think our interest goes that far.. ;-) waiting for your feedback .. the issue of sabbe sankhara to follow with Metta Dieter ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124023 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 3:11 am Subject: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) epsteinrob Hi Dieter. Still in the game for at least one more round... :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? I would never say that anatta conditions the delusion of self. Self-concept is the denial of anatta, believing that there is a self. > So ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. I would never say that anatta "is the state of our affairs." I think we still have confusion about what anatta means. Anatta is not the expression of no-self by a conventional person who understands that there is no self. It is not a way of life or an expression of enlightenment. Anatta is just an underlying reality, whether one acts like it is true or not. Anatta is a characteristic, not a state of being. There is a difference between enlightenment and delusion. You can say that a deluded person is not enlightened and vice versa. There is a difference between wisdom and ignorance. You can say that a wise person is not ignorant, and vice versa. That is not the case with anatta, since it is not a state to be reached or achieved, but just a structural characteristic, like the fact that a house's underlying structure is made of steel. It doesn't change when one is ignorant, nor does it get intensified if one is enlightened. Anatta is just anatta, it is one of the characteristics of dhammas. What anatta signifies is that every human experience is not owned by anyone or caused or willed by anyone. It just happens due to conditions. That is the real teaching of anatta. It has nothing to do with whether anyone realizes it or not. Of course, if one becomes enlightened, they realize the truth of anatta. They see that there is no self in anything, but that doesn't have any affect on anatta - it already existed before and is not different afterwards. That is the sense in which it is a fact. When I look at my computer "I" see the screen and "I" have thoughts about it, but Buddha's teaching on anatta is that in reality there is no "I" seeing the screen and there is no "I" having those thoughts - they are just arising in consciousness due to conditions. That is the teaching on anatta. It is not something that can be achieved, or change - it is just a characteristic of dhammas to be realized or understood. > And due to the same reason we can not say the nature of samsara is anatta , because samsara refers our wandering/action, which ends at arahantship/enlightenment. Anatta is not the "nature" of samsara in the sense of reflecting or influencing the way that samsara exists. Samsara exists in denial of anatta, so anatta is not its driving force - the false sense of self and its cravings and attachments are the driving forces. I think we agree on that. But anatta continues to be the actual truth about everything *in* samsara - that in fact it has no self and is not part of a self. That is all that anatta means. All of the complexity of the kandhas of clinging and how they are driven on by craving to continued existence and suffering - those are not self, they only appear to be a self, but they are not. That is the Buddha's teaching on anatta. > You as well as Robert stated that I am not using the term ' fact ' correctly. A fact is simply something that is true. It's not anything more or less than that. Facts can be disputed, but if they are disputed what is being disputed is whether they are facts or not. There is no such thing as an untrue fact, or a fact that is not true. > I still doubt that in respect to its use with anatta. The question with regard to anatta is whether anatta is the truthful condition of all dhammas at all times, or whether anatta is changed into some form of self when delusion is present. The Buddha's teaching is that anatta can be obscured by deluded consciousness, but it is never taken away. There never is an actual self, even when consciousness is totally deluded into thinking there is a self that does everything. Anatta remains intact even at such a time. "There is no self" is always true. If we want to talk about what exists in samsara that resembles a self, or gives the appearance of a self, that would be interesting, but it would still not be an actual self. It would be an illusion, superimposed on top of the truth of anatta, which is maintained as the actual state of affairs. > Doing a bit of google research, it seems no general meaning is agreed upon the term , but philosophers, scientists , scholars etc..developed their own version ( see Wiki and other sources below.) > More complexity even when theories of truth must be considered , but I don't think our interest goes that far.. ;-) Here are a few definitions of a 'fact:' American Heritage Dictionary: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. Dictionary.com: Something that actually exists; reality; truth. Something known to exist or to have happened. A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Merrimac Webster Dictionary: The quality of being actual. Something that has actual existence. An actual occurrence. A piece of information presented as having objective reality. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #124024 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2012 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Dieter) - In a message dated 5/1/2012 1:12:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Dieter. Still in the game for at least one more round... :-) --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? I would never say that anatta conditions the delusion of self. Self-concept is the denial of anatta, believing that there is a self. ============================== In reading this, I realize that both you and I have likely misunderstood what Dieter meant by "Is what conditions the delusion anatta?". What he must have been asking was whether the conditions for delusion themselves lack self and are not self. The answer, of course, is "yes". In particular, the *explicitly-listed* conditions for delusion (in MN 9) are the taints (asava), and they are anatta. All dhammas, the conditioned ones and the asankhata dhamma, are anatta. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124025 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 6:13 am Subject: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ > (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > > Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? > > I would never say that anatta conditions the delusion of self. > Self-concept is the denial of anatta, believing that there is a self. > ============================== > In reading this, I realize that both you and I have likely > misunderstood what Dieter meant by "Is what conditions the delusion anatta?". What he > must have been asking was whether the conditions for delusion themselves > lack self and are not self. The answer, of course, is "yes". In particular, > the *explicitly-listed* conditions for delusion (in MN 9) are the taints > (asava), and they are anatta. All dhammas, the conditioned ones and the > asankhata dhamma, are anatta. I see how Dieter could have meant the statement the way you have read it here, and if that is the case, then of course I agree with you. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #124027 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >=================================================== >pt:I think it's all about the present experience, and because >of >this,meditation practice is not the path because it has future as >goal, even if that future is in the very next moment - like having >more sati. >======================================================== What is your opinion regarding this type of dry insight "practice": Developing more and more continuous awareness of the presently arisen namarupa without trying to be aware of a certain "object" (no-control of specific object of awareness). If anicca-dukkha-anatta are the ultimate truth inherent in all dhammas, then they can be seen with awareness rather than constructed through thought, consideration or analysis. Gradually this bare no-choice, no-control, observation will gather enough data for more wisdom to develop which will cause maggaphala. All of this without deliberate control of the specific object, other than presently arisen namarupa, then one tries to see. No need to take any special postures either. Of course one should not think "I am unawakened so I need to become awakened". Just be aware for awareness's sake to gather more observational data that will become wisdom. It is one thing to read about mental states and totally different to actually experience them. Just like you can't satiate hunger by reading the menu, in the same way you can't get real knowledge by merely reading about something. Lobha or Dosa that one reads in a book written centuries ago has absolutely nothing to do with specific lobha/dosa that arises in specific occasions. Ultimately, the book's value is to point the way, it can never be the way, just like reading the menu is different from actually tasting the food. What do you think? With best wishes, Alex #124028 From: "charlest" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 8:29 pm Subject: A Bit of Relevant Historical Information dhammasaro Good friends all... Before... the the socialist German NAZIs ( National Socialism (common short form Nazism, German : Nationalsozialismus) was a right-wing socialist ideology practiced by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany , derivatives of it existed in other countries.[1] [2] [3] [4] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism .[5] ) [from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism] ...used the swastika; it was a very reverent symbol. In the USA, the Oklahoma Army National Guard used the swastika as its shoulder patch to honor the Native Americans. The Native Americans used the swastika as well as the ancient Brahmans, Jains, Buddhists and later Hindus. Just before world War II, the patch was changed to the Native American "Thunder Bird." Even today, visiting both Thai Mahayana and Theravadin temples one occasionally observes the swastika on a Buddha image. In Japan most images of Buddha have the swastika chiseled away... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck A Bit of Relevant History... #124029 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 9:33 pm Subject: The Greatest Wisdom Of All yawares1 Dear Members, Texas weather is getting too warm, but my flowers love sunshine so much they all bloom profusely and Cardinal birds, Blue Jays, butterflies, colorful beatles all come out to play in my garden. ********************* Thera Potthila: The Greatest Wisdom Of All [:candle:] [ Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, MA] While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (282) of this book, with reference to Thera Potthila. Potthila was a senior bhikkhu who knew the Pitaka well and was actually teaching the Dhamma to five hundred bhikkhus. Because he knew the Pitaka, he was also very conceited. The Buddha knew his weakness and wanted him to mend his ways and put him on the right path. So, whenever Potthila came to pay obeisance, the Buddha would address him as 'Useless Potthila'. When Potthila heard these remarks, he pondered over those words of the Buddha and came to realize that the Buddha had made those unkind remarks because he, Potthila, had not made any serious effort to practise meditation and had not achieved any of the Maggas or even any level of mental absorption (jhana). Thus, without telling anyone Thera Potthila left for a monastery at a place twenty yojanas away from the Jetavana monastery. At that monastery there were thirty bhikkhus. First, he went to the most senior bhikkhu and humbly requested him to be his mentor; but the thera, wishing to humble him, asked him to go to the next senior bhikkhu, who in his turn sent him on to the next. In this way, he was sent from one to the other until he came to a seven year old arahat samanera. The young samanera accepted him as a pupil only after ascertaining that Potthila would obediently follow his instructions. As instructed by the samanera, Thera Potthila kept his mind firmly fixed on the true nature of the body; he was very ardent and vigilant in his meditation. The Buddha saw Potthila in his vision and through supernormal power made Potthila feel his presence and encouraged him to be steadfast and ardent. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 282. Indeed, wisdom is born of meditation; without meditation wisdom is lost. Knowing this twofold path of gain and loss of wisdom, one should conduct oneself so that wisdom may increase. At the end of the discourse Potthila attained arahatship. ************************* Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya [:heart:] [:candle:] #124030 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2012 9:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and pt) - In a message dated 5/1/2012 10:28:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Pt, all, >=================================================== >pt:I think it's all about the present experience, and because >of >this, meditation practice is not the path because it has future as >goal, even if that future is in the very next moment - like having >more sati. So, implications of examining the fundamentals are >interesting, but we have to go slowly, and agreement is not >guaranteed >either. >======================================================== What is your opinion regarding this type of dry insight "practice": Developing more and more ubroken awareness of the presently arisen namarupa without trying to be aware of a certain "object" (no-control of specific object of awareness). If anicca-dukkha-anatta are the ultimate truth inherent in all dhammas, then they can be seen with awareness rather than constructed through thought or analysis. Gradually this bare no-choice, no-control, observation will gather enough data for more wisdom to develop which will cause maggaphala. All of this without deliberate control of the specific object, other than presently arisen namarupa, then one tries to see. No need to take any special postures either. Of course one should not think "I am unawakened so I need to become awakened". Just be aware of awareness's sake to gather more observational data that will become wisdom. It is one thing to read about mental states and totally different to actually experience them. Just like you can't satiate hunger by reading the menu, in the same way you can't get real knowledge by merely reading about something. Lobha or Dosa that one reads in a book written centuries ago has absolutely nothing to do with specific lobha/dosa that arises in specific occasions. Ultimately, the book's value is to point the way, it can never be the way. What do you think? With best wishes, Alex ============================== It seems to me that what you are pointing to, Alex, is vigilance in noticing when there is a getting lost in emotion, thinking, sloth & torpor. excitement, or discouragement. Given that we know that such events are impediments, mindfulness of their occurrence usually results in their interruption. I believe this lies at the heart of all valid meditation. With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #124031 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi Alex, Thanks for your message. > What is your opinion regarding this type of dry insight "practice": > > Developing more and more continuous awareness of the presently arisen namarupa without trying to be aware of a certain "object" (no-control of specific object of awareness). If anicca-dukkha-anatta are the ultimate truth inherent in all dhammas, then they can be seen with awareness rather than constructed through thought, consideration or analysis. ... > What do you think? I don't know. It sounds alright in theory, if you want my opinion. My problem is that I don't think there ever was an awareness of presently arisen namarupa for me. What's to speak even of "continuous" awareness. Trying or not trying, it just doesn't happen either way. So, I like the texts and thinking about them, that's sort of all I have atm, and for some reason it's abhidhamma. If there was no internet, I might have been interested in Jain or Zoroastrian texts. But for whatever reason, it's interest in abhidhamma for me now. So, maybe I'm not the best person to ask about dry insight. As for meditation, which I still like very much, I think what I do is just yoga of some sort that makes me feel good, nothing to do with samatha, nor samatha yoked with vipassana, nor vipassana alone. Well, ok, I bet that I still have a secret hope that what I'm doing might help with samatha at some point. But no vipassana there for sure. So, don't listen to what I'm saying here too much. Best wishes pt #124032 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 2, 2012 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear pt and Alex, Op 2-mei-2012, om 14:14 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Developing more and more continuous awareness of the presently > arisen namarupa without trying to be aware of a certain > "object" (no-control of specific object of awareness). ----- N: Yes, I also fall over continuous awareness. It does not happen, not even for the arahat. Without trying to be aware of a certain object sounds O.K. ----- Nina. #124033 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 10:28 pm Subject: spd 11 (without energy for kusala) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristic of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. Fatigue, weakness, boredom, a feeling of being downcast, in low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they normally appear, it will not be known that they are not a living being, not a person, not a self. They are only characteristics of citta that arise because of conditions and then falls away again." (201) (end of passage) phil #124034 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 2, 2012 11:41 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for your message. > > > What is your opinion regarding this type of dry insight "practice": > > > > Developing more and more continuous awareness of the presently arisen namarupa without trying to be aware of a certain "object" (no-control of specific object of awareness). If anicca-dukkha-anatta are the ultimate truth inherent in all dhammas, then they can be seen with awareness rather than constructed through thought, consideration or analysis. > ... > > What do you think? > > I don't know. It sounds alright in theory, if you want my opinion. My problem is that I don't think there ever was an awareness of presently arisen namarupa for me. What's to speak even of "continuous" awareness. Trying or not trying, it just doesn't happen either way. So, I like the texts and thinking about them, that's sort of all I have atm, and for some reason it's abhidhamma. If there was no internet, I might have been interested in Jain or Zoroastrian texts. But for whatever reason, it's interest in abhidhamma for me now. So, maybe I'm not the best person to ask about dry insight. As for meditation, which I still like very much, I think what I do is just yoga of some sort that makes me feel good, nothing to do with samatha, nor samatha yoked with vipassana, nor vipassana alone. Well, ok, I bet that I still have a secret hope that what I'm doing might help with samatha at some point. But no vipassana there for sure. So, don't listen to what I'm saying here too much. What occurs to me is that even if one makes the decision to concentrate on arising dhammas or to meditate, or whatever, the decision to do so is not decided upon, it too just arises as a thought or an intention. So really if you look at what is happening at any given moment, there's no control or decision at all. Even if one decides something, there's no decision to decide - the deciding just takes place like any other thought that one has nothing to do with. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #124035 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 12:21 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > What occurs to me is that even if one makes the decision to concentrate on arising dhammas or to meditate, or whatever, the decision to do so is not decided upon, it too just arises as a thought or an intention. So really if you look at what is happening at any given moment, there's no control or decision at all. Even if one decides something, there's no decision to decide - the deciding just takes place like any other thought that one has nothing to do with. Yes, I think that's the anatta and conditionality bit, so then it seems it all simply goes down to whether understanding of it arises now or not. In other words, it seems that deciding to concentrate (or not) and to do (or not do) something to gain something else (like more sati or enlightenment) is in fact completely irrelevant to (i.e. does not constitute) understanding now (and thus, the path)? Best wishes pt #124036 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 12:53 am Subject: On Awareness truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >I don't think there ever was an awareness of presently arisen >namarupa for me. What's to speak even of "continuous" awareness. >========================================== Can one be aware of concepts then? What if one doesn't think, is one still aware of concepts at that time? Aren't concepts based on namarupa + conceptualizing? It seems that from experiential POV, what one experiences is the only experience one has, and if namarupa is all there is, then one experience it. One needs to be vigilant and wise not to form wrong views on top of the experience. ======================================================= "when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing..."When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html ========================================= With metta, Alex #124037 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 1:13 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > What occurs to me is that even if one makes the decision to concentrate on arising dhammas or to meditate, or whatever, the decision to do so is not decided upon, it too just arises as a thought or an intention. So really if you look at what is happening at any given moment, there's no control or decision at all. Even if one decides something, there's no decision to decide - the deciding just takes place like any other thought that one has nothing to do with. > > > Yes, I think that's the anatta and conditionality bit, so then it seems it all simply goes down to whether understanding of it arises now or not. In other words, it seems that deciding to concentrate (or not) and to do (or not do) something to gain something else (like more sati or enlightenment) is in fact completely irrelevant to (i.e. does not constitute) understanding now (and thus, the path)? Not sure if it's irrelevant or is not the path, but in any case what it does mean is that we don't have a choice over whether we do these things or not, or understand them or not. I do think understanding that is important, but it doesn't exactly resolve the issue of what creates conditions for direct understanding and development of the path. Let's say meditating does create conditions for the development of the path. That will not help anyone to meditate, as volition to do so will either arise or not. Let's say meditating does not create such conditions. That will not stop anyone from either realizing this or going ahead and meditating anyway, as the decision to do so is also not volitional. I do think that realizing that there is no ultimate volition or decision-making power over what happens or what one knows or doesn't know is important. It makes it clear that there is no self involved in any of it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #124038 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 1:50 am Subject: Re: On Awareness ptaus1 Hi Alex, These are tough questions, I'll try answer, but hope someone else might do it better. > Can one be aware of concepts then? I don't think it's possible if by "aware" we mean vipassana. It should be possible in samatha, but "awareness" there has to do with how the concept is contemplated I think, not with what is the concept actually. > What if one doesn't think, is one still aware of concepts at that time? If by "think" you mean verbal thinking in words, so then - basically stopping the chatter that goes on in the head, then even in that case there are still concepts happening regardless. If you recall the explanation in comprehensive manual of abhidhamma (CMA), when something even very simple is cognised, there are many mind-door processes involved that have concepts as object even before the actual verbal thinking engages to think "red", for example. > Aren't concepts based on namarupa + conceptualizing? That's a tough one. I think concepts as objects of cittas is what conceptualizing is, and conceptualizing is a part of the cognitive process, of which some mind-door processes (if at all, then the first ones) will have a dhamma as the object, while the many (following) ones will have concepts as objects (what would be "conceptualizing"). That's again according to CMA I think. > It seems that from experiential POV, what one experiences is the only experience one has, and if namarupa is all there is, then one experience it. I'm having difficulty finding the right words here - my understanding is that although the cognitive process involves both dhammas as objects of citta processes, and then concepts as objects, if awareness (panna) does not arise to accompany cittas that have dhamma as object, then there's no "experience" of them. Experience of dhammas - that's what I'd call vipassana. And I guess you'd agree that there's no vipassana all the time (if at all for most of us). It could then be said that one is in fact "not aware" or is "ignorant" of dhammas, as long as panna does not arise while dhamma is the object of cittas. In other words, until that happens, one lives wholly in the world of concepts (conceptualising) because there's no awareness of dhammas. Conceptualising then is the "experience" so to speak. So, although it can be said that dhammas do become objects during cognition procecesses, there's still no awareness of them, so it could be said that these really are not part of "experience". > One needs to be vigilant and wise not to form wrong views on top of the experience. In theory that sounds alright to me, though it might be useful to mention the other side of the coin - if there's no panna arising when dhammas are the objects of citta-processes, then all that remains to form "experience" is thinking (conceptualising, even if not verbal) and wrong view has no trouble arising with thinking. In other words, what one considers an "experience" is often thinking (conceptualising) with wrong view. I need to go to sleep. What is "experience" again? > "when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing..."When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." I think the above might be describing the instance when panna arises with citta processes that have a dhamma as the object, whereas "construing" would be referring to the instances of conceptualising. Well, that's definitely a convenient interpretation for my argument :) I better go sleep now. Best wishes pt #124039 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 2:23 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > Let's say meditating does create conditions for the development of the path. That will not help anyone to meditate, as volition to do so will either arise or not. Let's say meditating does not create such conditions. That will not stop anyone from either realizing this or going ahead and meditating anyway, as the decision to do so is also not volitional. I do think that realizing that there is no ultimate volition or decision-making power over what happens or what one knows or doesn't know is important. It makes it clear that there is no self involved in any of it. So if I believe that my (not)doing X will lead to Y, would that mean I still believe that my self has power over what happens? And how does that differ from knowing that X conditions Y? Best wishes pt #124040 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:09 am Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, Thank you for your answers. I do have a question about how concepts can be perceived without thinking. =============================================================== "To a toddler, who moves about with difficulty, there is not even a self. How could a view arise about a self?... to a toddler who moves about with difficulty, there are not even thoughts. How could doubts arise to him about thoughts?" http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malun\ khyaputta-e1.html ============================================================= The Buddha seems to say that toddler cannot have view about Self and doubts as these require thoughts. Also, why are concepts considered bad? Without concepts we would not be able to walk up/down the stairs or go through a door. It seems that it is wrong kind of attention (to ideas of subha, nicca, sukha, atta) is what is to blame, plus ignorance of 4NT. IMHO. With metta, Alex #124041 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:22 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > Let's say meditating does create conditions for the development of the path. That will not help anyone to meditate, as volition to do so will either arise or not. Let's say meditating does not create such conditions. That will not stop anyone from either realizing this or going ahead and meditating anyway, as the decision to do so is also not volitional. I do think that realizing that there is no ultimate volition or decision-making power over what happens or what one knows or doesn't know is important. It makes it clear that there is no self involved in any of it. > > So if I believe that my (not)doing X will lead to Y, would that mean I still believe that my self has power over what happens? And how does that differ from knowing that X conditions Y? I think the question remains whether certain practices and activities that we see as conventional can create conditions for or against the path, or whether they are just illusory concepts which condition nothing and are irrelevant. For instance, if the desire to drink alcohol arises, representing the desire to get high, dull consciousness, whatever, and we then drink alcohol, is the only important conditioning factor the cetana involved, or is the drinking of alcohol itself also a condition for akusala? Do the rupas that arise in sitting meditation and the cittas that have the intention to understand them create conditions for kusala, do they create conditions for akusala, or are they irrelevant - equal to any other set of dhammas that might arise? I understand that the prevailing dhamma theory on dsg is that no conventional activity can represent conditions for dhammas, but I do not agree with this. If the Buddha in fact taught these practices as creating conditions for satipatthana, then there is something that needs to be altered in the understanding of the relationship of such activities to the development of the path. I think that whether that is the case is the question, as usual. And it has nothing to do with whether such desires and activities are volitional or not, which ultimately they are not. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124042 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) moellerdieter Hi Rob E and Howard, , you wrote: Still in the game for at least one more round... :-) D: as long as we try to get an understanding , it is OK -no (t) KO .... even if it is only the amicable 'we agree to disagree' ;-) Allow me 2 remarks which came into my mind during our exchange: When disagreements arise , I prefer the use of 'different angle' and I disfavor the word ' period ' behind a proposition ( wondering how many exclamation marks may be behind it ). The Buddha expected his disciples to 'check the teaching like a goldsmith gold and silver', a spirit which reminds us very well on the Kalama , sometimes 'micca ditthi ' is too fast supposed. (D: Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? ) RE:I would never say that anatta conditions the delusion of self. Self-concept is the denial of anatta, believing that there is a self. H:In reading this, I realize that both you and I have likely misunderstood what Dieter meant by "Is what conditions the delusion anatta?". What he must have been asking was whether the conditions for delusion themselves lack self and are not self. The answer, of course, is "yes". In particular, the *explicitly-listed* conditions for delusion (in MN 9) are the taints (asava), and they are anatta. All dhammas, the conditioned ones and the asankhata dhamma, are anatta. D: Recalling the taints' :Äsava: (lit: influxes), 'cankers', taints, corruption's, intoxicant biases. There is a list of four (as in D. 16, Pts.M., Vibh.): the canker of sense-desire (kÄmÄsava), of (desiring eternal) existence (bhavÄsava), of (wrong) views (diá¹­á¹­hÄsava), and of ignorance (avijjÄsava). A list of three, omitting the canker of views, is possibly older and is more frequent in the Suttas , e.g. in M. 2, M. 9, D. 33; A. III, 59, 67; A. VI, 63. - In Vibh. (Khuddakavatthu Vibh.) both the 3-fold and 4-fold division are mentioned. The fourfold division also occurs under the name of 'floods' (ogha) and 'yokes' (yoga).Through the path of Stream-Entry, the canker of views is destroyed; through the path of Non-Returning, the canker of sense-desire; through the path of Arahatship, the cankers of existence and ignorance. M. 2 shows how to overcome the cankers, namely, through insight, sense-control, avoidance, wise use of the necessities of life, etc. For a commentarial exposition, see Aá¹­á¹­hasÄlinÄ« Tr. I, p. 63f: II, pp. 475ff.KhīṇÄsava, 'one whose cankers are destroyed', or 'one who is canker-free', is a name for the Arahat or Holy One. The state of Arahatship is frequently called Äsavakkhaya, 'the destruction of the cankers'. Suttas concluding with the attainment of Arahatship by the listeners, often end with the words: "During this utterance, the hearts of the Bhikkhus were freed from the cankers through clinging no more" (anupÄdÄya Äsavehi cittÄni vimucciṃsÅ«ti). (Buddh.Dict.) Though the asava concern a different angle , the three fold divison applies to the D.O. links avijja and tanha (kama tanha and bhava tanha) The addition of ditthasava may cover vibhava tanha. Let me repeat what has been out of the context: There are two right views , mundane and supermundane ...the former concerns the person in society ( conventional truth) whereas latter refers to khandas and their embedment into the dynamic of Dependent Orgination. It shows how the deluded mind works (avijja- sankhara-vinnaya-nama/rupa....), momentary and without interruption within this round of....... death, birth.... death. . Is what conditions the delusion anatta ? I think it depends : -not ,because D.O. refers to the first and second Noble Truth ,- yes , anatta by its contents ( i.e. the phenomena of the senses media, the All, no core, no substance can be found ) I refered to D.O. as a process and to single elements repectively its contents . The question concerns the former not the latter (which I stated : no core, antta) . The first and second Noble Truth refers to the suffering (deluded ) being and D.O. represents the 'blueprint' of both. What is wrong with the consideration whether this proccess can be called anatta? B.T.W. I wonder whether we can find the term 'asankhata dhamma' in the sutta pitaka . I would be interested to see the context. (D: ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. RE:I would never say that anatta "is the state of our affairs." D:What I said by negation : atta ( its last residue conceit) is our state of affairs.. RE: I think we still have confusion about what anatta means. D: yes, therefore always a hot topic of discussion RE:Anatta is not the expression of no-self by a conventional person who understands that there is no self. D:but it is used as such...in particular when the conventional person denies it's experienced reality , sticking to the absolute truth of Paramattha Dhamma only. R.E:It is not a way of life or an expression of enlightenment. Anatta is just an underlying reality, whether one acts like it is true or not. Anatta is a characteristic, not a state of being. There is a difference between enlightenment and delusion. You can say that a deluded person is not enlightened and vice versa. There is a difference between wisdom and ignorance. You can say that a wise person is not ignorant, and vice versa. That is not the case with anatta, since it is not a state to be reached or achieved, but just a structural characteristic, like the fact that a house's underlying structure is made of steel. It doesn't change when one is ignorant, nor does it get intensified if one is enlightened. Anatta is just anatta, it is one of the characteristics of dhammas. What anatta signifies is that every human experience is not owned by anyone or caused or willed by anyone. It just happens due to conditions. That is the real teaching of anatta. It has nothing to do with whether anyone realizes it or not. Of course, if one becomes enlightened, they realize the truth of anatta. They see that there is no self in anything, but that doesn't have any affect on anatta - it already existed before and is not different afterwards. That is the sense in which it is a fact. When I look at my computer "I" see the screen and "I" have thoughts about it, but Buddha's teaching on anatta is that in reality there is no "I" seeing the screen and there is no "I" having those thoughts - they are just arising in consciousness due to conditions. That is the teaching on anatta. It is not something that can be achieved, or change - it is just a characteristic of dhammas to be realized or understood. D:anatta means having given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc. , which is conditioned by ...passa ..vedana ..tanha. This giving up, detachment is due to disentchant, dispassion...and by that ,with mean of the 8fold Noble Path, the chain of (D.O.) conditions is broken.. I guess a lot more to say .. Please refer to my wording.. your comments seem to me involving much interpretation what you suppose I mean only one point more here to avoid too long messages: your quotations of dictionaries say about 'fact' : "Something that has actual existence ". yes, actual existent ....our state of affairs is still presented by the deluded mind ..not anatta As I said before : the oasis is real until it has proven to be a mirage , that is the reality of the citta .. only when the fata morgana is discerned : it is gone like never existed... I stumbled upon these sayings on a homepage : Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes so far ... ;-) with Metta Dieter #124043 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 4:48 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello RobertE, Pt, all, >RE:I think the question remains whether certain practices and >activities >that we see as conventional can create conditions for or >against the >path, or whether they are just illusory concepts which >condition >nothing and are irrelevant. >====================== Doesn't it say in the suttas that 5 heinous crimes prevent one from awakening in this life or the next one (which will be in Avici?) Doesn't sila involves *physical* and verbal abstention, not just mental? With best wishes, Alex #124044 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 7:23 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau Hi Rob E, --------- <. . .> > RE: What occurs to me is that even if one makes the decision to concentrate on arising dhammas or to meditate, or whatever, the decision to do so is not decided upon, it too just arises as a thought or an intention. So really if you look at what is happening at any given moment, there's no control or decision at all. Even if one decides something, there's no decision to decide - the deciding just takes place like any other thought that one has nothing to do with. ---------- KH: That's very nicely said, Rob. The other Rob E will turn up soon and say something completely different, but even so . . . :-) Ken H #124045 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 8:26 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello all, I am concerned about denying the role of present intention. It goes against the commentaries, suttas and 99.9999% of what teachers teach. It could be terrible kamma to hold nihilistic views that in essence deny kamma. Without intentional "free" choice kamma is no more blameworthy as "one rolling rock hitting another rock down the hill." It is true that past choices do provide different circumstances from which present intention can choose. But does result (vipaka) of past causes fully determine the present intention (kamma, etc)? It seems to me that present result of past actions is like: "the cards one has". What one does with them is present intention. It is possible to play well "the cards one has". With best wishes, Alex #124046 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 3, 2012 8:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/2/2012 2:31:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: D:anatta means having given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc. , which is conditioned by ...passa ..vedana ..tanha. This giving up, detachment is due to disentchant, dispassion...and by that ,with mean of the 8fold Noble Path, the chain of (D.O.) conditions is broken.. I guess a lot more to say .. Please refer to my wording.. your comments seem to me involving much interpretation what you suppose I mean ================================ No, Dieter, that is not what 'anatta' means at all. Having given up the identification and attachment that you mention is being disengaged and free (to some extent or other). The word 'anatta', however, merely means "selfless" in the literal sense; i.e., not a self and without self. When the Buddha stated "Sabbe dhamma anatta," he surely didn't mean by this that all phenomena have "given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc." That would make no sense in the slightest. Dieter, please forgive me, my friend, but I'm going to bow out of this thread. Somehow we are not communicating on this at all but are going around in circles. (I'm very sorry.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124047 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:22 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat philofillet Dear Alex You are invited (for the umpteenth time) to the understanding that present intention is a conditioned dhamma that arises now and now and now now now. If as is almost surely the case for the great 99.99 it is rooted in wanting for the self seeking fulfillment (unbeknownst to the non-knower) through conventional deeds, including imitating the deeds perceived in the suttanta, it will not be helpful in the long run, though it may create a sense of spiritual purpose in the short term and many pleasant mental moments. I still think this will click for you someday, my bet is still on you rather than the other members ofthe Kalama Cabal, for some reason. I put the current odds at 99.99 to 1. I think it's why you stick around here, somewhere understanding has a hand on the string and the light will soon click on! I will leave it at that, perhaps others will choose to umpteenth with you. Phil #124048 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:38 am Subject: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) epsteinrob Hi Dieter, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: Rob E.: > Still in the game for at least one more round... :-) > > > D: as long as we try to get an understanding , it is OK -no (t) KO .... even if it is only the amicable 'we agree to disagree' ;-) :-) For sure! > Allow me 2 remarks which came into my mind during our exchange: > When disagreements arise , I prefer the use of 'different angle' and I disfavor the word ' period ' behind a proposition ( wondering how many exclamation marks may be behind it ). In this context, I meant period not to be a way of yelling or insisting, but as a way of emphasizing my view that there are no mitigating circumstances that water down the point. It is for clarity, not for insistence. Sorry if it came across in a different way. ... > Let me repeat what has been out of the context: > There are two right views , mundane and supermundane ...the former concerns the person in society ( conventional truth) whereas latter > refers to khandas and their embedment into the dynamic of Dependent Orgination. It shows how the deluded mind works...momentary and without interruption within this round of....... death, birth.... death. ... > I refered to D.O. as a process and to single elements repectively its contents . > The question concerns the former not the latter (which I stated : no core, anatta) . > The first and second Noble Truth refers to the suffering (deluded ) being and D.O. represents the 'blueprint' of both. > What is wrong with the consideration whether this process can be called anatta? The question is whether the process is or isn't anatta. According to the Buddha all kandhas are anatta, they have no self or connection to self. If anatta were only applied to the liberated, there would be no reason to say that the kandhas are anatta, as the Buddha stated, because the kandhas are only a product of delusion for the deluded. So the whole point of the kandhas being anatta is to point out to those who are attached to the kandhas that they are anatta, so they will stop clinging and detach from the kandhas. Rather than being a description of the liberated person, anatta is something that must be pointed out to the deluded so they will see that the kandhas are not controlled or possessed by a self. Anatta is part of the Buddha's message/teaching to worldlings, not to arahats. > B.T.W. I wonder whether we can find the term 'asankhata dhamma' in the sutta pitaka . I would be interested to see the context. > > > (D: ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. > > RE:I would never say that anatta "is the state of our affairs." > > D:What I said by negation : atta ( its last residue conceit) is our state of affairs.. Well this is the conflict - I would say that atta is the "seeming" state of affairs, but it is not the "actual" state of affairs. If you say it *is* the state of affairs, then you are saying that it has taken over the structure of samsara. If that is the case, this is a point of disagreement. The truth as I understand it is that reality is so momentary and so anatta in its very nature that it is absolutely impossible for a self to ever be formed or to ever grasp anything that passes, as it disappears completely at every moment. So the illusion is that there is 'atta,' but it is not the case. There is only anatta. You seem to be taking the delusion of atta, and saying that it is really there, whereas I am saying that it seems to be there, but since it is an illusion, it is not really there, ever. [I hope "ever" is better than "period." :-) ] > RE: I think we still have confusion about what anatta means. > > > D: yes, therefore always a hot topic of discussion > > > RE:Anatta is not the expression of no-self by a conventional person who understands that there is no self. > > > D:but it is used as such...in particular when the conventional person denies it's experienced reality , sticking to the absolute truth of Paramattha Dhamma only. I think we should say that "we experience reality as if there was a self, but we know from the Buddha's teaching that it is not the case." Then we can investigate it and see that in fact there is no self, and where there seems to be one, there is nothing there. > R.E:It is not a way of life or an expression of enlightenment. Anatta is just an underlying reality, whether one acts like it is true or not. Anatta is a characteristic, not a state of being. ...It is not something that can be achieved, or changed - it is just a characteristic of dhammas to be realized or understood. > > D:anatta means having given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc. , which is conditioned by ...passa ..vedana ..tanha. That is where we disagree. Giving up the identification is enlightenment. Anatta is not a synonym for enlightenment. I think that is a misunderstanding of what anatta means. Anatta is the property of there being no self, not the realization that there is no self. You are using anatta as something that comes into being with liberation, but I am saying that it is the factual state of dhammas both deluded and enlightened. Anatta does not mean that one has given up the identification with self. It is an assertion about all realities, whether deluded or awakened. > This giving up, detachment is due to disentchant, dispassion...and by that ,with mean of the 8fold Noble Path, the chain of (D.O.) conditions is broken.. I guess a lot more to say .. > Please refer to my wording.. your comments seem to me involving much interpretation what you suppose I mean I think I am going by what you do say you mean. You are saying that anatta is only there for someone who is no longer attached to self. I really do think that is a misunderstanding of what anatta means. It is not a state of mind, but a reality that does not change. > only one point more here to avoid too long messages: > your quotations of dictionaries say about 'fact' : "Something that has actual existence ". > > yes, actual existent ....our state of affairs is still presented by the deluded mind ..not anatta > As I said before : the oasis is real until it has proven to be a mirage , No, it is not. That is the disagreement. An illusion is not real because someone thinks it is, that is just not a correct way of looking at an illusion. You are saying that when the magician cuts someone in half that they are really cut in half until you know how the trick was done. That is obviously not the case. When something "seems" to be real, that does not give it a drop of reality. Sure, the person's mind thinks it is real, but anatta is not about the state of mind - it is only about the reality. > that is the reality of the citta .. only when the fata morgana is discerned : it is gone like never existed... It never did exist, it only seemed to. The reality of the citta is that it thinks something is real, but both the thing it thinks is real and the citta itself are anatta. They don't have a self even if they think they do. > I stumbled upon these sayings on a homepage : > > Facts are stubborn things; > and whatever may be our wishes, > our inclinations, or the dictates > of our passion, they cannot alter > the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams > > "When the facts change I change my mind. > What do you do, sir? > - John Maynard Keynes And being deluded does not alter the facts. People who are psychotic and hear voices and think they represent real people are wrong - the people are not real, even though they hear the voices. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124049 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:41 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Pt, all, > > >RE:I think the question remains whether certain practices and >activities >that we see as conventional can create conditions for or >against the >path, or whether they are just illusory concepts which >condition >nothing and are irrelevant. > >====================== > > Doesn't it say in the suttas that 5 heinous crimes prevent one from awakening in this life or the next one (which will be in Avici?) > > Doesn't sila involves *physical* and verbal abstention, not just mental? I would agree with that, even though those physical realities probably break down to a series of rupas which can be discerned by one who has the necessary understanding. But I think you are right that the physical reality that is created by actions in the world should not be ignored. There are not just namas in reality, even according to Abhidhamma, but rupas as well, and they are mutually conditioning. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #124050 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:43 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --------- > <. . .> > > RE: What occurs to me is that even if one makes the decision to concentrate on > arising dhammas or to meditate, or whatever, the decision to do so is not > decided upon, it too just arises as a thought or an intention. So really if you > look at what is happening at any given moment, there's no control or decision at > all. Even if one decides something, there's no decision to decide - the > deciding just takes place like any other thought that one has nothing to do > with. > ---------- > > KH: That's very nicely said, Rob. The other Rob E will turn up soon and say something completely different, but even so . . . :-) :-) You never know -- perhaps I am adequately brainwashed at this point. On the other hand, you are probably right - rather than awakening panna, my time here has created a bad case of schizophrenia! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124051 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:45 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >P: You are invited (for the umpteenth time) to the understanding >that present intention is a conditioned dhamma that arises now and >now and now now now. >=================================== Its conditioned, sure. But one of the important factors is the present intention. One is not a killer due to what one has done in the past (AN3.61). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html >P:If as is almost surely the case for the great 99.99 it is rooted >in wanting for the self seeking fulfillment (unbeknownst to the >non-knower) through conventional deeds, including imitating the >deeds perceived in the suttanta, >================================= 1st) Unless one is a mind-reader one can't say with all certainty the mental states of this or that person. 2nd) The commentaries and even great Abhidhamma teachers do stress the importance of actual practice. It is not just coming from the suttas or one tradition. With metta, Alex #124052 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:54 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am concerned about denying the role of present intention. It goes against the commentaries, suttas and 99.9999% of what teachers teach. It could be terrible kamma to hold nihilistic views that in essence deny kamma. Without intentional "free" choice kamma is no more blameworthy as "one rolling rock hitting another rock down the hill." > > It is true that past choices do provide different circumstances from which present intention can choose. But does result (vipaka) of past causes fully determine the present intention (kamma, etc)? > > It seems to me that present result of past actions is like: "the cards one has". What one does with them is present intention. It is possible to play well "the cards one has". I understand the temptation to say that there is free will, but in my opinion it is not correct and to deny free will does not go against the Buddha's teaching. Conditionality cannot be partial. I think when you say "I want" or "I intend" it is shorthand for the arising of wanting or intending. Where is the "I"? Doesn't every decision come out of a chain of prior conditions? Where is the free will? If it is analyzed closely it is hard to see a possibility of something arising which has not been conditioned. When you play the hand of cards well or not well, do you really choose whether you do that or not, and how the game works out? I think it would be nihilistic to deny that there is will and volition, but not nihilistic to deny that there is a will to will or volition to have volition. Acts of will and volition come out of a number of conditions that tip the scales one way or the other. If that is hard to accept, I think that is the same as finding it hard to accept that there is no self. If we have free will or control, that in fact will constitute a true self. How else could we will or control anything? Only a self that is free of conditions - in other words a central controlling self or soul - could step aside from the stream of conditions and cause anything to happen that is not conditioned. Buddhism is harsh in that sense - there's really no room for a self in its analysis. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #124053 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:59 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Phil, all, > > >P: You are invited (for the umpteenth time) to the understanding >that present intention is a conditioned dhamma that arises now and >now and now now now. > >=================================== > > Its conditioned, sure. But one of the important factors is the present intention. One is not a killer due to what one has done in the past (AN3.61). > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html Are you saying that the intention arises from past conditioning as a free creation of free will? How does that take place analytically? If you have conditions creating arising tendencies and actions at each moment, how does a free act arise? Can you explain? And I'm not sure you can that it is both conditioned and free - I would need to know how that is possible as well. If it is only partially conditioned, then where does the unconditioned element arise? Is there some other part of the mind or personality that gives rise to unconditioned impulses on the side, that are not part of the chain of conditions? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #124054 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 11:09 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE:I understand the temptation to say that there is free will, In AN3.61 tells us that the bad choices in the present are NOT the result of what was done in the past. Here is how I see it. If you have an arm, at this point you can choose to move it to the right, to the left, or not move it at all. While past conditions are required, you need functional body and the arm to move the arm, the past conditions don't determine where you will move it. So there can be a degree of outcome that is not fully pre-determined. Right? So this is how there are conditions and "free" choice on what to do with them. With best wishes, Alex #124055 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 11:20 am Subject: Re: How to develop understanding?? sarahprocter... Dear Norbert, I like your questions and the challenge to explain complex topics very simply to a fifteen-year-old. If he's still confused after reading the explanations, it may be that just the first couple of paragraphs below are enough for the him, but I'll add a little more in case he's a really bright teenager:-) > ----------- > > NJ: Is there really no simple way to explain nimita for a person with > totaly no conditions of understanding (probably like me)? > ----------- S: If someone waves a sparkler around, we're mesmerized by the circles of flickering light, the 'halo' of the light of the burning sparkler itself. In the same way, what is seen, tasted or heard falls away so rapidly, but we're attracted or repulsed by the impression left - the after-image of those objects. For example, we drink a coke and there's a general impression of the taste of coke left which we savour and enjoy. Usually, on account of the illusion of the impression (which seems to last as a result of all those rapidly rising and falling away sights, tastes or sounds), the mind, the thinking and the memory create ideas and fantasies about objects, things and people - the enjoyable can of coke, an unpleasant sound of an aeroplane, and so on. As awareness develops, it begins to be aware of the reality itself - just taste at the moment of drinking or just sound which is heard, without the illusion of something lasting like "the drink of coke". Even though it's actually still an image of the reality that is directly known now - of the taste or experiencing of that taste, of the sound or of the hearing - it is a perfect image, a kind of photocopy that is experienced. In effect, it's the reality itself. The goal of developing awareness and right understanding is to get closer and closer to directly knowing realities, such as taste or sound as they are, as not a can of coke, an aeroplane, as not belonging to any 'Me'. Slowly we will be less mesmerized by the impression and illusion. Now we think that we can control the nice taste by picking up a can of coke or avoid the unpleasant sound by closing the window. In fact, there are just moments of tasting, hearing and other kinds of experiencing throughout the day, experiencing such tastes and sounds which are not subject to anyone's mastery at all. Through the developed direct understanding, there will eventually be a turning of the mind away from the impermanent and unsastisfactory realities which arise and fall away andwhich we're so memerized by now. Instead, eventually, there will be a turning towards the only reality which doesn't arise and fall away - nibbana. Only nibbana doesn't leave an after-image, impression or sign for this very reason. Please let us know where the teenager gets stuck! Metta Sarah ===== #124056 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 11:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary th... sarahprocter... Hi Howard, I'm glad to read all your reflections and discussions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >S: Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas > when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as > anatta as I see it. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Well, not a proper definitional understanding, for sure, but an > experiential grasp of anicca definitely develops, and, from that, a grasp of > anatta. At least this seems to have been the case for me, especially as > regards experiencing an absence of self/identity in "myself". .... S: I think it's the other way round - by understanding dhammas such as seeing as distinct from visible object, hearing, sound, like, dislike, various namas and rupas as they are, it becomes apparent that there is no atta, just dhammas which are anatta. In this way, the understanding of anatta develops from the beginning with the understanding of namas as namas, rupas as rupas. It is only when insight has developed and understands those dhammas repeatedly and more and more precisely that the higher insight which directly is aware and understands the rising and falling away of such dhammas (rather than a conventional, general idea of impermanence), develops. ... >S: The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the > development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The most important understanding, IMO, is the clear experiential > understanding of the tilakkhana and of conditionality, and that did seem to me > to be furthered by the Goenka practice. > ============================== S: Again, I think it's only by clearly understanding dhammas which appear now, without preference, as namas and rupas, that there will be the higher understanding of their conditioned nature. Again, I think the understanding of the anattaness of those dhammas develops as they are known before there can be an understanding of the impermanence or unsatisfactoriness of them when they are experienced. Metta Sarah ==== #124057 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 1:16 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > I do have a question about how concepts can be perceived without thinking. > > =============================================================== > "To a toddler, who moves about with difficulty, there is not even a self. How could a view arise about a self?... to a toddler who moves about with difficulty, there are not even thoughts. How could doubts arise to him about thoughts?" > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malun\ khyaputta-e1.html > ============================================================= > > The Buddha seems to say that toddler cannot have view about Self and doubts as these require thoughts. That seems like a weird translation. Looking at B.B. translation, he doesn't give "thoughts", but "teachings", and pali is dhammaa, and in his notes he writes "Dhammaa" - I take it to mean that it's ideas about teachings, rather than dhammas (as in ideas about cittas and cetasikas). So, to me it seems the sutta passage doesn't have much to do with "thoughts", unless perhaps with "verbal thinking" as a subset of "thoughts". As mentioned, my reading of CMA is that there are many mind-door processes of cittas that take concepts as objects - and many of these would be required for cognition of even a simplest "conceptual thing" like "a lamp", "red", "yes". Verbal thinking "lamp", "red", "yes" would only be a small part of this whole process of cognition, the majority of which would be lightning quick and unknown to the "thinker". Importantly, this process of cognition would go on even if one doesn't know the word "red" - like a toddler. So, verbal thinking is a part of the process of cognition, but not the vital part I'd say. E.g. if I was Italian, I'd be verbally thinking "rosso" at some point of cognition process but I'd still be able to cognise red. I might know what you're trying to ask though - in meditation (or at least the modern meaning of that word to refer to focusing on an "object") there are often periods when no verbal thoughts arise - the internal chatter stops completely. The mind seems very clear, tranquil, uplifted, there's bodily and mental happiness, etc. I too was wondering - what is that? What is the object of the mind in those instances? My take is that it's still just concepts - even though there are no words. So it's still a form of "conceptualising". It can be noticed that the cognition process is still going on all the time, with I'd say concepts as object, but this conceptualising now takes form of "identifying" or "recognising" - pulses, itches, pressures, colors, etc. Everything seems to be in constant flux and changing shapes, extremely quickly, etc. But none of these are actual experiences of dhammas as objects, I'd say. Only more conceptualsing - without words this time, but still, just more conceptualising. That's just how cognition works I guess. > Also, why are concepts considered bad? I'm not sure why such conclusion. E.g. I don't think they are bad. They are a part of the cognition process. That's all. Perhaps you mean because it is being said that while the object of citta is a concept, there cannot be vipassana per se at the time? Again, I don't think this is bad, it's just how the process of cognition works - if there's panna while the object of citta is a dhamma - that would be classified as vipassana. If there's panna while the object of citta is a concept, that still might be a kusala citta, might be even classified as samatha, but it just won't be classified as vipassana. Just the way things are. At least according to (my understanding) of abhidhamma. > Without concepts we would not be able to walk up/down the stairs or go through a door. No argument there - so concepts are a part of cognition process and that's the way things are. > It seems that it is wrong kind of attention (to ideas of subha, nicca, sukha, atta) is what is to blame, plus ignorance of 4NT. It's interesting, because the above sentence in my understanding would be equivalent to "there is no panna arising during the mind-door process that has a dhamma as object" - hence the characteristics of that dhamma (anicca, anatta, dukkha) are not known. Best wishes pt #124058 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 2:36 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >RE: I understand the temptation to say that there is free will, > > In AN3.61 tells us that the bad choices in the present are NOT the result of what was done in the past. In other words, they are not vipaka; that doesn't mean they are not conditioned. Everything is, even present volition. You are talking in a general way, but I am asking you specifically how do you see volition arising? What causes it to arise if not volition? Is it random? If there is freedom to choose, how does it take place? > Here is how I see it. If you have an arm, at this point you can choose to move it to the right, to the left, or not move it at all. The question is, how and why does such a choice take place? Does it happen randomly in a vaccuum? Or does something happen to cause you to make that choice? For instance, you see a glass of water/you have a thought about being thirsty, you think back to when you last had a glass of water/you get a feeling of wanting to drink/you have a thought that it would be nice to have water with ice/you glance at the clock and see that you're late/you have the thought that you don't have time to drink and you leave. Is there a free choice in there somewhere? The way I see the above, it is all conditioned, from one moment to the next. Choice is an illusion. It's not predetermined, it doesn't happen mechanically, it involves awareness, thought-processes, etc.; just that no one is there to decide; each step leads to the next. > While past conditions are required, you need functional body and the arm to move the arm, the past conditions don't determine where you will move it. Neither do you. It happens according to a complex interaction of various conditions and tendencies. But you don't think you actually determine exactly how, when and in what direction to move your arm, do you? It comes out the way it comes out. Sometimes you knock the glass over when you are trying to reach it. Sometimes you reach out and change your mind, or get distracted by conversation; sometimes you forget what you were starting to do. > So there can be a degree of outcome that is not fully pre-determined. Right? It's not all pre-determined - it's just totally determined, and not at all by "you." As I understand it, according to the Buddha vipaka is predetermined, but what is determined in the moment via new cetana and reactions to vipaka is determined by conditions and tendencies. When cetana or reactions arise, that volition or reaction has no one deciding it; there is no self; so those new arisings come from conditions and tendencies, not from oneself, since there is no one home. Do you think there is a self deciding what it wants to do? > So this is how there are conditions and "free" choice on what to do with them. I don't think so - you'd have to detail how such a thing can take place: how does "free choice" arise; what is the mechanism by which "choice" forms up and comes into play. I can't accept the notion that it is just there and that I should take it on faith. We have thoughts that we are doing this, that and the other thing, but unless it is put under the microscope and explained properly, I consider that such a notion is just a creature of thought and self-view. Best, Rob E. -------------------------------- #124059 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 12:30 pm Subject: Re: How to develop understanding?? colette_aube Hi Sarah, > Even though it's actually still an image of the reality that is directly known now - of the taste or experiencing of that taste, of the sound or of the hearing - it is a perfect image, a kind of photocopy that is experienced. In effect, it's the reality itself. > colette: What reality? Are you suggesting that reality actually does EXIST? Heavens to mergatroid. Isn't that a BLASPHEMOUS statement? <...> From the perspective of the MIND-ONLY or YOGACARA school I'd like to take a stab at my chiding. Reality, as you put it, is only an ILLUSION and has NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH to it at all other than a PURIFICATION system. The reality may exist in the mind. The reality may exist in the mind AFTER IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE CATEGORIZATION PROCESS that exists in the mind of humanity. In the USA though, that categorization process is a STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE that all lesser robots must adhere to so that they can value a human life as easily as Ann Romney claims she values human life. The bija is planted in the category as a means of reinforcing the validity of the category. It may also assist in gratifying the individual that is hallucinating the concept of VALUES. These "objects", RUPA, that you are suggesting a mind categorizes and files for TOTAL RECALL OF THE SCRIPT THAT THEY WERE CREATED TO READ ON THE STAGE OF LIFE, is a living breathing thing. It is the same as the humanity that created it and gave it such appealing characteristics to blind the eyes of the weak minded. Hmmmm, ROOT CAUSE, the individual having the unfortunate luck to have planted the seed of the ILLUSION, the HALLUCINATION, must be conscious enough to seek out the roots and recognize that money is the fertilizer that is feeding the POISON (see 3 POISONS, Lobha, Moha, and Dosa) that is called THE ROOTS or THE ROOT CAUSE. I hope I got it out correctly, so that you can understand it. I have never had the ability to teach complex issues to any person. toodles, colette > The goal of developing awareness and right understanding is to get closer and closer to directly knowing realities, such as taste or sound as they are, as not a can of coke, an aeroplane, as not belonging to any 'Me'. Slowly we will be less mesmerized by the impression and illusion. <...> #124060 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:06 pm Subject: Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S; ... > > Monks have given up the home life and the homeless life doesn't include working on community development projects or fighting for social justice which are worldly goals. The duties concern the teaching and understanding of Dhamma. > >R: A related question - since the vinaya is so concerned with conventional rules and activities, how does that work with the understanding that such conventional actions have no relation to the path? .... S: Any group or community needs rules of behaviour (even DSG!). Why? Because we're not arahats. In the beginning the Sangha didn't need any rules, but as problems arose, rules were laid down. Now to your question. Just because in absolute terms there are only dhammas, paramattha dhammas, doesn't mean that we don't use concepts, or that we don't refer to 'conventional actions', to selves, people and things. It means that the path is just the understanding of the realities, no matter what community, what rules, what terms or ideas are used. This is why the path just depends on the right understanding at this moment, no matter one is a bhikkhu or lay-person, here or there, old or young and so on. Pls let me know if this still doesn't answer the question. Metta Sarah ==== #124061 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:11 pm Subject: Re: SPD#5 (sense door vipaaka cittas) sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, A good selection of extracts. Just a few lines at a time can be enough for some wise reflection .....(or confusion, attachment or other mental states depending!) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: > > "The five pairs of sense-door cognitions, such as seeing or hearing, are contiguity condition ( anantara-paccaya) for the arising of the succeeding citta, the receiving conscioysness that receives the object. Receiving conscioysness is vipaaka citta, it is the result of the same kamma that produced the preceding sense consciousness. When the receiving-consciousness has fallen away, the same kamma produces the investigating consciousness, which is also vipaaka-citta and which performs the function of investigating, after the function of receiving has been performed." (p.110) ... S: Each citta conditions the next one by anantara paccaya (contiguity condition). No citta can arise without this condition. It is the niyama (fixed order) of cittas that has to arise in this way by this condition. Understanding a little about conditions like this one, helps us to understand the anattaness of the citta at this very moment. How could any self, effort or intention now arise to make it different from how it has been conditioned already to arise? Metta Sarah ==== #124062 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:17 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, (Pt & all) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > RE: Sure, it makes sense to say that "for one who can cultivate jhana and not confuse it with insight, jhana with insight is the supreme path, but since I don't have the accumulations for it, I'm not focusing on jhana in this lifetime." If anyone said that, including me, I would be extremely happy, because it would take place within the full acknowledgment of the teachings as they actually appear, while still being realistic about one's current "practice." > > pt: I'm not quite sure what you're saying above. .... S: It all sounds like Self deciding whether to cultivate jhana with insight, just insight or anything else. In fact, it's never about choice, but all about conditions as to what kind of citta arises now. We never know what accumulated tendencies from the past will condition what kind of citta now, what kind of cittas just prior to insight, enlightenment, at death or at any other time. One thing for sure, if there is the effort now to try and cultivate any kind of kusala - to have more metta, more wise reflection on any object of samatha, to have jhana, to have awareness or insight - it is bound to be lobha motivated by Self at this time. This too can be the object of awareness, of understanding, again not by trying, but naturally through understanding all kinds of dhammas when they are experienced. Metta Sarah ====== #124063 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > (D: I think it is the arising and cessation of phenomena /dhammas..not their 'abstract classification ' ..> (pls compare Ven.Nyanatiloka : Khanda -excerpt ) > > > > 'The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, <....> > ... > S: I think this is incorrect. The khandhas are dhammas, realities, just as the dhatus, ayatanas, namas or rupas are dhammas. This is why the suttas (as well as the Abhidhamma) refer to the arising and falling away of the khandhas, as in the quote I just sent you in the last message; > "Herein, the five aggregates (pa~ncakkhandha) are impermanent. Why?Because they rise and fall and change, or be cause of their absence after > having been. .... <...> > D: without doubt :good support for your point ;-) > > Still, I understand the point of classification , Nyanatiloka is speaking of, the name which given to a certain specified group of phenoma (khanda) is abstract. ... S: It seems abstract to us - because the dhammas are not understood. In fact, each rupa is rupa khandha. Each rupa arises and falls away. Each rupa shares the nature of being rupa, not nama. The same applies to the other khandhas. The term 'khandha' stresses the impermanence of each reality. ... >D: To quote further: "since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on. .... S: Correct. .... >D: (quoting) Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities." > > I like to emphasise 'only single representatives of these groups ..can arise ' , i.e. not the whole group. > Possibly this issue has been discussed before? .... S: Yes, see "Khandhas" in U.P. There's no question of 'whole group' arising and there's no question that 'khandha' just means 'classificatory grouping'. Each conditioned reality is khandha. If this were not so, the Buddha would not refer to the impermanence of khandhas over and over again as shown in the suttas I quoted from. The English translation 'aggregate' is totally misleading imho. Metta Sarah ====== #124064 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:29 pm Subject: Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > S; ... > > > Monks have given up the home life and the homeless life doesn't include working on community development projects or fighting for social justice which are worldly goals. The duties concern the teaching and understanding of Dhamma. > > > >R: A related question - since the vinaya is so concerned with conventional rules and activities, how does that work with the understanding that such conventional actions have no relation to the path? > .... > > S: Any group or community needs rules of behaviour (even DSG!). Why? Because we're not arahats. In the beginning the Sangha didn't need any rules, but as problems arose, rules were laid down. > > Now to your question. Just because in absolute terms there are only dhammas, paramattha dhammas, doesn't mean that we don't use concepts, or that we don't refer to 'conventional actions', to selves, people and things. It means that the path is just the understanding of the realities, no matter what community, what rules, what terms or ideas are used. > > This is why the path just depends on the right understanding at this moment, no matter one is a bhikkhu or lay-person, here or there, old or young and so on. > > Pls let me know if this still doesn't answer the question. I think that it basically does answer the question. I guess my follow-up question, to make it a little clearer, is whether the rules of conventional behavior, such as those in the Vinaya, are part of the path, supporting of the path, or unrelated to the path at all. If they are unrelated to the path, but are just rules for monastic organization and conventionally getting along, then that is easy to reconcile. If they are part of the path or supportive of the path, then there is a relationship between conventional behavior and understanding of dhammas, and that is what I would like to clarify. Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #124065 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1- arising and falling of citta sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: The citta which arises and falls away at each moment is the leader in experiencing its object. For example, at a moment of seeing consciousness, this citta experiences visible object and then it, the seeing consciousness, falls away. At a moment of thinking, the thinking citta experiences a concept and then falls away. Each citta arises, falls away and conditions the next citta to arise. > > D: not really clear to me .. I would assume citta/vinnana as momentary awareness of the 6 senses , which as a frame wouldn't rise and cease but its content seeing , hearing etc. .... S: Citta experiences any object - a reality or a concept. It is sati which is aware, not citta. What do you mean by the "6 senses"? Do you mean sense objects, sense bases or the cittas such as seeing and so on? Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are all examples of cittas, vipaka cittas. ... > .... > >>S: On account of ignorance and continuity of experience, of namas and rupas, it seems there are whole pictures, stories, people and things. In reality, there are just a succession of cittas arising and falling away:> > >> AN, Ones (1, V, 8), The Buddha says:> > >> "No other thing do I know, O monks, that so quickly changes as the mind:Inasmuch that it is not easy to give an illustration for the mind's quick > > change." > > D: .. I have always difficulties to follow sources by PTS index , which sutta of AN I do you refer to? .... S: The references can be confusing, I agree. If you have B.Bodhi's AN anthology (until we receive the full AN translation!), you'll find it on p.36, "The Mind": "No other thing do I know, O monks, that changes so quickly as the mind. It is not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes." B. Bodhi adds a note to say that the commentary "explains this as meaning that the mind (i.e. a moment of consciousness) arises and vanishes very rapidly...." ... > S: Yes, Mano (mind) is the same as citta. Again it is the citta (mano) that changes quicker than anything we can imagine. Each citta/mano is accompanied by the cetasikas as we know, at least seven in each case. So as the citta arises and falls away, so do the accompanying cetasikas. Mind/citta/mano is often used to refer to citta + accompanying cetasikas. > .... > D: confusing when we we take nama (identical with mano?) to involve citta and cetasika compared with the usual D.O. formula : vinnanna conditions nama /rupa > > The distinction of vinnana ,mano,nama and citta seems to be a matter of unsolved dispute . .... S: Leaving aside D.O. for now (where nama has a specific meaning), in most contexts nama refers to all cittas and cetasikas (and nibbana). It's not a synonym for mano. Vinnana means 'clear knowing'. In most contexts, citta, mano and vinnana are synonyms: Vism X1V, 82 " 'Whatever has the characteristic of cognizing should be understood, all taken together, as the consciousness aggregate' was said above. And what has the characteristic of cognizing (vijaanana)? Consciousness (vi~n~naa.na); according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why 'consciousness' is said (M i 292). The words vi~n~naa.na (consciousness), citta (mind, consciousness), and mano (mind) are one in meaning." *** "But that which is called Citta and Mano and Vinnana arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and night." SN12:61 (Bodhi transl). ** From 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas", ch 7: "In the Buddhist Psychological Ethics ( the Dhammasangani, Book I, Part I, Ch I, § 6) several synonyms for citta have been given. Citta is called mind (mano or manasa), heart (hadaya), that which is pure(paara), mind-base (manyatana), faculty of mind (manindriya), consciousness (vinnanaa), the khandha of consciousness (vinanaakkhandha), the element of mind-consciousness (mano-vinnanaa dhatu). "The Buddha used several synonyms of citta so that the characteristic of citta which is common to everybody could be understood. Citta is reality, it is an element which experiences something, but it is difficult to understand what exactly the characteristic is of the element which experiences. People may more or less understand what citta is; they know that it is the mind which is common to everybody, but if one only knows this and does not really investigate the nature of citta, one will not know at which moment citta occurs." .... Metta Sarah ===== #124066 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 3:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Death of Ven. Dhammadharo sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thank you very much. I sent these to Tadao. > More messages on the same topic as listed give a complete account. > Helpful to reread them. .... S: I think that many of the extracts may be found in "Death - mourning" in U.P. This is a very useful section for anyone experiencing bereavement or loss. Perhaps sometime I'll repost the series, but a little busy this week as we head back to H.K. at the weekend. Tadao is a member here, as I recall. He has occasionally posted. It would be nice if he shared his comments and reflections with us all. Metta Sarah ==== #124067 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 4:02 pm Subject: Re: SPD#3 (happy akusala) sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, 2005.): > > "We do not like it when the citta is annoyed, disturbed, restless, sad or anxious. We like it when the citta is happy, when it is full of joy and when it is infatuated with pleasant objects. However, when the citta is joyful, when it is happy and absorbed in pleasure, the citta > is not pure, because it is accompanied by the cetasika that is attachment, lobha cetasika. Lobha is the dhamma that takes pleasure in an object, which clings to it, and is absorbed in it. The Buddha taught people to study and investigate realities so that sati of satipatthana could be aware of the characteristics of the realities which are appearing and right understanding of them could be developed. This means that one should investigate realities, notice their characterisitics and be aware of them in order to know them precisely, just as they are. In this way we can come to know which dhammas are kusala, which are akusala and which are neither kusala nor akusala. We can come to know akusala as akusala, not matter to what degree, be it coarse or more subtle. It should be known that not only aversion (dosa) is akusala dhamma, but there are also many other types of akusala cetasikas." ... S: A great passage and good reminder that Abhidhamma is not book study, but is all about the understanding of dhammas now - such as the akusala and kusala mental states referred to here. As we've discussed before, it's not just seeing, hearing and sense objects that have to be known, but all kinds of realities, including kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala when they appear without selection. Metta Sarah ===== #124068 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 4:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses sarahprocter... Hi Howard, #123801 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Obviously. One who has compassion for meat is insane. But that is > irrelevant to the issue. > Not eating meat is an abstention that I choose for myself but do not > "push" on others. The basis for my not eating meat, though I DO eat fish and > shellfish - not a plus for me, is the following: Were I to eat meat, after > a period of time I would consume the equivalent of one cow (or a calf if I > ate veal), which adds to the demand for meat and leads to the killing of > another cow [a replacement - basic economics], .... S: I agree that what you say sounds logical. However, as we know from the Buddha's Teachings, the conditions for killing and harming living beings are simply the accumulated tendencies of lobha, dosa and moha. A parent will sway that they kill insects to protect their children or loved ones, but it is not the children or loved ones that are the cause of that killing - it is the tendency to harm, the tendency to kill itself. Most helpful of all is to develop the understanding that eradicates such harmful tendencies and the assistance and encouragement for others to also see the danger of harmful states - not through force, but through understanding. .... >S: The Buddha stressed the importance of understanding the present citta, the > present states of mind. As Vince says, in the case of the meat, we are > using our imaginations, remembering the sufferings of animals and so on. More > precious is a moment of direct understanding of the reality at such a time > - thinking, aversion and so on. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > More precious for *whom*? > ------------------------------------------------ ... S: There is only ever the present citta - not belonging to anyone. Now there can be understanding of this citta, understanding of whatever reality appears now. This is "the all" now. There is 'fire on our heads' now! Whilst we imagine the harm that others are creating, there's no awareness of the present reality - the thinking at this moment. This is why the Buddha didn't tell anyone they had to be vegetarian, but he did urge us all to develop awareness, to understand what true purity and calm is at this very moment. Metta Sarah ===== #124069 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 4:42 pm Subject: Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi sarahprocter... Dear Antony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "In AN, persons are as a rule not reduced to mere collections of aggregates, elements and sense-bases, but are treated as real centers of living experience engaged in a heartfelt quest for happiness and freedom from suffering." (from Intro to Samyutta Nikaya) > > Wonderful! ... S: Many of the AN suttas are repeated in the Puggala Pa~n~natti, the 4th book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. As the PTS translator, Bimala Charan Law, makes clear in his introduction: "According to the Buddhists, the individual has no real existence. The term 'pug gala' does not mean anything real. it is only sammutisacca (apparent truth) as opposed to paramatthasacca (real truth). 'Just as it is by condition precedent of the co-existence of its various parts that the word 'chariot' is used, just so is it that when the khandhas are there, we talk of a 'being' ' (the Qus of K. Milinda, quoting SN i, 135)." In the designation of puggala, persons, the "Puggala Pa~n~natti" and its commentary make it very clear that there are only cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana as absolute realities. The greater the understanding of dhammas, the greater the metta and compassion for all without any misapprehension, as the Buddha showed. Pls share any further comments. Metta Sarah ===== #124070 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 3, 2012 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death of Ven. Dhammadharo nilovg Dear Sarah, I also sent them to Lodewijk and he found them so helpful. He used to find Kh Sujin's remarks on death (just like now) sometimes difficult to swallow, but not now, he found it very good. With the U.P. there are so many numbers and sometimes time consuming to find what one looks for. Maybe Tadao is very busy. He said that the earthquake in Japan reminded him that one never knows what happens the next moment. Our neighbour died (the one with the little girl). Lodewijk wrote to his wife about kamma, his good deeds never lost. His wife has support from Hinduism. But your friend? she is probably the same as our Prince Friso, in the same London Hospital. Very difficult for the relatives. Nina. #124071 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: No, Dieter, that is not what 'anatta' means at all. Having given up the identification and attachment that you mention is being disengaged and free (to some extent or other). The word 'anatta', however, merely means "selfless" in the literal sense; i.e., not a self and without self. When the Buddha stated "Sabbe dhamma anatta," he surely didn't mean by this that all phenomena have "given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc." That would make no sense in the slightest. D: Sarah quoted recently : From the commentary to the Vibhanga, transl as `Dispeller of Delusion' (PTS), which I've quoted before:*** 242: "For the making known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else; it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only which points to the difficulty to describe the meaning.. H:Dieter, please forgive me, my friend, but I'm going to bow out of this thread. Somehow we are not communicating on this at all but are going around in circles. (I'm very sorry.) D: no need to feel sorry.. I had a similar stirring.. nevertheless I intend to quote some sources about anatta for the benefit of more clarity .. perhaps you may get in again due to a fresh approach.. with Metta Dieter . #124072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 3, 2012 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1- arising and falling of citta nilovg Dear Sarah and all, Op 3-mei-2012, om 7:55 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Survey: People may more > or less understand what citta is; they know that it is the mind > which is common > to everybody, but if one only knows this and does not really > investigate the > nature of citta, one will not know at which moment citta occurs." ------- N: I heard on a Thai recording: when looking at a mirror we know that there is nothing in the mirror. When we touch it, only hardness. The same when seeing visible object: there is nothing there. Just what appears through the eyes. N: I did not investigate this enough. For my feeling there are persons and things in the visible object. Kh Sujin said: listen often. How often? Not just a few times, a few years, but aeons. She also explained that when visible object or sound appears, it shows that there is citta experiencing an object. Before knowing the Dhamma it was always self seeing, self hearing. It is actually a miracle that when colour impinges on the eyesense there are conditions for seeing, she said. ------ Nina. #124073 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 3, 2012 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi nilovg Dear Sarah, It is so true. No partiality, thinking of this particular person or that person. Metta and compassion are the realities that should be developed. And they do, as understanding develops. BTW excellent explanation of nimitta for a fifteen year old. It is so difficult to explain a complicated subject in a simple way. A swaying torch would appeal to him. Nina. Op 3-mei-2012, om 8:42 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > In the designation of puggala, persons, the "Puggala Pa~n~natti" > and its commentary make it very clear that there are only cittas, > cetasikas, rupas and nibbana as absolute realities. > > The greater the understanding of dhammas, the greater the metta and > compassion for all without any misapprehension, as the Buddha showed. #124074 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 5:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Death of Ven. Dhammadharo sarahprocter... Dear Nina, I'm glad Lodewijk finds them helpful. Sometimes we need to hear more detail - just a few words can easily be misunderstood. When I'm back in Hong Kong, I'll re-post the whole series - a good idea! I remember you mentioned about your neighbour - a sad case. It would be nice to hear more of what Lodewijk wrote as well - never easy to write to someone with different beliefs. My friend is in a London hospital, but I haven't heard from a while which is most likely because there's no real change in the situation. I may find out more when I'm back in Hong Kong from a mutual friend. Difficult for relatives but then, there are so many opportunities for generosity, kindness, patience and understanding at these times. A true test of all that is precious in life, but it takes a lot of courage. We have minor trials and tribulations throughout the day and all the paramis need to be developed for the times (in this life or future lives) when we have to face major challenges, like my friend's family or Prince Frisno's, or or the other countless people who face other tragedies in life. I'm thinking of Kisagotami and the mustard seed, the tale which Yawares posted recently. We're lost in our own grief when we face tragedy, forgetting that this is the common plight now or later for us all. Now is the time for developing more understanding. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > I also sent them to Lodewijk and he found them so helpful. He used to > find Kh Sujin's remarks on death (just like now) sometimes difficult > to swallow, but not now, he found it very good. > With the U.P. there are so many numbers and sometimes time consuming > to find what one looks for. Maybe Tadao is very busy. He said that > the earthquake in Japan reminded him that one never knows what > happens the next moment. > Our neighbour died (the one with the little girl). Lodewijk wrote to > his wife about kamma, his good deeds never lost. His wife has support > from Hinduism. > But your friend? she is probably the same as our Prince Friso, in the > same London Hospital. Very difficult for the relatives. > Nina. > #124075 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 6:04 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (and Alex) Just butting in if I may. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > ... > > A: Doesn't it say in the suttas that 5 heinous crimes prevent one from awakening in this life or the next one (which will be in Avici?) > > > > Doesn't sila involves *physical* and verbal abstention, not just mental? > > RE: I would agree with that, even though those physical realities probably break down to a series of rupas which can be discerned by one who has the necessary understanding. > =============== J: Regarding your assertion that conventional 'physical realities' *break down into a series of rupas*. As I've mentioned before, I don't think the Buddha ever said this. He simply pointed out what dhammas (including rupas) are, and their significance. I think the point is an important one (for obvious reasons), and is relevant to one of the threads you and I have going at the moment. So I thought this was a good chance to look into the matter in detail :-)) I'd be interested to know whether you have any particular text(s) in mind, or where the idea comes from. Jon #124076 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Jon & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: The only role of the concept of a being, as far as I can see, is as the object of the citta. It's the dosa and wrong view arsing in respect of that object that conditions the act of killing. In terms of conditions, I would not say the concept of a being is a *supporting* condition (but I may be wrong -- perhaps someone with a knowledge of conditions could comment). ... S: I heard K.Sujin talking the other day on audio about upanissaya paccaya (decisive support condition) as the accumulation of all javanas, wholesome and unwholesome accumulations conditioning the moment from way back to just the previous moment. She was also talking about upanissaya gocara, when there is the understanding of reality, the object of the accumulated tendencies. What we think about and talk about now will be the upanissaya gocara, the object for right understanding, if we listen again and again about visible object now as just a reality which can be seen, for example. By hearing and wise considering, there will be the development of understanding little by little, so the experiencing of the 'gocera' is accumulated and becomes a habit. In the same way, if there's repeated ill-will towards a being, this habit of thinking with dosa also becomes the habit leading to the committing of akusala kamma patha when the habit is of such a strength. K.Sujin was also talking about arikka gocara, when there's kusala thinking which 'protects', such as at moments of sila. There is a protection from harmful thinking and behaviour at such times. Then there is upanibhandha gocara which is patipatti, direct understanding of realities. Metta Sarah ===== #124077 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Phassa, contact, like vedana arises with every single citta. So again, in the sense door process above, it arises with cittas 1 -17. > > Okay that makes sense too. > > > They also arise with every mind door citta and with every bhavanga citta in between the processes. Even at moments of jhana or enlightenment, there is always vedana and phassa. > > There's vedana at enlightenment moments? What kind of vedana, positive? .... S: Yes, with every single citta. So at moments of enlightenment, the enlightenment cittas (lokuttara magga and phala cittas) are also accompanied by phassa, vedana and the other universal cetasikas, as well as many other cetasikas. The vedana at such times is either pleasant or neutral, but more likely to be pleasant as I understand. So it's never a question of 'cutting' or 'dropping' phassa or vedana. Only at parinibbana is there no more arising of citta or cetasikas such as these. ... > > S: A rare treat for us to have family at Easter. Next week will be a little busy with family too, so more excuses for delays, ha ha:) > > Those are good excuses. Wishing you many kusala moments with your family! :-) Although discernment of whatever arises is even better... ;-) ... S: Good reminders! Being with family and friends does provide many opportunities for kusala and 'discernment' in between the lobha and ignorance ;-) Metta Sarah ======== #124078 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat colette_aube Hi Robert E., It sounds as though you're making the case for PAVLOV via the concept of CONDITIONED RESPONSE. It may also sound as though you're making the case for JEET KUN DO from Bruce Lee's Chan philosophy via MUSCLE MEMORY. ahhhh, lets not get too hasty here because your initial thrust into this discussion is directly to the point: "> It's not all pre-determined - it's just totally determined,..." You're absolutely correct, the individual has the choice to follow the pre-existing routine or Yellow Brick Road (Beaten Path) of RITUAL (see Dogma) or the individual can CHOOSE another path, another response. "<...and not at all by 'you.'" YIKES, darest thou venture into that quagmire? Are you going to place yourself into such a vulnerable position as to suggest the standard MONOTHEIST's line of living a life determined by this "creator deity" so as to glorify some corporate robot having delusions of their omnipotence? Are you trying to formulate a foundation upon which to build a house of cards? "< As I understand it, according to the Buddha vipaka is predetermined, but what is determined in the moment via new cetana and reactions to vipaka is determined by conditions and tendencies." I see. Now I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now you are suggesting that Ann Romney is correct to declare that she's always been able to place a VALUE on each person, each individual, so as to better categorize them? You seem to be advocating that tried and true system of "CROWD CONTROL" that India gave to humanity through the CASTE SYSTEM, or that Marx and Engels tried to elaborate on in their Communist Manifesto, or even that Pol Pot tried to establish through the Kmer Rouge i.e. "Brother #2" or something like that, placing a value on each individual so as to know how the robot is manufactured to operate and how they will operate, behave. Lets just look at the concept that you speak of "conditions and tendencies". I get it, one test, the exact same test, is given to each student regardless of the school environment that they exist in. The inner city student is just as capable of learning the material as a wealthy suburbanite can learn the same lessons and thus can properly answer the same questions so that a STANDARDIZATION of tests and test results can be established and made into law. Okay, lets not speak of the student's "environment" as a factor in how the student's mind is conditioned, lets go to "tendencies" (which is, honestly, the same thing as "conditions" but lets look at it anyway and I'll use, as the example, the student from the inner city and the student from suburbia. You are suggesting that both students, in the same grade level, approx. the same age, must both have the same "tendencies" which is a leap of faith that I won't take. <...> Maybe I'm just being a bit too picky and maybe I'm having fun with the reality that MINUTIA can be the same as a pin ball in a pin ball machine, or a pool ball shooting billiards. Thanx for your insight into this concept and allowing me to RAMBLE ON, to SING MY song. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello RobertE, all, > > > > >RE: I understand the temptation to say that there is free will, > > > > In AN3.61 tells us that the bad choices in the present are NOT the result of what was done in the past. > > In other words, they are not vipaka; that doesn't mean they are not conditioned. Everything is, even present volition. You are talking in a general way, but I am asking you specifically how do you see volition arising? What causes it to arise if not volition? Is it random? If there is freedom to choose, how does it take place? <...> #124079 From: Lukas Date: Thu May 3, 2012 8:33 pm Subject: problems szmicio Dear friends, I have limited access to internet. I work on farm, 8 hours per daz and this is very hard. I also have a lot of quarels with L, that after I want to drink. I still listen and read dhamma a lot, but the last daz are hard for both of us. I have this deep moods of harming, making mzself a victim etc.. itÄ…s so big dosa and i cannot control. Always when I dont get what i want, I start to be angrz on mzself and everzone. Pls for help Best wishes Lukas #124080 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 8:56 pm Subject: Re: problems sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, This is life - seeing, clinging, not getting what we want, being upset and so on. I'm glad to hear about the farm work and l has been and is such a very good friend to you, so it's not fair to quarrel or get angry with her when you have a mood. Such a short time ago you were desperate because you thought she'd left you. Now it sounds as though you're really testing her patience again. Sometimes we need to reflect on our blessings in life. You're young, you're fit, you've heard a lot of the best Dhamma and understood a lot. You have good dhamma friends and L. still supports you and obviously cares a lot for your welfare. You have a job too. Please don't start drinking but continue to listen to and read dhamma. Try to share some with L. This will help you to really understand the cause of the problems so that you don't blame the work or other people. When there are the thoughts of harming, making yourself a victim and so on, it's just a lot of akusala thinking, getting lost in the long stories. Can you listen to the audio at such times or even when you're working, perhaps? It really is the attachment to oneself that causes all the problems. I think the Dhamma is the only real medicine. You've heard a lot, you've considered a lot about dhammas as anatta, so you know that all these mental states are not Lukas, just conditioned dhammas. There can be awareness right now of seeing, of visible object, of thinking. When there is awareness, there's calm, there's peace. The understanding has to be now. Give my best wishes to L. and thank her for her friendship. I do hope to meet you both one day. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, > I have limited access to internet. I work on farm, 8 hours per daz and this is very hard. I also have a lot of quarels with L, that after I want to drink. I still listen and read dhamma a lot, but the last daz are hard for both of us. I have this deep moods of harming, making mzself a victim etc.. itÄ…s so big dosa and i cannot control. Always when I dont get what i want, I start to be angrz on mzself and everzone. Pls for help ===== #124081 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - In a message dated 5/3/2012 12:36:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: It's not all pre-determined - it's just totally determined, and not at all by "you." As I understand it, according to the Buddha vipaka is predetermined, but what is determined in the moment via new cetana and reactions to vipaka is determined by conditions and tendencies. ============================== Robert, I don't understand the distinction you are asserting between "predetermined" and "totally determined". Either, by the time an event, possibly an act of volition, occurs, all the preconditions for it have occurred and, moreover, had even one precondition been missing, the event could not have happened, or that is not so. Either there is total predetermination or not. The "not case" would *have* to include nondeterminstic/probabilistic elements. One can imagine the following scenario for the "not case": __________________________ When an act of will occurs, it is preceded by a multitude of conditions leading up to it. That act of will, together with other current and prior conditions, yields an action-result. So, we have that conditions --> will --> action-result. But why do we not directly have conditions --> action-result? What does the act of will *do*? Perhaps the conditions that precede an act of will determine not only that there *be* an act of will but also determine, in general, not a *single* resultant action, but a *set* (maybe large, maybe small) of possible alternative actions typically with differing likelihoods of being chosen, and what the willing does is to randomly pick one of the possible actions. Due alone to inclinations (or predispositions or "accumulations," some choices of action would be more likely choices than others, with an equiprobable measure being the case only on rare occasion. As we well know, of course, a choice with a tiny probability may be the one chosen. For example, in a three-choice set, where choice#1 has a weight of 1/1000, choice#2 a weight of 450/1000, and choice#3 a weight of 549/1000, choice#1 may still be the outcome, because 1 chance out of a thousand is still a positive probabilty. This scenario is a sort of middle way between determinism and non-determinism, in that prior conditions (including often a pattern of planning, thinking, and engaging in emotion) completely determine 1) a weighted set of possible resultant actions and 2) the occurrence of an act of will that randomly chooses one from this delimited set to be the actual action to occur. Thus, there is both determinism and non-determinism/"freedom of choice" involved. A summary of this scheme is the following - 1) That an act of will occurs is entirely determined by conditions, and 2) the weighted set of alternative action-choices is also entirely determined by conditions, but 3) which particular action in the weighted set is selected is non-deterministic/probabilistic, and is only constrained by the probability weights. [Note: The weights/probabilities of the choices are strongly determined by the person's inclinations, habits, and preferences, but of course also by "external conditions".] -------------------------------------------- This scenario for the "not case" may fit well with quantum mechanics, and it has not apparently been rejected by the Buddha, but, in fact, such a consideration hasn't been addressed at all by the Buddha, and it's consideration is inessential for the purpose of the Dhamma, namely liberation from dukkha. Whether there is any probabilistic element to volition or not, disengagement from all conditions is requisite for the attaining of freedom, and this disengagement requires the developed awareness of the impermanent and impersonal and unsatisfactory qualities of all phenomena that arise. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124082 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - We fully disagree on this. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/3/2012 2:18:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, #123801 --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Obviously. One who has compassion for meat is insane. But that is > irrelevant to the issue. > Not eating meat is an abstention that I choose for myself but do not > "push" on others. The basis for my not eating meat, though I DO eat fish and > shellfish - not a plus for me, is the following: Were I to eat meat, after > a period of time I would consume the equivalent of one cow (or a calf if I > ate veal), which adds to the demand for meat and leads to the killing of > another cow [a replacement - basic economics], .... S: I agree that what you say sounds logical. However, as we know from the Buddha's Teachings, the conditions for killing and harming living beings are simply the accumulated tendencies of lobha, dosa and moha. A parent will sway that they kill insects to protect their children or loved ones, but it is not the children or loved ones that are the cause of that killing - it is the tendency to harm, the tendency to kill itself. Most helpful of all is to develop the understanding that eradicates such harmful tendencies and the assistance and encouragement for others to also see the danger of harmful states - not through force, but through understanding. .... >S: The Buddha stressed the importance of understanding the present citta, the > present states of mind. As Vince says, in the case of the meat, we are > using our imaginations, remembering the sufferings of animals and so on. More > precious is a moment of direct understanding of the reality at such a time > - thinking, aversion and so on. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > More precious for *whom*? > ------------------------------------------------ ... S: There is only ever the present citta - not belonging to anyone. Now there can be understanding of this citta, understanding of whatever reality appears now. This is "the all" now. There is 'fire on our heads' now! Whilst we imagine the harm that others are creating, there's no awareness of the present reality - the thinking at this moment. This is why the Buddha didn't tell anyone they had to be vegetarian, but he did urge us all to develop awareness, to understand what true purity and calm is at this very moment. Metta Sarah #124083 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 3, 2012 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 5/3/2012 3:33:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: D: no need to feel sorry.. I had a similar stirring.. nevertheless I intend to quote some sources about anatta for the benefit of more clarity .. perhaps you may get in again due to a fresh approach.. ============================ Not impossible! ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124084 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 3, 2012 11:13 pm Subject: spd12 (sense and mind door processes - the bird and its shadow) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "The viithi-cittas of the mind-door process, which follow viithi cittas of a sense-door process, have to experience the same ruupa. If the javana-cittas of the sense-door process are lobha-muula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) the javana-cittas of the first mind-door process after that sense-door process have to be the same types of lobha-muula citta. The mind-door process follows extremely rapidly upond the sense-door process. With respect to this there is a simile of a bird perching on a branch. As soon as the bird perches on the branch its shadow appears on the ground. Even so, when the object has been experienced through the sense-door and there have been many bhavanga cittas in between, arising and falling away very rapidly, it is immediately afterwarwds experienced through the mind door. Since cittas succeed one another so rapidly one does not know that visible object which is experienced through the eyes is only a paramattha dhamma that can appear because it has impinged on the eyesense." (268) (end of passage) Phil p.s I think I heard A. Sujin use a metaphor of thin sheets of onion paper piled together to get at how quickly the mind door process comes after the sense door, as soon as a drop of water hits a sheet of onion paper, how quickly it reaches the next sheet... #124085 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 4, 2012 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: problems nilovg Dear Lukas and Sarah, I can add something I heard on a Thai recording. Op 3-mei-2012, om 12:56 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > When there are the thoughts of harming, making yourself a victim > and so on, it's just a lot of akusala thinking, getting lost in the > long stories. > It really is the attachment to oneself that causes all the > problems. I think the Dhamma is the only real medicine. You've > heard a lot, you've considered a lot about dhammas as anatta, so > you know that all these mental states are not Lukas, just > conditioned dhammas. -------- N: We think of a story in the past with unhappy feeling. When there is no awareness we take feeling for self. If sati can arise we can learn to understand that it is not a self who thinks of that unpleasant story, and then the feeling has changed already. At the moment of sati there is no unpleasant feeling. If we are not aware of feelings enlightenment can never be attained. Being depressed is not self and we can learn this at the moment of sati. Then we can find out that it is only a moment of being oppressed and that this has fallen away immediately. Greetings to Luraya. Nina. #124086 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 4, 2012 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 3-mei-2012, om 7:29 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I guess my follow-up question, to make it a little clearer, is > whether the rules of conventional behavior, such as those in the > Vinaya, are part of the path, supporting of the path, or unrelated > to the path at all. If they are unrelated to the path, but are just > rules for monastic organization and conventionally getting along, > then that is easy to reconcile. If they are part of the path or > supportive of the path, then there is a relationship between > conventional behavior and understanding of dhammas, and that is > what I would like to clarify. ------ N: The rules help the monk to be aware now, no matter what his actions are. The Vinaya and satipatthana are closely connected, they should go together all the time. The rules concern the monk's daily life, and satipatthana should be developed in daily life. The monk should see danger in the slightest faults: in being aware of realities this comes true! One gets to know also the very subtle lobha, like sniffing up the scent of a flower. As the sutta is explained: one is then a "smell thief". A slave of sense impressions. The monk is supposed to lead the life of an arahat. The goal of monkhood is attainment of arahatship, to become perfected. ----- Nina. #124087 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 12:29 am Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt:That seems like a weird translation. Yes. I prefer BB translation. In any case, MN64 seems to say that an infant cannot outwardly or inwardly do bad deeds because of his/her limitations. But the fetters are still there, even if they are not yet seen, and will occur when infant matures. >Verbal thinking "lamp", "red", "yes" would only be a small part of >this whole process of cognition, the majority of which would be >lightning quick and unknown to the "thinker".E.g. if I was Italian, >I'd be verbally thinking "rosso" at some point of cognition process >but I'd still be able to cognise red. >==================================== Without knowing the language, you cannot form thoughts in that language. Furthermore, you don't need to form thoughts in order to know something. You only need thoughts to *communicate* to others (a good argument against solipsism). ' If you put sugar on your tongue, you don't need to think in English (or any other language) "sweet taste" in order to experience sweet taste. Same for many other things. You don't need to know English words "hot", "cold" etc to experience temperature. >Pt:focusing on an "object") there are often periods when no verbal >thoughts arise - the internal chatter stops completely. >========================================================= What about meditation methods where you do not focus on specific object? With metta, Alex #124088 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 12:38 am Subject: Choice truth_aerator Hi RobertE, Few thoughts. Lets take this metaphor. A person is dealt a certain set of cards (past conditions). How one plays them (present intention), while dependent on what cards he has, is not set in stone. A person can play with the same set of cards in this or that way. Choice is in the sense of there being at least two different ways in which one can play the same set of cards. Of course the skills that one has at playing cards will influence how one plays. If one doesn't have good skills, then one will not play as effectively. But one has the possibility of doing this or that within the parameters that conditions have set. Do you agree that past no longer exists, future doesn't yet exist, only the present moment is. Since past does not exist, its influence on the present (what is), doesn't have to be totally set in stone. Can't a more "real" moment override some no longer existing conditions of the past? IMHO, with metta, Alex #124089 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 1:04 am Subject: Re: Conditionality a conventional truth truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, We need to be careful not to reify too much "conditionality". Is "cause" an ultimate reality? No. There is no such an object called a "cause" or "effect". You can't put "cause" or "effect" into a test tube. You cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel it with the body. Cause->effect is a concept that we put toward a repeating *pattern* of phenomena. Beyond and above that pattern of phenomena, there is no substance called "cause" or "effect". If we believe in a substance called "cause" and substance called "effect", then there could be serious problems with that. With metta, Alex #124090 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) moellerdieter Hi Rob E (and other possible readers ;-) ) you wrote: Allow me 2 remarks which came into my mind during our exchange: > When disagreements arise , I prefer the use of 'different angle' and I disfavor the word ' period ' behind a proposition ( wondering how many exclamation marks may be behind it ). In this context, I meant period not to be a way of yelling or insisting, but as a way of emphasizing my view that there are no mitigating circumstances that water down the point. It is for clarity, not for insistence. Sorry if it came across in a different way. D: never mind , possibly overrated as I got that in double ;-) ... > Let me repeat what has been out of the context: > There are two right views , mundane and supermundane ...the former concerns the person in society ( conventional truth) whereas latter > refers to khandas and their embedment into the dynamic of Dependent Orgination. It shows how the deluded mind works...momentary and without interruption within this round of....... death, birth.... death. .. > I refered to D.O. as a process and to single elements repectively its contents . > The question concerns the former not the latter (which I stated : no core, anatta) . > The first and second Noble Truth refers to the suffering (deluded ) being and D.O. represents the 'blueprint' of both. > What is wrong with the consideration whether this process can be called anatta? RE:The question is whether the process is or isn't anatta. According to the Buddha all kandhas are anatta, they have no self or connection to self. If anatta were only applied to the liberated, there would be no reason to say that the kandhas are anatta, as the Buddha stated, because the kandhas are only a product of delusion for the deluded. So the whole point of the kandhas being anatta is to point out to those who are attached to the kandhas that they are anatta, so they will stop clinging and detach from the kandhas. D: I think the consideration of the khandas alone (which are anicca , dukkha and anatta, because no core can be found ) neglects the dynamic of the moment (here-and-now,the citta) , therefore I refered to the process of paticcasamuppada (D.O.). Dukkha as you know is in brief 5 Khanda attachment , but how that works , is explained by D.O. and it can be experienced , in particular the passa-vedana-tanha-upadana connection , describing the (way of) attachment. The background of greed and hate is the thirst/urge: I want .. I reject (moha, lobha and dosa or bhava tanha ,vibhava tanha , kama tanha) which conditions the clinging. The delusion of a Self/ I is conditioned by ignorant volition/kamma force (avijja -sankhara ) . The point of enlightenment is to abolish the ignorance , seeing how things really are (empty, no worth any attachment with the consequence of disentchantment ,dispassion and the determining (khanda ) detachment (break of the chain) Our state of affairs - I think you agree - is described by D.O. .Instead of atta there is a dynamic process of conditions , but neither is this process anatta, because the 'atta-delusion ' is still carried on by continued attachment. In other words : samsara , our wandering-kamma - amidst these rounds of birth and death cannot be called anatta. Back to the start of our discussion : R.E. the unsatisfying [non-self] nature of samsara vs D. the unsatisfying [self-delusioned] nature of samsara I stated my case .. ;-) R.E.Rather than being a description of the liberated person, anatta is something that must be pointed out to the deluded so they will see that the kandhas are not controlled or possessed by a self. Anatta is part of the Buddha's message/teaching to worldlings, not to arahats. D: yes, of course ... but they need to see that for themselves (by means of the Noble Path training). Understanding the the theory and realize that by practise. > B.T.W. I wonder whether we can find the term 'asankhata dhamma' in the sutta pitaka . I would be interested to see the context. > > > (D: ,when our angle is : we are still wandering (=kamma) within the cycle , and until the last residue of the Self is abolished , which is conceit, anatta can not be a fact, it is not the state of our affairs. > > RE:I would never say that anatta "is the state of our affairs." > > D:What I said by negation : atta ( its last residue conceit) is our state of affairs.. Well this is the conflict - I would say that atta is the "seeming" state of affairs, but it is not the "actual" state of affairs. If you say it *is* the state of affairs, then you are saying that it has taken over the structure of samsara. If that is the case, this is a point of disagreement. The truth as I understand it is that reality is so momentary and so anatta in its very nature that it is absolutely impossible for a self to ever be formed or to ever grasp anything that passes, as it disappears completely at every moment. So the illusion is that there is 'atta,' but it is not the case. There is only anatta. D: That would demand the perfection of satipatthana ..said even possible in 7 days of practise , but most of us do not manage that in 70 years.. R.E.You seem to be taking the delusion of atta, and saying that it is really there, whereas I am saying that it seems to be there, but since it is an illusion, it is not really there, ever. [I hope "ever" is better than "period." :-) ] And being deluded does not alter the facts. People who are psychotic and hear voices and think they represent real people are wrong - the people are not real, even though they hear the voices. D: better.. ;-) .. I think it is the matter of a perspective .. using the simile of an oasis , an outsider let say somebody flying over the desert, would of course - according to the truth - see that it is not really there. But for the poor thirsty guy it seems to be real until the mirage is discerned, isn't it? Reality is relative to the observer , e.g. think about people who are getting hypnotized .. You are speaking from the point of audience.. > RE: I think we still have confusion about what anatta means. > > D: yes, therefore always a hot topic of discussion> > RE:Anatta is not the expression of no-self by a conventional person who understands that there is no self. > > D:but it is used as such...in particular when the conventional person denies it's experienced reality , sticking to the absolute truth of Paramattha Dhamma only. R.E.:I think we should say that "we experience reality as if there was a self, but we know from the Buddha's teaching that it is not the case." Then we can investigate it and see that in fact there is no self, and where there seems to be one, there is nothing there. D: yes > R.E:It is not a way of life or an expression of enlightenment. Anatta is just an underlying reality, whether one acts like it is true or not. D: the underlying reality cognized by whom ? Seeing the things as they are changes the state of affairs . It is the point of change of mind according to the facts , which means anatta. RE:Anatta is a characteristic, not a state of being. ...It is not something that can be achieved, or changed - it is just a characteristic of dhammas to be realized or understood. D: I do not know how to distinguish characteristic and state of being . For example the cetasika moha is a characteristic of a unwholsome state of the citta. Not only to be understood but to realized .. i.e.as I mentioned above 'just' samma sati.. > > D:anatta means having given up the identification, the attachment that is míne, that I am , want etc. , which is conditioned by ...passa ..vedana ..tanha. That is where we disagree. Giving up the identification is enlightenment. Anatta is not a synonym for enlightenment. I think that is a misunderstanding of what anatta means. Anatta is the property of there being no self, not the realization that there is no self. You are using anatta as something that comes into being with liberation, but I am saying that it is the factual state of dhammas both deluded and enlightened. Anatta does not mean that one has given up the identification with self. It is an assertion about all realities, whether deluded or awakened. D:as mentioned in my previous mail: we better take a look into the sources (coming) (DThis giving up, detachment is due to disentchant, dispassion...and by that ,with mean of the 8fold Noble Path, the chain of (D.O.) conditions is broken.. I guess a lot more to say .. > Please refer to my wording.. your comments seem to me involving much interpretation what you suppose I mean ) R.E.I think I am going by what you do say you mean. You are saying that anatta is only there for someone who is no longer attached to self. I really do think that is a misunderstanding of what anatta means. It is not a state of mind, but a reality that does not change. D: cetasika moha , delusion 'colours' the citta .. what else than a state of mind is it? What changes is the reality , refering to simile of a hypnotized person : like when the hypnotist orders his client to wake up Unfortunately nobody can order that for the delusioned wordling wandering ..he/she must do it by him/herself (following the instructions) > only one point more here to avoid too long messages: your quotations of dictionaries say about 'fact' : "Something that has actual existence ". > > yes, actual existent ....our state of affairs is still presented by the deluded mind ..not anatta > As I said before : the oasis is real until it has proven to be a mirage , No, it is not. That is the disagreement. An illusion is not real because someone thinks it is, that is just not a correct way of looking at an illusion. You are saying that when the magician cuts someone in half that they are really cut in half until you know how the trick was done. That is obviously not the case. When something "seems" to be real, that does not give it a drop of reality. Sure, the person's mind thinks it is real, but anatta is not about the state of mind - it is only about the reality. (Dthat is the reality of the citta .. only when the fata morgana is discerned : it is gone like never existed...) R.E.:It never did exist, it only seemed to. The reality of the citta is that it thinks something is real, but both the thing it thinks is real and the citta itself are anatta. They don't have a self even if they think they do. D:my emphases on the perspective of the deluded being and what he takes as reality ..the truth (of anatta leading to disentchantment,detachment) is a process of realization.. so far.. ;-) with Metta Dieter #124091 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:05 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > One thing for sure, if there is the effort now to try and cultivate any kind of kusala - to have more metta, more wise reflection on any object of samatha, to have jhana, to have awareness or insight - it is bound to be lobha motivated by Self at this time. Maybe we can sneak around that rule. :-) This too can be the object of awareness, of understanding, again not by trying, but naturally through understanding all kinds of dhammas when they are experienced. Thanks, Sarah. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #124092 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/3/2012 1:29:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Rob E (and other possible readers ;-) ) =============================== LOLOL!! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124093 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:15 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (and Alex) > > Just butting in if I may. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex. > > ... > > > A: Doesn't it say in the suttas that 5 heinous crimes prevent one from awakening in this life or the next one (which will be in Avici?) > > > > > > Doesn't sila involves *physical* and verbal abstention, not just mental? > > > > RE: I would agree with that, even though those physical realities probably break down to a series of rupas which can be discerned by one who has the necessary understanding. > > =============== > > J: Regarding your assertion that conventional 'physical realities' *break down into a series of rupas*. > > As I've mentioned before, I don't think the Buddha ever said this. He simply pointed out what dhammas (including rupas) are, and their significance. > > I think the point is an important one (for obvious reasons), and is relevant to one of the threads you and I have going at the moment. So I thought this was a good chance to look into the matter in detail :-)) > > I'd be interested to know whether you have any particular text(s) in mind, or where the idea comes from. To me, it's just another way of referencing what has been said many times, that what we take for objects are really dhammas, and that, as the Abhidhammatha Sangaha says, that concepts are shadows of dhammas, a distorted view of the realities that actually exist. I think the case exists for the idea that concepts and dhammas are referencing the same realities, but that concepts try to turn them into static wholes, instead of understanding the constant flow of changing dhammas that arise from moment to moment. Anyway, don't have a text for this, but I also can't find a text in which the Buddha said that there are only dhammas, and that right livelihood and right action and other forms of conventional behavior have no relation to the path. As far as I know, he talked about both conventional realities and dhammas, and spoke about what to do in life as well as how to discern realities. When we talk about drinking alcohol, there are namas and rupas, yes? Buddha said not to drink alcohol, there is no doubt about that. He also spoke of exceptions where it was okay, such as medicinal alcohol as part of a necessary medication, so the Buddha clearly did speak about such conventional actions and objects and had a point of view about what was kusala and akusala. Looked at from a "dhamma" point of view, there is akusala cetana to drink alcohol or otherwise cloud consciousness, or kusala cetana to abstain from negative involvements, and then there are also rupas and concepts that are experienced around either the drinking and thinking about whether to do something or not, etc. When I say that a conventional activity breaks down to namas and rupas, this is the kind of thing I have in mind. A person decides to have a drink and then drinks. What is actually taking place? There is cetana, then the decision to act, accompanied by thoughts. Then a series of rupas pertaining to the experience of drinking etc. are experienced. This kind of thing has been referred to before, and that is what I am talking about, for what it's worth. Sarah has said that when we look at a computer screen, there's really no screen, it's just a series of rupas that are being experienced and interpreted as a computer screen by citta via a concept. So I think we speak this way quite a bit. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124094 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 3-mei-2012, om 7:29 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I guess my follow-up question, to make it a little clearer, is > > whether the rules of conventional behavior, such as those in the > > Vinaya, are part of the path, supporting of the path, or unrelated > > to the path at all. If they are unrelated to the path, but are just > > rules for monastic organization and conventionally getting along, > > then that is easy to reconcile. If they are part of the path or > > supportive of the path, then there is a relationship between > > conventional behavior and understanding of dhammas, and that is > > what I would like to clarify. > ------ > N: The rules help the monk to be aware now, no matter what his > actions are. The Vinaya and satipatthana are closely connected, they > should go together all the time. The rules concern the monk's daily > life, and satipatthana should be developed in daily life. The monk > should see danger in the slightest faults: in being aware of > realities this comes true! One gets to know also the very subtle > lobha, like sniffing up the scent of a flower. As the sutta is > explained: one is then a "smell thief". A slave of sense impressions. > The monk is supposed to lead the life of an arahat. The goal of > monkhood is attainment of arahatship, to become perfected. I think what you say here is great, but I don't see any difference at all between this and practicing meditation, which has the same sort of orientation on a more limited scale as the monk's intention to live like an arahant. What is the difference? If I want to "see like an arahant" and I do so by paying close attention to every arising dhamma in meditation, or in everyday life, the intention to develop satipatthana is the same. You said that "The rules help the monk to be aware now, no matter what his actions are." And I would say that the Buddha's instructions for meditation, which is also a large part of a monk's daily life, is exactly the same. But in any case, I am happy to hear the connection between the Vinaya and satipatthana in this sense, as it shapes a life of awareness. This makes me want to read the Vinaya, though I am sure I could never follow it's difficult responsibilities. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #124095 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:29 am Subject: [dsg] Correcting Myself (Re: the raft simile ...) epsteinrob Hi Dieter. My last entry for now! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > (Dthat is the reality of the citta .. only when the fata morgana is discerned : it is gone like never existed...) > > R.E.:It never did exist, it only seemed to. The reality of the citta is that it thinks something is real, but both the thing it thinks is real and the citta itself are anatta. They don't have a self even if they think they do. > > > D:my emphases on the perspective of the deluded being and what he takes as reality ..the truth (of anatta leading to disentchantment,detachment) > is a process of realization.. That is enlightenment. That is not what anatta refers to. They are not the same thing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124096 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:59 am Subject: anatta part 1 moellerdieter Hi All, I think , below extracts from the Samyutta-Nikaya are useful for contemplation and eventual discussion with Metta Dieter Dealing with Egolessness , Compiled and translated by Nyanatiloka Mahathera When certain things we find combined, We speak of "chariot," speak of "car." Just so when all Five Groups appear, We use the designation "man." 'Tis naught but woe that does arise; And that exists and passes off. Nothing but suffering appears, Nothing but woe that vanishes. - SN 5.10 The "five groups" are a classification, in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and in particular, those which appear to the ignorant man as his ego, or personality. They are: corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. It is said in the Visuddhi Magga: "Whenever different parts, as axle, wheels, frame, pole, etc., are combined in a certain manner, we use the conventional designation 'chariot.' But if we examine one part after the other, we cannot, in the ultimate sense, discover anything that can be called a chariot." It is likewise with the five groups of existence (khandha). If they are present, one uses the conventional designation "being" or "personality," etc. But if we examine each phenomenon in its ultimate sense, there is nothing that can form a basis for such conceptions as "I am" and "I." Hence in the ultimate sense only mental and physical phenomena exist. (Through sense-impression is conditioned feeling - thus it is said in the formula of Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppaada): "But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. "I do not teach that there is one who feels. If however the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what, does feeling arise?' then the answer will be: 'Through sense-impression is feeling conditioned... through feeling, craving; through craving, clinging...'" - SN 12.12 But what are old age and death, and to whom do they belong? I do not teach that there is one thing called old age and death, and that there is someone to whom they belong. Verily if one holds the view that life (jiiva: life principle, soul, etc.) is identical with the body, in that case there can be no holy life. And if one holds the view that life is one thing but body another thing, also in that case a holy life is impossible. Avoiding both of these extremes (i.e., complete identity and complete otherness), the Perfect One has taught the doctrine that lies in the middle, namely: Through rebirth conditioned are old age and death;... Through the (karmical) process of becoming, rebirth;... through clinging the process of becoming;... through craving, clinging;... through feeling, craving; etc. - SN 12.35 Visuddhi Magga quotes: From woe and sorrow springs delusive thinking. No first beginning of existence can be seen. No doer can be found, nor one that reaps the fruits And twelvefold empty is the cycle of rebirth, And steadily the wheel of life rolls on and on. Better it would be to consider the body as the "ego," rather than the mind. And why? Because this body may last for 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, even for 100 years and more. But that which is called "mind," "consciousness," "thinking," arises continuously, during day and night, as one thing, and as something different again it vanishes. Now, here the learned and noble disciple considers thoroughly the Dependent Origination: If this is, then that becomes. Through the arising of this, that comes to arise; through the extinction of this, that becomes extinguished, namely: Through ignorance conditioned arise the karma-formations; through the karma-formations, consciousness (in next life); through consciousness, corporeality and mind;... through the extinction of ignorance, the karma-formations become extinguished; through the extinction of the karma-formations, consciousness... etc. - SN 12.61 Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... and consciousness are impermanent...woeful... egoless, be they of the past or the future, not to mention the present. Understanding thus, the learned and noble disciple does no longer cling to things past, and he enters the path leading to the turning away therefrom, to detachment and extinction. - SN 22.9-11 The five groups of existence are impermanent, woeful, and egoless. And also the causes and conditions of the arising of these groups of existence are impermanent, woeful, and egoless. How could that which has arisen through something impermanent, woeful, and egoless as its root, be itself permanent, joyful, and an ego? - SN 22.18-20 All those ascetics and priests, who again and again in manifold ways belief in an ego (attaa), they all do so with regard to the five groups of existence, or to one of them, namely: There the ignorant worldling... considers one of the five groups as the ego; or the ego as the owner of that group, or that group as included in the ego, or the ego as included in that group. - SN 22.47 Now, someone holds the view: This is my "ego," this is the world. After death I shall remain permanent, steady, eternal, and not be subject to any change. This eternity-view is one karma-formation. (This is the second link in the formula of the Dependent Origination, and signifies here the unwholesome volitional action accompanied by wrong views and ignorance.) But through what is this karma-formation conditioned? It is the craving which has arisen in the ignorant worldling while being impressed by a feeling conditioned through an infatuated sense-impression. It is through this craving (ta.nhaa) arisen hereby, that the karma-formulation has arisen. Hence that karma-formation is impermanent, created, and has conditionally arisen. In one who thus understands, thus sees, the immediate extinction of biases (aasava) takes place. Again, someone holds the view: "May I not be! May there nothing belong to me! I shall not be! Nothing will belong to me!" Also this annihilation-view is a karma-formation... is impermanent, created, and conditionally arisen. In one who thus understands, thus sees, the immediate extinction of biases takes place. - SN 22.81 To the monk Yamaka once the following wrong view had arisen: "Thus do I understand the doctrine shown by the Blessed One that he in whom all Biases have vanished at the dissolution of the body after death, will become annihilated and will no longer exist after death." [Sariputta:] "What do you think, Brother Yamaka, are corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... or consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." "Now, do you consider corporeality etc., as the Perfect One?" "No, venerable sir." "Or do you consider the Perfect One as contained therein?" "No, venerable sir." "Or do you consider all these groups combined as the Perfect One?" "No, venerable sir." "Or do you think that the Perfect One is without corporeality, or without feeling, without perception, without mental formations, without consciousness?" "No, venerable sir." "Now, since you cannot, even during life-time, make out the Perfect One according to truth and reality, how can you rightly maintain that the Perfect One will, at the dissolution at the body, become annihilated and no longer continue after death? "Should someone asked me, what will become of the Holy One, I should answer thus: 'Corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are impermanent; and what is impermanent, that is woeful; and what is woeful, that will become extinguished and annihilated.'" - SN 22.85 ' (Hence, it is only these five groups of phenomena embracing all existence whatever, which are here to be considered, while the designations "Perfect One," "I," "ego," "self," "person," "man," "animal," etc. are merely conventional terms, not referring to any real entities. And the so-called pure ego is merely a metaphysical fiction or hypothesis.) #124097 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:59 am Subject: Anatta part 2 moellerdieter Hi All, following the rest of extracts, next comments ... with Metta Dieter . Five groups of existence forming the objects of attachment have been taught by the Blessed One: corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousnessWith regard to these five groups I do not find any ego (attaa), or something "belonging to an ego" (attaniya), but still I am not yet a Holy One, not yet freed from biases. Also concerning these groups of existence liable to attachment, I am no longer subject to the thoughts of "I am," or "this I am." - SN 22.89 The world, as a rule, is fettered by attachment and clinging to things, and is firmly adhering to them. But the learned and noble disciple does no longer attach himself, cling, and firmly adhere and incline to the thoughts: "I have an ego (attaa)," and he knows: "Merely woe is it that arises, merely woe that vanishes." - SN 22.90 Suppose a man who is not blind beheld the many bubbles on the Ganges as they drive along; and he watched them, and carefully examined them. After carefully examining them, they will appear to him empty, unreal, and unsubstantial. In exactly the same way does the monk behold all corporeal phenomena, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and states of consciousness, whether past, present, or future; one's own or external; gross or subtle; lofty or low; far or near. And he watches them, and examines them carefully; and after examining them, they appear to him empty, unreal and unsubstantial... The body's like a lump of foam, The feeling like a water-bubble, Perception like a void mirage, Formations like a plantain tree, And consciousness like jugglery. - SN 22.95 There is no corporeality, no feeling, no perception, no mental formation, no consciousness that is permanent, enduring, and lasting, and that, not subject to any change, will eternally remain the same. If there existed such an ego that is permanent, enduring, and lasting and not subject to any change, then a holy life leading to complete extinction of suffering will not be possible. - SN 22.96 Once the contemplation of impermanency has been developed and has attained full growth then it will overcome all craving for sensuous existence, all craving for fine-material existence, all craving for immaterial existence; it will overcome and uproot all conceit of "I am." - SN 22.102 (Only on reaching perfect Holiness, all conceit of "I am" will disappear forever.) The learned and noble disciple does not consider corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness as the ego; nor the ego as the owner of one of these groups, nor this group as included within the ego, nor the ego as included within this group. Of such a learned and noble disciple it is said that he is no longer fettered by any group of existence, his own or external: Thus I say. - SN 22.117 ...It is possible that a virtuous man, while contemplating the five groups of existence as impermanent, woeful... empty, egoless, may realize the fruit of stream-entrance... - SN 22.122 The noble disciple who out of faith has gone forth from home to the homeless life, has with regard to the five groups of existence, to fulfil the task of living in contemplation of their impermanency, woefulness, and egolessness. And while penetrating these things, he becomes freed therefrom, freed from rebirth, old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, grief, and despair, becomes freed from suffering: thus I say. - SN 22.147f "What must exist, and what must be the condition, that such views may arise as 'This is my ego, this the world. After death I shall continue, be everlasting, eternal, not subject to any change'?" "The five groups of existence must exist... that such views may arise." "What do you think: Are these five groups permanent or are they impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." "But what is impermanent, is that joyful or woeful?" "Woeful, venerable sir." "But based on that which is impermanent, woeful, and subject to change, may (rightly) arise such views as: 'This is my ego, this the world. After death I shall continue, be everlasting, eternal, not subject to any change'?" "No, venerable sir." - SN 22.151 (In SN 22.47 it was stated, in a more general way, that any kind of ego-illusion is necessarily based upon the five groups of existence. Here, however, the same is said with special reference to the eternity-views.) The visible objects are egoless (anattaa); sounds, odors, tastes, bodily impressions, and mind-objects are egoless. But of that which is egoless, one has, according to reality and true wisdom to know thus: "That am I not, that does not belong to me, that is not my ego"... - SN 35.6 What is the totality of things? Eye and visible objects, ear and sounds, nose and odors, tongue and tastes, body and bodily impressions, mind and mind-objects: these are called the totality of things. - SN 35.23 All things are egoless. All things one has to comprehend fully [first truth], all things one has to overcome [second truth], all things one has to know directly... - SN 35.45-49 It is said that the world is empty. But why does one call the world empty? Because the world is empty of an ego (attaa), and of something belonging to the ego (attaniya), therefore the world is called empty. But which are the things that are empty of an ego? Empty of an ego are eye and visible objects, ear and sounds, nose and odors, tongue and tastes, body and bodily impressions, mind and mind-objects. - SN 35.85 One should not imagine oneself of being identical with the eye, should not imagine oneself of being included within the eye, should not imagine oneself of being outside the eye, should not imagine oneself: "The eye belongs to me." One should not imagine oneself of being identical with the visible objects, should not imagine oneself of being included within the visible objects, should not imagine oneself of being outside the visible objects, should not imagine: "The visible objects belong to me." One should not imagine oneself of being identical with eye-consciousness, should not imagine oneself of being included within eye-consciousness, should not imagine oneself of being outside of eye-consciousness, should not imagine: "The eye-consciousness belongs to me."... One should not imagine oneself of being identical with the totality of things... Thus not imagining any more, the wise disciple clings no longer to anything in the world. Clinging no longer to anything he trembles not. Trembling no longer, he reaches in his own person the extinction of all vanity: "Exhausted is rebirth, lived the holy life; and no further existence have I to expect;" thus he knows. - SN 35.90 Consciousness (mind) is egoless. Also the causes and conditions of the arising of consciousness, they likewise are egoless. Then, how could it be possible that consciousness, having arisen through something which is egoless, could ever be an ego? - SN 35.141 Whoso understands and contemplates the mind as egoless, in him the ego-view disappears. Whoso understands and contemplates as egoless (anattaa) the mind-objects... mind-consciousness... mind-impression... and the agreeable, disagreeable, and indifferent feeling conditioned through mind-impression, in him the ego-view disappears... - SN 35.163 ... Just as this body has in various ways been revealed, disclosed and explained as egoless, in exactly the same way one should explain also mind as egoless... - SN 35.193 ... "Empty village" is the name for the six sense-organs. Thus whenever an experienced, learned, and wise man examines the six sense-organs, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind-organ, then all these things appear to him as delusive, empty and deceitful... - SN 35.197 "I am" is a delusion. "This I am" is a delusion. "Corporeal shall I be" is a delusion. "Uncorporeal shall I be" is a delusion. "Endowed with perception shall I be" is a delusion. "Without perception shall I be" is a delusion. "Neither with nor without perception shall I be" is a delusion. Delusion is a sickness, an ulcer, a thorn. - SN 35.207 ... What is the mind-deliverance of emptiness (su~n~nataa)? There the monk repairs to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut. And he contemplates thus: "Empty is all this of an ego and of anything belonging to an ego"... - SN 46.7 ... If one develops the contemplation of impermanency... of egolessness due to woefulness, then all these contemplations are leading to higher blessing... - SN 46.72 Do not think such evil, unwholesome thoughts as "Life and body are identical"; or "Life is one thing, but another is the body'; or 'Does the Perfect One live after death?"; "or not?";... and why should one not think such thoughts? Because such thoughts are not profitable, do not belong to the genuine holy life, do not lead to the turning away and detachment, not to extinction, appeasement, enlightenment, and Nirvana. - SN 56.8 #124098 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 9:31 am Subject: Re: problems philofillet Hello Lukas Again, I recommend yoga/"meditation." Forget about tge way tge Buddha's teaching on samattga/vipassana have been corrupted by modern practicioners. The reason "meditation" is so pipular these days is that it is an incredibly reluable source of a mental pkeasure and energy that for me at least surpasses the pleasure of alcohol, and I drank for 20 years almost ever day. Goenja is a sham, householders goung on retreats is farcical when considered from he pount of liberation, because it is all abput lobha and clinging to subtle mentar pleasures, devoid of understanding. But it feels great and is amazingly energizing. You need to defeat your alcoholism. Treatment first, from professionals (who understand alcoholusm and drug dependency much more tgan anyone here. And the pleasure of meditation/yoga as a support. As long as you keep listening to A.S and reading posts by people lije Nina and Sarah you can keep it clear in your understanding tgat neditation as taught by modern "masters" is not Dhamma. But it is popular because of great physical and mental benefits. 30 minutes in the norning, some time before bedtime to help the mind settle down, even during your work breathing with visualizing the healing "breath energy" flowing all through your body, you can call it chi, or ku as we say in Japan. Someday you'll find it's better than beers! Good luck, we're all on your side! Phil #124099 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 11:51 am Subject: spd 13 (those of right view) philofillet Dear group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "Even the Buddha, during the time he was still alive, before his parinibbana, could not cause all people to have right view. For those who have accumulated the right conditions, kusala vipaakacitta and kusala citta can arise so that they are able to hear the Dhamma, study it and investigate the truth the Buddha taught. When one has listened to the Dhamma, one should test its meaning, carefully consider it in all details and develop panna so that the characteristics of realities can be known as they really are, in conformity with the truth the Buddha taught." (149) (end of message) phil #124100 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 11:53 am Subject: Re: problems philofillet Hello again Lukas, Sorry for all the typos in my last message, I hope you could make sense of it, I was writing on my i-phone in a crowded train. Another thing I recommend, closer to Dhamma than "meditating", is to record yourself reading favourite passages of Dhamma. I record all those Survey of Paramattha Dhammas passages on my iphone and listen to them. Hearing your own voice reading Dhamma out loud is very encouraging. It probably encourages lobha too, but there is kusala mixed in. Our understanding is accumulating all the time...we should be grateful. Lukas, it's like Robert Kirpatrick said to you several weeks ago, there are accumulations that lead you to understand Dhamma correctly, very, very rare, you know just to have a human birth and be sensitive to the Buddha's teaching is a rare blessing, and to understand it correctly, much much rarer, as we know. Something to be very joyful about! Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hello Lukas > > Again, I recommend yoga/"meditation." Forget about tge way tge Buddha's teaching on samattga/vipassana have been corrupted by modern practicioners. The reason "meditation" is so pipular these days is that it is an incredibly reluable source of a mental pkeasure and energy that for me at least surpasses the pleasure of alcohol, and I drank for 20 years almost ever day. Goenja is a sham, householders goung on retreats is farcical when considered from he pount of liberation, because it is all abput lobha and clinging to subtle mentar pleasures, devoid of understanding. But it feels great and is amazingly energizing. You need to defeat your alcoholism. Treatment first, from professionals (who understand alcoholusm and drug dependency much more tgan anyone here. And the pleasure of meditation/yoga as a support. As long as you keep listening to A.S and reading posts by people lije Nina and Sarah you can keep it clear in your understanding tgat neditation as taught by modern "masters" is not Dhamma. But it is popular because of great physical and mental benefits. 30 minutes in the norning, some time before bedtime to help the mind settle down, even during your work breathing with visualizing the healing "breath energy" flowing all through your body, you can call it chi, or ku as we say in Japan. Someday you'll find it's better than beers! > > Good luck, we're all on your side! > > Phil > #124101 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 12:51 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Without knowing the language, you cannot form thoughts in that language. Furthermore, you don't need to form thoughts in order to know something. You only need thoughts to *communicate* to others (a good argument against solipsism). ' Ok, if you'd like to limit our definition of "thoughts" to verbal thinking, I don't mind. What I'm saying though, or at least how I understand CMA to describe the cognition process, is that even when there are no verbal thoughts, the cognition process still executes with (non-verbal) concepts as objects of many consecutive cittas. In other words, even when there seem to be no verbal thoughts occurring, that still doesn't mean that one is experiencing dhammas (that dhammas are objects of cittas), but that it is most likely that (non-verbal) concepts are objects of cittas. Is that something that makes sense to you? Further, you mention "you don't need to form thoughts in order to know something." I think we need to differentiate at least two forms of "knowing". One is a synonym of panna arising and knowing anatta and other characterisitcs of dhammas (so insight). The other form of knowing relies on concepts (mostly non-verbal ones) as objects and sanna. For example, I think that knowing that 2+2=4 does not require panna. Sanna, vitaka, etc, are enough for that. Likewise to know that something is blue, sweet, etc, would also rely on (non-verbal) concepts as objects, and wouldn't have anything to do with insight I think. I just had a look at CMA, the bit that deals with the process of cognition, the mind-door processes involved and their objects is in chapter IV, paragraph 12, and especially the guide to that paragraph - pages 163-166. Perhaps you could read trough it when you have time and we could discuss if there's something that seems at odds to you. You'll notice that the stage of cognition that we designated as "thoughts" happens only in the end of the cognition process (that stage is called - grasping and recoginising the name), and there's a number of processes before it that do not rely on names (verbal thoughts) but still have concepts as objects (shape, entity, color, etc), none of which are dhammas. > What about meditation methods where you do not focus on specific object? If you mean that as an apparent result of a certain method there happens to be an absence of verbal thoughts in the mind at some point, I still think that it is nowhere near a guarantee that what one is experiencing are dhammas at the time (dhammas as objects of cittas - insight in other words), but more likely (non-verbal) concepts. Best wishes pt #124102 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 1:16 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > I think the question remains whether certain practices and activities that we see as conventional can create conditions for or against the path, or whether they are just illusory concepts which condition nothing and are irrelevant. I thought a bit on how best to reply to this, but I still don't know really. Dhammas vs activities is tough issue, a little bit like the problem of combining quantum and newtonian mechanics - the two don't seem to click perfectly, even though both seem right on their own. I guess it's something that'll need to be discussed over and over until it makes some sense, or at least enough sense to leave it aside. For me, considering in terms of dhammas seems to be more precise, and thus helps better understand what's kusala, what's akusala, etc, and how conditioning works with all that. And it seems somehow more relevant to real-life. Whenever I consider in terms of actions, it seems much harder to work out what's really going on there (does eating ice-cream make me feel good or bad, oh wait, there's no ice-cream, oh wait, there's no me, oh wait, what's this sticky feeling on my finger, oh wait, what's a finger, etc) and requires more thinking than, well, real-life. But then I do like to think so I inevitably end up confusing dhammas and actions, etc :) Best wishes pt #124103 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 2:41 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ...For me, considering in terms of dhammas seems to be more precise, and thus helps better understand what's kusala, what's akusala, etc, and how conditioning works with all that. Makes sense. > And it seems somehow more relevant to real-life. Whenever I consider in terms of actions, it seems much harder to work out what's really going on there (does eating ice-cream make me feel good or bad, oh wait, there's no ice-cream, oh wait, there's no me, oh wait, what's this sticky feeling on my finger, oh wait, what's a finger, etc) and requires more thinking than, well, real-life. Ha ha, good description. < But then I do like to think so I inevitably end up confusing dhammas and actions, etc :) Don't we all... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124104 From: "colette_aube" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 2:49 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts colette_aube [pt] <...> what deck of cards are you playing with? Wow, while I'm right there with ya, but I can't help but think that there's a hole card, hidden, and that card is nothing less than the majority of humanity. Nothing wrong with that. I don't mind being kept on my toes. gotta hit the hay. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > Without knowing the language, you cannot form thoughts in that language. Furthermore, you don't need to form thoughts in order to know something. You only need thoughts to *communicate* to others (a good argument against solipsism). ' > <...> #124105 From: "colette_aube" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 2:44 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts colette_aube Hi Pt, <...>! Who told you that "dharma is citta", the only citta that can and/or could possibly exist is a CONCEPT, and the concept is harvested from the crop of delusions grown in the vast corporate farming project called THE MIND. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > Without knowing the language, you cannot form thoughts in that language. Furthermore, you don't need to form thoughts in order to know something. You only need thoughts to *communicate* to others (a good argument against solipsism). ' > > Ok, if you'd like to limit our definition of "thoughts" to verbal thinking, I don't mind. What I'm saying though, or at least how I understand CMA to describe the cognition process, is that even when there are no verbal thoughts, the cognition process still executes with (non-verbal) concepts as objects of many consecutive cittas. In other words, even when there seem to be no verbal thoughts occurring, that still doesn't mean that one is experiencing dhammas (that dhammas are objects of cittas), but that it is most likely that (non-verbal) concepts are objects of cittas. Is that something that makes sense to you? <...> #124106 From: "colette_aube" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 2:13 pm Subject: An "Out on a limb" observation by yours truly colette_aube Hi Group, Over the past few months I've noticed that the group here, DSG, has a tendency towards discussing, if not questioning, the behaviors of monks as though there exists a USER'S MANUAL which instructs the monk on where to put their right foot after placing pressure on their left foot, etc. I would get into the absurdity <...>but I think my friends from Hong Kong wouldn't understand my mocking tone nor my objectivity. Suffice it to say that I hope you get the gist of my point here about enslaving your consciousness to a USER'S MANUAL. The entire focus of the "prescribed behaviors" of monks is on nothing more than THAT WHICH IS GIVE TO FOLLOW "THE BEATEN PATH". <....> You are THERAVADAN. You are the "BEATEN PATH" of Buddhism. I can go anywhere I desire or want to go but, according to theory, I can always remain CONFIDENT the THERAVADAN is paralleling me on THE BEATEN PATH which also means that I do not need a compass nor do I need a GPS because I know that the beaten path is always a stone's throw away. Nothing like a rolling stone, huh? You can grip it easily since the slippery moss doesn't have the ability to grow on a rolling stone. So, you agree! Yep, I'm pretty far out there on a limb. Yea, I'm out there but I have such confidence in this Buddhist practices that well, I could be in the closest UNIVERSE to ours and still admit that Buddhism is a stone's throw away, no matter how many thousands of light years that galaxy may be from our UNIVERSE.Right now, at this ZEN of a second, though, I'm fucking with this rubic's cube called CONVERGENCE - DIVERGENCE through the CHAKRA system and you're perplexed by "RULES FOR A MONK'S BEHAVIOR" While you may be focused on crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's, the MINUTIA of reality, by reading these things such as this "A.N.", and whatever, I suggest the Shurangama Sutra and the Avatamsaka Sutra. <...> LOVE YA. toodles, colette #124107 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Dhs ptaus1 Hi all, Continuing with Dhs maatikaa, I find triplets 4 and 5 difficult. Here is triplet 4 first: > Pali: 4. (ka) upaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. (kha) anupaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. (ga) anupaadi.n.naanupaadaaniyaa dhammaa.< > Rhys Davids: 4. States that are grasped at and favourable to grasping; that are not grasped at but are favourable to grasping; that are neither.< I would assume that the first verse would stand for all akusala cittas. The second verse would stand for all mundane kusala cittas, which can become objects of grasping/clinging. And the last verse would stand for supramundane cittas. However, the commentary mentions kamma and effects of kamma, so I'm not sure what exactly is it trying to say. Here is the relevant paragraph (pg.55): > In the triplet of 'Grasped and favorable to grasping','grasped' means -seized-as-effect by a kamma, attended by craving and wrong view in the act of sensing or thinking of an object. Upaadaaniyaa means 'favorable to grasping' because of the connection with grasping by having become objects. The term is applied to objects of grasping. 'Effects grasped and favorable to grasping' (upaadinnupaadaaniya) is a name given to material and mental states born of kamma attended by 'intoxicants' (aasava's). In this way, but in the negative sense, the meaning of the remaining two terms should be understood.< So, I'm not sure where did the "effects" suddenly come from? Thanks. Best wishes pt #124108 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:01 pm Subject: Re: spd 11 (without energy for kusala) sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, Did you read this passage Phil posted a couple of days ago? >P: Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin > Boriharnwanaket: > > "Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristic of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. Fatigue, weakness, boredom, a feeling of being downcast, in low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they normally appear, it will not be known that they are not a living being, not a person, not a self. They are only characteristics of citta that arise because of conditions and then falls away again." (201) .... S: As understanding grows, so does the confidence, the saddha, that awareness can arise at any time be aware of the present dhamma that appears - no matter what kind of citta, what kind of mental state appears. No self to feel tired, bored or any other way! Good reminders. I think you'll also appreciate this one he posted a week ago as well: "We should remember that if there were no feeling on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and experienced through the bodysense, there would not be anxiety and akusala dhamma would not arise. Hoevever, since feeling arises, there is clinging to feeling, holding on to it. One wants to obtain for oneself things that can condition pleasant feeling. Thus, akusala dhammas continue to arise, but one does not notice this." S: There is so much clinging to feelings all day as Nina stressed, I think. Metta Sarah ====== #124109 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 4, 2012 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhs nilovg Dear pt, Op 4-mei-2012, om 9:29 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > > Pali: > 4. (ka) upaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. > (kha) anupaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. > (ga) anupaadi.n.naanupaadaaniyaa dhammaa.< > > > Rhys Davids: > 4. States that are grasped at and favourable to grasping; > that are not grasped at but are favourable to grasping; > that are neither.< > ------ N: When we read about ruupa that it is grasped at, upaadi.n.na, it means: it is the physical result of kamma, produced by kamma. That is why the word effect is used in the co. Such as eyesense, heartbase. Ruupas of the body can be produced by kamma, citta, temperature of nutrition. Favorable to grasping, upaadaaniya: favorable to clinging. Dhamma not grasped at, not produced by kamma. For example, colour that is produced by temperature. ------- Nina. #124110 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 4, 2012 8:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - a moellerdieter Hi All, following the essay Anattaa According to the Theravaada 　by Ñanamoli Thera it is long one , so more parts to come with Metta Dieter Anattaa is the last of the three characteristics (ti-lakkha.na) or general characteristics (saama~n~na-lakkha.na). Like the teaching of the four Noble Truths, it is the "teaching peculiar to Buddhas" (buddhaanam saamukka"msikaa desanaa: M. 56/vol. i. 380). The most usual English rendering, which will be employed here, is "not-self" (or "not self"), though the words "soulless," "egoless," and "impersonal" are often used for it. (The rendering "Self" with a capital is not justified owing to the absence of capitals in Indian alphabets.) Derivation and Usage Etymologically anattaa (adj. or n.) consists of the negative prefix an- plus attaa (cf. Vedic Sanskrit aatman). There are two main Pali forms of the word, namely, attaa (instr. attanaa) and atta (instr. attena). Neither form seems to be used in the plural in the Tipi.taka, the singular form being used with a plural verb subject. There is also a rare subsidiary form, namely, atumo (e.g., Sn. 782; Nd 1, 60; A. III, 99/1, 249 (appaatumo) and tumo (e.g., Sn. 890). As principal Tipi.taka (and Commentary) uses of the very commonly employed attaa and atta the following five types of examples may be cited. as "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160), attanaa va kata"m paapa"m (Dh. XII, 5/v. 161), attaanu"m na dade poso (S. I, 78/vol. i, 44), aha"m... parisuddhakaayakammantata"m attani samanupassamaano (M. 4/vol. i, 17), attahitaaya pa.tipanno no parahitaaya (A. IV, 95/vol. ii, 95), n'ev'ajjhagaa piyatara"m attanaa kvaci, evam piyo puthu attaa paresa"m (S. III, 8/vol. i, 75) yam hi appiyo appiyassa kareyya ta"m te attana'va attano karonti (S. III, 4/vol. i, 72-2), pahitatta (M. 4/vol. i, 22), attaanuvaada (A. IV, 121/ vol. ii, 121), attakilamathaanuyoga (S. LVI, 11/vol. v, 421), attadiipa (D. 16/vol. ii, 100), attaanam gaveseyyaatha (Vin. Mv, Kh. 1), etc.; as "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): attapa.tilabha (D. 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (A. III, 125/vol. i, 279; D. 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597); appaatumo and mahattaa (A. III, 99/vol. i, 249), brahmabhutena attanaa viharati (M. 51/vol. i, 349), paccatta"m ajjhatta"m (M. 28/vol. i, 185; for four kinds of ajjhatta see DhsA. 46); self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" (always repudiated as unidentifiable and undiscoverable): atthi me attaa (M. 2/vol. i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (M. 44/vol. i, 300), attaanudi.t.thi (D. 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (M. 11/vol. i, 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (M. 106/ vol. ii, 263), rupam bhikkhave anattaa (S. XXII, 59/vol. iii, 66), etc.; enclitic -atta in the sense of "-ness": socitattam (D. 22/vol. ii, 306); confusion with atta as pp. of odaadati and niratta as pp. of nirassati: attamano (M. 2/vol. i, 12) explained as sakamano (DA, i, 155), attam nirattam (Sn. vv. 787, 858, 919, and 1098 commented on as a pun at Mahaaniddesa pp. 82 = 248 = 352 and by Paramatthajotikaa (Hewavitarne ed.) pp. 422, 476). Attaa The first two senses of attaa distinguished above may be assumed to have been ordinary usage and no subject of disagreement between the Buddha and his opponents (se D. 9, cited below). The last two are of minor import and need not concern us beyond noting them. The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self-views (attaanudi.t.thi). Many suttas classify the conflicting notions of the nature of self held by opponents of the Buddha. It could be, and apparently was, for instance, claimed that it had materiality, or was immaterial; or both, or neither; was percipient of oneness, or of plurality, or of the limited or of the measureless; was eternal, or uneternal, or both, or neither; had only pleasure, or only pain, or both or neither; each of these theories being maintained by its propounder as "the only truth and all else wrong" (M. 102, etc.). Or else it could be described as having materiality either limited or infinite, or as immaterial and either limited or infinite. And then whichever of these four is adopted, it may be seen as such now, or due to be such (upon rebirth), or in this way "Though it is not yet real, still I shall contrive for its reality" (D. 15/vol. ii. 64). All these rationalized views (di.t.thi) stem from uncritical acceptance or overlooking of an underlying tendency (anusaya), or fetter (sa"myo jana) — a natural predisposition — to regard, to identify, some aspect or other, in the situation of perceiving a percept, as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" (e.g. M. 22). These two levels — the self-view and the I-sense — are respectively what are called the "(lower or immediate) fetter of views" (di.t.thi-sa"myo jana) and the "(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit" (maana-sa"myo jana). The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream-entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see D. 33). It may be noted here in parenthesis that the rendering of maana by "pride," though not wrong, severs the semantic relationship with ma~n~nati and ma~n~nanaa, which it is most important to preserve intact for the understanding of this situation. The overlooked fundamental conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) — a mirage that, in the act of perceiving, is conceived will fulfil its counterpart, the intuitive sense of lack, which is craving — in the basic ontological structure of ordinary perception provokes the ordinary man with no knowledge of the Buddha's teaching to indulge in uncritical speculation about what this may be that "I am," and consequently to build up self-theories. He perceives (sa~njaanaati): but the very act of his perceiving is tendentious so that he simultaneously conceives (ma~n~nati) his percepts with an I-tendency. But a stream-enterer, who has attained the first stage of realization, has direct acquaintance (abhijanaati) where the ordinary man has perception, owing to which fact the former has the possibility of hastening his attainment of arahatship; and an arahant has no more conceivings (ma~n~nanaa) at all. So long as a man leaves intact this fundamental tendency to conceive in the very act of perceiving, accompanied by the tendency to formulate views, he will look for answers to the questions that these two tendencies together prompt him to ask, and he will invent them and try to prove them: "This is how he gives unreasoned attention (ayoniso-manasikaara): 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is doubtful in himself about the presently arisen extent thus: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Whence will this creature have come? Whither will it be bound?' "When he gives unreasoned attention in this way one of the six kinds of view arises in him: the view 'A self exists for me' arises as true and established, or the view 'No self exists for me'... or the view 'I perceive self with self'... or the view 'I perceive not-self with self'... or the view 'I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as 'It is this my self that speaks and feels and that experiences here and there the ripening of good and bad actions; but this my self is permanent, ever lasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' This field of views is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. No untaught ordinary man bound by the fetter of views is freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: he is not freed from suffering, I say." #124111 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 1:27 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >PT: I thought a bit on how best to reply to this, but I still don't >know really. Dhammas vs activities is tough issue, >================================= Just because something can be analyzed (in some cases only in theory) into smaller parts, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. ALL it means is that some thing can be taken apart, and in some cases only in theory, never real life. Just that. For example we can say that a person is made of 5 aggregates. If we take apart a person in 5 aggregates, there is no person outside of that. This division is only conceptual, never real. A person is never walking as 5 different piles of aggregates! You can't take apart alive person and split him into 5 piles: body here, feelings there, perception in the 3rd pile, volitions in the 4th pile, consciousness in the 5th pile. For one, this is impossible in the case of mental aggregates. Secondly it will not be alive person any more and this will not apply to the case of a living person which the Buddha NEVER denied. Atta = Hindu notion of Atman. Anatta = not-atman. It has nothing to do with denial of emperical person that is anicca, dukkha, anatta. Another example is with a stick burning. Is fire burning the stick, or is stick burning? Can we take the fire apart into shape, color, heat, combustion, motion, etc? Only in theory. So we need to keep in mind that often analysis is only done in theory. >a little bit like the problem of combining quantum and newtonian >mechanics - the two don't seem to click perfectly, even though both >seem right on their own. >==================================== They have different scales of application within which each works. There is no contradiction as long as one keeps this in mind. With best wishes, Alex #124112 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 2:04 am Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, >Pt:Ok, if you'd like to limit our definition of "thoughts" to verbal >thinking, I don't mind. What I'm saying though, or at least how I >understand CMA to describe the cognition process, is that even when >there are no verbal thoughts, the cognition process still executes >with (non-verbal) concepts as objects of many consecutive cittas. >================================ If by concepts we mean ideas, or thoughts, then concepts cannot be cognized without conceptualizing what is being cognized. If "concepts" do not need to be "thought of as an idea" then anything cognized, even what is called "paramattha" would be equal to concepts in that both are objects of bare awareness without conceptual meaning being plastered on top of bare sense data. With metta, Alex #124113 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 2 - rise and fall of cittas, vibhanga comy moellerdieter Dear Sarah, (Howard and RobE) sorry for being behind.. you wrote: S: There is no 'posture' in reality. Whether one is told not change ones posture or not has nothing to do with the understanding of dhammas as dukkha. We think in terms of 'self', 'body' and 'posture' and it is such ignorance the hides the truth of the arising and falling away of dhammas now. What arises and falls away is inherently dukkha.> > D: no posture in the supermundane reality .. there 'posture' would not make any sense ... S: It's like the "anatta" discussions you're having with Howard and Rob E - whether there is any understanding or not, whether there is mundane or supramundane wisdom, whether one has ever heard of the Buddha's teachings or not, there are only namas and rupas, there is no table, no person, no posture in reality. Likewise, all dhammas are anatta, regardless of any understanding. D: as far as I recall they do not deny the conventional reality. It may be - from an absolute angle you are taking - nothing more than a bubble , but so far it is all what is available to us. But how do you describe your daily life besides namas and rupas, as the 'rest utimately not existing'? ... > but I suppose we are talking about a different aspect of suffering. ("There are three kinds of suffering: (1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhatÄ�), (2) the suffering inherent in the formations (saá¹…khÄ�ra-dukkhatÄ�), (3) the suffering in change (vipariṇÄ�ma-dukkhatÄ�)" (S. XLV, 165; D. 33)." ... S: Yes, the first kind everyone knows about. We don't need a Buddha to tell us about dukkha-dukkha. The third one is more subtle, but it is the second one, sankhara dukkha which is the Truth of Dukkha - the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas, which only a Buddha can teach. Changing or not changing postures will not lead to any insight of dhammas as dukkha in this sense. D: yes.. we still an agreement from time to time I like to add "but it is the second one, sankhara dukkha which is the Truth of Dukkha - the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas", due to formation (this 'creating' factor of sankhara) . Possibly an interesting topic for discussion : sankhara and its role in Dependent Origination. > S: person, interactions, postures and so on are just ideas, not realities, not dhammas.> > D: you mean like wheels , axes, etc are not the chariot.. (?)... S: A chariot is an idea too, also not a reality, not a dhamma. D:reminds me to refresh my memory of pannatti .. > S: Even now, the khandhas are impermanent. Citta now is different from citta a moment ago. The same applies to all the other dhammas. Feeling now is different from feeling a moment ago. One moment pleasant, the next moment unpleasant or neutral, on and on. > > D: its 'content , the dhammas are different , but the function being 'conscious' isn't, is it? ... S: Each citta arises, is 'conscious' of its object and falls away. I don't know what you mean by "its content'. D: for the citta I have something like a shore or the ground a stream is flowing along in mind .. khanda is often translated by aggregate .I miss a more fitting term .... > > D: well , posturers are at one's command , aren't they? > ... > S: It's just an illusion that in reality there are postures and that those postures are subject to the command of a Self. In truth, there are just elements, just dhammas, which arise by conditions and fall away by conditions without any Self being able to exercise any power over them.> > D: think about 'The Self Doer' sutta , Sarah .. postures belong to the mundane reality ... S: We can read a Self into any sutta, but the truth is that there is no Self, no Doer, no One who can command anything. Postures are concepts - we can say they are sammutti sacca, conventional truth, which is what you mean, I think. D: how do you distinguish conventional truth and mundane realtity ... no reading something into a sutta ..The Self Doer sutta emphasised the point of volition . One may consider the dynamic of D.O... a special topic > D: we have no disagreement about the necessity to penetrate,to understand the true nature of present dhammas , but we may not neglect that this understanding is supposed to be a mean leading towards disentchantment, dispassion and detachment .... S: Yes, disentchantment, dispassion and detachment develop with right understanding. At the moment of understanding, there is detachment, there is dispassion. No need to do anything extra, no one to do anything! D: 50 % yes, as nothing to ......besides! the Path training of sila , samadhi and panna ..one supports the other .. developing understanding .. without chanda , without volition no progress.. even before his parinibbana the Buddha emphasised again and again the training. with Metta Dieter #124114 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 5:25 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Robert E., > > It sounds as though you're making the case for PAVLOV via the concept of CONDITIONED RESPONSE. Yes, that is correct, it is just like Pavlov. Every dhamma is conditioned, just like a little puppy dog. The current conditions rings the little bell, and the little dhamma starts to salivate. > It may also sound as though you're making the case for JEET KUN DO from Bruce Lee's Chan philosophy via MUSCLE MEMORY. Well, for that there would have to be muscles. As far as I know, dhammas don't have any muscles. > ahhhh, lets not get too hasty here because your initial thrust into this discussion is directly to the point: > > "> It's not all pre-determined - it's just totally determined,..." > > You're absolutely correct, the individual has the choice to follow the pre-existing routine or Yellow Brick Road (Beaten Path) of RITUAL (see Dogma) or the individual can CHOOSE another path, another response. That's not what I meant. I meant that conditions and tendencies are the only things that cause anything, but that does not mean the outcome is predetermined in advance. It depends on how all the conditions come together at each moment. > "<...and not at all by 'you.'" > > YIKES, darest thou venture into that quagmire? Sure, why not? > Are you going to place yourself into such a vulnerable position as to suggest the standard MONOTHEIST's line of living a life determined by this "creator deity" so as to glorify some corporate robot having delusions of their omnipotence? Are you trying to formulate a foundation upon which to build a house of cards? No deity, just conditions. The 'robot' part is correct though. We are just dhamma robots, being pulled by the marionette strings of conditions. There's no one home, just a tape recording saying "I am a person, I am a person" over and over again. There's not even anyone making that claim, just an old recording. BTW, I'm not saying this right now, and you're not listening. It's like two tape recorders talking to each other. "Hello." "Hello." > "< As I understand it, according to the Buddha vipaka is predetermined, but what is determined in the moment via new cetana and reactions to vipaka is determined by conditions and tendencies." > > I see. Now I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now you are suggesting that Ann Romney is correct to declare that she's always been able to place a VALUE on each person, each individual, so as to better categorize them? No, I would say that Anne Romney can't do anything because she doesn't exist. It's just her deluded consciousness that thinks she is acting, assessing and all that. It's not really taking place in any sense that she thinks it is. Whether her car elevator exists or not is a different question, one which at the moment I have not resolved. > You seem to be advocating that tried and true system of "CROWD CONTROL" that India gave to humanity through the CASTE SYSTEM, or that Marx and Engels tried to elaborate on in their Communist Manifesto, or even that Pol Pot tried to establish through the Kmer Rouge i.e. "Brother #2" or something like that, placing a value on each individual so as to know how the robot is manufactured to operate and how they will operate, behave. I'm not a big fan of Pol Pot. He caused a lot of suffering to a lot of people. Marx and Engels had some decent ideas, but they were not carried out well at all, as the Soviet system and similar systems have very little to do with true socialism, certainly not a democratic form of socialism that might have a balance between social distribution and individual participation. But perhaps this is not the right venue for such a discussion... > Lets just look at the concept that you speak of "conditions and tendencies". I get it, one test, the exact same test, is given to each student regardless of the school environment that they exist in. The inner city student is just as capable of learning the material as a wealthy suburbanite can learn the same lessons and thus can properly answer the same questions so that a STANDARDIZATION of tests and test results can be established and made into law. No, each set of conditions is unique and is not determined or judged by anyone. It's like different ripples in a stream. No one can assess or control them as they are gone instantly. Yet new little streams keep arising, influenced by the ones immediately prior, and so the flow keeps going in various little directions, with no control or possibility of control at all. There is no overseer, no inner seer, no one at all at the switch. It's seriously like impersonal water flowing over various shaped rocks to go here and there or wherever with no purpose or ultimate direction. > Okay, lets not speak of the student's "environment" as a factor in how the student's mind is conditioned, There is no student, only environment. > lets go to "tendencies" (which is, honestly, the same thing as "conditions" but lets look at it anyway Tendencies are a sub-category of conditions, that is true. They are a type of condition. > and I'll use, as the example, the student from the inner city and the student from suburbia. You are suggesting that both students, in the same grade level, approx. the same age, must both have the same "tendencies" which is a leap of faith that I won't take. <...> I never said that, Colette. Each set of conditions are unique and never arise in exactly that form again. It's less like school and more like LSD. So there are no "same tendencies" between one person or another. What I'm saying though is that there are only conditions, no student. It's like one zen master said: "I'm not saying there is no teaching, just that there are no teachers [or students.]" > Maybe I'm just being a bit too picky and maybe I'm having fun with the reality that MINUTIA can be the same as a pin ball in a pin ball machine, or a pool ball shooting billiards. Yes, it's just like a pinball machine or a billiards game. Depending on exactly which way the cue ball goes, that will determine where the billiard ball goes and what pocket it goes towards. And no one can really control that. You may aim for a particular direction, but it will never go exactly the way you aim it. No control. And to go beyond the analogy, the game is played but there are no players. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #124115 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 5:29 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: A rare treat for us to have family at Easter. Next week will be a little busy with family too, so more excuses for delays, ha ha:) > > > > Those are good excuses. Wishing you many kusala moments with your family! :-) Although discernment of whatever arises is even better... ;-) > ... > S: Good reminders! Being with family and friends does provide many opportunities for kusala and 'discernment' in between the lobha and ignorance ;-) :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124116 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 5:39 am Subject: Re: Choice epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, > > Few thoughts. Lets take this metaphor. A person is dealt a certain set of cards (past conditions). How one plays them (present intention), while dependent on what cards he has, is not set in stone. A person can play with the same set of cards in this or that way. What is the chain of mental events that leads to the decision in the present moment to do x or y? > Choice is in the sense of there being at least two different ways in which one can play the same set of cards. > > Of course the skills that one has at playing cards will influence how one plays. If one doesn't have good skills, then one will not play as effectively. But one has the possibility of doing this or that within the parameters that conditions have set. > > Do you agree that past no longer exists, future doesn't yet exist, only the present moment is. I don't agree with the implications. The "past" per se never did exist. There are only successions of "present moments," none of which ever become past. However, if we did not carry the tendencies from former moments as conditions we would be struck dumb, unable to speak a word or remember anything, including how to eat or our names. All that we do and think comes from accumulations of former moments of experience, so in my view it is senseless to speak of the past being over and thus no longer conditioning anything. It ignore the most important influence on who and what we are at any moment. No blank slates around here. Even amoebas respond to what happens to them, and perhaps registers what has caused it pain the last time it extended its protoplasm. > Since past does not exist, its influence on the present (what is), doesn't have to be totally set in stone. It's not set in stone, yet there is no self to do anything with that flexibility. The flexibility of the moment is totally handled by whatever happens to arise in consciousness and the world at a given moment. There is no one there to do anything with it. > Can't a more "real" moment override some no longer existing conditions of the past? It's not more "real," but sure something from the present influences can override other influences. But we don't choose whether that happens or not, it just happens based on which influences are stronger. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124117 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 8:32 am Subject: Re: Choice truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE:What is the chain of mental events that leads to the decision in >the present moment to do x or y? >=================================== Yes you are right. If we think analytically it seems to really question any kind of free choice. Either event is conditioned by prior causes or it is uncaused. The prior condition is either caused by prior condition or itself us uncaused. In either cases I don't see how free will factors in. Ad infinitum. Though I wonder how much does analysis reflects the truth and its skillfulness. There might be factors that we do not know about. At this moment you can choose to do X or Y. It is better if one chooses the right thing rather than say "oh there is no freedom of will, no control, so I will follow the kilesas..." With best wishes, Alex #124118 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 12:40 pm Subject: spd 14 (satipatthaana with detachment) philofillet Dear group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "For the person who develops satipatthaana naturally the aim is to understand realities and thereby to become detached from them. However, if one has no understanding yet, one cannot become detached. Can you, while you try to make citta concentrate on one object, let go of desire? If you try to concentrate, you do not develop panna with the aim of understanding realities and becoming detached. If people try to do something other than developing satipatthaan naturally, they will not know as they are the characteristics of realities that are appearing at this moment. Hearing is real, it appears naturally and so it is with thinking, happy feeling or unhappy feeling; they all appear naturally, they are all dhammas, realities. If sati does not arise and is not aware of realities, there is not the development of satipatthaana. What is the use of combining different methods of practice if there is no understanding of naama and ruupa as they appear already through the six doors?" (end of passage) Phil #124119 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 2:34 pm Subject: Re: Choice epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Though I wonder how much does analysis reflects the truth and its skillfulness. There might be factors that we do not know about. At this moment you can choose to do X or Y. It is better if one chooses the right thing rather than say "oh there is no freedom of will, no control, so I will follow the kilesas..." Well, if you can imagine another factor that is not part of conditionality, you should be able to at least posit what it might be. If you are just leaving the door open, but with no real idea of what would create an "uncaused event" then I would say it is just like saying "Well there may be a unicorn somewhere - after all, I haven't checked everywhere!" Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #124120 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - b moellerdieter Hi All, next part of the essay 'Anatta according to Theravada ' by Nanamoli Thera with Metta Dieter In assuming that "I was" etc. cannot be analyzed, all these philosophical systems attempt to settle with unilateral certainty the dialectic questions "what was I?" and the rest and to dispose of them on an inadequate ontological basis of self-identity without querying how the questions come to be put in the first place or what is the structural nature of being. But any one answer, "I am this" cannot as it happens be decisively established over its contrary opposite, though it can be fortified by arguments, more or less logical or emotional, introducing "my self" and defining relations between it and what it is considered not to be, endowing it then with certain qualities and values and with either eternal or temporary permanence according to bent. The impossibility of establishing absolutely any one of these views as the only truth may lead to abuse and even to violence in the end, since it is often thought important to be right. The pre-rational conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) is a "fetter but not a view" (Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/vol. i, 143). To perceive is to recognize and identify (see Vis. Ch. XIV/p. 462). In perceiving a percept the "untaught ordinary man" automatically conceives in the positional terms of "I," which then must seem involved in an I-relationship to the percept: either as identical with it, or as contained in it or as separate from it, or owning it as "mine." That relationship so conceived is relished (favored and approved) through want of full knowledge of the situation (M. 1; cf. M. 49). The rational self-view (attaanudi.t.thi) is both a "fetter and a view." Though the conceit "I am" is normally associated with the tendency to formulate views, these views need not by any means be definitely formulated; but whenever they are, none can be specifically described without reference to the five categories affected by clinging (upaadanakkhandha: see S. XXII, 47 cited below). For that reason they can all be reduced to one of the types of what is called the "embodiment view" (sakkaya-di.tthi, from sat (or sa"m) plus kaaya = "true (or existent) body") which is set up schematically as follows: "The untaught ordinary man who disregards the ariyas... sees materiality (ruupa) as self, or self as possessed of materiality, or materiality in self, or self in materiality. [And likewise with feeling (vedanaa), perception (sa~n~naa), formations (sankhaaraa), and consciousness (vi~n~naana]" (M. 44/vol. i, 300). These four self-identifications embracing the five categories make twenty types. For each of the four basic modes of identifying, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga gives a simile as follows: "How does he see (say, materiality) as self?... Just as if a man saw a lighted lamp's flame and color as identical thus 'What the flame is, that the color is; what the color is that the flame is'... How does he see self as possessed of (say, materiality)?... Just as if there were a tree possessed of shade such that a man might say 'This is the tree, this is the shade; the tree is one, the shade another; but this tree is possessed of this shade in virtue of this shade'... How does he see (say, materiality) in self?... Just as if there were a scented flower such that a man might say 'This is the flower, this is the scent; the flower is one, the scent another; but the scent is in this flower'... How does he see self in (say, materiality)?... Just as if a gem were placed in a casket such that a man might say 'This is the gem, this is the casket; the gem is one, the casket another; but this gem is in this casket.'" — Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/vol. i, 144-5 Self so viewed is then taken either as eternal thus "This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, ever-lasting..." (M. 22 cited below) or as temporarily permanent but eventually annihilated, for instance; thus "As soon as this self is annihilated... that is peace..." (Iti, II. ii, 12). All possible views of whatever shade are again classified under sixty-two types in the first Sutta of the Diigha-Nikaaya called Brahmajaala Sutta or the "Divine Net." In this "net" all possible views are "caught" and so it can be seen how they come to be. Now all these views — and all these standpoints for views (di.t.thi.t.thana) — are formed (or conditioned; sankhata) because "it is impossible that anyone shall experience (them) apart from contact (phassa)... and with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving (ta.nhaa); with craving as condition, clinging (upaadaana); with clinging as condition, being (bhava); with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition aging and death come to be, and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair; that is how there is an origin to this whole aggregate-mass of suffering" (D. 1/vol. i, 43-5). The structure of the conceit "I am" and the views to which it gives rise, is, in fact nothing else than the structure of being, the structure of what is "impermanent, formed, and dependently originated." "A Tathaagata understands that thus '(These views) are formed and (consequently) gross; but there is cessation of formations: there is that.' By knowing and seeing the escape from them a Tathaagata transcends them (tad upaativatto)" (M. 102/vol. ii, 229-30). The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta-patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial... The first has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the third consists of perception... I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding's perfection... If it is thought that to do that is an unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them." — D. 9/vol. i, 195-202 abbr. It is only after this sketch of views that we can treat of the doctrine of not-self (for views in general see especially D. 1 and 2; M. 102; Di.t.thi-Sa"myutta; Ps. Di.t.thikathaa; and Vbh.) #124121 From: Ken O Date: Sat May 5, 2012 6:28 pm Subject: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self ashkenn2k Dear all I have been fascinated by this statement by Buddha, all Dhammas are not-self. Since dhamma are not self, there is no self in walking, talking, eating and sleeping. There are just dhamma doing these things. Without body movement dhamma, there will not be eating or walking etc Self are misconceivings or fallacy construe by mainly lobha, ditthi and mana. So when I crave for pleasant food, the I is a misconceiving arise through the three dhammas. There is in fact no I in the first instance, there is only dhammas that cause the arise of the thinking there is a self and dhamma (lobha) for craving. Then if there is no I, there arise many mind teasing questions. Then who practise or who choose. There is no one who choose, there is only dhamma that practise (viriya), dhamma that choose (chanda) motivated by the wholesome roots. Then, there is no I, will that mean there is no self that is experiencing kamma?. Definitely there is no self in expereincing kamma, but there is dhamma that is experiencing kamma, there is vedana that experince the painful feelings of a akusala vipaka, vice versa Then again why when we practise metta, we project self first. This is because, dhamma must have metta on itself before it could project metta to all beings. To dhamma, it does not matter what is the object, what matter is the understanding the dhamma that arise be it pleasant or misery Cheers and have a good day KC aka Ken O p.s. just sharing, and I may not answer your email or join in your dicussions :-) #124122 From: Lukas Date: Sat May 5, 2012 7:45 pm Subject: Message from Luraya szmicio Hej everybody! I am so glad that there is a dhamma study group and i am glad i have internet sometimes so i can read and pose questions here. There are some questions arising in me while studying dhamma. Mainly about how one can reach direct understanding instead of trying to have dierct understanding. My mind is very conditioned and i realize that a lot of lobha. moha and dosa arises with every akusala vipaka. Every time something unpleasent in life happens i start thinking of how i can change the situation around me, if i cant just leave it and go somewhere else to have a pleasent life again. I know (or believe?) that it doesn't help at all, since there are all my accumalations and they fallow me where ever i go. But that is just the thinkg of the dhamma. In tough moments i try to be aware of the khandas arising and falling away, see that it is akusala vipaka and bound to arise. But isn't that lobha as well, to try to be aware of these things because it is unpleasent and i know the only way out of it is through the understanding of non self? Thank you! luraya #124123 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 5, 2012 7:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Dear Ken O, thank you for your good snippets. I am so glad to hear from you. Op 5-mei-2012, om 10:28 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > I have been fascinated by this statement by Buddha, all Dhammas are > not-self. Since dhamma are not self, there is no self in walking, > talking, eating and sleeping. There are just dhamma doing these > things. Without body movement dhamma, there will not be eating or > walking etc ------ N: I heard from a Thai recording Kh Sujin saying that we repeat the word anatta, anatta, but she said that just remembering words is not enough. So often just after seeing or hearing, there are cittas with wrong view of self, before we even realize it. "I" am seeing or hearing, we believe. She also said that we should not just know akusala, or realize that there is akusala citta, but practise as much kusala as possible. Nina. #124124 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: I heard from a Thai recording Kh Sujin saying that we repeat the word anatta, anatta, but she said that just remembering words is not enough. So often just after seeing or hearing, there are cittas with wrong view of self, before we even realize it. "I" am seeing or hearing, we believe. She also said that we should not just know akusala, or realize that there is akusala citta, but practise as much kusala as possible. D: no intention to be witty ..but please explain how to practise as much kusala as possible , if there is ' no need to do anything'? with Metta Dieter #124125 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 5, 2012 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and all) - In a message dated 5/5/2012 5:55:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Ken O, thank you for your good snippets. I am so glad to hear from you. Op 5-mei-2012, om 10:28 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > I have been fascinated by this statement by Buddha, all Dhammas are > not-self. Since dhamma are not self, there is no self in walking, > talking, eating and sleeping. There are just dhamma doing these > things. Without body movement dhamma, there will not be eating or > walking etc ------ N: I heard from a Thai recording Kh Sujin saying that we repeat the word anatta, anatta, but she said that just remembering words is not enough. So often just after seeing or hearing, there are cittas with wrong view of self, before we even realize it. "I" am seeing or hearing, we believe. She also said that we should not just know akusala, or realize that there is akusala citta, but practise as much kusala as possible. Nina. ============================== I have a (several-faceted) question for you that I think may be important, not because it expresses an atta-view, which I believe it does not, but because an answer to it may help clarify the meaning of 'anatta': It is true, is it not, that you wrote the post quoted above, not I, but I am writing this reply, not you. This is a correct statement, is it not? It is meaningful to distinguish "you" from "me", is it not? At the same time, there is no self, no "I," no core of identity, in either of "us", is that not so? No "I" in you or me or in anything at all, right? All the foregoing seems true to me and not contradictory. Would you care to comment on it? With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #124126 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 10:31 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > If by concepts we mean ideas, or thoughts, then concepts cannot be cognized without conceptualizing what is being cognized. > > If "concepts" do not need to be "thought of as an idea" then anything cognized, even what is called "paramattha" would be equal to concepts in that both are objects of bare awareness without conceptual meaning being plastered on top of bare sense data. If I follow you correctly, you seem to be saying that cittas have objects and we're conscious of those objects. That's fine. My interest though is in the issue why did the abhidhamma/commentarial tradition (and suttas less explicitly) find it important to distinguish between different kinds of objects (concepts vs dhammas), different processes of cittas (cognition process), and different types of "awareness" (a/kusala sanna, sati, panna of different kinds). My take on it is because such explanations help understand what is insight and what is not, and thus, what is the path and what is not. Best wishes pt #124127 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 10:47 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >PT: I thought a bit on how best to reply to this, but I still don't >know really. Dhammas vs activities is tough issue, > >================================= > > Just because something can be analyzed (in some cases only in theory) into smaller parts, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. ALL it means is that some thing can be taken apart, and in some cases only in theory, never real life. Just that. In my understanding, activities and conventional objects can't be really analyzed into smaller parts - if those smaller parts are supposed to be dhammas, because dhammas and conventional objects (and activities) I think are two different domains. Though both play a part in the cognition process, as discussed elsewhere. Hence that is why it can be said that only dhammas are real while beings and objects are not, but it can also be said that I'm pressing the buttons on my keyboard while typing this message for you. Hence, the path to dhammas is not through analyzing down the conventional world. Or perhaps it can be put like this, sanna is required to work for the conventional domain to become apparent (this is the domain of analysis, conceptualisation, imagination). But, sanna working at the same time when panna is working - that's when dhamma domain becomes apparent. So, no analysis is required for dhamma domain to become evident, only one extra mental factor. Best wishes pt #124128 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat May 5, 2012 10:51 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts ptaus1 Hi Collete, > <...>! Who told you that "dharma is citta", the only citta that can and/or could possibly exist is a CONCEPT, and the concept is harvested from the crop of delusions grown in the vast corporate farming project called THE MIND.< Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying above. Best wishes pt #124129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 5, 2012 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Hi Howard, Op 5-mei-2012, om 13:53 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It is true, is it not, that you wrote the post quoted above, not I, > but I am writing this reply, not you. This is a correct statement, > is it not? > It is meaningful to distinguish "you" from "me", is it not? ------ N:No persons but five khandhas, or, we can say: citta, cetasika and ruupa. The cittas and accumulated tendencies of different individuals are varied. We speak of different individuals but meant is the five khandhas of each and these change all the time, nothing stays the same. We are so used to think of this or that person as an individual that stays, but this is not true. We write posts each in a different style, and this is because of different accumulated inclinations, all conditioned. ------- > H: At the > same time, there is no self, no "I," no core of identity, in either > of "us", > is that not so? No "I" in you or me or in anything at all, right? > All the foregoing seems true to me and not contradictory. Would you > care to comment on it? ----- N: The thought that motivated to write in this way or that has fallen away immediately. Where is the self? Nowhere to be found. ------ Nina. #124130 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 5, 2012 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Message from Luraya nilovg Dear Luraya and Lukas, Op 5-mei-2012, om 11:45 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > There are some questions arising in me > while studying dhamma. Mainly about how one can reach direct > understanding instead of trying to have dierct understanding. > -------- N: Kh Sujin said: only listening, considering the dhamma. These are the conditions for direct understanding. Trying with clinging to understanding is counter productive. Even a little trying. --------- > > L:My mind is very conditioned and i > realize that a lot of lobha. moha and dosa arises with every akusala > vipaka. > ------- N: with every akusala citta, not with vipaakacitta. Vipaaka is just the result of kamma, experienced when seeing, hearing, etc. ------- > Every time something unpleasent in life happens i start > thinking of how i can change the situation around me, if i cant just > leave it and go somewhere else to have a pleasent life again. I know > (or believe?) that it doesn't help at all, since there are all my > accumalations and they fallow me where ever i go. > ------- N: Experiencing an unpleasant object: seeing or hearing an unpleasant colour or sound is vipaaka, but the moment is so short, we hardly know it. The thinking afterwards is usually with akusala citta, but as you say, accumulations follow everywhere. They condition akusala citta. We begin to see the danger of akusala. As I just mentioned in another post to Ken O, Kh Sujin exhorted us to develop all kinds of kusala. No need to sit down passively. -------- > L: But that is just > the thinkg of the dhamma. In tough moments i try to be aware of the > khandas arising and falling away, see that it is akusala vipaka and > bound to arise. > -------- N: First the difference between naama and ruupa has to be realized by the first stage of insight, and only afterwards the impermanence of nama and rupa can be directly known. Again, here we should not confuse akusala vipaaka (just result, passive) and akusala citta which is active. ------- > L: But isn't that lobha as well, to try to be aware of > these things because it is unpleasent and i know the only way out of > it is through the understanding of non self? > ------- N: There are so many different moments of citta, some with clinging, some with understanding the value of the Dhamma. It is quite a tangle. It is good to develop understanding of whatever happens as conditioned by many factors and as beyond control, which is another term of anatta. There are other moments that there is clinging, impatience to know the truth soon and this does not help. The cure: consider the dhamma appearing at this moment: seeing, visible object, thinking. Do not think so much of what should be known in the future, just know more about this very moment, that is enough. Understanding will develop because of its own conditions, not because of us trying or make it hasten. Nina. > > Thank you! > luraya > > > > #124131 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 5, 2012 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 5-mei-2012, om 12:06 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: no intention to be witty ..but please explain how to practise as > much kusala as possible , if there is ' no need to do anything'? ------ N: When akusala has arisen already there were conditions for its arising: the latent tendencies accumulated in each citta, going on from moment to moment, condition the arising of akusala citta when the time is right. In that sense: it is beyond control. This does not mean that understanding and all other good qualities cannot be developed, they should! This again cannot be done on command, but someone's words, like Kh Sujin's words, are a valuable exhortation and can be a condition to develop more kusala. Think of all the perfections that are really indispensable to reach the goal. The idea is not: O, I know that there is akusala citta at this moment, and to use it as an excuse to leave it at that. Nina. #124132 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2012 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/5/2012 9:27:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 5-mei-2012, om 13:53 heeft _upasaka@..._ (mailto:upasaka@...) het volgende geschreven: > It is true, is it not, that you wrote the post quoted above, not I, > but I am writing this reply, not you. This is a correct statement, > is it not? > It is meaningful to distinguish "you" from "me", is it not? ------ N:No persons but five khandhas, or, we can say: citta, cetasika and ruupa. ------------------------------------------ HCW: However, the stream of namas and rupas called "Nina" and that called "Howard", though interacting, are also distinguishable. "You" inherit "your" kamma, and I inherit "mine". There is no mixture. ------------------------------------------ The cittas and accumulated tendencies of different individuals are varied. We speak of different individuals but meant is the five khandhas of each and these change all the time, nothing stays the same. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Distinguishable streams of namas and rupas, but not individuals, it seem to me. (And I think it seems so to you as well, though our descriptions may differ somewhat.) ----------------------------------------------- We are so used to think of this or that person as an individual that stays, but this is not true. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: That is correct I believe. Not individuals, but (flowing) heaps (or complexes) of many phenomena, heaps mistaken for individuals. ---------------------------------------------- We write posts each in a different style, and this is because of different accumulated inclinations, all conditioned. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. Different inclinations in different streams, different kamma, and different dhammas. ---------------------------------------------- ------- > H: At the > same time, there is no self, no "I," no core of identity, in either > of "us", > is that not so? No "I" in you or me or in anything at all, right? > All the foregoing seems true to me and not contradictory. Would you > care to comment on it? ----- N: The thought that motivated to write in this way or that has fallen away immediately. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes indeed. Gone immediately, never graspable. ---------------------------------------------- Where is the self? Nowhere to be found. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, no self at all. Though "you" and "I" are distinguishable, neither has a core of identity that is "self". The truth of anattata is a fundamental truth but a subtle one - and deep. ---------------------------------------------- ------ Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard /What is a sentient being truly? A dynamic psycho-physical complex distinguishable but not separate from the rest of the flow, a vortex or whirlpool in the river of reality. With awakening to nibbana, the non-separateness is directly and unmistakably known, and with the advent of parinibbana, the sentient-being-/What is a sentient being truly? A dynamic psycho-physical complex distinguishable but not separate from the rest o substance has changed./ (Anonymous) #124133 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 12:23 am Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, >My interest though is in the issue why did the abhidhamma/commentarial >tradition (and suttas less explicitly) find it important to >distinguish between different kinds of objects (concepts vs dhammas), >========================== Where in the suttas do we find explicit teaching of concepts vs reality? Even in Canonical Abhidhamma it is not explicit. As I remember seeing pali, the first explicit description of what is ultimate and what is conventional is found after Tipitaka, in commentaries. With best wishes, Alex #124134 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self moellerdieter Dear Nina , all, I think it is not impossible that we find some common ground with the topic of anatta and if it is only to see the conventional reality of the acting person in daily life and the 'fact ' of absolute reality conditioned by dhammas in a dynamic process of dependent orgination. you wrote: (D: no intention to be witty ..but please explain how to practise as > much kusala as possible , if there is ' no need to do anything'?) N: When akusala has arisen already there were conditions for its arising: the latent tendencies accumulated in each citta, going on from moment to moment, condition the arising of akusala citta when the time is right. In that sense: it is beyond control. This does not mean that understanding and all other good qualities cannot be developed, they should! This again cannot be done on command, but someone's words, like Kh Sujin's words, are a valuable exhortation and can be a condition to develop more kusala. Think of all the perfections that are really indispensable to reach the goal. The idea is not: O, I know that there is akusala citta at this moment, and to use it as an excuse to leave it at that. D: let me try to go a bit deeper: I think the latent tendencies are accumulated by previous/past kamma i.e. sankhara (2nd in line of D.O.) , which is 'life to date 'including all previous lives ( samsara without interruption of the cycle) . We can not change what is , i.e. the citta being conscious about /getting to know what the ignorant volition/kamma force made known , in consequence because of that ..this is ... sankhara conditions vinanna (in the words of SN 35,145 "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. A.N. 3.33 trsl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, excerpt) A person unknowing: the actions performed by him, born of greed, born of aversion, & born of delusion, whether many or few, are experienced right here: no other ground is found. [1] According to the Commentary, "right here" means within the stream of one's own "selfhood" (attabhava), i.e., one's own chain of rebirth. "No other ground is found" means that the fruit of the action is not experienced by any other person's chain of rebirth. D: what is now 'one does'? My proposition is that happens by reflection , presenting a kind of shadow or mirage , taken as Self ("selfhood" -attabhava ") , i.e. the delusion /ignorance factor. This is I.M.H.O. supported by "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.' "If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for consciousness?' one should answer, 'There is.' "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.' (Maha Nidana Sutta , D.N. 15) So far my understanding in respect to insubstantiality , emptiness (sabbe dhamma anatta ) . I think 'sankhara '- volition,formation,kamma force ,will - may be interesting topic to come .. with Metta Dieter, #124135 From: Ken O Date: Sun May 6, 2012 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self ashkenn2k Dear Nina When I met instance of difficulties in understanding of dhamma, this is the phrases which I will use as a yard stick Dhammas are not-self is a catchy phrase as it describes the nature of dhammas, and the importance to understand it when dhamma arise. cheers KC #124136 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > It is meaningful to distinguish "you" from "me", is it not? > ------ > N:No persons but five khandhas, or, we can say: citta, cetasika and > ruupa. > ------------------------------------------ > HCW: > However, the stream of namas and rupas called "Nina" and that called > "Howard", though interacting, are also distinguishable. "You" inherit "your" > kamma, and I inherit "mine". There is no mixture. > ------------------------------------------ > > > The cittas and accumulated tendencies of different individuals > are varied. We speak of different individuals but meant is the five > khandhas of each and these change all the time, nothing stays the > same. > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Distinguishable streams of namas and rupas, but not individuals, it > seem to me. I agree with this as well, but it leads to the question of what an individual consists of and how and to what extent is such an individual physically located and localized by the physical orientation of the senses of the human organism. It seems that to have individuals but no self, we are talking about experience that is located with reference to the body, and is distinguishable one psychophysical organism from the other. I don't think the discussion on dsg normally allows for the objective existence of the body, but in point of fact the obvious reason why we have different experiences both have to do with the makeup of our mental operations and the experiences we have via the physical proximities of our sense organs. We can say that there is physical and mental experience through the "6 senses" without positing a self that generates or receives those experiences. Whenever we find ourselves having experience that is broken down into nama and rupa, we are in a conscious physical form, which is formed as the result of kamma, and I think we maintain this sense of physical existence until the tendencies that have created it are burned out. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124137 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 9:30 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi RobE --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Regarding your assertion that conventional 'physical realities' *break down into a series of rupas*. > > > > As I've mentioned before, I don't think the Buddha ever said this. He simply pointed out what dhammas (including rupas) are, and their significance. > > > > I think the point is an important one (for obvious reasons), and is relevant to one of the threads you and I have going at the moment. So I thought this was a good chance to look into the matter in detail :-)) > > > > I'd be interested to know whether you have any particular text(s) in mind, or where the idea comes from. > > RE: To me, it's just another way of referencing what has been said many times, that what we take for objects are really dhammas, and that, as the Abhidhammatha Sangaha says, that concepts are shadows of dhammas, a distorted view of the realities that actually exist. > =============== J: OK, a couple of points here. First, I don't think that concepts can be characterised as a distorted view of reality. Does the Abhidhammatha Sangaha actually say that? The enlightened being still thinks in terms of people and things (but knowing clearly that only dhammas are real in the absolute sense). Secondly, as regards 'what has been said many times' on DSG, consider these 2 statements: a/. While we take conventional objects as being real, in truth only dhammas have reality in the ultimate sense b/. Conventional objects break down into dhammas. Clearly, the former, which is what has been said here, does not imply the latter, which carries the implication that if a conventional object is put under the microscope of panna then the dhammas of which it is 'comprised' will become apparent. That idea is not, to my understanding, part of the teachings. > =============== > RE: I think the case exists for the idea that concepts and dhammas are referencing the same realities, but that concepts try to turn them into static wholes, instead of understanding the constant flow of changing dhammas that arise from moment to moment. > =============== J: Well, yes, no doubt a case can be made! But what is the basis for it? As I recall, you are a 'plain meaning of the sutta text' advocate :-)) > =============== > RE: Anyway, don't have a text for this, but I also can't find a text in which the Buddha said that there are only dhammas, and that right livelihood and right action and other forms of conventional behavior have no relation to the path. As far as I know, he talked about both conventional realities and dhammas, and spoke about what to do in life as well as how to discern realities. > =============== J: The idea that 'in truth only dhammas have reality in the ultimate sense' does not call for any rejection of the conventional world in which we live. (Stopping here as time to board flight. Will continue when back in HK) Jon #124138 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 11:33 am Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self kenhowardau Hi Rob E (and Howard), I think I am talking to the old Rob E now. :-) ---- <. . .> >> HCW: Distinguishable streams of namas and rupas, but not individuals, it seem to me. >> > RE: I agree with this as well, but it leads to the question of what an individual consists of and how and to what extent is such an individual physically located and localized by the physical orientation of the senses of the human organism. ---- KH: The Dhamma is not concerned with what the individual might consist of. It is not concerned with individuals, full stop! Admittedly there are conventional-language suttas that use the words "individual" and "person" etc, but they use those words purely to designate dhammas. ----------- > RE: It seems that to have individuals but no self, we are talking about experience that is located with reference to the body, and is distinguishable one psychophysical organism from the other. I don't think the discussion on dsg normally allows for the objective existence of the body, but in point of fact the obvious reason why we have different experiences both have to do with the makeup of our mental operations and the experiences we have via the physical proximities of our sense organs. <. . .> ------------ KH: A very intellectual discussion, I'm sure! :-) But it has nothing to do with the Dhamma. Furthermore, to say that it *has* something to do with the Dhamma is to express wrong view. To say the individual (as opposed to the five khandhas) inherits its own kamma, or doesn't inherit it, or does both, or neither, is to express wrong understanding of conventional-language suttas. Ken H #124139 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 1:44 pm Subject: Re: On Awareness and concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >My interest though is in the issue why did the abhidhamma/commentarial >tradition (and suttas less explicitly) find it important to >distinguish between different kinds of objects (concepts vs dhammas), > >========================== > > Where in the suttas do we find explicit teaching of concepts vs reality? > > Even in Canonical Abhidhamma it is not explicit. As I remember seeing pali, the first explicit description of what is ultimate and what is conventional is found after Tipitaka, in commentaries.< I hope you'll agree that is now a different topic. So is there anything anything about the objects that you particularly disagree with? Regarding the issue of the texts and ultimate versus conventional, as mentioned, it's less explicit in the suttas, but seems clear enough considering for example that anatta is usually mentioned in direct reference to dhammas (feeling, perception, etc) rather than people and activities. But I understand that this would be a matter of interpretation so probably hard to agree on. Best wishes pt #124140 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 2:11 pm Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self epsteinrob Hi, 'the dhammas normally designated as Ken H!' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (and Howard), > > I think I am talking to the old Rob E now. :-) Well that is very possible, since I switch back and forth with great rapidity. > > RE: It seems that to have individuals but no self, we are talking about experience > that is located with reference to the body, and is distinguishable one > psychophysical organism from the other. I don't think the discussion on dsg > normally allows for the objective existence of the body, but in point of fact > the obvious reason why we have different experiences both have to do with the > makeup of our mental operations and the experiences we have via the physical > proximities of our sense organs. <. . .> > ------------ > > KH: A very intellectual discussion, I'm sure! :-) But it has nothing to do with the Dhamma. I know it can be disorienting to have common sense injected into a dhamma discussion from time to time, but sometimes it can't be helped. > Furthermore, to say that it *has* something to do with the Dhamma is to express wrong view. To say the individual (as opposed to the five khandhas) inherits its own kamma, or doesn't inherit it, or does both, or neither, is to express wrong understanding of conventional-language suttas. Well, it remains the case that one "individual stream" of namas and rupas is distinguished from another, whatever we call it. I agree that each individual "stream" is made up of a succession of swiftly arising and falling-away moments, and that there is not an "individual" per se. But there is still a distinction between the experience of one person and another, and there should be a sensible way to discuss and account for that obvious truth, which in itself is acknowledged by both the Buddha and all Buddhist scriptures. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124141 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - c moellerdieter Hi All, continuing.. with Metta Dieter Definitions of Anattaa The first discourse given by the Buddha after his Enlightenment set out the Four Noble Truths. The second stated the characteristic of Not-self as follows: "Bhikkhus, materiality is not self. Were materiality self, then this materiality would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of materiality 'Let my materiality be thus, let my materiality be not thus.' And it is because materiality is not self that materiality leads to affliction and one cannot have it of materiality 'Let my materiality be thus, let my materiality be not thus' (And similarly with feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness)." The Buddha then continued: "How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, is materiality permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent pleasure or pain?" — "Pain, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent, painful and subject to change fit to be seen thus 'This is mine, this is what I am, this is my self'?" — "No, Lord." (And similarly with the other four categories.) "Consequently, bhikkhus, any kind of materiality (feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, is all (to be seen thus) 'This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self.' That is how it should be seen with right understanding as it actually is." — S. XXII, 58/vol. iii, 66 The characteristic is stated more succinctly in this way: "The eye (ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and six external bases) is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is not self" (S. XXXV, 1/vol. iv, 1); or "All is not-self. And what is the all that is not self? The eye is not self..." (S. XXXV, 45/vol. iv, 28); or again "All things (dhamma) are not-self" (e.g. Dh. XX, 7/v. 279). The canonical commentary, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, adds "Materiality (etc.) is not-self in the sense that it has no core (saara)" (Ps. ~Naanakathaa/vol. i, 37). Aacariya Buddhagohosa's definitions are as follows: "The characteristics of impermanence and suffering are known whether Buddhas arise or not; but that of not-self is not known unless there is a Buddha;... for the knowledge of it is the province of none but a Buddha" (Aayatana Vibhanga A./VbhA. 49-50). "The Blessed One in some instances shows not-self-ness through impermanence (as in M. 148 cited below), in some through suffering (as in S. XXII, 59 cited above), and in some through both (as in S. XXII, 76 or XXXV, 1 cited above). Why is that? While impermanence and suffering are both evident, not-self is unevident" (MA. ad M. 22/vol. ii, 113); for "the characteristic of not-self seems unevident, obscure, arcane, impenetrable, hard to illustrate and hard to describe" (VbhA, 49). He distinguishes "the not-self and the characteristic of not-self... Those same five categories (which are impermanent and suffering) are not-self because of the words 'What is suffering is not self.' Why? Because there is no exercising mastery over them. The mode of insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery (avasavattana) is the characteristic of not-self" (Vis. Ch. XXI/p. 640). Again "(The eye) is not-self in the sense of insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery over it. Or alternatively, because there is no exercising of mastery over it in the following three instances, namely, 'Let it when arisen not reach presence' or 'Let it when already reached presence not age' or 'Let it when already reached aging not dissolve'; it is void of that mode of exercise of mastery, therefore it is not-self for four reasons: because it is void, because it has no owner, because it cannot be done with as one wants, and because it denies self" (VbhA. 48; cf. MA. ii, 113). The Vibhaavini-Tiikaa (commentary to the Abhidhammattha-sangaha) says "Not-self is the absence (abhaava) of self as conjectured by other teachers; that not-self as a characteristic is the characteristic of not-self." Treatment of Anattaa in Suttas and Commentaries What is conditioned by not-self cannot be called self: "Materiality (etc.) is not self. The cause and condition for the arising of materiality (etc.) are not self; so how could materiality (etc.), which is brought to being by what is not self, be self?" — S. XXII, 20/vol. iii, 24; cf. XXXV, iv, 141/vol. iv, 130 Nor can what is possessed of rise and fall: "If anyone says that the eye (for instance) is self, that is not tenable. The eye's rise and fall (dependent on those of its conditions) is evident, from which it follows that self would rise and fall. That is why, should anyone say that the eye is self, that is not tenable." — M. 148/vol. iii, 282-3 Craving, however, provides an emotional attachment to the survival of the personality: "Here someone's view is this: 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity.' He hears a Tathaagata or a Tathaagata's disciple teaching the True Idea for the elimination of all standpoints for views, all decisions (about 'my self'), insistencies and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishment of all essentials (of existence; upadhi), for the exhaustion of craving, for fading out, cessation, extinction (nibbaana). He thinks thus 'So I shall be annihilated! So I shall be lost! So I shall be no more!.' Then he sorrows and laments, beating his breast, he weeps and becomes distraught. That is how there is anguish (paritassanaa) about what is non-existent in oneself (ajjhatta"m asati)..." — M. 22/vol. i, 136-7 Some shrink back in that way from the truth; but some go too far the other way: "Some who are humiliated, ashamed and disgusted with being (bhava), relish (the idea of) non-being (vibhava) thus: 'As soon as this self is annihilated on the dissolution of the body, after death, that is peace, that is the supreme goal, that is reality (yathaava).'" — Iti, II, ii, 12/p. 44 But "One who has eyes sees how what is (bhuuta) has come to be, and by so doing he practices the way to dispassion (disgust) for it" (ibid.). "Bhikkhus, the possession that one might possess that were permanent, everlasting... do you see any such possession?" — "No, Lord." — "...The self-theory clinging whereby one might cling that would never arouse sorrow and... despair in him who might cling thereby: do you see any such self-theory clinging?" — "No, Lord." — "...The view as support that one might take as support that would never arouse sorrow and... despair in him who might take it as support: do you see any such view as support?" — "No, Lord." — "...Bhikkhus, there being self, there would be self's property?" — "Yes, Lord." — "...Or there being self's property, there would be self?" — "Yes, Lord." — "Bhikkhus, self and self's property being unapprehendable as true and established (saccato thetato: cf. use at M. 2), then would not this view 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent... endure as long as eternity' be the pure perfection of a fool's idea?" — "How not, Lord? It would be the pure perfection of a fool's idea." — M. 22/vol. i, 137-8 The Wanderer Vacchagotta, during one of his numerous visits to the Buddha, asked: "How is it, Master Gotama: does self exist (atth'attaa)?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "How then, does self not exist (natth'attaa)?" A second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and went away. Soon after he had gone the venerable Aananda asked, "Lord, why did the Blessed One not answer the wanderer Vacchagotta's question?" "Aananda, if, when asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists' that would have been the belief (laddhi) of those who hold the theory of eternalness; and if, when asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of annihilation. Again if, when asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists,' would that have been in conformity with my knowledge that 'All things are not-self'?" "No, Lord." "And if, on being asked 'Does self not exist?', I had answered 'Self does not exist,' then Vacchagotta, who is already confused, would have become still more confused, (wondering) 'My self certainly existed, but it does not exist now.'" — S. XLV, 10/vol. iv, 400-1 Self is conceivable only on the basis of clinging to (assuming) the five categories. But so conceived, it must always founder owing to the radical impermanence of their existence. And no other basis for it is possible since no other can be found which does not fall within them (see S. XXII, 47/vol. iii, 46 quoted below and S. XXI, 151/vol. iii, 182). Why this characteristic is hard to see is explained in the commentaries as follows: The characteristic of not-self does not become apparent because, when resolution into the various elements is not given attention, it is concealed by compactness. However,... when the resolution of the compact (ghana-vinibbhoga) is effected by resolving it into its elements, the characteristic of not-self becomes apparent in its true nature. — Vis. Ch. XXI/p. 640 The Paramatthama~njuusaa further explains as follows, "Resolution of the compact" is effected by resolving (what appears compact) in this way "The earth element is one, the water element is another" and so on, distinguishing each one; and in this way "Contact is one, feeling is another" and so on, distinguishing each one, "When the resolution of the compact is effected" means that what is compact as a mass (samuuha) or as a function (kicca) or as a supporting object (aaramma.na) has been analysed. For when material and non-material dhammas have arisen mutually steadying each other (i.e., "name and form"), then, owing to misinterpreting (abhinivesa) that as a unity, compactness of mass is assumed through failure to subject formations (sankhaaraa) to pressure. And likewise compactness of function is assumed when, although definite differences exist in such and such dhammas, functions, they are taken as one. And likewise compactness of supporting-object is assumed when, although differences exist in the ways in which dhammas that take supporting-objects make them so, those supporting-objects are taken as one. But when they are seen after resolving them by means of knowledge into these elements, they disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere dhammas occurring dependent on conditions and void. That is how the characteristic of not-self becomes more evident. — VisA. 824 The Visuddhimagga repeatedly emphasizes that no "doer" (kaaraka) is discoverable, but only "doing" (kiriyaa); Ch. XVI/p. 513; XIX/p. 602), that there is no "experiencer" (upabhu~njaka) of the fruit of action (Ch. XVII p. 555), and that there is no "one who feels" (vedaka: Ch. XVII/p. 576). The simile of the blind man able to walk who mounts on his shoulder the cripple who can see so that together they can travel as they like is used to illustrate the radical contingency of dhammas (Ch. XVIII/p. 596), and contingency also forms the subject of a verse quoted from the Mahaa-Niddesa (Vis, Ch. XX/p. 624-5). Su~n~nataa "'Void world, void world' is said, Lord. In what way is 'void world' said?" — "It is because of what is void of self or self's property that 'void world' is said, Aananda. And what is void of self or self's property? The eye... forms... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... any feeling, whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, that arises born of eye-contact, is void of self or self's property (and likewise with the other five bases)." — S. XXXV, 85 vol. iv, 54 Voidness as "voidness in formations" (sankhaara-su~n~nataa) — for instance, the more general as void of the more particular — is exemplified in one Sutta (M. 121), and "voidness of self" (atta-su~n~nataa) in another (M. 122; see also M. 43 and 44). Voidness is variously classified in the Pa.tisambhidaamagga Su~n~nakathaa. The "void mind-deliverance" (su~n~nata-cetovimutti) is that connected with atta-su~n~nataa (M. 43). #124142 From: Lukas Date: Sun May 6, 2012 9:08 pm Subject: Daily life, from Bhante Dhammadharo szmicio Dear friends, I suffer a mental pains from my moods, and accumulated tendencies, I mean all this long stories with anger, quarelling when I dont have what I want, and also many things that are actually in me. We are so different with my friend L., that there is always some problem in between us. Though I still listening and reading Dhamma. I felt a bit like I am loosing my control and saftyness and all shelter in Dhamma, especially being sensitive on every L.'s word that makes me angry. And than I have this feeling I cannot practice Dhamma. Also She's practicing Dhamma, and I feel like sometimes doing something else than studying Dhamma. Thise is my pain the last days. Today I found a Dhamma passage from "be here now" by Bhikkhu Dhammadharo: Best wishes Lukas #124143 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 10:23 pm Subject: spd 15 (like and dislike) philofillet Dear Group, Here is today's passagr from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "When we hear a sound, which may be pleasant or unpleasant, it is only one moment of vipaaka citta that hears the sound and then falls away completely. However, there are conditions for a great number of akusals cittas that like or dislike the ruupas that are appearing through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue or the bodysense. Like and dislike are never lacking in daily life, they arise time and again on account of what appears through the six doors." (end of passage) Phil #124144 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun May 6, 2012 11:04 pm Subject: The Most Beautiful Etadagga yawares1 Dear Members, When I read this wonderful story, I wish to play this beautiful song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0TsYdlIuYs and offer lots of beautiful fragrance flowers to show my admiration to Theri Khema (just like when Pancasikha-deva played songs to please the Buddha). I love this story very very much. ********************** Theri Khema: The Most Beautiful Etadagga [ Selected, arranged & written by Gaby Hollmann, June 2006 ] The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in London published an article in 1893 entitled, Women Leaders of the Buddhist Reformation that offered a translation of Manoratha Purani, Buddhaghosa's Commentary on the Anguttara Nikaya by Mabel Bode.Maha Buddhaghosas's Commentary on the fourth chapter of the Anguttara Nikaya tells us that: A very long time ago Khema was born in the city Hamsavati that was ruled by the Buddha Padumuttara and – independent of all Great Arhats who had done likewise - made her first resolve to attain perfect realization then. Upon seeing one of "the two chief disciples of that Blessed One going his round for alms, she gave him three sweet meats. And that very day, she had her own hair cut off, and (bartered it for) gifts which she gave to the Elder, uttering the prayer: `Hereafter, at some time when a Buddha appears in the world, may I become full of wisdom like you.' "Thenceforth, spending her life zealous in good works and wandering from world to world among gods and men for a hundred thousand aeons, she re-entered existence at the time of Buddha Kassapa in the palace of Kiki, King of Kasi, as one among seven sisters; and for twenty thousand years she lived there a life of chastity and, with her sisters, had a dwelling place built for the Blessed One." -------- Hellmut Hecker, a remarkable scholar on life-stories of Great Arhats, wrote, "Another time – so it is told – she was daughter-in-law of the Bodhisatta (Jataka 397), many times a great Empress who dreamt about receiving teaching from the Bodhisatta and then actually was taught by him (Jataka 501, 502, 534). It is further recounted that as a Queen she was always the wife of who was later Sariputta, who said about her: `Of equal status is the wife, obedient, speaking only loving words with children, beauty, fame, garlanded, she always listens to my words.' (Jataka 502, 534.) "This husband in former lives was a righteous king, who upheld the ten royal virtues: Generosity, morality, renunciation, truthfulness, gentleness, patience, amity, harmlessness, humility, justice. Because of these virtues the king lived in happiness and bliss. Khema, too, lived in accordance with these precepts. Only because Khema had already purified her heart and perfected it in these virtues in many past lives, she was now mature enough and had such pure and tranquil emotions that she could accept the ultimate Truth in the twinkling of an eye." -------- Maha Buddhaghosa continued: "Then, having passed the interval between that time and the birth of the next Buddha, wandering from life to life in the worlds of gods and men, she was reborn in the time of this Our Buddha in the royal family in the city of Sagala in the Maddha Country (Magadha). "Now when she came of age, she entered the household of King Bimbisara. The king thought to himself, `I am a chief supporter of the Master. Yet she, the consort of so leading a disciple, does not go to see him who has the ten Powers of Wisdom. I don't like it.'" So the king had an idea, a tale recounted in The Dhammapada: King Bimbisara asked Khema to go to the monastery at Jetavana to pay homage to Lord Buddha, but she had heard that the Buddha always spoke disparagingly about beauty and therefore avoided him. Knowing this, the king asked his musicians to sing praises of the monastery. They did and their songs roused Khema's curiosity. Aware of her thoughts when she arrived, Lord Buddha created a celestial nymph who fanned him while he was teaching the Dharma. Only Khema perceived the heavenly maiden and saw her fade and wither away; in the end only a corpse was left to be seen. Khema instantly realized the truth of impermanence. Lord Buddha then told her, `O Khema. Look carefully at this decayed body which is now only a skeleton of bones and had always been subject to disease and decay. Look carefully at the body which the foolish cherish so much. Look at the worthlessness of this young woman's beauty.' Having listened attentively, Queen Khema attained sotapatti fruition. Then the Buddha spoke the verse: "Beings who are infatuated with lust fall back into the stream of the craving they create, and they resemble a spider trapped in the web it has spun. The wise, having vanquished craving, go the way with determination and leave all ill behind." Having listened attentively, Queen Khema became an Arhat. Maha Buddhaghosa wrote: "Now, he who attains to Arhatship while he is yet a layman must pass away in death that very day or enter the religious life. She therefore, understanding that the end of her days was near, thought to herself, `I will ask permission to forsake the world myself.' And, making obeisance to the Buddha, she returned to the palace and, saluting the king, stood before him. The king, feeling from her very manner that she had reached the noble state of Arahatship, said to her, `Queen, have you then really been to see the Blessed One?' She answered, `Oh great king. What you have seen is of little moment. But to me the Blessed One has been fully revealed, even to the utmost. I pray you, let me forsake the world!' And the king granted her request and sent her in a golden palanquin to the bhikkhunis place, where she should dwell. "Now afterwards, the Master, seated at Jetavana, when assigning places, one after the other, to the Bhikkhunis, gave to Theri Khema the etadagga among those who are gifted with great wisdom." ********************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya [:heart:] #124145 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 6, 2012 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Daily life, from Bhante Dhammadharo nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 6-mei-2012, om 13:08 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > Very often our aim is not really to understand whatever appears > right now, but to get rid of distraction, to be calmer, to be > steadier, to be more organised, to be somehow other than we are. > What is that, if it is not attachment?> ---- N: The answer is this quote from Be here now you gave. Often you have some problem and ask a question, but then, afterwards, you give the answer yourself. Very good! You speak about practising dhamma: what is it? It is the gradual development of understanding step by step and being engaged with all kinds of kusala so that you do not think of yourself, your misery, as Sarah also suggested. Did you contact Tadao? It will be worth while to hear more about Ven. Dhammadharo, also for all of us. Another kind of kusala you can practise, to help us all. Nina. #124146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 6, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Awareness and concepts nilovg Dear pt and Alex, Op 6-mei-2012, om 5:44 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > As I remember seeing pali, the first explicit description of what > is ultimate and what is conventional is found after Tipitaka, in > commentaries.< ------ N: The beginning of the Matikaa of the Dhammasangani: kusala dhammaa, akusala dhammaa, avyaakataa dhammaa (indeterminate, vipaaka and kiriya). N: Here is summed up all that is real. Everything else is not real, but concept. Is this not enough? ---- Nina. #124147 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 6, 2012 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Jon, Op 6-mei-2012, om 1:30 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > J: The idea that 'in truth only dhammas have reality in the > ultimate sense' does not call for any rejection of the conventional > world in which we live. > > (Stopping here as time to board flight. Will continue when back in HK) ----- N: I always enjoy so much your posts while waiting at the airport! Nina. #124148 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 12:33 am Subject: Re: On concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, >Regarding the issue of the texts and ultimate versus conventional, >as >mentioned, it's less explicit in the suttas, but seems clear >enough >considering for example that anatta is usually mentioned in direct >reference to dhammas (feeling, perception, etc) rather than people and >activities. But I understand that this would be a matter of >interpretation so probably hard to agree on. >======================================================= When the Buddha talked about people and when He talked about aggregates, what is the significance of that? To me, the most unproblematic answer is that we can talk about something from different points of view to convey some point. When the Buddha has talked about 5 aggregates, it doesn't mean that people (as conditioned and compounded phenomena) do not exist. Neither does it mean that a person can be taken apart in 5 separate heaps (5 khandhas). With best wishes, Alex. #124149 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 12:44 am Subject: what "dhamma" includes truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N:The beginning of the Matikaa of the Dhammasangani: kusala dhammaa, >akusala dhammaa, avyaakataa dhammaa (indeterminate,vipaaka and >kiriya). > N: Here is summed up all that is real. >Everything else >is >not real, but concept.> Is this not enough? >====================== It depends what precisely "dhamma" means. Is it dhamma as an quality of the mind? "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." Manopubbangama dhamma manosettha manomaya - Dhp1 Or does dhamma (as avyakata dhamma) include basic physical qualities independent of mind as well? With best wishes, Alex #124150 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:24 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. One point for now, on pannati as "shadows of dhammas." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: To me, it's just another way of referencing what has been said many times, that what we take for objects are really dhammas, and that, as the Abhidhammatha Sangaha says, that concepts are shadows of dhammas, a distorted view of the realities that actually exist. > ...I don't think that concepts can be characterised as a distorted view of reality. Does the Abhidhammatha Sangaha actually say that? The enlightened being still thinks in terms of people and things (but knowing clearly that only dhammas are real in the absolute sense). I don't think that the fact that the enlightened can use concepts in the ordinary way without suffering from the delusion that they are, in and of themselves, refering to a reality, disqualifies the possible connection between concepts as markers or indicators of realities, even despite the fact that they themselves are not accurate referents of such realities. For instance, if I ride in a car, similar to a chariot, my experience of the rupas involved are constantly translated into the concept of "car," "driving" etc., which arise to explain these experiences of rupas and put them into a context of continuity that I can keep accessing to make sense of my car ride as a whole experience. In fact, it is not a whole experience, but a series of shifting rupas intermixed with mental processes and concepts, but I am not aware of all this shifting, nor the difference between the namas, rupas and concepts as they come into consciousness, so I am suffering from the delusion that there is a static dependable entity, a "car," and that I am experiencing a continuous, connected procedure which is a "ride." But the namas and rupas that are attendant to that experience are real. So I see the concepts that come up of "car," "ride," "person riding in car," etc., to be imperfect or inaccurate ways of grasping at those rupas [and namas] and trying to compress them into a sensible whole. By doing this, the concepts support the illusion of a self who is having a seamless experience in which things don't drastically change, but behave in a sensible way, and in which the sense of self has a feeling of control of that whole, dependable experience. To say that "car" is a shadow, or conglomeration, of the rupas that attend the experience of what we call "car," is no less sensible than to say, as Sarah has I believe on a number of occasions, that we are not really looking at a computer screen, but think we are via the concept of a computer and a screen, and that we are really experiencing a series of visible objects and mental processes and thoughts, which we conceptualize into a "computer screen." In that way, the concept of "computer screen" is a distorted "shadow" of the real experience of the rupas and the attendant namas, that are arising in reality. Here is the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, which seems to be on or in the direction of the above subject, although it does not go into detail about how pannati would reference dhammas, but does make the general statement that they are apprehended in the form of "shadows of dhammas." The pertinent statement in the quote is triple-starred by me below for identification: ---QUOTE--- The remainder Pa¤¤atti (39), is twofold, insamuch as it is made known, or as it makes known. How? There are such terms as `land', `mountain' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as `house', `chariot', `cart' and the like, so named on account of the mode of for- mation of materials; such terms as `person' `individual' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates; such terms as `direction', `time,' and the like, named according to the revolution of the moon and so forth; such terms as `well', `cave' and the like, so named on account of the mode of non-impact and so forth; such terms as Kasiõa-objects and the like, so named on account of respective elements and different mental culture. ***All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things.*** They are called `pa¤¤atti' because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This `Pa¤¤atti' is so called because it is made known. ---END OF QUOTE--- This if from page 427: A Manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha Sangaha)By Narada Maha Thera Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. Accessed from buddhanet.net Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124151 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:33 am Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Nina, all, > > >N:The beginning of the Matikaa of the Dhammasangani: kusala dhammaa, >akusala dhammaa, avyaakataa dhammaa (indeterminate,vipaaka and >kiriya). > N: Here is summed up all that is real. >Everything else >is >not real, but concept.> Is this not enough? > >====================== > > It depends what precisely "dhamma" means. Is it dhamma as an quality of the mind? > > "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." Manopubbangama dhamma manosettha manomaya - Dhp1 > > Or does dhamma (as avyakata dhamma) include basic physical qualities independent of mind as well? In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human consciousness can experience, other than the objects of thoughts, ie, concepts. So if I experience a physical quality, that is a rupa, which is a type of dhamma, such as the hardness or smoothness of a table. If I am kicked, the pressure from that kick is a rupa which is a type of dhamma. If I experience a mental process or arising mental quality, that mental process is a nama, which is also a kind of dhamma. If I am aware of thinking, the process of thinking I believe is a nama, but the object of thinking, such as a car, person or activity, is a concept and is not a dhamma, as it does not exist except as a product of thought. You can experience hardness or calm or concentration directly without thinking, but you cannot experience car or person without thinking, so the latter are products of thought rather than direct experience. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #124152 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 6:31 am Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE:In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human >consciousness can experience, >=========================================== What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? With best wishes, Alex #124153 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 10:41 am Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >RE:In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human >consciousness can experience, > >=========================================== > > What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? That's a good question - I guess those are dhammas too, but that kind of messes up my theory that they are defined by being "experienced realities." Thanks for the "realities check." :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124154 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 10:52 am Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> > RE: I know it can be disorienting to have common sense injected into a dhamma discussion from time to time, but sometimes it can't be helped. ------- KH: I am all in favour of injecting common sense into Dhamma discussions – there should be more of it - but let's be careful not to inject anything into the Dhamma itself. --------------- <. . .> > RE: Well, it remains the case that one "individual stream" of namas and rupas is distinguished from another, whatever we call it. --------------- KH: What if we call it a concept? Does satipatthana distinguish one concept from another? Or has that function been injected into the Dhamma by modern-day Buddhists? ---------------------- > RE: I agree that each individual "stream" is made up of a succession of swiftly arising and falling-away moments, ---------------------- KH: The concept of a stream made up of dhammas may, or may not, appeal to common sense. Anthony, for example, rejects the practice of breaking down a human being into namas and rupas. I tend to agree with Anthony; it's not necessary and it can give a wrong impression. Maybe it's a fine line to draw, but there is a distinction between "the reality that we call a person" and "a person." ---------- > RE: and that there is not an "individual" per se. ---------- KH: In satipatthana there is no individual per se. But satipatthana is concerned with realities, not with concepts. --------------- > RE: But there is still a distinction between the experience of one person and another, and there should be a sensible way to discuss and account for that obvious truth, which in itself is acknowledged by both the Buddha and all Buddhist scriptures. --------------- KH: The sensible way would be to consider the Dhamma. In the ultimate reality that is currently seen (or heard or mentally cognized etc) there is only that reality: it is inherently devoid of a self or anything pertaining to a self. There are only dhammas rolling on, conditioned by other dhammas. Nothing else. So what would be the point in dividing them up into "mine" and "another person's"? Ken H #124155 From: "connie" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 11:11 am Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes nichiconn hi RobE, > > > > >RE:In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human >consciousness can experience, > > >=========================================== > > > > What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? > > That's a good question - I guess those are dhammas too, but that kind of messes up my theory that they are defined by being "experienced realities." Thanks for the "realities check." :-) > c: there is no dhamma that can't be the object of the citta and cetasikas. doesn't mean that every rupa that arises Will be experienced; but no rupa will experience. connie #124156 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:29 pm Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > There are only dhammas rolling on, conditioned by other dhammas. Nothing else. So what would be the point in dividing them up into "mine" and "another person's"? Well I guess at the moment that one is experiencing dhammas directly there's no special purpose in dividing up anything conceptually. But when we consider the individual progress of this or that person and take into account that different people have different kamma and are at different stages on the path, it seems useful to understand that. I think that the Buddha had no problem juggling these two understandings, that of people and their fates and practices, and that of dhammas when directly experienced. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #124157 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 2:31 pm Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > c: there is no dhamma that can't be the object of the citta and cetasikas. Okay, thanks! > doesn't mean that every rupa that arises Will be experienced; but no rupa will experience. Right. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124158 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 7, 2012 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Hi Howard, Op 5-mei-2012, om 16:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > ------ > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Distinguishable streams of namas and rupas, but not individuals, it > seem to me. (And I think it seems so to you as well, though our > descriptions > may differ somewhat.) > ----------------------------------------------- > N: Stream of namas: we could say our life is a series of cittas > arising in succession. But stream of rupas : here a distinction has > to be made. Rupas do not succeed one another, the contiguity > condition does not apply to rupas. Rupas of the body are produced > by four factors : kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition. Thus, > the idea of streams of rupas may cause confusion. > --------- > ----------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes. Different inclinations in different streams, different kamma, and > different dhammas. > > Yes, no self at all. Though "you" and "I" are distinguishable, neither > has a core of identity that is "self". The truth of anattata is a > fundamental truth but a subtle one - and deep. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: We can use the word individual to denote that different > 'people' (we cannot escape conventional terms) have different > accumulations, as you say. > I quote Kh Sujin's Survey: < The fact that we all can perform different actions in a day is due to the variegated nature of the cittas of each one of us. We can see that all our actions in daily life, through body and speech, are different because of the variegated nature of the cittas of each one of us. When we are thinking, citta is the reality that thinks, and each person thinks in a different way. Different people, who are interested in the Dhamma and study it, consider it and ponder over it in different ways. They also have different points of view as far as the practice is concerned. The world evolves in accordance with the variegated nature of the cittas of different people. The world is constituted by different people living in different countries and participating in different groups and these different individuals condition the events in the world. This occurs because of the variety of the thinking of each individual. The world of today evolves in this particular way according to the variegated nature of the cittas of people at this time. How will the world be in the future? It will be again just according to the variegated nature of the cittas that think of many different subjects. > It does not matter to use conventional terms like person, individu, otherwise we cannot explain Dhamma. So long as we have right understanding what a reality is and what a concept is. ------ > > H Quote: /What is a sentient being truly? A dynamic psycho-physical > complex > distinguishable but not separate from the rest of the flow, a > vortex or whirlpool > in the river of reality. With awakening to nibbana, the non- > separateness is > directly and unmistakably known, and with the advent of > parinibbana, the > sentient-being- > ------ N: When it comes to nibbaana our ideas are different. BTW: end of this week I will take a break, some escapism ;-)) Nina. #124159 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 7, 2012 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 5-mei-2012, om 18:05 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form > come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as > its requisite condition.' ------- N: Nama and ruupa in D.O. here: naama the cetasikas that accompany vipaakacitta, and form: ruupa. We have to specify which rupa. VIs. Ch XVII, 2215, 216: at rebirth the hearbase conditions the mindbase, namely citta in six ways: conascence, mutuality etc. The Vis. goes over all the types of conditions first and then it should be specified by which conditions one link conditions the next link. The more one understands conditions the less will one cling to personality belief. ------ Nina. #124160 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - d moellerdieter Hi All, continuing.. with Metta Dieter The conceit "I am" One discourse shows how the tendency to perceive in terms of "I" underlies theories of self: "Whatever sama.nas or brahma.nas see self in its various types, all of them see the five categories affected by clinging, on one or other of them. What five? Here an untaught ordinary man who disregards the ariyas, is unconversant with their teaching and undisciplined in it... sees materiality as self, or self as possessed of materiality, or materiality in self, or self in materiality; he sees feeling... perception... formations... consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or self in consciousness, or consciousness in self. So he has this way of seeing (samanupassanaa) and also this attitude (adhigata) 'I am.' When there is the attitude 'I am' then there is the organization (avakkanti) of the five faculties (indriya) of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. There is mind (mano), and there are ideas (dhamma), and there is the element of ignorance (avijja-dhaatu). When an untaught ordinary man is touched by whatever is felt born of the contact of ignorance, it occurs to him 'I am' and 'I am this' and 'I shall be' and 'I shall not be' and 'I shall be formed' and 'I shall be formless' and 'I shall be percipient' and 'I shall be non-percipient' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.' Now in the case of the well-taught disciple of the ariyas, while the five faculties persist in the same way, nevertheless ignorance is abandoned and knowledge (vijjaa) arisen in him. With the fading out of ignorance and the arising of knowledge it no more occurs to him 'I am' and... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'" — S. XXII, 47/vol. iii, 46-7 "'I am' is derivative, not un-derivative. Derivative upon what? Derivative upon materiality (and the rest)." — S. XXII, 83/vol. iii, 105 It is this conceit that takes on the appearance of pride: "When any sama.na or braahma.na, with materiality (etc.) as the means, which is impermanent, painful, and subject to change, sees thus 'I am superior' or 'I am equal' or 'I am inferior,' what is that if not blindness to what actually is?" — S. XXII, 42/vol. iii, 48 Again, when the Elder Khemaka was questioned by other elders, he said: "I do not see in these five categories affected by clinging any self or self's property... Yet I am not an arahant with taints exhausted (khiinaasava). On the contrary I still have the attitudes (adhigata) 'I am' with respect to these five categories affected by clinging, although I do not say 'I am this' (with respect to them)... I do not say 'I am materiality' or 'I am feeling' or 'I am perception' or 'I am formations' or 'I am consciousness,' nor do I say 'I am apart from consciousness'; yet I still have the attitude 'I am' with respect to the five categories affected by clinging, although I do not say 'I am this' (with respect to them). Although a disciple of the ariyas may have abandoned the five immediate fetters (of embodiment-view, uncertainty, misapprehension of virtue and duty, desire for sensuality, and ill will, and so reached the third stage of realization, the path of non-return), still his conceit 'I am,' desire (chanda) 'I am,' underlying tendency 'I am,' with respect to the five categories affected by clinging remains unabolished. Later he abides contemplating rise and fall thus 'Such is materiality, such its origin, such its disappearance,' (and so with the rest), and by so doing his conceit 'I am' eventually comes to be abolished." — S. XXII, 89/vol. iii, 128-32 abbr. The Continuity of the Person On a certain occasion it had been stated by the Buddha how, when a man knows and sees the five categories, whatever their mode, thus "this is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not by self," there come to be no more underlying tendencies to treat this body with its consciousness, and all external signs, in terms of "I" and "Mine" (ahankaara-mamankaara). Then in a certain bhikkhu's mind this thought arose "So, it seems, materiality is not self, nor are feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. Then what self will the action done by the not-self touch?"' (M. 109/vol. iii, 18-9). He was rebuked for ignoring the Buddha's teaching of dependency. Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither, the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20). Now what is called an "acquisition of self" (atta-pa.tilaabha; see end of section on Attaa, above) — in other words, the person or individuality — may be physical or mental or immaterial according to the plane of being (sensual, material, or immaterial) in which rebirth has taken place. Also from birth to birth any one kind can succeed and so must exclude any other. That being so, it cannot be successfully argued that only one of the three kinds is true and the others wrong; one can only say that the term for each one does not apply to the other two. Just as with milk from a cow, curd from milk, butter from curd, ghee from butter, and fine-extract of ghee from ghee, the term for each applies only to that and not to any of the others (but they are not disconnected). That is how there are these "worldly usages... by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending (them)" (D. 9/vol. i, 201-2). "Individual self-hood" (atta-bhaava) is what the physical body is called; or it is simply the pentad of categories, since it is actually only a descriptive device derived (upaada-pa~n~natti) upon the pentad of categories (Vis. Ch. IX/p. 310). "Here when the categories are not fully known, there is naming (abhidhaana) of them and of the consciousness as 'self,' that is, the physical body or alternatively the five categories... (it is) presence (sabbhaava) as a mere description in the case of what is called a 'being' (bhaata), though in the ultimate sense the 'being' is non-existent (avijjamaana)" (VisA. 298). A Tathaagata is indescribable in terms of being or of consciousness: "Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu's mind (citta) is... liberated, the gods... when they seek him do not find the consciousness of one who is thus-gone (tathaagata) with anything as its support. Why is that? One thus-gone is here and now no longer knowable, I say. So saying, so proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some sama.nas and brahma.nas thus, 'The sama.na Gotama is one who leads away (to loss: venayika) he describes an existent creature's annihilation, loss, non-being.' As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so I have been... wrongly misrepresented." — M. 22/vol. i, 140; cf. 72/vol. i, 487 For these and other reasons the Buddha refused to answer the "ten undecided matters" (avyaakata) ending with the four logical questions whether after death a Tathaagata is, is not, both is and is not, neither is nor is not (see, e.g.. S. XLIV; M. 72). These ten, and some others as well not answered, all contain some concealed assumption, in fact, which either of the answers, yes or no, would alike confirm. #124161 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 7, 2012 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 6-mei-2012, om 18:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > You can experience hardness or calm or concentration directly > without thinking, but you cannot experience car or person without > thinking, so the latter are products of thought rather than direct > experience. ------- N: You expressed that very well. Dhamma has many meanings, but in the Matikaa it denotes whatever is reality, not a concept. Nina. #124162 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 7, 2012 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes nilovg Dear Alex, Op 6-mei-2012, om 22:31 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? ------ N: It "can" be experienced, but not by everybody. Whatever the Buddha taught can be experienced, otherwise he would not have taught it. People have accumulated different degrees of wisdom. Nina. #124163 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 7, 2012 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 3-mei-2012, om 22:22 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > The monk is supposed to lead the life of an arahat. The goal of > > monkhood is attainment of arahatship, to become perfected. > > I think what you say here is great, but I don't see any difference > at all between this and practicing meditation, which has the same > sort of orientation on a more limited scale as the monk's intention > to live like an arahant. What is the difference? If I want to "see > like an arahant" and I do so by paying close attention to every > arising dhamma in meditation, or in everyday life, the intention to > develop satipatthana is the same. ------- N: Perhaps I do not quite understand what you mean. Vipassana in daily life, this has to be developed. For vipassana not choosing any specific situation like being in quiet surroundings. For samatha it is different. But those who have eradicated the hindrances for good can attain jhaana even when tending to the Buddha, fanning him, like Saariputta did. ------- > > R: You said that "The rules help the monk to be aware now, no > matter what his actions are." And I would say that the Buddha's > instructions for meditation, which is also a large part of a monk's > daily life, is exactly the same. ------ N: when someone develops jhaana he should also be aware of jhaanacitta, otherwise he would take it for self. ------- > > R: But in any case, I am happy to hear the connection between the > Vinaya and satipatthana in this sense, as it shapes a life of > awareness. This makes me want to read the Vinaya, though I am sure > I could never follow it's difficult responsibilities. ------- N: We can read about the sweeping of the dwelling places, cleaning etc. knowing that satipa.t.thaana is always implied. Also the reason why the monk should not decorate his dwelling or enjoy music: it is the citta, citta rooted in lobha that arises. He is not supposed to search pleasant sense objects like laypeople do. For laypeople: enjoy music but learn to be aware of the lobha. Monk's life and layman's life are as different as earth and heaven, Kh Sujin explained. Different accumulations. If one wants to become a monk one should scrutinize oneself: does one truly have accumulations for this kind of life? Nina. #124164 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I think you make a good point in saying that all states are just impermanent dhammas and release is gained by understanding them as such; but I also think that the setting of the jhanas is seen to be a ground for peace and understanding, even though they have to be surpassed in a more complete release in nibbana. > > I also think that it is significant that a jhana level of concentration must accompany the lokuttara cittas. This suggests that concentration of the jhana level is a component of the supramundane attainment. Doesn't this also suggest that the development of jhana would be a supporting factor for enlightenment? > > Aside from the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about, I think my logic here is at least "okay." .... S: :-) The concentration that accompanies the lokuttara cittas is appana samadhi, absorption concentration equivalent to that of jhana appana samadhi. If Jhana is not the basis for the lokuttara cittas to arise, then that appana samadhi is equivalent in strength to 1st jhana. The reason it is of this degree is because nibbana is the object. It does not imply that mundane jhana was a necessary basis/pre-condition/supporting factor for those lokuttara cittas to arise in the case of dry insight. Whatever object is experienced by the cittas immediately preceding the lokuttara cittas is a 'supporting factor' by way of being the object of the cittas in that process. This may be jhana citta (just fallen away), a jhana cetasika, visible object, seeing, anger, calm - any reality at all. It's never by any choice or selection and we don't know what experiences, what objects might be experienced at the next moment, let alone prior to enlightenment. Metta Sarah ===== #124165 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: eating animal corpses sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Usually when we think about the animals being slaughtered, isn't there distress, unease? Often what we take for metta or compassion is attachment or dosa. Again, it comes back to the present citta and only awareness and understanding now can know the present mental states. When there is metta, the citta is friendly, the feeling is never unhappy. Often when people think they are concerned about the suffering animals, it is really just their own discomfort that is of concern. > >R: I would guess that there is both, that there are moments of discomfort and distress, and also moments of compassion and caring for the animals, probably arising and falling in close succession. .... S: So this is exactly why we can't judge by the 'situation' or general scenario what the cittas are. Even now, different kinds of cittas at different moments, so this is why it is the understanding of realities, of present dhammas, rather than conventional situations that is the goal. ... R:>I doubt that someone would be very concerned with animal slaughter to the point of going vegetarian unless there was some genuine caring for the animals - but who knows. ... S: Again, 'who knows?' Rather than speculate about others' cittas at different times, there can be awareness and understanding now of what appears. ... > > S: What is more meaningful, more precious, is the understanding of the thinking as a reality at such moments, arising and passing away. Usually we're lost in stories about people, things, animals without any awareness at all. > >R: In my view, as long as one is living in the world, so to speak, there is room for both, and both are valuable. I don't have much positive to say about someone who ignores the suffering around them on philosophical grounds. Of course, if someone is in isolation, committed to the path of awakening 24/7, then I would not expect them to pay a lot of attention to anything else. But for someone sitting at a nice resort, sipping a martini and daydreaming about the Dhamma, thinking that what is happening to other people or animals being insignificant does not strike me as right. It seems self-indulgent and callous, rather than committed to Dhamma. Will metta really arise if one is dismissive of the suffering of living beings? .... S: Often we're very concerned about other people and their ways of thinking and behaviour - usually with akusala cittas. At these times, is there any metta, any understanding, any awareness at all? Again, it all comes back to the present dhammas. Only understanding now can know whether there is any metta, any true kindness to other beings now or whether there is unhappy feeling, attachment, conceit or other unwholesome mental states. ... > >S: This is why the Buddha's Teaching really goes against the grain, against the conventional way of seeing the world and its problems. > >R: I would agree with that to a good extent, but I think that there are certain important categories of kusala that are in relation to living beings, and if those areas are significant, then the compassion and caring that arises in relation to them is also part of the path. ... S: The metta, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity towards other beings (the 4 brahma viharas) can only be known when they arise, by understanding their characteristics. They can never be known by speculating about particular situations, such as 'concern about the slaughter of animals', assuming that at these times there must be metta and compassion. It's like when there is concern at seeing a child crying - who can say at any moment whether it is dosa, compassion, attachment or ignorance that is arising? Only panna and this can never know the others' mental states. It always comes back to the 'now' - the reality now. Metta Sarah ====== #124166 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, #123578 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > >R: You probably dont feel like it right now but you have an immense reservoir of parami and wisdom of your own, as far as I can tell from ypur posts. > > L: For sure I have a big reservoir of getting into troubles :P (No matter where I am). ... S: We all do! At each moment of ignorance, attachmenta and aversion - we get further into trouble! I think as some of us have been stressing, the understanding (however little) of the Dhamma is a very precious and very rare treasure to be developed. It's more precious than any other treasure and if when there is no joy, no confidence in the value of such understanding, I think it shows there is doubt at such times. The doubt can also be known as a reality. ... >Also I know myself very good. And one of my biggest problems are using intoxicants, liking bad company and the third problem: Falling in love. I am very sensitive for falling in love, though I know this are always a big troubles to me. And it's like with alcohol, doesnt go in good way (just another addiction in my case). I am so scared to fall in love. The last of my love ended, that i've almost died. It was maybe one year ago. ... S: Again, as we've said, these are common problems - not just in this life time, but life after life. Did you ever read an article I wrote a long time ago on the topic of love and attachment to another person? I'd completely forgotten about it, but Alan (Zolag) came across it and wrote to ask if he could upload it on his website. Here's the link: http://archive.org/details/Love And Attachment Let me know if it's useful. You mentioned (off-list) that you're in London. Have you arranged to meet Alan? Perhaps with Luraya? I think you'd find it very helpful to have that live discussion. You can bring up all these everyday dhamma topics with him as well. Metta Sarah ====== #124167 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 9:07 pm Subject: spd 16 (vatthu kaama) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "As regards the term 'basis of sensuousness or clinging' (vatthu kaama) this has, according to the Atthasaalini, a wider meaning than visible object, sound, colour, flavour or tangible object. Any kind of dhamma that is a basis or foundation for attachment is actually vatthu kaama. Lobha cetasika is the reality that is attached, which clings to everything, except lokuttara dhammas.(footnote- "nibbaana and the lokukatta cittas that experience it cannot be objects of clinging.") Lobha clings to the ruupa-brahma planes and the aruupa brahma planes. Thus, these are vatthu kaama, the basis on which clinging depends. All dhammas other than lokuttara dhammas are vatthu-kaama, they are the basis of clinging." (end of passage) Phil #124168 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2012 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - In a message dated 5/6/2012 8:41:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Alex. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >RE:In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human >consciousness can experience, > >=========================================== > > What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? That's a good question - I guess those are dhammas too, but that kind of messes up my theory that they are defined by being "experienced realities." Thanks for the "realities check." :-) Best, Rob E. ============================== There are at least two ways in which your theory might not be messed up: 1) You speak of "anything consciousness can experience". The emphasis can be on the 'can'. 2) There may be, as modern psychology seems to teach, levels of mentality that consist of a) the surface level of consciousness per se, and b) a multitude of subliminal, subconscious levels of experience. In that latter regard, I have noticed at times during meditation attention "dipping down" into subliminal streams of mentality operative, rather like glimpsing waking dream streams co-occuring along with surface experience. This raises the possibility of everything occuring "on the stage of mind" though not all at the conscious level of experience. All this, of course, is mere conjecturing based on very-possibly-misinterpreted personal experience. It certainly is not part of the Buddha's teachings; so, it either is among the leaves not in his hand or is just plain untrue. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124169 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2012 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/7/2012 1:48:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: When it comes to nibbaana our ideas are different. BTW: end of this week I will take a break, some escapism ;-)) ============================== Excellent! Do enjoy!! :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124170 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon May 7, 2012 10:34 pm Subject: The Three Gems yawares1 Dear Members, This beautiful Monday morning, I have a very cute story to share with you all. *********** The Disciples of Non-Buddhist Ascetics: The Three Gems [ Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, MA ] While residing at the Nigrodarama monastery, the Buddha uttered Verses (318) and (319) of this book, with reference to some disciples of the Titthis (non-Buddhist ascetics). The disciples of the Titthis did not want their children to mix with the children of the followers of the Buddha. They often told their children, "Do not go to the Jetavana monastery, do not pay obeisance to the bhikkhus of the Sakyan clan." On one occasion, while the Titthi boys were playing with a Buddhist boy near the entrance to the Jetavana monastery, they felt very thirsty. As the children of the disciples of the Titthis had been told by their parents not to enter a Buddhist monastery, they asked the Buddhist boy to go to the monastery and bring some water for them. The young Buddhist boy went to pay obeisance to the Buddha after he had had a drink of water, and told the Buddha about his friends who were forbidden by their parents to enter a Buddhist monastery. The Buddha then told the boy to tell the non-Buddhist boys to come and have water at the monastery. When those boys came, the Buddha gave them a discourse to suit their various dispositions. As a result, those boys became established in faith in the Three Gems i.e., the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Samgha. When the boys went home, they talked about their visit to the Jetavana monastery and about the Buddha teaching them the Three Gems. The parents of the boys, being ignorant, cried, "Our sons have been disloyal to our faith, they have been ruined," etc. Some intelligent neighbours advised the wailing parents to stop weeping and to send their sons to the Buddha. Somehow, they agreed and the boys as well as their parents went to the Buddha. The Buddha knowing why they had come spoke to them in verse as follows: Verse 318: Beings who imagine wrong in what is not wrong, who do not see wrong in what is wrong, and who hold wrong views go to a lower plane of existence (duggati). Verse 319: Beings who know what is wrong as wrong. who know what is right as right, and who hold right views go to a happy plane of existence (suggati). At the end of the discourse all those people came to be established in faith in the Three Gems, and after listening to the Buddha's further discourses, they subsequently attained Sotapatti Fruition. ***************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124171 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 8, 2012 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form > come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as > its requisite condition.' ------- N: Nama and ruupa in D.O. here: naama the cetasikas that accompany vipaakacitta, and form: ruupa. We have to specify which rupa. D: you mean to know the 4 conditions of matter and be mindful of the tactile sense especially regarding one's body (?). N:VIs. Ch XVII, 2215, 216: at rebirth the hearbase conditions the mindbase, namely citta in six ways: conascence, mutuality etc. The Vis. goes over all the types of conditions first and then it should be specified by which conditions one link conditions the next link. The more one understands conditions the less will one cling to personality belief. D: I would need to read the chapter , Nina . I don't understand that at all ..( at least for now )...'at rebirth the hearbase conditions the mindbase' ' with Metta Dieter #124172 From: "colette_aube" Date: Tue May 8, 2012 6:53 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat colette_aube Hi Robert E, Aren't you the slyth one? I have in my files a post from "www.akshin.net/philosoophy/budphilnagarjna.htm". that site is labeled as being : Buddhis Philosphy --------------------------- Robert Epsien, I adore having such intelligence a nd caring being exstended to me -- how could I ever return the favor -- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: NO SIR! I refuse to participate in "the same old/same old", refuse to paricpate in the same dogma that has existed and exists as the only means to an end. > > Hi Colette. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E., > > > > It sounds as though you're making the case for PAVLOV via the concept of CONDITIONED RESPONSE. > > Yes, that is correct, it is just like Pavlov. Every dhamma is conditioned, just like a little puppy dog. The current conditions rings the little bell, and the little dhamma starts to salivate. > > > It may also sound as though you're making the case for JEET KUN DO from Bruce Lee's Chan philosophy via MUSCLE MEMORY. > > Well, for that there would have to be muscles. As far as I know, dhammas don't have any muscles. <....> #124173 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 8, 2012 9:24 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Aren't you the slyth one? I have in my files a post from "www.akshin.net/philosoophy/budphilnagarjna.htm". > > that site is labeled as being : > > Buddhist Philosphy > --------------------------- And...? > Robert Epstein, I adore having such intelligence and caring being extended to me -- how could I ever return the favor -- ? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > NO SIR! > > I refuse to participate in "the same old/same old", refuse to paricpate in the same dogma that has existed and exists as the only means to an end. Luckily, participation is always optional. Bye, Colette! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #124174 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 8, 2012 11:02 am Subject: spd 17 (development of conditions for satipatthana) philofillet Dear Group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "The characteristics of paramattha dhammas are hidden because of ignorace (avijjaa) which does not know the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts, (pannattis). Therefore, one is not able to realise that the realities appearing through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind-door are not beings, a person, or self. If we study citta, cetasika, (mental factors) and ruupa in more and more detail the intellectual understanding of the Dhamma will develop. This understanding is accumulated and thus conditions are developed for the arising of sati (mindfulness) which can be directly aware of the characteristics of paramattha dhammas. Thus, there can be more detachment from the outward appearance (nimitta) and the details (anuvyaanjana) which are forms of pannati." (267) (end of passage) phil #124175 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 8, 2012 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - e moellerdieter Hi All, now the final part with Metta Dieter Arguments Used Against Self-Theories. "Self" in any form, particular or absolute, one or many, cannot be conceived apart from identification, without which no meaningful statement can be made about it... and any identification is always wrong: yena yena hi ma~n~nati tato ta"m hoti a~n~nathaa (Ud. p. 33). There are three principal types of argument used by the Buddha, with which he exposes self-theories by means of the very basis on which they are built. These are: (1) "affliction" (or insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery), (2) "impermanence" and (3) "non-existence" (of the kind postulated.) If self is identified with any of the five categories indiscriminately or with, say, the eye, then since one cannot have any of these as one wishes in this way "Let it be thus, let it be not thus" one suffers affliction by it and so cannot claim to have mastery over it; consequently it cannot rightly be called "self" (M. 35). If it is claimed that self is consciousness, then it can be shown that because consciousness always arises dependent on impermanent conditions, it too is impermanent (M. 38; 109). Again, if self is identified with feeling, it can be asked: With pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling? Whichever is admitted, then since the three kinds of feeling come and go (for when one is present the others are absent), self must come and go too. Consequently such a self is likewise untenable (D. 15). If, on the other hand, it is claimed that self is "not feeling and has nothing to do with it," then it can be asked whether, where there is no feeling at all, one can say "I am," and no affirmative answer can be given (for without feeling there would be no experience on which the mirage "I am," depends). Again, if it is claimed that self, "while not feeling is not without experience of feeling since it feels and is inseparable from the idea of feeling," then it can be asked whether, if feeling altogether ceased, one could say "I am this," and no affirmative answer can be given (for without feeling there could be no means of identifying what "I am"; (D. 15). This last argument, among others, precludes predicating attaa of nibbaana, which is called "cessation of perception and feeling" (see e.g. Iti. II, ii, 7). The characteristic of not-self, unlike those of impermanence and suffering, does not have its opposite applied to extinction: attaa cannot be, and never is, applied to nibbaana. Anatta as a Subject for Contemplation and Basis for Judgment When asked how he taught his followers, the Buddha replied: "I discipline my hearers thus...: 'Bhikkhus, materiality is impermanent, and so are feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; materiality is not-self, and so are feeling, perception, formations and consciousness. All formations are impermanent; all things (dhammaa) are not-self.'" — M. 35/vol. i, 230 The contemplation is described as follows: "What is perception of not-self? Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to a room that is void, considers thus: "Eye is not self, forms are not self, ear... sounds... nose... odors... tongue... flavours... body... tangibles... mind... ideas are not self. That is how he abides contemplating not-self in these six in-oneself-and-external bases." — A. X. 60/vol. v, 109 Whatever is conditioned should be judged according to its actual nature of impermanence and contingency, no matter whether even a pleasant abiding (sukha-vihaara) or a quiet abiding (santa-vihaara). "Whatever is there to be included as materiality or feeling or perception or formations or consciousness, such things (dhammaa) he sees as impermanent, as suffering, as ailment, as a cancer, as a dart, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self" (M. 64/vol. i, 435; A. IV. 124/vol. ii, 128: elaborated by Ps. quoted at Vis. Ch. XX/p. 611). And again, "Whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will be long for your welfare and happiness. What is not yours? Materiality is not yours..." (M. 22/vol. i, 140). "When a bhikkhu abides much with his mind fortified by perception of not-self in suffering, his mind is rid of conceits that treat in terms of 'I' and 'mine' this body with its consciousness, and all external signs" (A. VII, 46/vol. iv, 53). And "when a bhikkhu sees six rewards it should be enough for him to establish perception of not-self unlimitedly in all formations. What six? 'I shall be aloof (atammaya) from the world of all (from all the world); I shall be no more impeded by treating in terms of "I" and likewise of "mine"; I shall come to possess knowledge not shared (by all); and I shall see clearly causation, and also causally arisen things'" (A. VI, 104/vol. iii, 444). "When a man knows and sees the eye (etc.) as not self, his fetters come to be abolished" (S. XXXV, 55/vol. iv, 31-2) and "Perception of not-self reaches the abolition of the conceit 'I am,' which is extinction (nibbaana) here and now" (Ud. IV, i). Lastly, "It is impossible that anyone with right view should see any thing as self" (M. 115/vol. iii, 64). The perception of not-self is the third of the "Eighteen Principal Insights" (mahaa-vipassanaa; see article Anicca), of which the Visuddhi magga says "One who maintains in being the contemplation of not-self abandons perception of self" and "contemplation of not-self and contemplation of voidness are one in meaning and only the letter is different" (Vis. Ch. XX/p. 628) since "one who maintains in being the contemplation of not-self abandons misinterpreting (abhinivesa)." On the development of the contemplation of not-self based on rise and fall given in the Visuddhimagga (Ch. XXI) see article Anicca. The Pa.tisambhidaamagga connects this contemplation specially with the faculty of understanding (pa~n~naa), and it is there called the third "Gateway to Liberation." "When one gives attention to not-self, the understanding faculty is outstanding" (see article Anicca). Sources Vinaya Mahaavagga, Diigha Nikaaya (D.), Majjhima Nikaaya (M.), Sa"myutta Nikaaya (S.), Anguttara Nikaaya (A.), Udaana (Ud.), Itivuttaka (Iti.), Suttanipaata (Sn.), Pa.tisambhidhaamagga (Ps.), Mahaaniddesa, Dhammasanganii (Dhs.), Papa~ncasuudanii (MA.), Visuddhimagga (Vis.), Atthasaalini (DhsA.), Sammohavinodanii (VbhA), Paramatthama~njuusaa = Mahaa Tiikaa (VisA Sinhalese Vidyodaya ed. pp. 1-647, Burmese ed. pp. 744-910), Vibhaavinii Tiikaa (commentary to Abhidhammatthasangaha). — Page refs. to Pali Text Society's Pali eds. unless otherwise stated. All quotations specially translated for this article. 　 #124176 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 1:53 am Subject: Re: what "dhamma" includes epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 5/6/2012 8:41:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ > (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello RobertE, all, > > > > >RE:In my understanding, dhammas include anything that human > >consciousness can experience, > > >=========================================== > > > > What about the rupa that is not experienced by consciousness? > > That's a good question - I guess those are dhammas too, but that kind of > messes up my theory that they are defined by being "experienced realities." > Thanks for the "realities check." :-) > > Best, > Rob E. > ============================== > There are at least two ways in which your theory might not be messed > up: > 1) You speak of "anything consciousness can experience". The emphasis > can be on the 'can'. > 2) There may be, as modern psychology seems to teach, levels of > mentality that consist of a) the surface level of consciousness per se, and b) a > multitude of subliminal, subconscious levels of experience. In that latter > regard, I have noticed at times during meditation attention "dipping down" > into subliminal streams of mentality operative, rather like glimpsing > waking dream streams co-occuring along with surface experience. This raises the > possibility of everything occuring "on the stage of mind" though not all > at the conscious level of experience. That is very interesting, Howard. I wonder if the bhavanga cittas and others that are connecting consciousnesses that are not supposed to be in awareness have some form of subliminal consciousness present. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124177 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 2:07 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > I also think that it is significant that a jhana level of concentration must accompany the lokuttara cittas. This suggests that concentration of the jhana level is a component of the supramundane attainment. Doesn't this also suggest that the development of jhana would be a supporting factor for enlightenment? ... > The concentration that accompanies the lokuttara cittas is appana samadhi, absorption concentration equivalent to that of jhana appana samadhi. If Jhana is not the basis for the lokuttara cittas to arise, then that appana samadhi is equivalent in strength to 1st jhana. > > The reason it is of this degree is because nibbana is the object. I understand that when nibbana is the object a degree of the appana samadhi at least equals the strength of the 1st jhana, but can you explain why nibbana as object necessitates such samadhi? What is its function, and why must it accompany nibbana as object? > It does not imply that mundane jhana was a necessary basis/pre-condition/supporting factor for those lokuttara cittas to arise in the case of dry insight. I understand that it does not mean that mundane jhana must have been the basis for the lokuttara cittas to arise, but it does suggest that if mundane jhana is present it can function as a supporting condition, esp. since as I understand it, the more fully the jhanas have been developed prior to enlightenment, the deeper and more complete the enlightenment. It does not suggest that jhana must be a precondition, but does seem to imply that it is a more propitious precondition than the dry insight conditions, since it deepens the attainment. Do you see a fault in this logic? It is great that dry insight is a possibility, since most of us cannot attain to the jhanas, but I just want to establish the kusala supporting nature of the jhanas when it is possible to develop them. To use an analogy, you can take a rowboat across the English Channel, but it's a much nicer, and more efficient, ride on a yacht, and you will arrive in much better condition when you get to the other shore. > Whatever object is experienced by the cittas immediately preceding the lokuttara cittas is a 'supporting factor' by way of being the object of the cittas in that process. Given the deepening of enlightenment by having jhana developed as object, I would think it has a more "special" supporting role when it is developed correctly [in coordination with the development of insight.] > This may be jhana citta (just fallen away), a jhana cetasika, visible object, seeing, anger, calm - any reality at all. It's never by any choice or selection and we don't know what experiences, what objects might be experienced at the next moment, let alone prior to enlightenment. That point is always well taken, and is always worth pointing out. If one were to get caught up in the jhanas and not regard them as passing dhammas, that would not lead to enlightenment, but to more clinging. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124178 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 2:26 am Subject: Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: The metta, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity towards other beings (the 4 brahma viharas) can only be known when they arise, by understanding their characteristics. They can never be known by speculating about particular situations, such as 'concern about the slaughter of animals', assuming that at these times there must be metta and compassion. It's like when there is concern at seeing a child crying - who can say at any moment whether it is dosa, compassion, attachment or ignorance that is arising? Only panna and this can never know the others' mental states. > > It always comes back to the 'now' - the reality now. At least in one's personal and social life, I think it's important not to use the Dhamma to dismiss the presence of suffering or the chance to do something about it in conventional terms. You have noted that there is a different standard for social behavior for monks and for householders, and I think it's a worthwhile distinction. If someone is spending most of their time around "ordinary people" and sees someone in distress, I would not think much of that person if they didn't at least see if there was something they could do to help, or at least express concern. On the other hand, there is no necessary contradiction between being a caring person in conventional terms and treating the Dhamma with the acknowledgment of no-control and no self. I just don't like the idea, if it ever occurs, of the Dhamma being used as a reason to be uncaring about conventional suffering. There's a lot of it around. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #124179 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 3:33 am Subject: words and dhammas truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, If dhammas are all there is. If dhammas are momentary. Then what is the object of our speech? When we read, discuss or consider something, what do we consider other than concepts? Words cannot be about presently existing dhamma with its (sabhava lakkhana). At best, each and every word (even as "citta", "cetasika", "rupa", "nibbana") takes a concept of these things. Words about somethign are not equivalent to presently arisen dhamma that they describe. To say that words matter is only because they evoke some concept in our mind. So considering this split between words (even about paramattha dhammas) and momentary realities, what do we do? With best wishes, Alex #124180 From: Ken O Date: Wed May 9, 2012 3:54 am Subject: Snippets of Dhamma - What is Dhamma ashkenn2k Dear all Dhamma is an interesting term in Buddhism. Broadly speaking, everything in the three baskets are dhammas. To have a better understanding of dhamma, we have to go back to basis, the core dhamma, which is the paramattha dhamma. the most basic form of dhamma, or you could say the periodic table of chemistry There are rules in dhamma. Just like there are only four noble truth, there are only four pillars in Satipatthana, There could not be five or three, it must be four. Similar there are only citta, 52 tpes of cetasikas, 28 rupas and one Nibbana. Each of the H and O has its unique characteristics. So dhamma in the same way has its own unique characteristics. feeling feels, energy exerts. Feeling cannot exert. Just like seeing citta sees, it cannot be listening or tasting. With this clear funcationality, we are able to study dhamma Dhamma also has definite relationships among its components, dosa arise only with unpleasant feelings, dosa cannot arise with pleasant or neutral feelings. There are also other functions of the dhamma like latency, inclinations and accumulations that affect these relationships. Though they are not in the paramatha but they could be part of the functionality of some of the citta and cetasikas. With these rules, definitions and relationships, then it make easier for one to investigate the nature of dhamma and not confuse by why this or that arises or how one act or think or speak Cheers KC #124181 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2012 8:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/8/2012 11:53:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: > There are at least two ways in which your theory might not be messed > up: > 1) You speak of "anything consciousness can experience". The emphasis > can be on the 'can'. > 2) There may be, as modern psychology seems to teach, levels of > mentality that consist of a) the surface level of consciousness per se, and b) a > multitude of subliminal, subconscious levels of experience. In that latter > regard, I have noticed at times during meditation attention "dipping down" > into subliminal streams of mentality operative, rather like glimpsing > waking dream streams co-occuring along with surface experience. This raises the > possibility of everything occuring "on the stage of mind" though not all > at the conscious level of experience. That is very interesting, Howard. I wonder if the bhavanga cittas and others that are connecting consciousnesses that are not supposed to be in awareness have some form of subliminal consciousness present. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't know. Actually, it is unclear to me whether the Buddha taught anything along the lines of subconscious mentality, though anusaya might fit here. (I, it happens, definitely do believe in subconscious mentality.) But I would add that I have little confidence in the commentarial notion of "bhavanga citta". It, like the Mahayanist notion of "Älaya-vijñÄna" (or "storehouse consciousness"), in my understanding is intended to be a solution to the alleged "problem" of mental continuity, but I see no such problem and thus no need for a solution. ----------------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124182 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 9:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/8/2012 11:53:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > > There are at least two ways in which your theory might not be messed > > up: > > 1) You speak of "anything consciousness can experience". The emphasis > > can be on the 'can'. > > 2) There may be, as modern psychology seems to teach, levels of > > mentality that consist of a) the surface level of consciousness per se, > and b) a > > multitude of subliminal, subconscious levels of experience. In that > latter > > regard, I have noticed at times during meditation attention "dipping > down" > > into subliminal streams of mentality operative, rather like glimpsing > > waking dream streams co-occuring along with surface experience. This > raises the > > possibility of everything occuring "on the stage of mind" though not all > > at the conscious level of experience. > > That is very interesting, Howard. I wonder if the bhavanga cittas and > others that are connecting consciousnesses that are not supposed to be in > awareness have some form of subliminal consciousness present. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't know. Actually, it is unclear to me whether the Buddha taught > anything along the lines of subconscious mentality, though anusaya might > fit here. (I, it happens, definitely do believe in subconscious mentality.) > But I would add that I have little confidence in the commentarial > notion of "bhavanga citta". It, like the Mahayanist notion of "Älaya-vijñÄna" > (or "storehouse consciousness"), in my understanding is intended to be a > solution to the alleged "problem" of mental continuity, but I see no such > problem and thus no need for a solution. > ----------------------------------------------------- I think those types of constructions take the place of something that is very obvious if one believes in physical reality -- a tough notion at times -- which is the existence of the brain. If you allow for storage of thoughts, habits, tendencies through mental processes that inhere within the synaptic structure of the brain, a lot of the continuity, at least in one lifetime, is accounted for. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124183 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 1:08 pm Subject: spd 18 (kamma for rebirth citta and bhavanga citta ) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "A kamma that was formerly committed conditions the arising of the rebirth-consciousness, the first citta of this life, which immediately succeeds the dying-consciousnsess of the previous life. After the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the same kamma is the condition for the arising of the next vipaakacittas, which perform the function of the life-continuum (bhavanga). The bhavanga-citta maintains the continuation in the life of someone as a particular person. It performs the function throughout life, in between the processes of cittas, until the dying-consciousness arises and one passes away from life in this plane of existence. The particular person in this lifespan then no longer exists. In the course of life other kammas can be the condition for the arising of different vipaakacittas, which experience objects through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue and the bodysense." (75) (end of passage) phil #124184 From: "colette_aube" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 1:37 pm Subject: "Let the spinning wheel spin" colette_aube Hi Robert E., I bow to my friends and colleagues who understand my position and who appreciate the depth at which I'm playing this game of life. As I work the Tantra I rely consistently on Buddhist principles as a guide (see "Synestesia") so I have been reading "BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY: Madhyamaka and Nargarjuna" when suddenly you replied to me. Your reply appears, to myself, as nothing more than a repetition of that entire paper. www.akshin.net/philosophy/budhilnagarjuna.htm I copied the paper back on "10/26/2005" toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Colette. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > > > Aren't you the slyth one? I have in my files a post from "www.akshin.net/philosoophy/budphilnagarjna.htm". > > > > that site is labeled as being : > > > > Buddhist Philosphy > > --------------------------- > > And...? > > > Robert Epstein, I adore having such intelligence and caring being extended to me -- how could I ever return the favor -- > > ? > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > NO SIR! > > > > I refuse to participate in "the same old/same old", refuse to paricpate in the same dogma that has existed and exists as the only means to an end. > > Luckily, participation is always optional. > > Bye, Colette! > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > #124185 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhs sarahprocter... Dear Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear pt, > Op 4-mei-2012, om 9:29 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > > > Pali: > > 4. (ka) upaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. > > (kha) anupaadi.n.nupaadaaniyaa dhammaa. > > (ga) anupaadi.n.naanupaadaaniyaa dhammaa.< > > > > > Rhys Davids: > > 4. States that are grasped at and favourable to grasping; > > that are not grasped at but are favourable to grasping; > > that are neither.< > > > ------ > N: When we read about ruupa that it is grasped at, upaadi.n.na, it > means: it is the physical result of kamma, produced by kamma. That is > why the word effect is used in the co. Such as eyesense, heartbase. > Ruupas of the body can be produced by kamma, citta, temperature of > nutrition. > Favorable to grasping, upaadaaniya: favorable to clinging. > Dhamma not grasped at, not produced by kamma. For example, colour > that is produced by temperature. .... S: You may also like to see these detailed messages I wrote before on this topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/49829 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/49992 feel free to quote and discuss anything further. More in U.P. under "khandhas - upadana". upaadi.n.na, grasped at, conditioned by kamma because it is the 'grasping' in the first place which leads to the kamma. upaadaaniyaa dhamma - grasped at dhammas can be any reality except nibbana or other lokuttara dhammas. Metta Sarah ====== Metta Sarah ==== #124186 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 6:08 pm Subject: Re: anatta part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, All good quotes. > - SN 12.61 > > Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... and consciousness are impermanent...woeful... egoless, be they of the past or the future, not to mention the present. Understanding thus, the learned and noble disciple does no longer cling to things past, and he enters the path leading to the turning away therefrom, to detachment and extinction. > > - SN 22.9-11 > > The five groups of existence are impermanent, woeful, and egoless. And also the causes and conditions of the arising of these groups of existence are impermanent, woeful, and egoless. How could that which has arisen through something impermanent, woeful, and egoless as its root, be itself permanent, joyful, and an ego? > > - SN 22.18-20 > > All those ascetics and priests, who again and again in manifold ways belief in an ego (attaa), they all do so with regard to the five groups of existence, or to one of them, namely: > > There the ignorant worldling... considers one of the five groups as the ego; or the ego as the owner of that group, or that group as included in the ego, or the ego as included in that group. .... S: Whatever dhamma, whatever reality arises now, arose in the past or will arise in future - all are anatta. This is regardless of how they are understood/misunderstood by the ignorant worldling. Metta Sarah ===== #124187 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 6:19 pm Subject: Re: spd 13 (those of right view) sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: > > "Even the Buddha, during the time he was still alive, before his parinibbana, could not cause all people to have right view. For those who have accumulated the right conditions, kusala vipaakacitta and kusala citta can arise so that they are able to hear the Dhamma, study it and investigate the truth the Buddha taught. When one has listened to the Dhamma, one should test its meaning, carefully consider it in all details and develop panna so that the characteristics of realities can be known as they really are, in conformity with the truth the Buddha taught." (149) ... S: I listened to part of a recording from last year in KK. It was Azita, I think, who said to K.Sujin that when she reads or hears a complicated-sounding passage from a commentary or the Abhidhamma it doesn't make much sense, but when she listens to KS explain something it's much clearer. KS's response was that we have to really read/listen and consider the meaning of what we read very carefully indeed. When there's awareness of a reality, it's clear, there's no doubt about the meaning at that time. Like the word khandha, however we translate it in English - aggregate (!), constituent, factor, category - there has to be the understanding of visible object now, rupa khandha - the dhamma which arises and falls away, sharing the common properties of other rupa khandha dhammas. If we think that khandha is just a 'classification', a concept, a collection , it doesn't help us to understand the reality appearing at this very moment. The Buddha used many different terms, such as dhatu, ayatana and khandha to help us understand different aspects of realities. We need to hear and consider a lot to really understand realities as anatta now. Metta Sarah ===== #124188 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: One thing for sure, if there is the effort now to try and cultivate any kind of kusala - to have more metta, more wise reflection on any object of samatha, to have jhana, to have awareness or insight - it is bound to be lobha motivated by Self at this time. > >R: Maybe we can sneak around that rule. :-) .... S: Just more lobha and Self which does the sneaking round the rule, always looking for a short-cut :-) ... > >>S: This too can be the object of awareness, of understanding, again not by trying, but naturally through understanding all kinds of dhammas when they are experienced. ... S: Same applies to the sneaking cittas - they too can be known when they arise:-) Metta Sarah ===== #124189 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: spd12 (sense and mind door processes - the bird and its shadow) sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > "The viithi-cittas of the mind-door process, which follow viithi cittas of a sense-door process, have to experience the same ruupa. If the javana-cittas of the sense-door process are lobha-muula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) the javana-cittas of the first mind-door process after that sense-door process have to be the same types of lobha-muula citta. The mind-door process follows extremely rapidly upond the sense-door process. With respect to this there is a simile of a bird perching on a branch. As soon as the bird perches on the branch its shadow appears on the ground. Even so, when the object has been experienced through the sense-door and there have been many bhavanga cittas in between, arising and falling away very rapidly, it is immediately afterwarwds experienced through the mind door. Since cittas succeed one another so rapidly one does not know that visible object which is experienced through the eyes is only a paramattha dhamma that can appear because it has impinged on the eyesense." (268) > > (end of passage) > p.s I think I heard A. Sujin use a metaphor of thin sheets of onion paper piled together to get at how quickly the mind door process comes after the sense door, as soon as a drop of water hits a sheet of onion paper, how quickly it reaches the next sheet... .... S: Yes, so quickly and shows that the mark or sign (nimitta) experienced by the subsequent mind-door process is exactly the same as the reality experienced through the sense-door, like the mark on the papers. If awareness is aware of the visible object appearing, it's not concerned about whether it's appearing through the eye- or mind-door. The simile of the bird's shadow can be found in the Atthasaalinii: "...the visible object (light and colour) comes into the avenue of the mind-door the moment it strikes the sensitive organ, that is to say, it causes vibrations of the life-continuum...Just as a bird flying through the sky and alighting on a tree touches the branch of the tree and its shadow strikes the ground, the touching with the branch and the spreading of the shadow taking place in one moment simultaneously, so the contact with the sensitive organ etc., by the presented object of sense is simultaneous with its coming into the avenue of the mind-door through its ability to cause the life-continuum to vibrate...It should be understood that an apperception thought (javana.m) having any one of the objects arises in the manner described. Thus the apperception of a visible object arises at the eye-door and also at the mind-door." .... Metta Sarah ===== #124190 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 2 - rise and fall of cittas, vibhanga comy sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: There is no 'posture' in reality. Whether one is told not change ones posture or not has nothing to do with the understanding of dhammas as dukkha. We think in terms of 'self', 'body' and 'posture' and it is such ignorance the hides the truth of the arising and falling away of dhammas now. What arises and falls away is inherently dukkha.> > > D: no posture in the supermundane reality .. there 'posture' would not make any sense > ... > S: It's like the "anatta" discussions you're having with Howard and Rob E - whether there is any understanding or not, whether there is mundane or supramundane wisdom, whether one has ever heard of the Buddha's teachings or not, there are only namas and rupas, there is no table, no person, no posture in reality. Likewise, all dhammas are anatta, regardless of any understanding. > > D: as far as I recall they do not deny the conventional reality. > It may be - from an absolute angle you are taking - nothing more than a bubble , but so far it is all what is available to us. > But how do you describe your daily life besides namas and rupas, as the 'rest utimately not existing'? .... S: There are only realities arising and falling away in daily life - the five khandhas, each reality anatta, as indicated in all the quotes you gave. No matter how we describe our daily life, no matter how much ignorance there is, no matter what we think or imagine, there are only names and rupas arising and falling away now. Anything else is a concept, an idea that is thought about. ... > S: Yes, the first kind everyone knows about. We don't need a Buddha to tell us about dukkha-dukkha. The third one is more subtle, but it is the second one, sankhara dukkha which is the Truth of Dukkha - the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas, which only a Buddha can teach. Changing or not changing postures will not lead to any insight of dhammas as dukkha in this sense. > > D: yes.. we still an agreement from time to time > I like to add "but it is the second one, sankhara dukkha which is the Truth of Dukkha - the inherent unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas", > due to formation (this 'creating' factor of sankhara) . > Possibly an interesting topic for discussion : sankhara and its role in Dependent Origination. .... S: See Nyantiloka's dictionary for the different meanings of sankhara. Sankhara dukkha, sabbe sankhara dukkha, refers to all conditioned dhammas. Sankhara as the second factor in D.O. refers to past kamma. ... > > D: its 'content , the dhammas are different , but the function being 'conscious' isn't, is it? ... > S: Each citta arises, is 'conscious' of its object and falls away. I don't know what you mean by "its content'. > > D: for the citta I have something like a shore or the ground a stream is flowing along in mind .. .... S: Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Citta just experiences its object. It doesn't have 'content', but perhaps you're referring to the accumulated tendencies, such as the latent tendencies accumulated with the citta/ ... > > khanda is often translated by aggregate .I miss a more fitting term ... S: maybe best to stick to khandha. Otherwise, perhaps I'd use 'constituent' or 'factor'. Not easy. ... > S: We can read a Self into any sutta, but the truth is that there is no Self, no Doer, no One who can command anything. Postures are concepts - we can say they are sammutti sacca, conventional truth, which is what you mean, I think. > > D: how do you distinguish conventional truth and mundane realtity ... ... S: "Apple", "Computer" are examples of conventional truth, sammutti sacca - correct usage for what is referred to as apple or computer. Lokiya dhammas (worldly/mundane realities) as opposed to lokuttara dhammas (supramundane realities). Seeing now, visible object, hearing, sound - all lokiya dhammas. The only lokuttara dhammas are nibbana, magga and phala cittas (path and fruition consciousness and mental factors). ... > S: Yes, disentchantment, dispassion and detachment develop with right understanding. At the moment of understanding, there is detachment, there is dispassion. No need to do anything extra, no one to do anything! > > D: 50 % yes, as nothing to ......besides! the Path training of sila , samadhi and panna ..one supports the other .. developing understanding .. > without chanda , without volition no progress.. even before his parinibbana the Buddha emphasised again and again the training. ... S: When there is right understanding, this is the training. At such moments there is the development of adhi sill and adhi samadhi - 'higher' sila and 'higher' samadhi. There is chanda, cetana and all the other sobhana factors already. Otherwise it's trying to sneak the self back in, as just discussed with Rob E! Metta Sarah ===== #124191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 9, 2012 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] words and dhammas nilovg Dear Alex, your question brings me to the third analytical knowledge, patisambhida. . Op 8-mei-2012, om 19:33 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven > So considering this split between words (even about paramattha > dhammas) and momentary realities, what do we do? > ------------ > N: It is very important that the right words are used to express paramattha dhammas. taken from Buddhist dictionary, Ven. Nyanatiloka: patisambhidá: 'analytical knowledge' or 'discrimination', is of 4 kinds: analytical knowledge of the true meaning (attha-patisambhidá), of the law (dhamma-patisambhidá), of language (nirutti-patisambhidá), of ready wit (patibhána-patisambhidá). As an alternative rendering of the fourth term (patibhána), Bhikkhu Ñánamoli proposes: perspicuity (in expression and knowledge). 1. The analytical knowledge of the meaning (attha-p.) is the knowledge with regard to the sense. 2. The analytical knowledge of the law (dhamma-p.) is the knowledge with regard to the law. 3. The analytical knowledge of language (nirutti-p.) is the knowledge of the language with regard to those former 2 things. 4. The analytical knowledge of ready-wit (patibhána-p.) is the knowledge about the (former 3) kinds of knowledge" (Vibh. XV). ------- 1 can also stand for result, and 2 for cause. I want to pay attention to 3, nirutti patisambhida. Vibhanga: (3) " 'The knowledge of the language concerning those things' means: the language corresponding to reality, and the unfailing mode of expression concerning the true meaning and the law. ----- The Buddha had the highest degree of no 3, and the great disciples had a high degree, but less than the Buddha. We see how important the right language is. How else could we understand realities? Sarah's post today: Only through satipa.t.thaana can we come to understand the true meaning of the Buddha's words that expressed realities so perfectly. Perhaps this answers your question? The Buddha expressed with words realities, and there are also the listeners. They can only have right understanding by listening, considering and being aware. Nina. #124192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 9, 2012 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 7-mei-2012, om 16:53 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven > > If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form > > come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as > > its requisite condition.' > ------- > N: Nama and ruupa in D.O. here: naama the cetasikas that accompany > vipaakacitta, and form: ruupa. We have to specify which rupa. > > D: you mean to know the 4 conditions of matter and be mindful of > the tactile sense especially regarding one's body (?). > ------- N: No, it is simply this: there is vi~n~naa.na, vipaakacitta. Rebirth- consciousness is vipaakacitta and when it arises, also cetasikas that accompany this citta arise and also the heartbase, the ruupa. They are also conascent, and condition one another by way of conascence, mutuality, etc. The hearbase is the physical base of all cittas except the sense- cognitions. ------- > D: I would need to read the chapter , Nina . I don't understand > that at all ..( at least for now )...'at rebirth the hearbase > conditions the mindbase' ' > ---------- N: Mindbase: manaayatana, includes all cittas. During life, the heartbase that conditions citta has to arise before that citta. Ruupa at its arising moment is too weak, to be a condition, it can only be a condition at the moments of its presence. As you know, ruupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta. At the moment of rebirth it is different: then the heartbase produced by kamma and the rebirth- consciousness produced by kamma arise simultaneously. They condition one another mutually. ------ Nina. #124193 From: "ymanatta" Date: Wed May 9, 2012 11:21 pm Subject: Characteristics in applying Dhamma ymanatta Dear Nina, When applying Dhamma in daily life, to note of the Characteristics of the ultimate Truth. Can you please explain in detail, in which manner is this phrase refered to for investigation? Example, the 12 characteristics of Rupa ( Earth, Water, Fire & Wind ) Hardness, Roughness, Heaviness, Softness, Smoothness, Lightness Flowing, Cohesion Heat, Cold Supporting, Pushing For contemplation, alot has been emphasize on looking on the characteristics. Please enlighten me, hope you can elaborate further. With Metta, ym #124194 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 1:32 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Same applies to the sneaking cittas - they too can be known when they arise:-) So no need to try to keep track of "sneaky cittas," they will eventually reveal themselves! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124195 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] words and dhammas truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N:It is very important that the right words are used to express >paramattha dhammas. >============================ True, but even if we use the right words - words are still not the same as "raw" experience itself. So I wonder how much "true" knowledge we can get through mere "considering" of realities. It is one thing to read the menu, and another thing to actually taste the food. >S:Only through satipa.t.thaana can we come to understand the true >meaning of the Buddha's words that expressed realities so perfectly. >========== I would say sati+panna or even more consice - panna (wisdom). However, I believe that it has to be bhavanamaya panna rather than suta or cinta maya panna With best wishes, Alex #124196 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 10:06 am Subject: spd 19 (javana vithi-cittas vs. vipaaka) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "When we speak, walk, lift our hands, or when the body moves for the performing of different functions, the citta at such moments is different from the vipaakacitta that sees, hears, tastes, smells or experiences tangible object. The javana vithi-cittas, be they kusala or akusala, can cause the movement of ruupas of the body. Thus, we can understand that the cittas that peform kamma are altogether different from vipaaka cittas." (139) (end of passage) phil #124197 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 10:13 am Subject: Re: spd12 (sense and mind door processes - the bird and its shadow) philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for adding a comment here and to the other one. Panna is guiding me away from joining in discussions here ( accumulated hostility will cause me to misbehave, there are not conditions for that to change for now, wisdom sees that) so I will stick to posting these passages for the benefit of the group, and myself, of course. So please take this as thanks in advance for any further comments. That goes to Nina and anyone else. I add the comments to the file I am making of these passages, they are appreciated. Phil #124198 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 2:16 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124150) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > One point for now, on pannati as "shadows of dhammas." > ... > RE: Here is the Abhidhammatha Sangaha, which seems to be on or in the direction of the above subject, although it does not go into detail about how pannati would reference dhammas, but does make the general statement that they are apprehended in the form of "shadows of dhammas." The pertinent statement in the quote is triple-starred by me below for identification: > > ---QUOTE--- > The remainder Pa¤¤atti (39), is twofold, insamuch as it is made known, or as it makes known. > > How? > > There are such terms as `land', `mountain' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as `house', `chariot', `cart' and the like, so named on account of the mode of for- mation of materials; such terms as `person' `individual' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates; such terms as `direction', `time,' and the like, named according to the revolution of the moon and so forth; such terms as `well', `cave' and the like, so named on account of the mode of non-impact and so forth; such terms as Kasiõa-objects and the like, so named on account of respective elements and different mental culture. > > ***All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things.*** > > They are called `pa¤¤atti' because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. > > This `Pa¤¤atti' is so called because it is made known. > ---END OF QUOTE--- > > This if from page 427: > A Manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha Sangaha)By Narada Maha Thera > Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. > Accessed from buddhanet.net > =============== J: Thanks for the quote from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. It's always best to go to the actual source that's being referenced. Regarding your claim in an earlier message (124093) that the Abhidhammattha Sangaha says that concepts are a distorted view of the realities that actually exist. I agree that the gist of the passage is the part you've highlighted, namely: "All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things." As I read it, what this passage is saying is this: Concepts do not exist in the ultimate sense (i.e., are not dhammas); they are (merely) object of thinking by virtue of there being thinking about the dhammas that are or have been experienced. Note that the passage does not say anything about concepts being a `distorted view' of dhammas (a proposition that seems to be part of your philosophical position). In my view the idea of being a `shadow' does not carry with it the implication of there being a distortion but rather it suggests something that is removed from the actuality of the `real thing'. The Abhidhammattha Sangaha passage continues as follows: "They are called `pannatti' because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode." Again, no suggestion of distortion of view. Regarding the other proposition you've been putting forward, namely, that concepts are referencing dhammas, and are markers or indicators of dhammas (124093, 124150), as you rightly acknowledge the Abhidhammattha Sangaha passage does nothing to support this either. Besides, there seems to be an inconsistency in your position here, in that if concepts are a `distorted view' of dhammas, they cannot at the same time be "markers or indicators" of those dhammas. So far none of the sources you have cited (including the discussion on the list!! :-)) support the views you've been putting forward. These views may well be ones that you've come across in your reading, but I'm afraid they do not find any support in the Theravadin texts; they are just someone's own theory ;-)) Jon #124199 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 2:43 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Thanks for the quote from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. It's always best to go to the actual source that's being referenced. > > Regarding your claim in an earlier message (124093) that the Abhidhammattha Sangaha says that concepts are a distorted view of the realities that actually exist. > > I agree that the gist of the passage is the part you've highlighted, namely: > "All such different things, though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things." > > As I read it, what this passage is saying is this: Concepts do not exist in the ultimate sense (i.e., are not dhammas); they are (merely) object of thinking by virtue of there being thinking about the dhammas that are or have been experienced. > > Note that the passage does not say anything about concepts being a `distorted view' of dhammas (a proposition that seems to be part of your philosophical position). In my view the idea of being a `shadow' does not carry with it the implication of there being a distortion but rather it suggests something that is removed from the actuality of the `real thing'. And yet it is still a version or a reflection of the real thing - in other words, something being a shadow of something else necessitates that the shadow is a kind of image or reflection of the actual object. When an object throws a shadow, the shadow bears some form or shape of the original object, but it is no longer clear and specific. It is a general outline of the original, giving some sense of the type of object which has cast the shadow, but without any of the interior detail that would give you a clear idea of what the object actually is or how it looks or hangs together in its specificty. In addition, shadows are often, or almost always, a distorted version of the actual shape of the object. So I think that saying that the concepts which are objects of thought are 'shadows' of dhammas gives a clear sense that they are about the dhammas, though not a correct or clear understanding of the dhammas that they are about. Again, this shows a distorted relationship between the experience of dhammas and the concepts, or shadows, that "reflect" them imperfectly and obscurely. It doesn't mean that concepts can go too far in showing what dhammas are like, but they can give a sense of the shape or outline of the dhammas, just as a shadow gives a general sense of the shape or outline of an object. I think that this statement in the Sangaha justifies such a view. > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha passage continues as follows: > "They are called `pannatti' because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode." > > Again, no suggestion of distortion of view. I don't think that statement precludes the implication of the previous one, that the concept is a "shadow" of dhammas. If x is a function of y, there is a connection between them. The "shadow" metaphor clearly shows that the concept is derived from the dhamma, whatever way one may specify that this takes place. > Regarding the other proposition you've been putting forward, namely, that concepts are referencing dhammas, and are markers or indicators of dhammas (124093, 124150), as you rightly acknowledge the Abhidhammattha Sangaha passage does nothing to support this either. I think the "shadow" metaphor shows a form of reference. Did I say that it did not? > Besides, there seems to be an inconsistency in your position here, in that if concepts are a `distorted view' of dhammas, they cannot at the same time be "markers or indicators" of those dhammas. Something can be marked or indicated in a general way, and can do so imperfectly, and still leave a clue as to what the object is like, or how it is situated, just as a skeletal fossil can give imperfect but still salient clues as to the original species or individual who left the skeleton. > So far none of the sources you have cited (including the discussion on the list!! :-)) support the views you've been putting forward. These views may well be ones that you've come across in your reading, but I'm afraid they do not find any support in the Theravadin texts; they are just someone's own theory ;-)) I would not agree that there is nothing that indicates this. The shadow metaphor shows a connection, and there are many discussions in which the concept is acknowledged as an incorrect view of what is really taking place, namely the dhammas arising at the time. Sarah has used the example of the computer screen being a mistaken notion of "visual object" and that "computer screen" is a mistaken interpretation of visual object. I haven't heard back from you on such examples, but they are often used - that when one thinks they are "touching a table" that is actually an extrapolation of the dhammas of "hardness" etc., just as music is an extrapolation of a series of "sound objects." I wouldn't think that such examples which are used here all the time would seem foreign or based on fringe theories. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = =