#124200 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 10, 2012 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Characteristics in applying Dhamma nilovg Dear ym, Op 9-mei-2012, om 15:21 heeft ymanatta het volgende geschreven: > 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 > ------- N: Tangible object appears as: hardness or softness (earth), heat or cold (fire), motion or pressure (wind). These characteristics can be directly experienced through the bodysense, without having to think about them. The element of water is not tangible object, it can only be experienced through the mind-door. ------ > ym: For contemplation, a lot has been emphasize on looking on the > characteristics. > ------- N: Characteristics appear one at a time and then they can be considered, investigated, directly experienced by pa~n~naa as just dhammas. They appear, this word is correct. They arise and appear through conditions, not because we select them as objects of awareness. There can be awareness of what appears through its own conditions, not of what not appears. When there is a selection of objects by a self, there is not detachment. The Buddha's teachings lead to detachment, from the beginning to the end. We have to learn that what appears is just a dhamma, not a person or thing. When we have listened a lot and have intellectually understood that also sati is anattaa and the objects sati can be aware of are anatta, there are conditions for the arising of sati, because of its own conditions, not because of a self who could induce sati. ------- Nina. #124201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 10, 2012 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] words and dhammas nilovg Dear Alex, Op 9-mei-2012, om 20:59 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > 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). ------ N: At the moment of direct awareness pa~n~naa can directly understand the characteristics of realities that appear. It has to be through satipa.t.thaana. ------ > > A:However, I believe that it has to be bhavanamaya panna rather > than suta or cinta maya panna ------- N: Correct. but listening and cvonsidering are indispensable conditions for bhavana. Not to be overlooked! Kh Sujin said to me: listening often, not just a week, a month, a year, but kappas (aeons). When we hear this we realize that patience is essential. It is not surprising, because we accumulated aeons of ignorance. ----- Nina. #124202 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 10, 2012 10:39 pm Subject: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi all, A message from Htoo, a long-time DSG member who is unable to access Yahoo at this time: Meditational view The term meditation may or may not cover what the real Buddhists do when doing satipatthaana. Definitions are what the dictionary maker did for the purpose of general understanding. There are meditation methods in different religions. They will describe in the view related to their religion. But these will be different from Buddhists' meditation or satipatthaana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #124203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 10, 2012 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditational view nilovg Dear pt, I am so touched to hear from Htoo. I was wondering whether he is still alive, thinking of him so often. If you have any contact, my fondest wishes to him. Nina. Op 10-mei-2012, om 14:39 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > A message from Htoo, a long-time DSG member who is unable to access > Yahoo at this time. #124204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 11, 2012 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 10-mei-2012, om 6:43 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > 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. ----- N: Ultimate truth is different from conventional truth. We should know the difference. When we cling with wrong view to concepts, taking them for permanent, for self, the citta is akusala. But this does not necessarily happen all the time. In daily life we can use concepts also without clinging. The ariyans did, the Buddha did. Nina. #124205 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 9:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 10-mei-2012, om 6:43 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > 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. > ----- > N: Ultimate truth is different from conventional truth. We should > know the difference. When we cling with wrong view to concepts, > taking them for permanent, for self, the citta is akusala. But this > does not necessarily happen all the time. In daily life we can use > concepts also without clinging. The ariyans did, the Buddha did. I am wondering if we can cling to concepts. If a concept is the object of wrong view, what is it that we are clinging to, technically speaking, if we are holding onto "wrong view?" Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124206 From: "ymanatta" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Characteristics in applying Dhamma ymanatta Dear Nina, Thank you for the explanation. Sadhu! With Metta, ym --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: <...> > N: Tangible object appears as: hardness or softness (earth), heat or > cold (fire), motion or pressure (wind). These characteristics can be > directly experienced through the bodysense, without having to think > about them. The element of water is not tangible object, it can only > be experienced through the mind-door. > ------ <...> #124207 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:16 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: 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. > =============== J: The point I was trying to make is this: Enlightened beings conceptualise without having a distorted view of reality, so it is not appropriate to characterise concepts as being a distorted view of reality, a hallucination, or whatever. In point of fact, the non-enlightened being also conceptualises without necessarily having a distorted view of reality. Only when wrong view is actually arising is there a distorted view of reality; at all other times there is either a correct view or no view at all. > =============== > RE: 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." > =============== J: You are talking here about 2 different things: a./ the conceptualising of various experiences as being a car, driving, ride, etc., and b./ having the view that a car (for example) is a lasting entity. Mere conceptualising does not require or imply a wrong/distorted view of reality. It's a function of memory and thinking, rather than of a wrong view about the true nature of things. > =============== > RE: 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. > =============== J: The dhammas about which there is conceptualising have already fallen way, so there's no way the conceptualising can in any sense indicate or point to those dhammas. > =============== > RE: 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. > =============== J: If we're going to discuss something another member said, we should have the member's actual words in front of us, in context. (In passing, there's surely a certain irony in Rob E citing a post from Sarah as the source of his views on the significance of concepts in the development of insight!! :-)) Jon #124208 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 11-mei-2012, om 1:49 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I am wondering if we can cling to concepts. If a concept is the > object of wrong view, what is it that we are clinging to, > technically speaking, if we are holding onto "wrong view?" ----- N: We can cling to anything, except lokuttara dhammas. To realities, to concepts. Say, we believe se "see" a person. We cling to the person we believe we see, we think that he really exists. This is an example of clinging with wrong view, it is personality belief, sakkaya di.t.thi. Nina. #124209 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:40 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Last night I was listening to a good audio discussion, 2007-07-04A-a (www.dhammastudygroup.org) with Ajahn Sujin, Han, Ven Pannabahulo, Ven Dhammanando, ourselves and others in Bangkok. It includes a good discussion onVinaya, sila and satipatthana relevant to my discussion with Rob E. Anyway, lots of good material, so I've decided to transcribe a snippet each day until I find the relevant part again. ***** Ven P: Last night I was engaged in a very strange experiment. I kept closing my eyes and looking at the reflection of the blind on the wall and I was just aware that I couldn't see, I can not experience the arising and ceasing of the rupa and all I can do within myself is to notice i that at the moment I'm seeing and at the next moment I'm thinking, but not actually experience any arising or falling during the moment of seeing.... KS: What about the usual daily life and there can be moment of beginning to understand or think about the true nature of realities. That's all. It's impossible to directly experience the arising and falling of anything right now because it has to be the developed pa~n~naa because even [though] it's true that seeing arises and falls away, no one can experience that, only the developed pa~n~naa from hearing, considering, until it's time to really understand reality - very little from moment to moment - because now avijjaa, wrong understanding and akusala follow the seeing, the hearing all the time. As it's like this, so as pa~n~naa develops, it has to be like this. It can not be different from this. Very natural. ***** Metta Sarah ==== #124210 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - a sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > following the essay Anattaa According to the Theravaada  by `anamoli Thera .... S: I think the first part, copied below, gives a clear description of the different uses of atta as used in the Pali texts: ***** > 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). ***** Thanks for sharing. Metta Sarah ==== #124211 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Re: Meditational view sarahprocter... Hi Htoo, Great to see you posting again. >H: Meditational view > > The term meditation may or may not cover what the real Buddhists do > when doing satipatthaana. Definitions are what the dictionary maker > did for the purpose of general understanding. > > There are meditation methods in different religions. They will > describe in the view related to their religion. But these will be > different from Buddhists' meditation or satipatthaana. .... S: Can we define meditation as the development of understanding at any time at all? Each moment of life is conditioned by different factors and as the article Dieter posted recently pointed out, anatta is the "teaching peculiar to Buddhas" (buddhaanam saamukka"msikaa desanaa). Every word of the Teachings is for pa~n~naa, not for ignorance. If there's ignorance and just 'doing' something, it's not meditation as taught by the Buddha, not the understanding of realities as arising beyond anyone's control. I'll look forward to any more of your comments or extracts, my friend! Metta Sarah p.s Pls just send to Pt or myself to f/w until we get the difficulties sorted out. ========= #124212 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditational view sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I am so touched to hear from Htoo. I was wondering whether he is > still alive, thinking of him so often. If you have any contact, my > fondest wishes to him. ... S: He's very well, working in the medical field in Burma. He reads the posts when he has access. Because of restrictions, Pt or one of us needs to help forward messages for now. Metta Sarah ==== #124213 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self sarahprocter... Hi Ken O, Good to see you back! Have you listened to the 2011 KK discussions we've uploaded? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > 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 .... S: Of course, in an ultimate sense, there is no walking, talking, eating, sleeping or moving in any way - just namas and rupas. What do you mean by the 'body movement dhamma'? ... > 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 ... S: Controversial as usual:-)) Of course, no 'we' to practise anything. Can wholesome friendliness and kindness really be to the precious Me? Sure? ... > p.s. just sharing, and I may not answer your email or join in your dicussions :-) ... S: Likewise:-)) Metta Sarah ===== #124214 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 7:49 pm Subject: Some very shocking news philofillet Dear Group Something rather horrible has happened. My cousin (and dearest friend) has killed himself. He struggled for years with addictions, and finally they defeated him. I guess. That is one way to put it, I wasn't there when he commited suicide so I don't know what state he was in at the time. I've been in touch with him by e-mail, so naturally there is a voice that is saying "you didn't do enough." But that voice is rather easy to ignore. Some observations. 1) The Buddha's teaching on the mustard seed is helpful. What household is there where a death has not happened. 2) An understanding that life goes on. 3) An observation that this is really about me, "did I do enough?", "will people read my last e-mail to him, full of black humour (which was for 35 years our style of communication) and think I encouraged him to kill himself? Will I be blamed? Maybe the grief will hit soon, maybe I am just a little too cold, but it seems to be all about me. 4) a determination not to let my own addictions get the better of me. And of course that is all rooted in self as well. I did talk to him quite often in recent years about Buddhism. I was on the verge of writing him a letter about some rather more New Agey things I've been interested in lately, I wrote one to my father, but alas I held back to write to him because...who knows why we do or don't do things. Conditions. Too late now. There is a Japanese expression "kakko tsuke" which I guess means playing it cool. We always played it cool, we used to play in punk bands together, that sort of thing, our communication has always been sardonic and witty and harsh in humour. There is not really any use regretting that. Conditions. That's just how our relationship developed. BUt I'm glad that in my last e-mail to him I told him that he is my "true soul brother" and I ahve told him I loved him quite recently...but damn that black humour! I wish we could all always jsut speak sincerely and gently to each other, even if it meant being boring. We were never boring. He was never boring. Wittiest man I ever knew...and sharp wit becomes a habit that makes gentle sweet sincerity difficult. Again, no used regretting that now. Conditions played out the way they did... I don't think I'm going to need group counselling, and as Scott once said it's nuts to turn to people in an internet group for counsellling. But if I find I need to express more about this in Dhamma terms, I will write. Even though I'm 51 years old, I have never experienced the death of a loved one. I find I am watching with a certain amount of detachment. But I will have to have a good long cry one of these days.And I'm sure I will. I expect some people will write words of condolences, please accept my thanks in advance. No need to pile on, I'm sure everyone feels like expressing condolences, you are all decent people. Phil #124215 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 7:55 pm Subject: spd 20 (citta is always travelling) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "Citta thinks of many different things, citta is always travelling. Citta is travelling when there is seeing though the eyes, hearing through the ears, smelling through the nose, tasting through the tongue, the experience of tangible object through the bodysense and experienceing an object through the mind-door. We all like travelling, who wants to be always in the same place, being inactive, leading a monotonous life? We want to see, hear, smell, taste and experience tangible object. We wish to experiecne all the different sense objects, it never is enough. Citta arises and frequents the different objects that appear through the six doors, it never is inactive. If one realizes the characteristics of realities as they are, one can know that citta arises, experiences an objects and then falls away. That is the true characteristic of citta." (239) (end of passage) phil #124216 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 11, 2012 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for the audio transcript. Op 11-mei-2012, om 10:40 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > until it's time to really understand reality - very little from > moment to moment - because now avijjaa, wrong understanding and > akusala follow the seeing, the hearing all the time. As it's like > this, so as pa~n~naa develops, it has to be like this. It can not > be different from this. Very natural. ------ N: I remember hearing on a recording that the understanding can be only very little at a time. There may be some weak awareness, but it is followed by thinking, naming, etc. This is a good point to pursue when you are in Bgk. There may be doubts: hardness is experienced through the bodysense, vipaakacitta, but it is very short. Usually it just passes, but sometimes there may be some consideration of hardness. As Kh Sujin said, we have to become familiar with all kinds of characteristics. We cannot expect clear understanding yet. ------ Nina. #124217 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 11, 2012 9:03 pm Subject: Re: Some very shocking news sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Very sorry to hear this. As you said to me when Sharon was washed out of the sea, no way to know what kind of cittas were going through at such a time. Yes, the mustard-seed story - life goes on. You were his very good friend, you helped as you could. There are bound to be the regrets and so on, but these can be known as useless, akusala thinking. The Dhamma really is the only refuge that we can really appreciate at such times. His way of thinking, his anguish, his tendencies were accumulated, just as ours are. The death is the result of kamma, that's all. Of course there are bound to be other concerns - what people will think?, about me and so on - none of it's important. When the Sharon incident occurred, there were also the 'if only's', I was worrying about the press and so on - just ordinary kilesa that arise at any time. Lots about 'us' as you say, all day long. Even the sadness is about 'us', about our unpleasant feelings. The cittas of what was your friend have continued on in their new life according to kamma meanwhile. Remember, "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter." Wise reflection now can be the condition for more understanding - you always stress about this precious human life, this precious moment and opportunity for wisdom to grow. We can 'use' such events in life to make a priority to assist others as much as we can in even little ways, looking out for each other, sharing Dhamma as you do. We leave all our friends in this life, all our dear ones sooner or later - the development of right understanding is what is really precious as we stress to Lukas. Thanks for sharing. You will help others who have lost family members and friends in similar tragic circumstances through your wise reflections. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear Group > > Something rather horrible has happened. #124218 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 11, 2012 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some very shocking news nilovg Dear Phil and Sarah, Op 11-mei-2012, om 11:49 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I don't think I'm going to need group counselling, and as Scott > once said it's nuts to turn to people in an internet group for > counsellling. But if I find I need to express more about this in > Dhamma terms, I will write. ----- N: No, no group counselling, but reminders for all of us, therefore, it is good you wrote. Kh Sujin would say: death, this is just like now. She plays it cool. She stresses momentary death of each citta. Someone who turns to suicide has accumulations to do so. Very likely he did in past lives, I heard recently. No use to think: did I do enough. As Sarah wrote: We understand and still do. Any sadness, mourning, we are engaged with ourselves. so human, and unavoidable. But satipa.t.thaana is the only cure to become less engaged with self. I wrote to Sarah about my worries re Lodewijk's health. He has many complaints, needs another bone scan. Was just at one of his specialists. But I said to Sarah that I always turn to her mails, since she puts in reminders about the present moment for us all. This is better than condoleances. Like now, I am very glad and I shall type it out for Lodewijk. Thanks to your writing about the incident! No need to answer, tomorrow we are taking a break. Nina. #124219 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2012 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some very shocking news upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/11/2012 5:50:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Dear Group Something rather horrible has happened. My cousin (and dearest friend) has killed himself. He struggled for years with addictions, and finally they defeated him. I guess. That is one way to put it, I wasn't there when he commited suicide so I don't know what state he was in at the time. I've been in touch with him by e-mail, so naturally there is a voice that is saying "you didn't do enough." But that voice is rather easy to ignore. =============================== I'm very sorry about this, Phil, for your friend and for you. I hope you can quickly obtain some peace on this. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124220 From: "Jessica" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 10:27 am Subject: Re: Some very shocking news jessicamui Dear Philip, Very sorry to hear what happened. Am 51 too, have experienced many closests' death. Just want to share the Assu Sutta with you: ""Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing are greater than the water in the four great oceans. "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." May the tears, the grief be the conditions for panna to arise. With Much Metta, Jessica. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear Group > > Something rather horrible has happened. My cousin (and dearest friend) has killed himself. He struggled for years with addictions, and finally they defeated him. I guess. That is one way to put it, I wasn't there when he commited suicide so I don't know what state he was in at the time. I've been in touch with him by e-mail, so naturally there is a voice that is saying "you didn't do enough." But that voice is rather easy to ignore. > > Some observations. > > 1) The Buddha's teaching on the mustard seed is helpful. What household is there where a death has not happened. > > 2) An understanding that life goes on. > > 3) An observation that this is really about me, "did I do enough?", "will people read my last e-mail to him, full of black humour (which was for 35 years our style of communication) and think I encouraged him to kill himself? Will I be blamed? Maybe the grief will hit soon, maybe I am just a little too cold, but it seems to be all about me. > > 4) a determination not to let my own addictions get the better of me. And of course that is all rooted in self as well. > > I did talk to him quite often in recent years about Buddhism. I was on the verge of writing him a letter about some rather more New Agey things I've been interested in lately, I wrote one to my father, but alas I held back to write to him because...who knows why we do or don't do things. Conditions. Too late now. > > There is a Japanese expression "kakko tsuke" which I guess means playing it cool. We always played it cool, we used to play in punk bands together, that sort of thing, our communication has always been sardonic and witty and harsh in humour. There is not really any use regretting that. Conditions. That's just how our relationship developed. BUt I'm glad that in my last e-mail to him I told him that he is my "true soul brother" and I ahve told him I loved him quite recently...but damn that black humour! I wish we could all always jsut speak sincerely and gently to each other, even if it meant being boring. We were never boring. He was never boring. Wittiest man I ever knew...and sharp wit becomes a habit that makes gentle sweet sincerity difficult. Again, no used regretting that now. Conditions played out the way they did... > > I don't think I'm going to need group counselling, and as Scott once said it's nuts to turn to people in an internet group for counsellling. But if I find I need to express more about this in Dhamma terms, I will write. > > Even though I'm 51 years old, I have never experienced the death of a loved one. I find I am watching with a certain amount of detachment. But I will have to have a good long cry one of these days.And I'm sure I will. > > I expect some people will write words of condolences, please accept my thanks in advance. No need to pile on, I'm sure everyone feels like expressing condolences, you are all decent people. > > Phil > #124221 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 2:55 pm Subject: Re: Some very shocking news epsteinrob Very sorry, Phil, to hear such difficult news. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear Group > > Something rather horrible has happened. My cousin (and dearest friend) has killed himself. He struggled for years with addictions, and finally they defeated him. I guess. That is one way to put it, I wasn't there when he commited suicide so I don't know what state he was in at the time. ----------------------------------------------------- #124222 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 3:13 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (124150) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > One point for now, on pannati as "shadows of dhammas." > > ... > > RE: 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. > > =============== > > J: The point I was trying to make is this: Enlightened beings conceptualise without having a distorted view of reality, so it is not appropriate to characterise concepts as being a distorted view of reality, a hallucination, or whatever. > > In point of fact, the non-enlightened being also conceptualises without necessarily having a distorted view of reality. Only when wrong view is actually arising is there a distorted view of reality; at all other times there is either a correct view or no view at all. Then what is meant by the concept being a shadow of dhammas? How do you see a "shadow?" When something is a shadow of something else, it is a corresponding production or view of the original. Whether you see it as distorted, shorthand, generalized, stopped in time by thought, or whatever, it is a way of referencing dhammas that is not as immediate as actually seeing them at the time of arisal as they are. So I think that the relationship persists, and I would be happy to hear how you would address this, even if you don't think it's the issue that is of most importance. When an enlightened person conceptualizes, they are aware of doing so and don't mistake it for the direct apprehension of reality, but they also know that it is a concept, not a dhamma, and that it is not the "real thing." So of course their view is not distorted, but the concept, even when used by an arahat, is still a concept, and is still a derivative or version of dhammas, not the dhammas themselves. So the concept itself is a kind of distortion. It is like a person using a metaphor to describe something, as opposed to a person who is psychotic thinking the metaphor is real. If one were to read Blake and think there really was a "burning Tyger" in front of them, that person would have a distorted view, but the "Tyger Tyger burning bright" is still a derived image of reality that points to a certain reality, and not a reality in and of itself, just as the concept is in relation to dhammas. > > =============== > > RE: 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." > > =============== > > J: You are talking here about 2 different things: a./ the conceptualising of various experiences as being a car, driving, ride, etc., and b./ having the view that a car (for example) is a lasting entity. > > Mere conceptualising does not require or imply a wrong/distorted view of reality. It's a function of memory and thinking, rather than of a wrong view about the true nature of things. Well, when one takes a car and such as real that in itself *is* a wrong view of reality. It is taking for real that which is not real. It may not be an official wrong view of Dhamma as in thinking that a car is a dhamma or something, but it's still an inherently incorrect way of understanding what is real and what is not. I don't know how you want to characterize it, but I assume an arahat knows a car is a concept, and the ordinary person thinks it's a real object. > > =============== > > RE: 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. > > =============== > > J: The dhammas about which there is conceptualising have already fallen way, so there's no way the conceptualising can in any sense indicate or point to those dhammas. Everything of note takes place after the dhammas have fallen away - it's an ongoing thing. Succeeding cittas pick up accumulations from dhammas -- somehow magically -- after they have fallen away as well. So why not concepts reference experiences that have just fallen away on an ongoing basis? > > =============== > > RE: 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. > > =============== > > J: If we're going to discuss something another member said, we should have the member's actual words in front of us, in context. > > (In passing, there's surely a certain irony in Rob E citing a post from Sarah as the source of his views on the significance of concepts in the development of insight!! :-)) I just take my information wherever I can get it here on dsg. It may be ironic, but I won't be able to find the post. I don't know if Sarah wants to get involved in such an ongoing discussion such as ours, but surely she could tell us in what sense she used the above description, which she has discussed several times. If I can find it, I'll repost it, but what I said is close enough for you consider it as an example, whether Sarah said it exactly that way or not. I try to make sense of what is being said and what I read, so that I can have a more complete picture of how these things work together. A lot of times people are dismissive of the role of concepts, but from pariyatti and hearing the Dhamma to nimittas and all sorts of other things, concepts play a big role, and I don't think there's a good deal of clarity about them yet. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #124223 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 3:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 11-mei-2012, om 1:49 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I am wondering if we can cling to concepts. If a concept is the > > object of wrong view, what is it that we are clinging to, > > technically speaking, if we are holding onto "wrong view?" > ----- > N: We can cling to anything, except lokuttara dhammas. To realities, > to concepts. Say, we believe se "see" a person. We cling to the > person we believe we see, we think that he really exists. This is an > example of clinging with wrong view, it is personality belief, > sakkaya di.t.thi. > Nina. Is there a technical description of how clinging arises in relation to a concept? I am guessing that such clinging is a cetasika...? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #124224 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 12, 2012 4:16 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 2. No Control sarahprocter... Dear Friends **** Ven P: So should we keep reminding ourselves...? KS: I think that when it's time to understand, to think about, to read or to hear Dhamma, it's the development of understanding by itself and when it's time for akusala to arise by conditions, no one can stop its arising. So right understanding can understand the difference between moments of kusala and akusala as all are not self. There are conditions for each reality's arising and one will be relaxed because there is no control. Just understand whatever appears as conditioned reality. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124225 From: "sarah" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Message from Luraya sarahprocter... Hi Luraya (& Lukas), I'm so glad you wrote here! >Luraya: 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. .... S: Please do anytime. Nina already answered the questions, but I'd just like to encourage you to keep writing and sharing Dhamma with us. ... > 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. .... S: It's a very good question. The key is understanding that all dhammas, all realities, including right understanding itself, are anatta, beyond anyone's control. Carefully considering what dhammas are now will lead to more understanding without any trying to have it arise. ... <.....>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. ... S: It's true. Our tendencies, our accumulations do follow us wherever we go. We think we can change the situation and avoid unpleasantness, but this is because the idea that we can control situations, control mental states is so deeply rooted. In fact, life exists at just this moment. The seeing now, the thinking, the attachment, the aversion are all conditioned, beyond anyone's control. The difficulties in life are never the situation, the other people, but always the lobha, dosa and moha arising now. .... >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? .... S: As you say, it is lobha that wishes to be aware, that tries so hard. It is right understanding that understands and accepts the present dhammas as they are, regardless of what they are. Yes, only one way out and that is through understanding all kinds of dhammas as non self, conditioned just as they are at this moment. I appreciate your keen interest in the Dhamma. I hope you and Lukas can go on sharing Dhamma reminders. Let us know how your reflections go. Have you listened to any of the audio discussions on www.dhammastudygroup.org? Perhaps you'll both be able to join us in Thailand one day for some discussions too. Metta Sarah ====== #124226 From: "sarah" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Daily life, from Bhante Dhammadharo sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > 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. .... S: We always have different desires, different wishes from each other and when we live closely with another person or are in a relationship, we need to be careful and considerate so as not cause upsets. Jon and I often have differences of wishes, but we don't need to speak out every time we're in a bad mood or annoyed about something. This is a kind of consideration for the other person. It's the same when my mother stays with us - better to keep quiet than to have any quarrel. I remember once being on a trip in Burma with K.Sujin and friends. There was some problem with the Guide and some of us were unhappy about it. Later I mentioned this to K.Sujin and she asked me if I'd said anything to him and I replied that I hadn't. She said that this was good. At first I thought she was thinking of his welfare, not wishing him to hear complaints, but later I understood she meant that when we voice out our discontent, the tendency for stronger akusala is accumulated and when we speak or act with akusala cittas, the kamma patha can bring results by way of akusala vipaka. ... > 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. .... S: Again, we all feel angry at times, but better to learn to "suck it up". It's momentary and passes. There can be awareness of it as just a conditioned dhamma. ... >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. .... S: Lots and lots of thinking instead of being aware, of understanding the present dhamma. When there is understanding, it is practice, no matter what situation you're in, no matter what activity at the time. ... > > Today I found a Dhamma passage from "be here now" by Bhikkhu Dhammadharo: > > > Bhikkhu: What does this indicate? We don't like to be distracted, do we? We would prefer to be able to go about our business calmly, peacefully and in an organized way. We want to get on with the practice, be aware and understand. Is it self or not-self who thinks like that? It is a misunderstanding based on our dislike of the way things are at the moment. We don't have the understanding, the calmness, the steadiness we would like to have. 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?> .... S: Perfect! Yes, just attachment! Metta Sarah ==== #124227 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 12, 2012 9:13 pm Subject: Re: Some very shocking news philofillet Dear Sarah, Nina, Howard, Rob E,Jessica, all Thanks for your thoughts and helpful comments. I feel perfectly fine today. You see, it's all about me! But an interesting thing to note. All the hostility I felt about silly things related to DSG is gone. It was kind of a last pocket of unfriendliness in my life, and today at least it's completely gone. I don't think it is because of a conscious decision, "life is short, and brutal, we have to be gentle with each other" but that is kind of the feeling in the air I'm breathing today. An unpredictable condition gave rise to more friendliness, much more effective than being fed metta sutta passages! Anyways, thanks again. Phil p.s one of the new agey writers I like wrote that when we lose a loved one, the absence of the loved one leaves a hole in the fabric of our soul, but through that hole, more light can get in, sooner or later. I read that a few days before I heard the bad news, and I wondered about it hypothetically. But I sense it is true, though of course in Dhamma terms we don't talk about "soul" or "light..." #124228 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 13, 2012 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self moellerdieter Dear Nina, 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 ..(snip) D: so far I understand ( I thought you were tallking about mindfulness of rupa) N: ....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: first I was thinking you really meant hearbase until I recognized it was the missing 't' ... ;-) From: Maha Thera Nyanatiloka. Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Buddhist Publication Society, first edition 1952. Hadaya-vatthu: 'heart as physical base' of mental life. The heart, according to the commentaries as well as to the general Buddhist tradition, forms the physical base vatthu of consciousness In the canonical texts, however, even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, no such base is ever localized, a fact which seems to have first been discovered by Shwe Zan Aung Compendium of Philosophy, pp. 277ff.. In the Patth. we find repeatedly only the passage:;That material thing based on which mind-element and mind-consciousness element function; yam rupam nissaya manodhatu ca mano-viana-dhatu ca vattanti, tam rupam. unquote Ven. Nanatiloka : "In the canonical texts, however, even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, no such base is ever localized", I wonder why and how it has become 'the general Buddhist tradition' , that 'the heart forms the physical base vatthu of consciousness.' I stumbled upon http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=40&pid=120&mode=threaded&sh\ ow=&st=&#entry120 , 6 years ago Robert K . replied to the question Is it to be taken literally that the "heart" referred to here is the physical organ that is being spoken about? Could it not be that "heart" is referring to "emotions", which are mental formations, so that citta includes both mind and emotion? ______________________________ RK:"Good question. The hadaya-vatthu is rupa (physical phenomena) and so is entirely different from citta which is mental phenomena- this in the realms where there are five aggregates (khandas)(ie. our world). In the Tipitaka they don't actually specify this matter as hadaya (heart) but simply say "yam rupam" (that material thing). They specify it in the commenatries where extra details are often given. It is useful to know that although mano-vinnana (synonyms for citta) have hadaya-vatthu as the base in five aggregate worlds (our world) this type of matter is not an indriya (controlling faculty), whereas cakkhu-pasada, sota pasada etc.(the sensitive matter of the eye, ear, nose tongue body etc)are all indriya. The reason that the heart matter is not indriya is that mano is not contolled by it in the sense that the relative strength or weakness of the heart matter does not influence mano (citta, vinnana). This is contrasted with say cakkhu pasada where if the sensitive matter in the eye is of weak quality then seeing will be diminished (and the same for the other senses). Thus we see that the heart base must be even more subtle than the extremely refined matter that is the eye base." D: I had a similar thought ..heart and emotion seem to have a natural connection, but as Robert points out it is a physical phenomena and explains it's non canonical appearance by extra details of 'that material thing' yam rupam . 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 D: you say heartbase that conditions .. how to understand U Narada, p. 61: Why heartbase is never a conditioning state:( as base-prenascence indriya). (see link) Robert quotes Vis. M. (see below) and from your message DSG # 29176 A Summary about heartbase: Rob K's posts have rendered many questions people may have about the heart, transplantation of heart, etc. He also explained that we may be clinging to an idea of my heart, but that the heartbase is a very subtle rupa that can only be experienced through the mind-door. Although we cannot experience it now, what can we learn about this? It is the physical basis for many cittas, included in mind-element and mind-consciousness element. It is a condition for other realities and it itself is conditioned by kamma which keeps on producing it throughout life, on and on. We are in a five khandha plane, meaning, what we call *we* are nama and rupa. Each citta takes a new base (be it sensebase or heartbase), except during the last javanacittas of a life which all depend on one heartbase. This study helps us to see at least intellectually, that the heartbase and the cittas that depend on it are very temporary, beyond control and not to be taken for mine or self. All these studies of details we do now are accumulated as a foundation so that later on panna can arise which understands the true nature of dhammas. D: I am lost with this, Nina.. with Metta Dieter #124229 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 13, 2012 2:27 am Subject: Fw: [dsg] Snippets of Dhamma - Intriguing Not Self moellerdieter sorry, I forgot the quotations : Visuddhimagga Ch. XIV QUOTE 60. 13. The heart-basis has the characteristic of being the (material) support for the mind-element and for the mind-consciousness-element. Its function is to observe them. It is manifested as the carrying of them. It is to be found in dependence on the blood, of the kind described in the treatise on the mindfulness of the body (Ch. VIII, 111), inside the heart. It is assisted by the primaries with their functions of upholding, etc.; it is consolidated by temperature, consciousness, and nutriment; it is maintained by life; and it serves as physical basis for the mind-element and the mind-consciousness-element, and for the states associated with them.26 Vism. VIII, 111. QUOTE This is the heart flesh. As to colour, it is the colour of the back of a red-lotus petal. As to shape, it is the shape of a lotus bud with the outer petals removed and turned upside down; it is smooth outside, and inside it is like the interior of a kosataki (loofah gourd). In those who possess understanding it is a little expanded; in those without understanding it is still only a bud. Inside it there is a hollow the size of a punnaga seed's bed where half a pasata measure of blood is kept, with which as their support the mind element and mind-consciousness element occur. #124230 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 13, 2012 9:17 am Subject: spd 21 (development of satipatthana) philofillet Dear Group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "Now, at this moment, sati can arise and be aware of one characteristic of nama or rupa at a time, as it appears through one of the six doorways. In this way, panna can gradually develop to the degree of clearly knowing the defference between the characteristic of nama and the characteristic of rupa. Panna will, for example, be able to distinguish between the characteristic of the nama that hears and of the rupa that is sound. These are different characteristics and they should be known one at a time. Eventually, one will become more familiar with the true nature of nama and of rupa and then the understanding of their characteristics will become more accopmlished. No matter which type of nama or rupa appears and no matter where, awareness and understanding of them can naturally arise, and that is the development of satipatthana in daily life. When understanding develops and becomes more accomplished, ignorance can gradually be eliminated." (368) (end of passage) phil #124231 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2012 8:07 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 3. If no trying or forcing, then what? sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** KS: ......[understanding] just visible object which can be seen. This is the way to get rid of the idea of self or other wrong ideas about trying to control or trying so hard to have understanding. Ven P: This is where the meditation techniques have failed and in my practice. It's always this feeling of disappointment and frustration because you try so hard with expectation. KS: So one can see, how come [there's] that moment? By ignorance. If there's no ignorance and there's right understanding, it's not forcing oneself without the development of panna, of right understanding. Jon: Ven P asked "should we give ourselves reminders?" and I think your answer was in effect that that was forcing. So how do the reminders come? KS: what about this moment? Will it not be the condition for the next moment? Because next moment is not this moment. When pa~n~naa arises at this moment, it will be condition for the next moment for pa~n~naa to arise. How can one expect anything from this moment without pa~n~naa? Just ignorance will condition more ignorance later. But when it's pa~n~naa, it will condition pa~n~naa because pa~n~naa is also sankhaara khandha. All [kinds of] naama except sa~n~naa and vedanaa are sankhaara khandha. Leave it to sankhaara khandha, not to anyone else. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124232 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 13, 2012 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124222) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: The point I was trying to make is this: Enlightened beings conceptualise without having a distorted view of reality, so it is not appropriate to characterise concepts as being a distorted view of reality, a hallucination, or whatever. > > > > In point of fact, the non-enlightened being also conceptualises without necessarily having a distorted view of reality. Only when wrong view is actually arising is there a distorted view of reality; at all other times there is either a correct view or no view at all. > > RE: Then what is meant by the concept being a shadow of dhammas? How do you see a "shadow?" When something is a shadow of something else, it is a corresponding production or view of the original. Whether you see it as distorted, shorthand, generalized, stopped in time by thought, or whatever, it is a way of referencing dhammas that is not as immediate as actually seeing them at the time of arisal as they are. So I think that the relationship persists, and I would be happy to hear how you would address this, even if you don't think it's the issue that is of most importance. > =============== J: Here is the passage from the Abhdhammattha Sangaha again: "All such different things [i.e., those things termed `land', `mountain', `house', `chariot', `person' `individual' `direction', `time,' `well', `cave' and the like], though they do not exist in an ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. "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." A concept is an `object of thought'. It is not the supposed `thing' being referenced. An `object of thought' cannot indicate or point towards a dhamma. As regards the reference to `shadows of ultimate things', again this refers to concepts as mere objects of thought and not to the supposed `thing' being referenced. I would guess (without being at all sure about this) that it refers to the fact that the concept as object of thinking is derived from what was originally the experience of a dhamma, albeit several times removed from that original experience. Jon #124233 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun May 13, 2012 11:47 pm Subject: Her True Eternal Love yawares1 Dear Members, This Mother's Day I proudly present a true eternal love story as a gift to you all.. Happy Mother's Day!! ******************* Cullabodhi Jataka: Her True Eternal Love [Translated by W.H.D. Rouse, [1901], at sacred-texts.com] Once upon a time in a town of Kasi, a Brahmin man and his wife, wealthy and of great possessions, longed for a son. To grant their wish, the Bodhisatta, descendant of the Brahmadeva world, was born into the Brahmin family. Bodhi kumara was his name. When he came of age, he studied sciences in Takkasila. After his homecoming, much against his will, his parents found him a beautiful wife from a family of the same caste. She too had descended from the Brahmadeva world. Although these two were married, they did not choose this fate and had no desire to initiate a passionate lifestyle. They did not care to lay with one another nor even try to glance at one another in a sexual manner. Not long after their marriage, his parents were passed. So, the Bidhisatta called to his virgin wife, “Now lady, you take this fortune of eighty crores, and live in happiness.” “Not so, but you, noble Sir.” Said he, Wealth I want none; I shall go to the region of Himalaya, and become a recluse, and there find refuge. ‘Well, noble Sir, is it men only that should live the ascetic life’ “No,” said he, “but women also. “‘Then I will not take that which you spew out of your mouth; for wealth I care no more than you, and I, like you, will live as a recluse.” "Very good lady,” said he and they both donated their possessions to serve as a great quantity of alms; and setting forth, in a pleasant spot they made a hermitage. They lived on many wild fruits for ten whole years, yet did not attain holy ecstasy. And after ten years, they traversed the countryside to get salt and seasoning, and came to Benares where they abode in the royal park. One day, the king ordered that the park was cleansed and made ready. Upon entering the park, he spotted the couple and immediately fell in love with the great beauty of the ascetic woman. Trembling with desire, he asked the Bodhisatta who she was. Bodhisatta responded “Great king, she's a lady who shares my ascetic life, but when I lived in the world, she was my wife.” The king immediately decided to use his sovereign power in order to make the woman his own wife. The king gave orders to one of his guards to take the lady into the palace. The courtier, obedient, led her away, in spite of her complaints and cries that lawlessness and wrong were the world’s way. The Bodhisatta, who heard her cries looked once but looked no more. So weeping and wailing she was transported to the palace. And the King of Benares made no delay in his park, but quickly returned indoors, and sending for the woman showed her great honour. And she spoke of the worthlessness of such an honor, and the precious value of her once solitary life. No matter how much he showered her with luxuries and attention, the kind could not win the lady, and she constantly yearned for her former life of simple solitude. The king did not comprehend this and assumed that the ascetic man would avenge the king eventually. And so unable to keep still, he went into the park to confront Bodhisatta. The Bodhisatta sat stitching his cloak. The king alone came up softly. Without one look at the king the other went on with his sewing. “This fellow,” thought the king, “will not speak to me because he is angry. This ascetic, humbug that he is, first roars out, ‘I will not let anger arise at all, but if it does, I will crush it while it is small,’ and then is so obstinate in wrath that he won’t speak to me. With this idea, the king repeated the stanza: “You that were loud in boasting only awhile ago Now dumb for very anger there you sit and sew When the Great Being heard this, he perceived that the king thought him silent from anger; and desirous to show that he was not influenced by anger, repeated the stanza: “Once risen, it never had left me, it never would leave me at all: As a storm of rain lays the dust again I quenched it while it was small.” Upon hearing these words, the king thought, “Is it anger of which he Speaks or some other thing? I will ask him and he asked the question repeating stanza: “What is it that never has left you your life long never as all? As a storm of rain lays the dust again, what quenched you while it was small? Said the other, “Great king, thus anger brings much wretchedness, and much ruin; it just began within me, but by cherishing kindly feelings I quenched it,” and then he repeated the following stanzas to declare the misery of anger. “That without which a man sees clearly, with which he goes blindly ahead, Arose within me, but was not left free of anger, on foolishness fed. “What causes our foes satisfaction, who wish to bring woes on our head? Arose within me, was not left free- anger on foolishness fed. “That which if it rises within us blinds all to our spiritual good, Arose within me, but was not left-anger, with folly for food. “That which, supreme, destroys each great blessing, Which makes its dupes forsake each worthy thing, Mighty, destructive, with its swarm of fears, Anger refused to leave me, O great king “The fire will rise the higher if the fuel be stirred and turned; And because the fire uprises, the fuel itself is burned. “And thus in the mind of the foolish, the man who cannot discern, From wrangling arises anger, and with it himself will burn. “Whose anger grows like fire with fuel and grass that blaze, As the moon in the dark fortnight, so his honour wanes well grown.” “He who quiets his anger, like a fire that fuel has none, As the moon in the light fortnight, his honour waxes well grown.” When the king had listened to the Bodhisatta’s discourse, he was well pleased, and bade one of his courtiers lead the woman back; and invited the passionless recluse to stay with her in that park, in the enjoyment of their solitary life. He promised to watch over them and defend them as he ought. Then asking pardon he politely took leave. And the two dwelt there. By and by, the woman died and after her death, the man returned to the Himalayas, and cultivating the Faculties and the Attainments, and causing the Excellences to spring up within him, he became destined for Brahma Deva world. -------- When the Buddha had ended his discourse he declared the Truths and identified the Birth; “At that time Rahula’s mother was the ascetic lady, Ananda was the king and I myself was the ascetic.” ***************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124234 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - a moellerdieter Dear Sarah , you wrote: : I think the first part, copied below, gives a clear description of the different uses of atta as used in the Pali texts: ***** snip Thanks for sharing. D: and thanks for the feedback, Sarah . I noted that my increased activity in recent postings let me neglect a bit to work with/on 'my own raft' . Please excuse slow response and delay of the 'cetasika in daily life project'. with Metta Dieter #124235 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 4:29 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > A concept is an `object of thought'. It is not the supposed `thing' being referenced. I wanted to start here so I could begin by agreeing with you on something! That way we have a firm ground from which to diverge. :-) > An `object of thought' cannot indicate or point towards a dhamma. That is not necessarily a just conclusion from the above. a. A concept is an object of thought. b. It is not the supposed "thing" being referenced. c. An object of thought cannot indicate or point towards a dhamma. a. is true; b. is true; c. though is still unproven. Let's go to your next statement to look at this, which is the most important question, not whether the concept is a dhamma, or whether it is an object of thought, which, however, are both important, and true. > As regards the reference to `shadows of ultimate things', again this refers to concepts as mere objects of thought and not to the supposed `thing' being referenced. Although it is not conclusive, it would be good to know from anyone who is on top of the Pali whether the statement is that pannati are "shadows of ultimate things" as you say above, or whether it says that a concept is like a "shadow of a dhamma." In other words, it would nice to know if there is a one-to-one mapping of the supposed concept to specific dhammas by implication, or whether it is a more general statement that "concepts are shadows of ultimate realities" which would have a more general sense. Either way, it implies what you say below, which I will go to next - a most important surmise, that the statement may mean that concepts are derived from dhammas, at several removes. That is exciting, and another place where we can at least narrowly perhaps agree. To me, the implications of that are very intriguing, you will be pleased to know. :-) > I would guess (without being at all sure about this) that it refers to the fact that the concept as object of thinking is derived from what was originally the experience of a dhamma, albeit several times removed from that original experience. Okay, first premise from above: a. There was an original experience of a dhamma by citta. So citta does experience dhammas, even if it is too deluded to clearly understand or mark what it is actually experiencing. So dhammas are arising all the time. They are arising for citta, citta is experiencing them, and deluded cittas are not seeing them clearly or directly. Sati and sampajanna are not developed enough to see the dhamma as it is when it arises, and panna is not developed enough to understand what the dhamma is when it arises. So there is ignorance and delusion and the dhamma is not seen for what it is by citta. Would you agree with the above description /a/? b. Though citta is experiencing dhammas as they arise, it is deluded/asleep/ignorant and doesn't see or know what it is actually experiencing. Instead, it notes the passing of the dhamma in a deluded, distorted, delayed and misinterpreting kind of a way and makes up stories about it. In other words, millions of dhammas pass and lead to a story, a concept, a series of thoughts which lead to misinterpretation of what is being experienced and further clinging, because the dhammas thus conglomerated and misinterpreted are seen as either desirable or undesirable and are thus either clung to with attachment, or reacted against with aversion, all akusala and painful results. Would you agree with the above description /b/? c. What the stream of cittas is left with are a bunch of frozen concepts that are derived from dhammas and only dimly reflect them. In the form of concepts, cittas conceptualize, identify desired objects, support their clinging to such concepts and continue to create deluded concepts which cause suffering and lead to further clinging/attachment. Would you agree with the above description /c/? d. If enough conceptual awareness arises, as we may have here, to challenge the idea of the concepts and say 'they are not real but they are derived from dhammas which are real' it makes sense to say what are these concepts derived from and what are these realities? We can study them theoretically, but we can also say that the concepts that I am currently taking for real reflect their derivation from certain kinds of dhammas and we can look at our current conceptual experience of people, cars and various events that are frozen in our minds as concepts, and think about what kinds of dhammas they are derived from. This would not replace the study of dhammas as described in sutta, wbut it would give us a way of inspecting and accounting for the experience we have in daily life and what it is really referencing. If we are experiencing driving in a car, each of those conceptual images and thoughts we have of driving, seats, scenery, destination, etc., are all derived from various experiences of motion, hardness, visual objects, etc. I think it should be useful to be aware of this while going through daily life. It would be a kind of meditation that challenges concepts and points to dhammas. To me this would be useful, not only for pointing to the possibility of being aware of dhammas now, but in understanding the status and derivation of our own daily experience and what the realities are that underlie such experience. I think it would lead to more understanding. Certainly it is one of the aims of Dhamma to understand that dhammas are real and that concepts are not. This is just pointing in that direction, and having a sense of what is really going on while we are experiencing things at a derived and distorted remove. Why keep the study intellectual, when we can look at current concepts and challenge them now, and look towards the dhammas that must be taking place now? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #124236 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 9:55 am Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 3. If no trying or forcing, then what? philofillet Dear Sarah Thanks for the transcripts, appreciated. I remember hearing this talk with Ven P, his good humour in tge face of seeing through the shortcomings of all the faulty practices he had been fed was refreshing and showed wise detachment, I felt at the time, though of course that is just specukation, we don't know the other's citta. (Thus questions remain re "external satipatthana", it feels faulty in some way.) I wonder why lobga is not referred to in this talk, is it implied in tge talk of self and ignorance? I like to bring libha to the forefront when pointing out the shortcomings of "Buddhist meditation", the lobha tgat is accompanied by wrong view of course, but also the lobha that is not. Thanks again, I hope others will post transcripts as well. Scott? Where are you man? Maybe we can find a way to discuss Dhamma here without getting caught up in an obligation to straighten out people's wrong understanding, I have decided to reject that duty. (Well, I always have, usually out of laziness.) Phil #124237 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 12:40 pm Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >KS:... It's impossible to directly experience the arising and >falling of anything right now because it has to be the developed >pa~n~naa because even [though] it's true that seeing arises and >falls away, no one can experience that, only the developed pa~n~naa >from hearing, considering, until it's time to really understand >reality - very little from moment to moment - because now avijjaa, >wrong understanding and akusala follow the seeing, the hearing all >the time. As it's like this, so as pa~n~naa develops, it has to be >like this. It can not be different from this. Very natural. >================ Aren't all dhammas already anicca? Don't we already experience anicca? So what is the use of developing something for a long time to see what is already inherent in experience? Why try to make water wet? >KS: no one can experience that. Of course. Anatta. Ignorance of anatta doesn't create atta. Nothing to do to create "no one". Water is still wet. Here is benefit of silent, non-conceptual awareness in all of daily life. There is experience of real reality as opposed to concepts in smart books. Developing panna to see anicca, etc, is like long time of accumulations and developing wisdom to find hay in thee haystack. With best wishes, Alex #124238 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 14, 2012 1:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Sarah) - In a message dated 5/13/2012 10:41:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Sarah, all, >KS:... It's impossible to directly experience the arising and >falling of anything right now because it has to be the developed >pa~n~naa because even [though] it's true that seeing arises and >falls away, no one can experience that, only the developed pa~n~naa >from hearing, considering, until it's time to really understand >reality - very little from moment to moment - because now avijjaa, >wrong understanding and akusala follow the seeing, the hearing all >the time. As it's like this, so as pa~n~naa develops, it has to be >like this. It can not be different from this. Very natural. >================ Aren't all dhammas already anicca? Don't we already experience anicca? So what is the use of developing something for a long time to see what is already inherent in experience? Why try to make water wet? -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: DO we directly experience impermanence, or do we infer it by thinking? I believe it is by thinking, CORRRECT thinking, IMO, but still thinking. ------------------------------------------------------ >KS: no one can experience that. Of course. Anatta. Ignorance of anatta doesn't create atta. Nothing to do to create "no one". Water is still wet. Here is benefit of silent, non-conceptual awareness in all of daily life. There is experience of real reality as opposed to concepts in smart books. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Correct concepts, however, can cast light on where to look. Knowing conceptually that no conditioned phenomena last directs attention to cessation. -------------------------------------------------- Developing panna to see anicca, etc, is like long time of accumulations and developing wisdom to find hay in thee haystack. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: If one doesn't look carefully enough, only the stack might be seen, and not its component straws. (Conversely, of course, looking only at individual straws and not their interrelationship may cause us to miss the stack!) --------------------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124239 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 1:51 pm Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > >KS:... It's impossible to directly experience the arising and >falling of anything right now because it has to be the developed >pa~n~naa because even [though] it's true that seeing arises and >falls away, no one can experience that, only the developed pa~n~naa >from hearing, considering, until it's time to really understand >reality - very little from moment to moment - because now avijjaa, >wrong understanding and akusala follow the seeing, the hearing all >the time. As it's like this, so as pa~n~naa develops, it has to be >like this. It can not be different from this. Very natural. > >================ > > Aren't all dhammas already anicca? Don't we already experience anicca? > > So what is the use of developing something for a long time to see what is already inherent in experience? Why try to make water wet? > > >KS: no one can experience that. > > Of course. Anatta. Ignorance of anatta doesn't create atta. Nothing to do to create "no one". Water is still wet. Here is benefit of silent, non-conceptual awareness in all of daily life. There is experience of real reality as opposed to concepts in smart books. > > Developing panna to see anicca, etc, is like long time of accumulations and developing wisdom to find hay in thee haystack. It seems to me that in this case you have constructed a straw man out of this hay. It sounds like you're saying that the Dhamma isn't necessary, because we already experience reality, so why bother developing wisdom? I'm sure that's not what you mean, so I am not sure what your point is. Sure, water is wet, but if you don't jump in and experience the water directly, that is just a story about water, not an experience. The idea is that we need to "get" the truth of impermanence and no-self, and see that our attachment is the source of suffering. We already know all that theoretically, but it doesn't count for much most of the time. When it hits us directly that is a moment of insight. Insight and knowing the story are not the same thing. The Dhamma teaches what to look for, and meditation [or whatever form of development one practices] develops the ability to see and understand directly what has been talked about. Then we can see what is worth attaching to and detaching from and let go. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124240 From: "normand j" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 10:55 am Subject: New member dragontribal3 To all, I have been in several Yahoo groups for 11 years now.I am a self learned buddhist,having no Master nor Sangha to go to.My english ,may sometimes sound funny ,I am french Canadian.My style of writing is direct ,yet never agressive to other members. I just left a group ,very basic group spiritually wise, where I posted 402 times in 2 months ,out of those 50 at least were new threads. I am known as Loong.My kind of Buddhism is very simple.I follow the Gist of Buddhism the best that I can. I hope to be accepted here,praise or insults do notinterfere the blissfull life that I live. _/\_ loong the learner #124241 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 14, 2012 5:38 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 4. Hearing, considering carefully! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** Jon: When the avijjaa is so much more predominant than the pa~n~naa, it seems there will just be conditions for more and more avijjaa and not many conditions for pa~n~naa. KS: That's why pa~n~naa cannot grow without pariyatti. Jon: So it's hearing the Teachings. KS: Yes. Carefully! Jon: Considering.... Azita: Isn't that considering the same as reminding oneself? KS: I don't mind what word one uses but whatever arises is conditioned. How come to be such reminder or thinking about that without the previous understanding moments? Jon: When we talk about considering, we mean considering the Teachings for their own sake, not trying to have more awareness - just out of an interest in the Teachings. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124242 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 14, 2012 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New member sarahprocter... Dear Loong, Welcome to DSG! Your English will be fine and I look forward to discussions with you. Do you live in Montreal or Quebec? You'll find a few other Canadians here. We all tend to be susceptible to the worldly conditions the Buddha taught about, including praise and blame. For the wise, they know it is just sound that is heard, just visible object which is seen and there can be wise attention no matter the praise or blame. Looking forward to hearing more from you. Start any new threads anytime you like. Metta Sarah >________________________________ > From: normand j >I have been in several Yahoo groups for 11 years now.I am a self learned buddhist,having no Master nor Sangha to go to.My english ,may >sometimes sound funny ,I am french Canadian.My style of writing is >direct ,yet never agressive to other members. > >I just left a group ,very basic group spiritually wise, where I posted 402 times in 2 months ,out of those 50 at least were new threads. > >I am known as Loong.My kind of Buddhism is very simple.I follow the Gist of Buddhism the best that I can. > >I hope to be accepted here,praise or insults do notinterfere the blissfull life that I live. #124243 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: The reason it is of this degree is because nibbana is the object. > >R: 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? .... S: It's said in the commentaries that this is because the work done through the development of insight is completed by the magga (path) citta and that because the phala (fruition) citta closely examines the Truth of cessation, they are both referred to as lakkha.nupanijjhaana 'characteristic-examining jhaana.) Nibbana is the most powerful object. It 'bends' or draws the lokuttara cittas towards it by object predominance condition and it is experienced with such a strength that the various defilements are completely eradicated. It is the unconditioned dhamma which brings about this "cutting off". .... > >S: 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. ... >R: 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? .... S: Mundane jhana cannot be present at the moments of enlightenment because mundane jhana cittas have different objects - not nibbana. Certainly, if mundane jhana is the basis for enlightenment (i.e object of insight immediatley before enlightenment occurs), it is a "propitious precondition" and means that afterwards there can be the attaining of phala samapatti, fruition attainment again and again. For those, like the Buddha, who became arahats with the highest jhana as basis (as object of insight) prior to enlightenment, it is the most "propitious" of all, but none of this is ever by choice or selection. In terms of the eradication of defilements there is no difference and of course, at the end of the arahat's lifetime, at the moment of parinibbana, none of it makes any difference at all! My main point, however, is that there's no knowing at all what conditioned realities may arise at anytime and there's no use in speculating or wondering what would be "ideal cittas" prior to enlightenement because we have no idea at all what accumulations have been developed. A moment of right understanding of a reality now is far more precious than any other kind of samatha attainment. .... > > 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. ... S: It's like any other kind of kusala - without insight, without direct understanding of such dhammas, along with all others, as conditioned realities, they are of no supporting nature. When there is the development of insight, the other paramis beginning with dana are of great support. In other words, they are only paramis (perfections) when they arise with understanding. ... >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. .... S: If you're in a beautiful yacht but caught in a headwind and going off-track, then it's of no assistance at all. ... > > 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. .... S: The path has to be developed with detachment, detachment from what is conditioned at this moment. Metta Sarah ===== #124244 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 6:47 pm Subject: Re: eating animal corpses sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" 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. > >R: 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. .... S: This would be using Non-Dhamma! As we keep repeating, understanding dhammas more honestly, more truthfully, leads to more, not less metta and consideration - true metta and consideration, not the fake varieties. ... >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. ... S: Of course there's no contradiction. If there's an idea that understanding of dhammas as anatta leads to being less caring, it's a misunderstanding of what this means. ... >R: 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. .... S: Again, it comes down to understanding and truthfulness of our cittas, not to evaluations of situations or judgments about others' behaviour. What kind of cittas do such judging? Metta Sarah ====== #124245 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Snippets of Dhamma - What is Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > There are rules in dhamma. Just like there are only four noble truth, there are only four pillars in Satipatthana, .... S: What do you mean by "four pillars in Satipatthana"? The possible objects of sati, could be counted indefinitely, couldn't they? ... >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. ... S: Likewise with the cetasikas, we read about further divisions in the Dhsg. Take vedana - can be counted as two or three or five or six or 108 or an indefinite number:-)) Metta Sarah ==== #124246 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124235) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: A concept is an `object of thought'. It is not the supposed `thing' being referenced. > > RE: I wanted to start here so I could begin by agreeing with you on something! That way we have a firm ground from which to diverge. :-) > =============== J: Good to have agreement on something, even if it's only on a token matter (shaking hands before the fight :-)) > =============== > ... Okay, first premise from above: > a. There was an original experience of a dhamma by citta. > So citta does experience dhammas, even if it is too deluded to clearly understand or mark what it is actually experiencing. > So dhammas are arising all the time. They are arising for citta, citta is experiencing them, and deluded cittas are not seeing them clearly or directly. Sati and sampajanna are not developed enough to see the dhamma as it is when it arises, and panna is not developed enough to understand what the dhamma is when it arises. So there is ignorance and delusion and the dhamma is not seen for what it is by citta. > > Would you agree with the above description /a/? > =============== J: In general terms, I'd agree with this description. But there is scope for improvement :-)). Regarding "dhammas are arising all the time", yes, but the way I understand it is as follows: - Dhammas are not the things that are enumerated in the texts. They are whatever has an inherent characteristic that can be experienced at the present moment. - Dhammas are of 2 main types: (a) those that experience an object ("Type A dhammas"), and (b) those that do not experience an object ("Type B dhammas"). - The object of a Type A dhamma can be another Type A dhamma, a Type B dhamma or a concept. - There is experiencing through the 5 sense-doors and through the mind-door. These experiencing dhammas are Type A dhammas. - The object experienced through each of the 5 sense-doors is a Type B dhamma, while the object experienced through the mind-door may be another dhamma (Type A or Type B) or a concept. - It is in this sense that it can be said that dhammas are arising all the time. Regarding "there is ignorance and delusion and the dhamma is not seen for what it is by citta", it needs to be remembered that, while akusala cittas vastly outnumber kusala cittas, ignorance and delusion are not present all the time. For example, at each moment of actual experience through the 5 sense-doors, the citta is neither kusala nor akusala but vipaka. So there is no delusion (or distortion) at the actual moment of experience through the 5 sense-doors. It is during the thinking moments that follow each sense-door experience the citta will be kusala or akusala. However, when the citta is kusala, there is no delusion, and this is so even if the kusala is of the level of dana, sila or samatha that does not include panna. Even when the citta is akusala, it's only when the mental factor of wrong view is present that a dhamma is taken for something that it's not. When, for example, there is ignorance but no wrong view, there's no mistaking anything for being other than what it is. So in short, for most of the day there is no wrong view. While we might act (and think) as though people and things are `real', we are not contemplating the matter of people and things having reality in the ultimate sense. Comments on parts /b/ to /d/ to follow ... Jon #124247 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > But I would add that I have little confidence in the commentarial > notion of "bhavanga citta". It, like the Mahayanist notion of "�laya-vijñ�na" > (or "storehouse consciousness"), ... ... S: In deep, dreamless sleep, what kind of cittas, what kind of consciousness do you think there is? Metta Sarah ======= #124248 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 10:48 pm Subject: spd 22 (threefold cycle) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "As we have seen, the cycle of birth and death is threefold: the cycle of defilement, the cycle of kamma and the cycle of vipaaka. The cycle of defilement revolves when objects are experienced through the sense-doors and through the mind door. Defilements that arise in the series or succession of javana cause the committing of kamma. Then the cycle of kamma revolves, akusala kamma and kusala kamma, performed through body, speech and mind. The cycle of kamma conditions vipaaka, and then the cycle of vipaaka revolves." (132) (end of passage) phil #124249 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 14, 2012 11:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New member upasaka_howard Hi, Loong - In a message dated 5/14/2012 12:34:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, normand.joly@... writes: To all, I have been in several Yahoo groups for 11 years now.I am a self learned buddhist,having no Master nor Sangha to go to.My english ,may sometimes sound funny ,I am french Canadian.My style of writing is direct ,yet never agressive to other members. I just left a group ,very basic group spiritually wise, where I posted 402 times in 2 months ,out of those 50 at least were new threads. I am known as Loong.My kind of Buddhism is very simple.I follow the Gist of Buddhism the best that I can. I hope to be accepted here,praise or insults do notinterfere the blissfull life that I live. _/\_ loong the learner ================================ Welcome to DSG (from a member). I've read you occasionally on Insight Practice list (on which my participation is close to nil). You will find that DSG is a very different sort of list - different from most lists. The main things that you will find here are much harmony, loads of good Dhamma (with a strong though not exclusive Abhidhammic slant), and wonderful people. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124250 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 14, 2012 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/14/2012 4:55:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > But I would add that I have little confidence in the commentarial > notion of "bhavanga citta". It, like the Mahayanist notion of "�laya-vijñ�na" > (or "storehouse consciousness"), ... ... S: In deep, dreamless sleep, what kind of cittas, what kind of consciousness do you think there is? -------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: My view: Within a given mind stream, "during" complete unconsciousness (i.e., no dreams or any thought processes at all, and no seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling or bodily sensing), there is no consciousness whatsoever and no passage of time at all. While time is proceeding in other mind streams, it does not proceed "there". It is not that time marches on during a consciousness gap, but in fact there is no gap at all and no time passage at all. (After the fact, upon awakening, the state of consciousness is radically different from the moment before, and the inference drawn is "Oh, I was out!". ------------------------------------------------------------ Metta Sarah ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124251 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 14, 2012 11:39 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124235) (Cont'd) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > =============== > RE: > b. Though citta is experiencing dhammas as they arise, it is deluded/asleep/ignorant and doesn't see or know what it is actually experiencing. Instead, it notes the passing of the dhamma in a deluded, distorted, delayed and misinterpreting kind of a way and makes up stories about it. In other words, millions of dhammas pass and lead to a story, a concept, a series of thoughts which lead to misinterpretation of what is being experienced and further clinging, because the dhammas thus conglomerated and misinterpreted are seen as either desirable or undesirable and are thus either clung to with attachment, or reacted against with aversion, all akusala and painful results. > > Would you agree with the above description /b/? > =============== J: Sorry, but there's not much I agree with here ;-)) I do agree that dhammas are not seen as they truly are, but I don't agree that this is why there is conceptualising about dhammas that have been experienced. As I've mentioned before, not all moments of consciousness are accompanied by ignorance or wrong view. The notion that `conceptualising' equals `misinterpretation' is not one that is expressed in the texts, as far as I know. There is conceptualising and the conceptualising is of course strongly influenced by accumulated wrong view and ignorance. Attachment and aversion arise (not together, of course) because these tendencies have been accumulated. > =============== > RE: > c. What the stream of cittas is left with are a bunch of frozen concepts that are derived from dhammas and only dimly reflect them. In the form of concepts, cittas conceptualize, identify desired objects, support their clinging to such concepts and continue to create deluded concepts which cause suffering and lead to further clinging/attachment. > > Would you agree with the above description /c/? > =============== J: Sorry, but don't think there's anything I can agree with here. There seems to be some creative interpretation going on! Whatever happened to the `plain meaning of the suttas' approach? :-)) > =============== > RE: > d. If enough conceptual awareness arises, as we may have here, to challenge the idea of the concepts and say 'they are not real but they are derived from dhammas which are real' it makes sense to say what are these concepts derived from and what are these realities? We can study them theoretically, but we can also say that the concepts that I am currently taking for real reflect their derivation from certain kinds of dhammas and we can look at our current conceptual experience of people, cars and various events that are frozen in our minds as concepts, and think about what kinds of dhammas they are derived from. > =============== J: This may appeal to your sense of what `makes sense', but I think it's fair to say that it's speculative reasoning rather than a direct reading of the texts. > =============== > RE: This would not replace the study of dhammas as described in sutta, wbut it would give us a way of inspecting and accounting for the experience we have in daily life and what it is really referencing. If we are experiencing driving in a car, each of those conceptual images and thoughts we have of driving, seats, scenery, destination, etc., are all derived from various experiences of motion, hardness, visual objects, etc. I think it should be useful to be aware of this while going through daily life. It would be a kind of meditation that challenges concepts and points to dhammas. To me this would be useful, not only for pointing to the possibility of being aware of dhammas now, but in understanding the status and derivation of our own daily experience and what the realities are that underlie such experience. I think it would lead to more understanding. > > Certainly it is one of the aims of Dhamma to understand that dhammas are real and that concepts are not. This is just pointing in that direction, and having a sense of what is really going on while we are experiencing things at a derived and distorted remove. > > Why keep the study intellectual, when we can look at current concepts and challenge them now, and look towards the dhammas that must be taking place now? > =============== J: Regarding "it is one of the aims of Dhamma to understand that dhammas are real and that concepts are not", I would rather say that the teachings emphasise the importance of coming to understand those things that are real in the absolute sense as they truly are. If this is a correct understanding, then there is no room for the idea of first examining concepts so as to realise that they are not dhammas(!!), or in order to realise what dhammas are being `pointed to'. In many dozens, if not hundreds, of suttas the Buddha simply pointed to the dhammas that are to be understood by developed panna. Jon #124252 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 15, 2012 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Snippets of Dhamma - What is Dhamma ashkenn2k Dear Sarah oh, you have to argue with Buddha because that is what he said in the suttas and Abhidhamma. this means, there should not be twelve links in the DO, should have many more, but why teach 12 :-). Why teach 8FT, there should be more variations but why 8 :-). okay, that is all I say about this topic cheers Ken O > > #124253 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 4:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence truth_aerator Hello Howard, RobertE, all, >-------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: DO we directly experience impermanence, or do we infer it by >thinking? I believe it is by thinking, CORRRECT thinking, IMO, but >still thinking. >===========---------------------------------------------- So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to think about impermanence? Even if one has no theoretic knowledge of it, I believe one still experiences it. One doesn't need to know theory to experience water being water. Water is already wet, whether we know it or not. We may not be able to explain to others, but experience is still there. What is wrong are wrong views about permanence. It seems that non-conceptual meditation would remove the obscurations to seeing reality as it is. IMHO. With metta, Alex #124254 From: "normand j" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 2:51 am Subject: Introduction dragontribal3 To all, I am new member of this club.I am self thaught,Theravadin lineage. Been in Buddhism for more than 10 years.I was part of many groups,during that time. I always was known as Dragon or Loong ,same word chinese. One of the great influences right now in my path is Thich Nhat HanH. I like to get involved.I am not a back bencher. You may sometimes find my english mispelled ,I am french Canadian. My style of writing is not aggressive,but direct.I beleive Buddhism should be simple . _/\_ loong #124255 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 15, 2012 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 5/14/2012 2:47:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, RobertE, all, >-------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: DO we directly experience impermanence, or do we infer it by >thinking? I believe it is by thinking, CORRRECT thinking, IMO, but >still thinking. >===========---------------------------------------------- So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to think about impermanence? -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Sorry, but that is a great example of illogic. Your conclusion bears no relation to your premisses. ------------------------------------------------ Even if one has no theoretic knowledge of it, I believe one still experiences it. One doesn't need to know theory to experience water being water. Water is already wet, whether we know it or not. We may not be able to explain to others, but experience is still there. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Is there a far side of the moon, Alex? How do you know it? By experience or inference? ----------------------------------------------------- What is wrong are wrong views about permanence. It seems that non-conceptual meditation would remove the obscurations to seeing reality as it is. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: I believe that high wisdom may directly observe cessation, but for us it is a matter of after-the-fact comparison by thinking. ------------------------------------------------ IMHO. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: LOL! Yeah, me too! ------------------------------------------------ With metta, Alex ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124256 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 7:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence truth_aerator Hello Howard all, >Alex: So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never >experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to >think about impermanence? > -------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Sorry, but that is a great example of illogic. Your conclusion >bears no relation to your premisses. > ------------------------------------------------ My point was that all experience is anicca and that we cannot stop it, even if we try to think otherwise. Whether you label pain as pain doesn't alter the fact that it feels as pain even without thinking in English. > --------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Is there a far side of the moon, Alex? How do you know it? By >experience or inference? >----------------------------------------------------- This doesn't fit what I wanted to say. Anicca happens with each and every experience, seeing other side of the moon doesn't. >---------------------------------------------------- >HCW:I believe that high wisdom may directly observe cessation, but >for us it is a matter of after-the-fact comparison by thinking. >------------------------------------------------ Is high wisdom needed to see that when you read this the previous sights (of letters and words) cease as new ones (new letters, words) arise? Just some thoughts that I am considering... With metta, Alex #124257 From: Alex Date: Tue May 15, 2012 6:40 am Subject: Re: How to develop understanding?? norbert_jaka... My dear Dhamma friends, Thank u for all ur answers. Because my internet is disconnected it was not possible to answer u sooner. I will not be able to be active for some time on the dsg. Thanks for all the answers. -- Met liefdevolle vriendelijkheid en respect. With lovingkindness and respect. Norbert Jakaoemo #124258 From: "normand j" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 8:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence dragontribal3 Hi Alex You wrote:So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to think about impermanence? Loong's comment: I am 65 years old ,had my 5th heart operation,have 8 tares in the knees,atheriosclorosis of the brain.3 Months ago I had my 5th operation ,2 weeks later ,I joined a gym. Before my last operation ,could not walk 100 feet. Now I can run 10 minutes full speed,still with my torn knees,which by the way do not hurt because,I decided they would not hurt. One cannot stop the aging physically, but with discipline,courage living buddhism to it's fullest,can change the effects of aging. People who meet me cannot beleive what my body went through ,but not my mind.ALL IS IN THE MIND. With Respect _/\_ loong --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Howard, RobertE, all, > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >HCW: DO we directly experience impermanence, or do we infer it by >thinking? I believe it is by thinking, CORRRECT thinking, IMO, but >still thinking. > >===========---------------------------------------------- > > So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to think about impermanence? > > Even if one has no theoretic knowledge of it, I believe one still experiences it. One doesn't need to know theory to experience water being water. Water is already wet, whether we know it or not. We may not be able to explain to others, but experience is still there. > > What is wrong are wrong views about permanence. It seems that non-conceptual meditation would remove the obscurations to seeing reality as it is. > > IMHO. > With metta, > Alex > #124259 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 15, 2012 8:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 5/14/2012 5:10:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard all, >Alex: So a great way to exist permanently (never age, never >experience other bad things due to impermanence, etc) is not to >think about impermanence? > -------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Sorry, but that is a great example of illogic. Your conclusion >bears no relation to your premisses. > ------------------------------------------------ My point was that all experience is anicca and that we cannot stop it, even if we try to think otherwise. Whether you label pain as pain doesn't alter the fact that it feels as pain even without thinking in English. > --------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Is there a far side of the moon, Alex? How do you know it? By >experience or inference? >----------------------------------------------------- This doesn't fit what I wanted to say. Anicca happens with each and every experience, seeing other side of the moon doesn't. >---------------------------------------------------- >HCW:I believe that high wisdom may directly observe cessation, but >for us it is a matter of after-the-fact comparison by thinking. >------------------------------------------------ Is high wisdom needed to see that when you read this the previous sights (of letters and words) cease as new ones (new letters, words) arise? ------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: To *see* the cessation and arising, yes, high wisdom is needed. WE, however, require thinking. ------------------------------------------------------------- Just some thoughts that I am considering... ----------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Sure, we all do a lot of considering. Even better, I think, is to do a lot of "watching"! ;-) --------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard P. S. With regard to watching, do you ever watch "yourself" typing and realize that there is no "you" doing it?!! (Really interesting! :-) Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124260 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 8:47 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: 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? > .... > S: It's said in the commentaries that this is because the work done through the development of insight is completed by the magga (path) citta and that because the phala (fruition) citta closely examines the Truth of cessation, they are both referred to as lakkha.nupanijjhaana 'characteristic-examining > jhaana.) Nibbana is the most powerful object. It 'bends' or draws the lokuttara cittas towards it by object predominance condition and it is experienced with such a strength that the various defilements are completely eradicated. It is the unconditioned dhamma which brings about this "cutting off". > .... I really appreciate this explanation, which is fascinating in many ways. The part that I do not understand is why the characteristics of jhana are specifically part of the examination of the characteristic of cessation. Is it because jhana is a form of cessation or stilling of the defilements? What aspect of jhana is utilized by the magga and phala cittas in examining the characteristics of cessation? I am also interested in how nibbana bends or draws the citta via "object predominance condition" - which implies that at least some very special objects do have a direct effect on the citta and that "all objects of sati or panna" are not necessarily 100% equal. Is nibbana the only object that has this effect, or are there others? > > >S: 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. > ... > >R: 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? > .... > S: Mundane jhana cannot be present at the moments of enlightenment because mundane jhana cittas have different objects - not nibbana. That does not really settle whether the mundane jhanas may prepare the way or create accumulations that would be taken up by the succeeding cittas, even if they have different objects at that point. > Certainly, if mundane jhana is the basis for enlightenment (i.e object of insight immediatley before enlightenment occurs), it is a "propitious precondition" and means that afterwards there can be the attaining of phala samapatti, fruition attainment again and again. For those, like the Buddha, who became arahats with the highest jhana as basis (as object of insight) prior to enlightenment, it is the most "propitious" of all, but none of this is ever by choice or selection. This is good information, thanks. Even if it is not by choice, if it does become the way in which the path develops, it definitely has some interesting effects. > In terms of the eradication of defilements there is no difference and of course, at the end of the arahat's lifetime, at the moment of parinibbana, none of it makes any difference at all! Ha ha, well if we were gearing everything in terms of the final equality of parinibbana, we wouldn't do anything at all. Maybe that would be a good thing! :-) I like to say that if Hamlet knew how the play was going to end, he wouldn't bother doing any of the difficult actions he does throughout the play, and which he tortures himself over. ["To be, or not to be..."] Everyone involved is dead at the end of the play! [Of course Fortinbras shows up to take over Denmark and the whole damn thing starts over again... Hm...what does that remind me of...?] > My main point, however, is that there's no knowing at all what conditioned realities may arise at anytime and there's no use in speculating or wondering what would be "ideal cittas" prior to enlightenment because we have no idea at all what accumulations have been developed. A moment of right understanding of a reality now is far more precious than any other kind of samatha attainment. I would agree that panna/vipassana is more valuable than serenity or concentration. > > 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. > ... > S: It's like any other kind of kusala - without insight, without direct understanding of such dhammas, along with all others, as conditioned realities, they are of no supporting nature. When there is the development of insight, the other paramis beginning with dana are of great support. In other words, they are only paramis (perfections) when they arise with understanding. That is a good point, and it is sort of exciting that panna can "activate" all of those other latent effects. Very interesting. > >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. > .... > S: If you're in a beautiful yacht but caught in a headwind and going off-track, then it's of no assistance at all. Well that could happen too, but all conditions being equal, I'll take the yacht! ... > S: The path has to be developed with detachment, detachment from what is conditioned at this moment. Good to remember. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #124261 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 9:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, >P. S. With regard to watching, do you ever watch "yourself" typing >and realize that there is no "you" doing it?!! (Really interesting! >================ I do try to keep awareness throughout the day and occasionally there are interesting moments when there is feeling that body does everything by itself without there being Me. There were and occasionally do happen interesting experience when thoughts come and go ***without feeling that I/Alex think them*** . I do strongly recommend developing no-control awareness through ALL conscious moments (from the time you awaken to the time you fall asleep, during ALL daily activities). With metta, Alex #124262 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 1:11 pm Subject: Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Of course there's no contradiction. If there's an idea that understanding of dhammas as anatta leads to being less caring, it's a misunderstanding of what this means. > ... > >R: 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. > .... > S: Again, it comes down to understanding and truthfulness of our cittas, not to evaluations of situations or judgments about others' behaviour. What kind of cittas do such judging? What I'm talking about is the idea that since concepts are not real - no people, no actions, etc., some people are going to interpret that as meaning that conventional events are unimportant and should be looked at coldly. This sort of debate has gone on in many spiritual circles, Buddhist ones included, between focusing totally on the spiritual level, or trying to impact everyday events. But I agree with you that they do not contradict each other, and I'm glad to hear that you see it that way. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124263 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > ... Okay, first premise from above: > > a. There was an original experience of a dhamma by citta. > > So citta does experience dhammas, even if it is too deluded to clearly understand or mark what it is actually experiencing. > > So dhammas are arising all the time. They are arising for citta, citta is experiencing them, and deluded cittas are not seeing them clearly or directly. Sati and sampajanna are not developed enough to see the dhamma as it is when it arises, and panna is not developed enough to understand what the dhamma is when it arises. So there is ignorance and delusion and the dhamma is not seen for what it is by citta. > > > > Would you agree with the above description /a/? > > =============== > > J: In general terms, I'd agree with this description. But there is scope for improvement :-)). That is a huge endorsement in my view - I am just grateful that you don't think it's absolute nonsense. > Regarding "dhammas are arising all the time", yes, but the way I understand it is as follows: > - Dhammas are not the things that are enumerated in the texts. They are whatever has an inherent characteristic that can be experienced at the present moment. Good enough - the texts just point to the realities; they are inherently conceptual unless experienced directly themselves. > - Dhammas are of 2 main types: (a) those that experience an object ("Type A dhammas"), and (b) those that do not experience an object ("Type B dhammas"). Okay. > - The object of a Type A dhamma can be another Type A dhamma, a Type B dhamma or a concept. Okay. Most important non-experiencing dhamma is a rupa. Don't know if there are others. I guess bhavanga cittas don't experience anything...? > - There is experiencing through the 5 sense-doors and through the mind-door. These experiencing dhammas are Type A dhammas. Okay. > - The object experienced through each of the 5 sense-doors is a Type B dhamma, while the object experienced through the mind-door may be another dhamma (Type A or Type B) or a concept. > - It is in this sense that it can be said that dhammas are arising all the time. Well that is specifying the types of dhammas, which is fine, but does not contradict the idea of continuous arising of dhammas. Are there any moments when there is no dhamma arising for a citta? As I understand it there are rupas that are not experienced, but there are no moments for a living being that there is not a citta arising without any breaks, one after the other. Is this correct? If so, there is a continuous unbroken thread of arising dhammas at every moment of life, until parinibbana. > Regarding "there is ignorance and delusion and the dhamma is not seen for what it is by citta", it needs to be remembered that, while akusala cittas vastly outnumber kusala cittas, ignorance and delusion are not present all the time. > > For example, at each moment of actual experience through the 5 sense-doors, the citta is neither kusala nor akusala but vipaka. So there is no delusion (or distortion) at the actual moment of experience through the 5 sense-doors. > > It is during the thinking moments that follow each sense-door experience the citta will be kusala or akusala. > > However, when the citta is kusala, there is no delusion, and this is so even if the kusala is of the level of dana, sila or samatha that does not include panna. Good enough and good specifications. > Even when the citta is akusala, it's only when the mental factor of wrong view is present that a dhamma is taken for something that it's not. When, for example, there is ignorance but no wrong view, there's no mistaking anything for being other than what it is. > > So in short, for most of the day there is no wrong view. While we might act (and think) as though people and things are `real', we are not contemplating the matter of people and things having reality in the ultimate sense. I don't quite understand this. I understand that conceptually there is no wrong view in terms of thoughts when one is not contemplating the reality of anything and wrongly thinking about it, but, still, to me it seems like wrong view is inherent in the false taken-for-granted understanding that things are the way we see them, which is inherently conceptual as well, even though we are not thinking it explicitly. To have wrong view with ignorance seems to be more benign than to be aware of it, and maybe that is so, but if everyday ignorance is not "wrong view" I'd like to know what to call it. I guess ignorance is good enough, if that means that the view of what is real and unreal is quite deluded. If you can clarify this a bit, I'd appreciate it. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #124264 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 1:44 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Regarding "it is one of the aims of Dhamma to understand that dhammas are real and that concepts are not", I would rather say that the teachings emphasise the importance of coming to understand those things that are real in the absolute sense as they truly are. > > If this is a correct understanding, then there is no room for the idea of first examining concepts so as to realise that they are not dhammas(!!), or in order to realise what dhammas are being `pointed to'. In many dozens, if not hundreds, of suttas the Buddha simply pointed to the dhammas that are to be understood by developed panna. Well, I think that we talk about the unreality of concepts and the reality of dhammas and compare the two all the time, but I'll let the subject go for now, til it arises again in a more coherent thought. I appreciate your considering it in any case. I am still interested in concepts as shadows of dhammas, but I think my mind needs a break from the topic, at least for now. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124265 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 15, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 5. "Don't do evil, do good, purify the mind" sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** S: Earlier Han Tun was saying that, for him, the path is very simple, it all comes down to: "Don't do evil, do good, purify the mind" KS: Can anyone do that? Han: Well......(laughs) KS: Because after seeing moment, there is akusala already. Who can stop that? Abstain from evil and akusala moment is evil. Who can stop that? This is the difference between an arahat and a putthujana (worldling) or the ariyans like sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami. Because seeing is seeing to everyone, but the citta which follows is different. For an arahat, no akusala at all. How come to be such understanding without akusala at all? But for the putthujana and sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, there can be conditions for akusala to arise. Without pa~n~naa that cannot happen [as] for an arahat - after seeing there is no akusala at all, even the latent tendencies. So it's not as simple as thinking about abstaining from evil and doing good deeds. What about the purifying citta from all akusala? Without pa~n~naa, it's impossible. Han: Purifying...yes. ***** Metta Sarah ===== #124266 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: spd 16 (vatthu kaama) sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > "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. .... S: This was a good reminder. I have a feeling you were asking about this expression before and that the answer is in the passage you've now quoted. Yes, we can add comments, but no need for replies. All thanks assumed in advance:) A good idea for Scott and anyone else to join in these threads. Metta Sarah ===== #124267 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 6:50 pm Subject: Re: The Three Gems sarahprocter... Dear Yawares & all, I like the story about the children of the non-Buddhist ascetics who listened to the Buddha against the orders of their parents and at the Buddha's encouragement. The parents were angry, but when they and the children went back to hear the Buddha, they all became sotapanas. Sometimes we hold back, not sharing the Dhamma when there is an opportunity, for fear of blame. I was listening to a recording this morning in which A.Sujin was encouraging a friend to share "right" Dhamma with other Buddhist associates who had some strange views. We never know when it may be the last opportunity for our friends to hear the Dhamma. Thanks for sharing Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > 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. #124268 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 7:08 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & 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." ... S: Just a note from the commentary to this last sentence on shadows, STA transl: " - these and various similar things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of the arisings of consciousness in the manner of a shadow of something real." Cy: " 'In the manner of a shadow of something real': in the manner of a shadow of an ultimate dhamma, in the manner of its semblance." Metta Sarah ===== #124269 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 9:29 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124264) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: Well, I think that we talk about the unreality of concepts and the reality of dhammas and compare the two all the time, > =============== J: As usual, I see it a little differently :-)) `Dhamma' is the collective name given to anything that is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment, where `real' means having an inherent characteristic that can be directly experienced (by panna). Any supposed thing that does not have an inherent characteristic can be conceptualised about (thought of) but cannot be directly experienced. These supposed things are not in fact things but, as object of thinking, are concepts (thoughts). The development of the path concerns the understanding of those things that are real in the ultimate sense. For this, it is necessary to have an intellectual understanding of what dhammas are, and so we do indeed talk about this. But the path is developed only when there is the direct understanding of anything that is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment, and this is a matter of direct experience rather than seeking to apply what has been read about or learnt. There is no question of developing an understanding of concepts. > =============== > RE: but I'll let the subject go for now, til it arises again in a more coherent thought. I appreciate your considering it in any case. > > I am still interested in concepts as shadows of dhammas, but I think my mind needs a break from the topic, at least for now. > =============== J: Fair enough. I think we could all do with a break for a while :-)) Jon #124270 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 11:47 pm Subject: Dear Sarah yawares1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for reading my story and nice comment. Sincerely, yawares #124271 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 15, 2012 11:53 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat rjkjp1 dear Sarh could you elaborate on what an STA is? thanks robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & 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." > ... > S: Just a note from the commentary to this last sentence on shadows, STA transl: > > " - these and various similar things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of the arisings of consciousness in the manner of a shadow of something real." > > Cy: " 'In the manner of a shadow of something real': in the manner of a shadow of an ultimate dhamma, in the manner of its semblance." > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #124272 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 12:03 am Subject: The First Arahant Bhikkhuni yawares1 Dear Members, This is an amazing story of Arahant Theri Mahapajapati Gotami who gave such a grand inspiration for the ladies in search of spiritual solace and profound happiness. *************** Mahapajapatigotami: The First Arahant Bhikkhuni Edited by Yawares [from palikanon.com, wisdomlib.org andtipitaka.net] Mahapajapati Gotami was the stepmother of Gotama Buddha. On the death of Queen,seven days after the birth of Prince Siddhattha, Mahapajapati Gotami became the chief queen of King Suddhodana. At that time, her own son Nanda was only five days old. She let her own son be fed by a wet-nurse, and herself fed Prince Siddhattha, the future Buddha. Thus, Mahapajapati Gotami was a great benefactor to Prince Siddhattha. When Prince Siddhattha returned to Kapilavatthu after the attainment of Buddhahood, Mahapajapati Gotami went to see the Buddha and requested that women should also be allowed to enter the Buddhist Order as bhikkhunis; but the Buddha refused permission. Later, King Suddhodana died after attaining arahatship. Then, while the Buddha was sojourning at the Mahavana forest near Vesali, Mahapajapati, accompanied by five hundred ladies, came on foot from Kapilavatthu to Vasali. They had already shaven their heads and had put on the dyed robes. There, for a second time, Mahapajapati requested the Buddha to accept women in the Buddhist Order. The Venerable Ananda also interceded on her behalf. So, the Buddha complied, with the provision that Mahapajapati abides by eight special conditions (garudhammas). Mahapajapati undertook to observe the garudhammas as required, and the Buddha admitted her into the Order. Thus, Mahapajapati was the first to be admitted to the Order of the bhikkhunis. The other women were admitted to the Order after her by the bhikkhus as instructed by the Buddha. It is said that once Pajāpatī made a robe for the Buddha of wonderful material and marvellously elaborate. But when it came to be offered to the Buddha he refused it, and suggested it should be given to the Order as a whole. Pajāpatī was greatly disappointed, and Ananda intervened. But the Buddha explained that his suggestion was for the greater good of Pajāpatī, and also as an example to those who might wish to make similar gifts in the future. In course of time, it came to the minds of some bhikkhunis that Mahapajapati Gotami had not been properly admitted as a bhikkhuni because she did not have a preceptor; therefore. Mahapajapati Gotami was not a true bhikkhuni. With this thought in their mind, they stopped doing sabbath (uposatha) ceremonies and vassa (pavarana) ceremonies with her. They went to the Buddha and posed the problem of Mahapajapati Gotami not having been properly admitted to the Order of bhikkhunis as she had no preceptor. To them the Buddha replied, "Why do you say so? I myself gave the eight garudhammas to Mahapajapati and she had learnt and practised the garudhammas as required by me. I myself am her preceptor and it is quite wrong for you to say that she has no preceptor. You should harbour no doubt whatsoever about an arahat." As a Bhikkhuni, she enjoyed the homeless life, living harmoniously with the other five hundred ariyan Sakyan ladies. The Buddha had a great love for Pajāpatī, and when she lay ill, as there were no monks to visit her and preach to her - that being against the rule - the Buddha amended the rule and went himself to preach to her and gave her a subject for meditation. Mahapajapati Gotami practised very earnestly and attained Arahantship with supernormal powers, while her five hundred companions attained to the same after listening to the Nandakovāda Sutta. Later, at an assembly of monks and nuns in Jetavana, the Buddha declared Pajāpatī chief of those who had experience (rattaññūnam). Not long after, while at Vesali, she realized that her life had come to an end. She was one hundred and twenty years old. She then quickly sought the Buddha and His great disciples to obtain their permission to attain parinibbana (the final demise). The Buddha asked her to show her spiritual powers, which she deftly did to the awesome admiration of the audience consisting of the Sangha and the lay people. The five hundred Arahant Sakyan Theris also did their stunning feats of spiritual power as instructed by the Buddha who likewise gave them permission to attain parinibbana. Mahapajapati Gotami went into meditation. Going through all the jhana stages and finally stopping at the fourth jhana; released herself by entering into parinibbana. Her funeral, together with those of the five hundred Arahant Theris was very orderly and very dignified as well as grand because it was attended by the Buddha Himself Even the Gods and Deities attended the funeral procession showering down heavenly blooms, a spectacular miracle never seen before. So ended the great life of the Arahant Theri Mahapajapati Gotami who gave such a grand inspiration for the ladies in search of spiritual solace and profound happiness. **There is a story related of a wet-nurse employed by Pajāpatī. She renounced the world with Pajāpatī, but for twenty five years was harassed by thoughts of lust till, at last, she heard Dhammadinnā preach. She then practiced meditation and became an arahant. -------- NOTE** The inspirational story about Bhikkhuni Mahapajapati Gotami started long ago during the time of Buddha Padumuttara. On an occasion when she was listening to a discourse by the Buddha, she happened to witness a Bhikkhuni being honoured as the foremost among the Bhikkhunis, who was enlightened earliest. She aspired to the same distinction in a future existence. After making extraordinary offerings to the Buddha, she made the same wish before the Buddha, who predicted that her aspiration would be fulfilled during Gotama Buddha's time. For the rest of her life she spent her time doing many meritorious deeds. After her death, she enjoyed only human and divine life in between the appearance of Buddhas. After many births she was born once more at Benares, forewoman among five hundred slave girls. When the rains drew near, five Pacceka Buddhas came from Nandamūlaka to Isipatana seeking lodgings. Pajāpatī saw them after the Treasurer had refused them any assistance, and, after consultation with her fellow slaves, they persuaded their several husbands to erect five huts for the Pacceka Buddhas during the rainy season and they provided them with all requisites. At the end of the rains they gave three robes to each Pacceka Buddha. After that she was born in a weaver's village near Benares, and again ministered, this time to five hundred Pacceka Buddhas, sons of Padumavatī. Pajāpatī's name appears several times in the Jātakas. ***************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124273 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 6:36 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah - thanks for the notes on this... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & 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." > ... > S: Just a note from the commentary to this last sentence on shadows, STA transl: > > " - these and various similar things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of the arisings of consciousness in the manner of a shadow of something real." They are the objects of arising cittas, which means that they are objects of consciousness...? I thought that concepts could only be objects of thought, and that the "thinking" or other mental process was object of citta, but not the concept? I'm sure I am confused, if you can help to clarify this. If "concept" is the object of arising cittas, I am interested in how that takes place. > Cy: " 'In the manner of a shadow of something real': in the manner of a shadow of an ultimate dhamma, in the manner of its semblance." This statement is very suggestive. "In the manner of a shadow." "In the manner of its semblance." Actually, "semblance" is what I was thinking of, that the concept 'mirrors' the shape, form or behavior of the dhamma in some way, and thus is reminiscent of it. There may be different points of emphasis in different concepts, for instance the concept of "table" may emphasize the dhamma of "hardness" or some other dhamma or combination of dhammas that normally are combined mentally to produce the idea of a table and somehow match that to our understanding of the experience of that conceptual object. But in any case the idea that concepts are arising in the manne of a semblance of a dhamma suggests a kind of connection between delusion and reality which is provocative, but still unclear to me in any detail. If there is a subcommentary or any other detailed notes on the above, I would appreciate seeing them. I really enjoyed the above quotes. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #124274 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 6:58 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: Well, I think that we talk about the unreality of concepts and the reality of dhammas and compare the two all the time, � > > =============== > > J: As usual, I see it a little differently :-)) > > `Dhamma' is the collective name given to anything that is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment, where `real' means having an inherent characteristic that can be directly experienced (by panna). > > Any supposed thing that does not have an inherent characteristic can be conceptualised about (thought of) but cannot be directly experienced. These supposed things are not in fact things but, as object of thinking, are concepts (thoughts). > > The development of the path concerns the understanding of those things that are real in the ultimate sense. For this, it is necessary to have an intellectual understanding of what dhammas are, and so we do indeed talk about this. But the path is developed only when there is the direct understanding of anything that is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment, and this is a matter of direct experience rather than seeking to apply what has been read about or learnt. And yet all that learning and talking about it does support development of panna and direct experience of dhammas, does it not? So, still and all, there is a working relationship between this work with concepts and the development of the path. Is that not significant, and is that not worth understanding? > There is no question of developing an understanding of concepts. I guess that is true if you are talking about paramatha understanding, which is dependent on direct experience of an actual dhamma, but I'm sure you don't think that's true in conventional terms. And the question is how does the conventional - ultimately unreal as it may be - relate to that which is real. The second question is not whether concepts can be 'understood' in the ultimate sense, but whether the understanding we have of concepts can lead to understanding of dhammas. Certainly in the case of Dhamma, the concepts brought to bear by the Buddha are a large part of his teaching, especially since he's not here in person to train people one-on-one, and we all understand that the spoken or written Dhamma is what leads to understanding, so that relationship at least is there, and suggests that concepts do relate to dhammas and lead to understanding or misunderstanding them, depending on whether those concepts point to the truth about realities or not, and some more directly than others, as is pointed out in the categorization of different types of pannati, eg, a unicorn's horn -- both unreal, as opposed to the 'development of dhammas,' a concept about a real process pertaining to realities. > > =============== > > RE: but I'll let the subject go for now, til it arises again in a more coherent thought. I appreciate your considering it in any case. > > > > I am still interested in concepts as shadows of dhammas, but I think my mind needs a break from the topic, at least for now. > > =============== > > J: Fair enough. I think we could all do with a break for a while :-)) Oh well, your comments above provoked some more thoughts on the subject. I guess I don't know whether I'm still on a break anymore or not. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #124275 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 11:22 am Subject: Re: spd 16 (vatthu kaama) philofillet Dear Sarah, or Nina, or Jon, or Robert K (sorry to be exclusive. I appreciated everyone's kind support the other day and no hostile felings remain. But it is clearer than ever to me now that I am not at DSG to find common ground between different approaches to Dhamma, to "agree on something before diverging" or having a friendly fight as recent posts have put it, I'm here to better understand the one approach which I consider to be correct - - this may be detrimental to the development of my understanding or it may be beneficial, I don't know, but it is best for now at least. So please understand that I am not shunning others, but just sticking to the people whose understanding I trust most. Trust authorities! Trust teachers! Trust texts! No matter what, do NOT trust your own understanding, it sucks!!!! ( sorry kalama krew, just teasing.) > > "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. > .... > S: This was a good reminder. I have a feeling you were asking about this expression before and that the answer is in the passage you've now quoted. > Ph: Actually I posted that because it sounded important but now I can see I don't really understand what it is referring to. Is it that, for exampke, kusala dhammas such as panna can also be objects of clinging. Is this teaching to remind us - again - how all-pervasive clinging is? Thanks for any further thoughts on this. Of course it is not a "teaching" with some aim intended for the listener, it is just an explanation of the truth. Phil #124276 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 3:01 pm Subject: A letter about my dear friend... philofillet Dear group, Here is a letter I wrote about my dear cousin, to be passed on to those who knew him through our network of friends and relatives, etc... Phil +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am writing to express some thoughts about the sad news. The initial e-mail by which I learned that Ned had died was of course shocking, but the e-mails that followed in which people expressed their first reaction compounded the pain involved in the first one. I think I could say that they took the intense pain that was involved in Ned's suicide, and immediately started to compound it into suffering. Let me explain that. First of all, I should say first that a lot of what I will probably end up writing in this letter is strongly influenced by Buddhist psychology. I say psychology, because that's what Buddhism is to me, a study of the way the mind works, and takes action through body, speech and thinking. Well, whatever. I will just write this and see where it goes. The difference between pain and suffering - we are all subject to pain, it arises along with certain things we see, taste, touch, feel and so on. There is a metaphor of two darts. The first dart is the pain, but the second dart is the way our minds takes the pain and compounds it into suffering. So what I felt in the e-mails was that people were immediately taking the pain of hearing about Ned's suicide, and starting immediately to compound it into a lot more suffering. First of all, there own suffering, of course, as people who lost a beloved friend. But also by taking the pain Ned must have of course felt at times, maybe many times, and weaving it into a story about "Ned, the sufferer, who killed himself." His death and the way he died, and indeed the troubles he had with substance abuse in recent years is in fact just one aspect of who he is (he lives on in our minds) and was and identifying it with him in a way that traps him into the story of "Ned who commited suicide, Ned who was suffering so much" is just not fair. We start to create this scenario of Ned the sufferer, and latch on to it. I am not saying that there wasn't suffering for Ned - of course there was - but we our doing a terrible disservice to our dear friend if we define him in those terms. As I understand the mind, and our behaviour, what we do and think and say is not the product of a person who is fixed and locked into behaving in certain ways, what we do and think and say is actually the working of impulses of mental moments or intentions (which are known as kamma in Buddhism), they arise in a wink of an eye, and fall away again. It's all so fluid. What we take for "I" or "Ned" is a fluid working of these impulses. So if we say "Ned was a sad person", we should actually say "there were a lot of sad moments for Ned", that is coming closer to the truth. And we don't know. Nobody knows what kind of moments arise for people except the understanding of that person him or herself. We can assign the role of sufferer to people, but we don't know, so it isn't fair. Happy people don't commit suicide, right? Wrong. Because there are no "happy people", there are only moments of happiness, or fear, or guilt, or joy or whatever that come and go. So let's not latch on to the idea of "Ned the sufferer." It is not fair, and it is not true. There were moments of pain, and there was at least one very intense moment of pain that led him to take his own life. And we don't even know that. Maybe it was a blunder. If he was drunk at the time, we all know that the harmful things we do when we are drunk are motivated by mental blankouts as much as they are motivated by intensely felt, conscious decisions. We don't known. None of us. Let us not take the cruel liberty of deciding that Ned was suffering intensely at the moment that he took his life. It might be more accurate to say he just plain fucked up, as we all do at times, some a lot more and a lot more harmfully than others. That's the way I see it. Ned done fuck up! Or he might have been suffering, or he might have felt freed, we just simply don't know. So let's not decide we do. There is another metaphor I like, emotions as clouds that come and go in the sky, so fluid. Is there something shining constantly beyond the clouds, even the darkest ones. Well, that will depend on each person's beliefs. But it is definitely true that emotions are fluid, they come and go. And that was true for Ned too. I think there might be a tendency, again, to think of Ned as trapped in some dark tunnel of suffering, that he could not see out of, just an occasional glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel, and he lost sight of that light, and so on, blah, blah. Bullshit! We don't know. My impression is that for all of us on the highway of life, there are of course tunnels, we speed along, go through dark days and back into the light. I guess it is safe to speculate that for people who suffer from co-dependency (alcohol and drugs) there are more tunnels, and that they last at least a little longer and are at least a little darker than for those of us who don't - that is a fair speculation maybe - and also that in those tunnels there are more and sharper curves, and plunges and swerves. My feeling is that Ned got into one of those occasional tunnels, and he crashed, he didn't make it out this time. He made it out before, but not this time. But the tunnel that finally got him was no who he is, who he was. How dare we define him in those terms??? Here is something I find encouraging. As with many of you who lost touch with him in recent years, I spent a few years hearing stories about Ned down and out in Montreal, out of touch with everyone, cutting himself off from people, in deep and dark and very dire straights. (straits?) And I fell into that trap of making stories and images of what his life was like, speculating about the misery. After a couple of years of that I finally had the chance to meet him, down at St. Pat's. Oh my god! What kind of ravaged ghoul would appear before my eyes??? What could I say to him, would he even talk to me???? Ummmm, guess what? He hadn't changed a bit! The same dazzling wit and intelligence, and physically he looked better than most of the other age-ravaged people I was seeing down there. (OOPS! haha...) Back to Buddhist psychology, but it is said that the mental impulses, those kamma, are what form the physical form, so people's mental moments take shape in their movements, in their facial expressions, in their tone of voice, and are written on their faces. In more conventional terms, we say that people grow into the faces they have earned. Some people look battered down by life, embittered, worn out. Well, in case you didn't have a chance to meet Ned in recent years, I have some good news. His was not the face, not the body language, not the voice, not the hug, not the smile, not the general atmosphere of a person who was beat down and battered. That kind of thing can't be hidden, or faked. I'm saying that he was not a person who was living in a dark tunnel, deprived of hope. I saw Ned again last summer, in Montreal. By some happy chance I booked a hotel room on Park Avenue, not knowing where he lived, and it turned out he was literally a stone's throw away. It was a hard few days for me, for reasons related to my mother's Alzheimer's disease, and Ned was such a great support for me. I remember one hot, hot afternoon in particular when I got off the #80 bus at the corner of Park Avenue and Mount Royal and was just kind of standing there, kind of in shock due to my mother's condition. (By the way, I think she has gone beyond most hardship now, that is one blessing of that disease, but last summer was very hard because she was still living in the general community at her home, and it was causing very upsetting troubles...) So I was exhausted, kind of in shock. And I was standing there, and suddenly there was Ned, coming along the street, a saviour for me at that moment. We went for lunch, and talked, and laughed a lot, and then to his apartment, he loved it so, with its sprawling view of the mountain. We listened to music, and talked and talked, and by the time I left, I felt so much better. So he was a pillar of strength for me that day. So the next time you find yourself imagining Ned as living in some kind of misery, please remember Ned the way I remember him, the last time I saw him, shining for me when I needed someone to shine. En bref, he was doing ok. I would like to say great, but I guess that would be going too far. Of course he wasn't, he was an alcoholic, with drug issues as well. And I am not pretending that he wasn't a vicious asshole at times, I'm sure he was, when possessed by the demons. I think his family saw that more than others did, families always do. We love each other, and need each other, and turn to each other, and I know from Ned's e-mails that he loved his family. And I also know he lashed out at them, we always lash out at the people we are closest to, that's the way it works. The demons of addiction and other dysfunctions that take possession of people and drive them to be harmful and hurtful are real. I'm not pretending that Ned was a jolly angel. Just saying that we shouldn't lock him or ourselves into stories that reduce him to certain painful aspects. There is always a lot more to people than any of us can know by talking to them, we don't even know ourselves, let alone others. Umm, where am I going with this? There was something else....oh yes, of course, life goes on. Depending on various degrees to which we believe it or not, life goes on. A return to the light that we were born from, to that divine essence? Rebirth? Evolution through many lifetimes? Those kind of beliefs can't be laid on people, you have it or you don't, and even for those of us who have such beliefs, they ebb and want. But there are just way too many hints about something beyond death for me to possibly believe that there was a being known as Ned that was snuffed out like a candle after burning briefly, end of story. No way, not as far as I'm concerned. I read recently that death is not the opposite of life, it is the opposite of birth. Life is something indpendent of birth and death, it goes on. But even for those who believe that Ned was nothing but that briefly burning candle, hell of a great candle ! What a beautiful intelligence Ned had. Let us pay honour to his great intelligence by considering our response to his story with intelligence rather than the pity or sorrow or sadness that are so limited and limiting compared to the intelligence he represents. Intelligence lives on, and Ned is and was an agent of that light, I believe that absolutely. ****** Phil #124277 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > could you elaborate on what an STA is? .... S: This is the PTS "Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma" (Abhidhammatthasangaha) and "Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma" (Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii), transl by RP Wijeratne and R Gethin. Metta Sarah > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > S: Just a note from the commentary to this last sentence on shadows, STA transl: > > > > " - these and various similar things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of the arisings of consciousness in the manner of a shadow of something real." > > > > Cy: " 'In the manner of a shadow of something real': in the manner of a shadow of an ultimate dhamma, in the manner of its semblance." #124278 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 4:39 pm Subject: transcribed discussion Jan 2002 rjkjp1 Since srah and other sare kindly transcribing some talks I thoughT I would add a little. This is fromback in the day when Mike was in bangkok Study Group (1/13/02) http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/bkk2002-01/2002-01-13-a.mp3 Jon: (Introduction): 13th of January 2002. Participants include Sukin, Robert, Mike, Ivan, Betty and Amra Sukin: The fear for example in my case is Samsara; I mean why do I want to live in Samsara? But then you cannot avoid it. A.Sujin: What is Samsara that we are so afraid of? Sukin: The Samsara that I have in mind is living normally in everyday life, creating more and more akusala. That's what I fear. A.Sujin: Samsara is this moment of seeing, and then this moment of hearing, and moment of thinking. All are absolute realities. Sukin: I think of Samsara conceptionally as me involved in Samsara really for a long time it seems... a precept... It's just seeing what it really is which is as like I've said... seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, thinking... just these moments. And they fall away immediately. It's still a perception but it's a different way of seeing it. Male : But the problem is sanna arises, right? Robert: But sanna is just dhamma too. A.Sujin: Sanna is not you. The method is kusala sunya or akusala sunya. But when there's the idea of [INAUDIBLE] clings very much to the self. You don't like akusala. You'd like to have more and more kusala, and you'd like to understand reality instantly or as soon as possible. But that's just not the right course. Robert: It seems like the right course because we're used to working towards a goal and with lobha whatever we do in life. So we think that we should have desire for this too we think in that way. A.Sujin: Should? Would like to have? What about understanding reality at this moment when it's relieved from all the ideas of wanting or trying to do something for oneself. At this very moment when there's the understanding of reality which experiences visible object. It's just that. Sukin: Robert was saying that we're so used to doing... I think it is that intuitive way to ... even when we hear a ajarn talk about what about this moment... we're thinking about catching moments. That's strange. A.Sujin: You begin to see attachment closer and closer because one used to think about attachment of sensuous objects. A moment of seeing, hearing... but there is no understanding of attachment at all. But when you can understand the attachment to have, that is the moment when right understanding can understand attachment. When reality does not arise yet, it's impossible to understand such reality. It's only thinking about attachment... or it's so far to attain such stage of understanding. But when it's now, at this moment, it's very easy to just understand, because you don't think of "I would like to have the understanding". Just let it be like it should be by conditions. When there's no awareness, it's no awareness. So there can be the understanding of the moment of being aware when awareness arises. So that is the development of understanding the moment that will bring more and more understanding of realities. Sukin: Its useful to remember that the purpose of starting is detachment. A.Sujin: Right Understanding , not only detachment. Sukin: I've been thinking... it's been in my mind for a long time and I wanted to ask... from what I gather in bits and pieces from what I heard here and there, it seems that it is not very helpful for example to talk about say the cheating dhammas but for example it would be preferable to talk about sobhana cittas. With the level of panna that I have, when I talk about cheating dhammas it can condition me dosa, whereas if I were discussing sobhana cittas it has a less chance of conditioning dosa at that moment. Is there any such thing? A.Sujin: So what would you like to have? See its "I" again. Sukin: Yes, but I was thinking about the effect of words... listening... what kind of words... A.Sujin: Now we are choosing. What about whatever appears by condition is to be able to understand: the core of anatta-ness. The most important thing is to develop the understanding of anatta-ness. Otherwise we would like to choose or to select. Robert: Sometimes don't you feel really that there is no one there, that it's just happening? That the thinking is happening... the seeing... it's so obvious that the seeing happens but also all other things...everything is just happening... no one there really, absolutely. Sukin: I can understand that theoretically and sometimes I project into my observation but I'm not sure that I really see it. ===================== THAT IS ABOUT THE FIRST 7 MINUTES. I WIL TRY TO ADD MORE. Dear sarah and jon if you dont mind I might add these the transcripts and the audio to my website in the future? Robert #124279 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 16, 2012 5:56 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 6. Who or what abstains from ill deeds? sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** Han: For example, If you observe the five precepts, you are abstaining. It may be accompanied by pa~n~naa or not. KS: Yes. For ever? Or temporarily. Han: Yes, temporarily. KS: Why not for ever, like an arahat? Han: Well, we are still putthujana KS: Yes, but we can go on developing understanding to reach that state. Otherwise one doesn't follow the Teachings of the Buddha, because to abstain from ill deeds can be taught by other teachers. In order to follow the Teachings, it's impossible not to study the Teachings. Jon: So when the Buddha talked about abstaining from akusala you're suggesting it doesn't just mean the same kind of abstaining that someone who has not heard the Teachings would understand. So that means there's an element of satipatthana there also. KS: Because it's not "I" who abstains. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124280 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 6:30 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #124222 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > RE: 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. <...> > I just take my information wherever I can get it here on dsg. It may be ironic, but I won't be able to find the post. I don't know if Sarah wants to get involved in such an ongoing discussion such as ours, but surely she could tell us in what sense she used the above description, which she has discussed several times. .... S: There is no computer screen at all. Seeing consciousness sees visible object and this is followed repeatedly by thinking about what has been seen. This is so for the ignorant worldling or for the arahat. In the case of the ignorant worldling, there is ignorance and clinging to the signs and details, proliferations and ideas about the computer screen as something that really exists. For the arahat, even though there's no confusion between, say, the computer screen and the computer keyboard, there's no illusion that either exist in an ultimate sense or that anything is seen other than visible object. The concepts are merely used for convenience and communication. Hope I've clarified or correctly repeated what I've said before:-) Metta Sarah ===== #124281 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 6:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I am wondering if we can cling to concepts. If a concept is the > > > object of wrong view, what is it that we are clinging to, > > > technically speaking, if we are holding onto "wrong view?" > > ----- > > N: We can cling to anything, except lokuttara dhammas. To realities, > > to concepts. Say, we believe se "see" a person. We cling to the > > person we believe we see, we think that he really exists. This is an > > example of clinging with wrong view, it is personality belief, > > sakkaya di.t.thi. > > Nina. > >R: Is there a technical description of how clinging arises in relation to a concept? I am guessing that such clinging is a cetasika...? .... S: There can be clinging to the computer, to the idea of what is seen or touched with lobha, the cetasika or there can be clinging with ditthi, wrong view, when there's an idea of some thing, a computer, in reality. When ditthi, another cetasika, arises, it is rooted in lobha too. All kinds of lobha and ditthi, in fact all kinds of akusala are rooted in moha (ignorance) too. Metta Sarah ===== #124282 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 6:54 pm Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 3. If no trying or forcing, then what? sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Thank you very much for sharing your letter about Ned. I'm looking forward to reading it more carefully later. Such a good idea to share your heartfelt reflections and Buddhist understanding in language that his family and friends may learn from and appreciate. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I wonder why lobha is not referred to in this talk, is it implied in the talk of self and ignorance? I like to bring lobha to the forefront when pointing out the shortcomings of "Buddhist meditation", the lobha that is accompanied by wrong view of course, but also the lobha that is not. .... S: K. Sujin is stressing here the importance of right understanding which is the opposite of ignorance. Usually realities are hidden, as you know, because of ignorance which doesn't know the difference between realities and concepts. So it's only by understanding more about the realities experienced through the senses, the cittas which experience and so on, that the clinging to the idea that "I" can practice and control dhammas will be seen for what it is. This is why ignorance is given as the first link of D.O. (although, attachment can also be given as the first link, it's true). Remember K.Sujin talking about all realities in darkness, unknown, unless panna arises: "Learn to know that one does not know the true nature of realities right now until panna develops and that's the meaning of bhavana.....or meditation." ... > Thanks again, I hope others will post transcripts as well. Scott? .... S: I'm glad to see Rob K is doing so too..... Metta Sarah ==== #124283 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 7:30 pm Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence sarahprocter... Dear Alex, Thanks for reading the extracts. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Aren't all dhammas already anicca? Don't we already experience anicca? ... S: As others have said, dhammas are anicca but there is no knowing, no awareness of this. For example, does it seem that there is light now? In fact, the only time there is any light experienced is at a moment when seeing consciousness experiences visible object. This is just one brief, impermanent citta in an eye-door process. When the subsequent bhavanga cittas arise, when the cittas in the many mind-door processes experience concepts, when the other sense door cittas arise, there is no light, no visible object seen at all. Before there can be any understanding of any dhamma as anicca, there has to be the very clear understanding of those dhammas as realities - the rupas that don't experience anything and the namas which may experience - no self involved in anyway, just conditioned dhammas. ... > >A: So what is the use of developing something for a long time to see what is already inherent in experience? Why try to make water wet? ... S: Actually, I think these are good questions. Understanding has to be developed for a long time to see what is inherent in experience, what reality at this moment really is, because without hearing the Buddha's Teachings, without developing such understanding, all realities are hidden by the cloak of ignorance. It's not a matter of making water wet, but understanding what is here, what is arising and falling away anyway. Is it better to live in ignorance or with understanding? Moments of life when there's no understanding are really quite useless. In ignorance we look for beauty, we enjoy the sunsets, we grieve over losses, we take computers for existing. The Buddha taught the truth about life, about this moment for wisdom to see. ... > >KS: no one can experience that. > > Of course. Anatta. Ignorance of anatta doesn't create atta. Nothing to do to create "no one". Water is still wet. Here is benefit of silent, non-conceptual awareness in all of daily life. There is experience of real reality as opposed to concepts in smart books. .... S: The Buddha taught us in such detail because without a very firm intellectual right understanding, pariyatti, there cannot be any direct "non-conceptual awareness" at all. Satipatthana doesn't develop through silent observation, but through the hearing and very careful considering of realities appearing now. ... > Developing panna to see anicca, etc, is like long time of accumulations and developing wisdom to find hay in thee haystack. ... S: Yes, whilst not tripping up over strawmen in the haystack or thinking that hair-splitting is all there is to it:-)) "What do you think, Ananda: Which is harder to do, harder to master to shoot arrows through a tiny keyhole without missing, one right after the other, or to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip?"[1] "This, lord, is harder to do, harder to master to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip." "And they, Ananda, pierce what is even harder to pierce, those who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.045.than.html This is why it takes courage, patience and all the other paramis to develop with right understanding. Metta Sarah ===== #124284 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 8:59 pm Subject: Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi all, Reply from Htoo: Dear Dhamma Friends, Regarding 'definition of meditation' Sarah responded as 'understanding of realities'. It sounds true. Understanding has to accompany at all moments of meditation. There are series of n~aana to arise when doing satipatthaana. All these n~aana are understanding to different view on realities. If there is no understanding then there is no true satipatthaana. WIth Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing > S: Can we define meditation as the development of understanding at any time at all? #124285 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 10:06 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124274) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > J: The development of the path concerns the understanding of those things that are real in the ultimate sense. For this, it is necessary to have an intellectual understanding of what dhammas are, and so we do indeed talk about this. But the path is developed only when there is the direct understanding of anything that is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment, and this is a matter of direct experience rather than seeking to apply what has been read about or learnt. > > RE: And yet all that learning and talking about it does support development of panna and direct experience of dhammas, does it not? So, still and all, there is a working relationship between this work with concepts and the development of the path. Is that not significant, and is that not worth understanding? > =============== J: The relationship you refer to here is just this: there cannot be the direct understanding of dhammas without there first being the correct intellectual understanding about dhammas (pariyatti must precede patipatti). This, however, does not support the notion of a general relationship between "work with concepts" and the development of the path > =============== > > J: There is no question of developing an understanding of concepts. > > RE: I guess that is true if you are talking about paramattha understanding, which is dependent on direct experience of an actual dhamma, but I'm sure you don't think that's true in conventional terms. And the question is how does the conventional - ultimately unreal as it may be - relate to that which is real. > =============== J: Regarding "the question is how does the conventional ... relate to that which is real", are you saying that this was a question posed, or addressed, by the Buddha in the teachings? Because if it's not, then to pursue this line of inquiry would be to miss the point of the teachings. To my understanding, the teachings say that dhammas are to be known by direct experience as they truly are; but nowhere is it said that concepts are to be known, or that they point to dhammas, or that the way we conceptualise needs to be changed, of anything of that sort. > =============== > RE: The second question is not whether concepts can be 'understood' in the ultimate sense, but whether the understanding we have of concepts can lead to understanding of dhammas. Certainly in the case of Dhamma, the concepts brought to bear by the Buddha are a large part of his teaching, especially since he's not here in person to train people one-on-one, and we all understand that the spoken or written Dhamma is what leads to understanding, so that relationship at least is there, and suggests that concepts do relate to dhammas and lead to understanding or misunderstanding them, depending on whether those concepts point to the truth about realities or not, and some more directly than others, as is pointed out in the categorization of different types of pannati, eg, a unicorn's horn -- both unreal, as opposed to the 'development of dhammas,' a concept about a real process pertaining to realities. > =============== J: Regarding "The second question is ... whether the understanding we have of concepts can lead to understanding of dhammas", this seems to be just a variation on the first question ("how does the conventional relate to that which is real"). So I suppose the same comments would apply: not something that's covered in the teachings. Jon #124286 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 16, 2012 11:58 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > RE: 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. > <...> > > I just take my information wherever I can get it here on dsg. It may be ironic, but I won't be able to find the post. I don't know if Sarah wants to get involved in such an ongoing discussion such as ours, but surely she could tell us in what sense she used the above description, which she has discussed several times. > .... > S: > There is no computer screen at all. Seeing consciousness sees visible object and this is followed repeatedly by thinking about what has been seen. This is so for the ignorant worldling or for the arahat. In the case of the ignorant worldling, there is ignorance and clinging to the signs and details, proliferations and ideas about the computer screen as something that really exists. For the arahat, even though there's no confusion between, say, the computer screen and the computer keyboard, there's no illusion that either exist in an ultimate sense or that anything is seen other than visible object. The concepts are merely used for convenience and communication. > > Hope I've clarified or correctly repeated what I've said before:-) Thanks for compassionately jumping in to help clarify this continuing topic - continuing because I refuse to drop it! Ha ha. Maybe not so funny... :-/ So, if I understand you correctly, the following is true: 1. There is no computer screen. 2. The worldling thinks there is a computer screen, and thus clings to the concept as real. 3. What is actually being experienced is visual object, followed by proliferation that makes assumptions about what exists and what is being experienced based on the experience of visual object. Would this be correct? Futhermore: 4. The arahat has no illusion that the concepts he is using are real. Therefore he is able to do all the "computer stuff" and communicate with worldlings without the illusion that there really is a computer, or any clinging to such a concept. Would that also be correct? So if I can summarize the above, for the arahat, the use of the computer would be like a dream in which objects are invented for certain purposes, but don't really exist outside of the dream, while the worldling goes around worrying about what happens to these "objects" and clinging to them because of confusion about what actually exists. Would you agree that this is a somewhat in the right direction? Finally: 5. Since the conceptualization that creates the illusion of a "computer" is based on visual object, etc., there is a relationship between visual object, etc. and computer in the sense that the computer is a false extrapolation from the experience of visual object. Even though the concept of a computer is useful and allows us to do conventional activities, the false identification of it as an independently existing object rather than a product of thinking is a misinterpretation of visual object. If I knew that visual object was real and that computer was a thought-creation, I would let go of visual object and go on to the next dhamma. Instead, thinking that the computer is real, I cling to it and am stuck in a thought-world of objects that I think are real. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #124287 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 12:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > I am wondering if we can cling to concepts. If a concept is the > > > > object of wrong view, what is it that we are clinging to, > > > > technically speaking, if we are holding onto "wrong view?" > > > ----- > > > N: We can cling to anything, except lokuttara dhammas. To realities, > > > to concepts. Say, we believe se "see" a person. We cling to the > > > person we believe we see, we think that he really exists. This is an > > > example of clinging with wrong view, it is personality belief, > > > sakkaya di.t.thi. > > > Nina. > > > >R: Is there a technical description of how clinging arises in relation to a concept? I am guessing that such clinging is a cetasika...? > .... > S: There can be clinging to the computer, to the idea of what is seen or touched with lobha, the cetasika or there can be clinging with ditthi, wrong view, when there's an idea of some thing, a computer, in reality. When ditthi, another cetasika, arises, it is rooted in lobha too. All kinds of lobha and ditthi, in fact all kinds of akusala are rooted in moha (ignorance) too. Am I right in understanding that dithi cannot arise unless I am explicitly thinking or claiming that the computer is real? If I am just taking it for granted as real, just ignorance, but if I am asserting its reality philosophically, that is wrong view? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124288 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 2:31 am Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 1. experiencing impermanence truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, Thank you for your other replies. Here is my comment about this sutta: >"And they, Ananda, pierce what is even harder to pierce, those who >pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; etc... >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.045.than.html >============================================== I believe that the hardest part is to encounter the True Dhamma and be able to understand it. There are plenty of suttas that tell the Awakening can occur very quickly. In fact there are no early suttas that talk about necessity of having to undergo many many lives to become sotapanna. "And what, friend Sariputta, is the cause, what is the reason, why some beings do become totally unbound in the present life?" - AN4.179 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.179.than.html Arhatship can occur in this life. Also in MN85 the Buddha has said that He could make a good disciple achieve awakening within one day. Satipatthana sutta promises Arhatship in 7 days if it is properly developed. In SN39.x it says that it would take no long time to achieve Awakening. In SN25.x proper understanding or confidence in anicca would make one Sotapanna before dying in this life. Etc etc. So I am interested in deep investigation of what anicca really means and how not to mis-perceive it. With metta, Alex #124289 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 2:33 am Subject: Re: Meditational view truth_aerator Hello Pt and Htoo, I believe that meditation is all about developing understanding and observation of what arises now. With metta, Alex #124290 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 17, 2012 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditational view upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and pt & Htoo) - In a message dated 5/16/2012 12:33:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Pt and Htoo, I believe that meditation is all about developing understanding and observation of what arises now. With metta, Alex ============================ My perspective: I consider that meditation (in the fullest) is occuring exactly whenever the hindrances are in abeyance. When they are not in abeyance, at best, there is a pre-meditative state in effect. (Pre-meditative states may well be quite auspicious, of course.) 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) #124291 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 4:10 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: The development of the path concerns the understanding of those things that are real in the ultimate sense. For this, it is necessary to have an intellectual understanding of what dhammas are, and so we do indeed talk about this. ... > > > > RE: ...all that learning and talking about it does support development of panna and direct experience of dhammas, does it not? So, still and all, there is a working relationship between this work with concepts and the development of the path. Is that not significant, and is that not worth understanding? > > =============== > > J: The relationship you refer to here is just this: there cannot be the direct understanding of dhammas without there first being the correct intellectual understanding about dhammas (pariyatti must precede patipatti). > > This, however, does not support the notion of a general relationship between "work with concepts" and the development of the path But it does support the notion of a specific relationship between concepts that have to do with Dhamma or dhammas and the development of direct understanding of realities, right? > > =============== > > > J: There is no question of developing an understanding of concepts. > > > > RE: I guess that is true if you are talking about paramattha understanding, which is dependent on direct experience of an actual dhamma, but I'm sure you don't think that's true in conventional terms. And the question is how does the conventional - ultimately unreal as it may be - relate to that which is real. > > =============== > > J: Regarding "the question is how does the conventional ... relate to that which is real", are you saying that this was a question posed, or addressed, by the Buddha in the teachings? Well it's certainly addressed in the area of Dhamma, which begin as a massive set of conceptual descriptions and principles, all of which have to be understood to one extent or another conceptually before one can possibly understand realities directly. So even though you think there is no general relationship between concepts that are derived from dhammas and the direct understanding of the dhammas themselves, we have to acknowledge that there is this massive corpus of teachings which are all concepts from beginning to end, all communicated through speech or writing, which is the very basis for direct understanding of dhammas. It is one of the most important tenets of Buddhism that one cannot understand the characteristics of dhammas, such as anatta, or the specific characteristics of each dhamma through panna, without first having a conceptual understanding of the Dhamma, ie, having heard and understood, to some degree, the teachings. So what about this central importance of concepts in the Dhamma itself? And how does the pariyatti associated with these concepts translate into development of direct understanding? Why is there this singular relationship between correct concepts about realities and teh discernment of the realities themselves. And secondly, if such a direct and necessary relationship exists in Dhamma, why would one then postulate that there is *no* relationship between other concepts of dhammas and the dhammas themselves? If one has a concept "the table is hard," the 'table' part of this may be manufactured, but the derivation of 'hardness' from the experience of the 'table' refers back to the experienced dhamma of 'hardness.' The concept itself will not give you that experience, but it points to it. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124292 From: "normand j" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 7:41 am Subject: Avarana Sutta) dragontribal3 Dear Howard, The text cited is only half of the Sutta,The second part I really like better than the first part. With metta _/\_ loong #124293 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 17, 2012 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Avarana Sutta) upasaka_howard Hi, Loong - In a message dated 5/16/2012 6:39:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, normand.joly@... writes: Dear Howard, The text cited is only half of the Sutta,The second part I really like better than the first part. ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, I know it's only a part. Thanks. :-) ------------------------------------------------------- With metta _/\_ loong =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124294 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 11:08 am Subject: Re: 2007 audio - 3. If no trying or forcing, then what? philofillet Hi Sarah > Such a good idea to share your heartfelt reflections and Buddhist understanding in language that his family and friends may learn from and appreciate. There was some Dhamma in there, not enough to post it here, really, but whatever. Interesting to note that in the weeks leading up to this bad news, I had been getting quite intensely into some new age stuff that I use for empowering myself in conventional ways, for career, writing, social projects etc, but when the bad news hit it was Dhamma that really provided comfort. Well, not entirely true. I'm a bit like Howard who mentionned finding strength in his birth religion, I'm going back to the new age stuff I was interested before I found Dhamma. But I think Dhamma will "win", if you will. We'll see. It is not entirely true to say that they can co-exist or are not mutually negating. > > I wonder why lobha is not referred to in this talk, is it implied in the talk of self and ignorance? I like to bring lobha to the forefront when pointing out the shortcomings of "Buddhist meditation", the lobha that is accompanied by wrong view of course, but also the lobha that is not. > .... > S: K. Sujin is stressing here the importance of right understanding which is the opposite of ignorance. Usually realities are hidden, as you know, because of ignorance which doesn't know the difference between realities and concepts. So it's only by understanding more about the realities experienced through the senses, the cittas which experience and so on, that the clinging to the idea that "I" can practice and control dhammas will be seen for what it is. This is why ignorance is given as the first link of D.O. (although, attachment can also be given as the first link, it's true). > > Remember K.Sujin talking about all realities in darkness, unknown, unless panna arises: > > "Learn to know that one does not know the true nature of realities right now until panna develops and that's the meaning of bhavana.....or meditation." Ph: Yes, understanding of realities, panna arises and sees that despite one's self-reassuring the "I" involved in practices, and the lobha that motivates them are not just factors that can be observed through the practices, they doom the practices from the start.But that has to "click" with people, until it does, the debates go on and on, which is fine of course for those who enjoy them and learn from them, certainly there are textual references to debates between the followers of different teachers, it is part of the tradition, I should try it someday! Phil #124295 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: transcribed discussion Jan 2002 philofillet Hi Robert and all > Sukin: > The fear for example in my case is Samsara; I mean why do I want to live in Samsara? But then you cannot avoid it. > > A.Sujin: > What is Samsara that we are so afraid of? Fantastic stuff, thanks so much. Personally, I think the notion of anyone here actually wanting out of samsara through kusala cittas rather than aversion is dubious, well perhaps very rare moments of right understanding. But I think we all love samsara still, when things are going well, and have aversion when things are going badly, that is our nature, through thickly accumulated akusala. I think this talk might be the one where Mike says "just a lot of thinking as far as I can tell" and you compliment him for his modesty. I always enjoy hearing his modest statements, humility about one's low level of understanding and the thickness of one's akusala is a necessary starting point and very rare in the Buddhist Industry these days. Of course there is a lot of mana of the inferiority kind, I don't understand as well as the great ones, there is so much akusala for me compared to the great ones etc, but there is right understanding related to that too I guess. Thanks again. I look forward to more transcripts, solid gold! Phil #124296 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 11:31 am Subject: spd 23 (bhavanga citta maintans continuity) philofillet Dear group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "There are no cittas that hear, experience tangible object or think continuously. WHen we are fast asleep and not dreaming, there are cittas arising and falling away, succeeding one another. However, at such moments citta does not experience an object through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. The citta that does not experience an object through any of the six doors is the bhavanga-citta. This citta keeps one alive; it maintains the continuity in one's life as this particular person. Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away until another type of citta arises that experiences an object through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. The bhavanga cittas arise in between the processes of cittas that experience objects through the six doors and this goes on continuously until the end of one's lifespan as a particular person." (55) (end of passage) phil p.s I suppose one could ask what is the difference between the function of bhavanga citta that "maintains the continuity in one's life" and the life faculty cetasika, jiivitindriya. I see on p.422 that jivitindriya arises together with the other cetasikas and "maintains their life at that moment" so I guess the role it plays in "maintaining" is more momentary in some sense than what the bhavangas do. #124297 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 1:03 pm Subject: Re: The First Arahant Bhikkhuni epsteinrob Hi Yawares. What a fantastic story - thanks for sharing this. Such a story seems to bring the Dhamma to life. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Members, > > This is an amazing story of Arahant Theri Mahapajapati Gotami who gave such a grand inspiration for the ladies in search of spiritual solace and profound happiness. *************** #124298 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 4:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi Howard, > H: My perspective: I consider that meditation (in the fullest) is > occuring exactly whenever the hindrances are in abeyance. When they are not in > abeyance, at best, there is a pre-meditative state in effect. (Pre-meditative > states may well be quite auspicious, of course.)< If there's a hindrance present at the moment, is that not akusala citta? Maybe I'm a bit confused by the general terminology used here. What would be the description of the "at best" option in terms of cittas and cetasikas when a hindrance is present? Thanks. Best wishes pt #124299 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 4:39 pm Subject: Re: On concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > 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.< Ok. What I find important is the issue of what is that "something" that is being spoken about, or pointed to, regardless of what terminology is used? For me the "something" is an occurrence of insight, i.e. description of such an occurrence. So, not so much a theory of how things are (e.g. there are people vs. there are dhammas). > When the Buddha has talked about 5 aggregates, it doesn't mean that people (as conditioned and compounded phenomena) do not exist.< Perhaps you mean that dhammas and aggregates are spoken of as conditioned (ultimate terminology), so these terms (conditioned and compounded phenomena) cannot be applied to people (which are of conventional terminology)? > Neither does it mean that a person can be taken apart in 5 separate heaps (5 khandhas).< Yes, I agree because it would again be mixing up the two terminologies. Best wishes pt #124300 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 6:00 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124291) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: The relationship you refer to here is just this: there cannot be the direct understanding of dhammas without there first being the correct intellectual understanding about dhammas (pariyatti must precede patipatti). > > > > This, however, does not support the notion of a general relationship between "work with concepts" and the development of the path > > RE: But it does support the notion of a specific relationship between concepts that have to do with Dhamma or dhammas and the development of direct understanding of realities, right? > =============== J: I see it a little differently :-)) The specific relationship being referred to is: Understanding of one kind (namely, intellectual understanding about dhammas) is a necessary condition for, and conditions the arising of, understanding of another kind (namely, the direct understanding of the true nature of dhammas). In each case the understanding is a dhamma (the mental factor of panna). The `role' of concepts is only as object of the understanding in the first instance (these concepts being concepts of dhammas). > =============== > RE: So even though you think there is no general relationship between concepts that are derived from dhammas and the direct understanding of the dhammas themselves, we have to acknowledge that there is this massive corpus of teachings which are all concepts from beginning to end, all communicated through speech or writing, which is the very basis for direct understanding of dhammas. It is one of the most important tenets of Buddhism that one cannot understand the characteristics of dhammas, such as anatta, or the specific characteristics of each dhamma through panna, without first having a conceptual understanding of the Dhamma, ie, having heard and understood, to some degree, the teachings. > =============== J: Yes, but what is important here is the understanding. Conceptual understanding is still the mental factor of panna; it is understanding that has concepts of dhammas as its object. > =============== > RE: So what about this central importance of concepts in the Dhamma itself? And how does the pariyatti associated with these concepts translate into development of direct understanding? Why is there this singular relationship between correct concepts about realities and teh discernment of the realities themselves. > =============== J: There is no such thing as a `correct' (or an `incorrect') concept. There is only correct (or incorrect) thinking or understanding. So as mentioned above, it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'. > =============== > RE: And secondly, if such a direct and necessary relationship exists in Dhamma, why would one then postulate that there is *no* relationship between other concepts of dhammas and the dhammas themselves? If one has a concept "the table is hard," the 'table' part of this may be manufactured, but the derivation of 'hardness' from the experience of the 'table' refers back to the experienced dhamma of 'hardness.' The concept itself will not give you that experience, but it points to it. > =============== J: Regarding, "If one has a concept "the table is hard," ... the derivation of 'hardness' from the experience of the 'table' refers back to the experienced dhamma of 'hardness'". I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. If you are saying that when touching a `table' there can be the experience of hardness, I would agree, but this may occur with or without the thought of `the table is hard' occurring. Furthermore the principal condition for awareness of hardness arising in such an instance would be (a) having heard the teachings, etc., and (b) previous accumulations of awareness of hardness. I would see no particular role for the concept `the table is hard' in this. Jon #124301 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, Continuing this topic after a short break (sorry I don't have more time to write often). In summary, we've started with the below four questions: > a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? b) what makes that moment/state of consciousness (be classified as) "kusala"? c) what makes it "samatha bhavana" (tranquility meditation)? d) what makes it "vipassana bhavana" (insight meditation)?< We discussed the point (a). In summary, there are two possible objects of citta - a dhamma and a concept. To connect points (a) and (b) and move towards discussing (b): I think probably the most interesting issue is that the object does not necessarily make a citta a/kusala. E.g. a concept such as breath can be an object of citta, but that does not necessarily make the citta kusala. So the question is what does? Some thoughts on this that we might then discuss further: 1. What makes the citta a/kusala according to abhidhamma are primarily the roots (cetasikas) - lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites for kusala cittas. I'm sure these are related to citta by specific conditions, but I don't know much more on this. 2. Interestingly though, if the object of citta is a dhamma, then I don't think that citta can possibly be akusala. It can be kusala (most notably in vipassana), vipaka and kiriya, but not akusala. Again this must have something to do with a specific condition and the way they work, but I don't really know. 3. But when the object is a concept, then the citta can be both akusala and akusala (and kiriya I think, but not vipaka). 4. So then, when we are talking about samatha bhavana, which has a concept as the object of citta - such as breath for example - what makes the citta kusala, since it is not the object (breath)? 5. One of the things I remember from discussion in Manly with Jon and Sarah (and KenH via Skype) - the answer to that question was - "it's not the object that makes the citta kusala, but the manner in which the object is contemplated." 6. My understanding of the phrase "the manner in which the object is contemplated" is that in essence it equates to saying - the arising of kusala root cetasikas at the time (alobha, adosa, amoha). But what does that mean in more accessible terms, I don't really know yet. 7. For example, we've sort of established that the object (concept) does not make the citta kusala. Some of the other things that don't make the citta necessarily kusala are pleasant feeling (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas) and strong concentration (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas). Anyway, some of the thoughts that came up at this point, feel free to break up the discussion into smaller manageable chunks. Best wishes pt #124302 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > 2. Interestingly though, if the object of citta is a dhamma, then I don't think that citta can possibly be akusala. It can be kusala (most notably in vipassana), vipaka and kiriya, but not akusala. Again this must have something to do with a specific condition and the way they work, but I don't really know. +++++++ Dear Pt If there is knowing of hardness or dosa or lobha or otehr dhammas it is always with kusala.? For me 99% of teh time it is with avijja robert #124303 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 8:04 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobK, > > 2. Interestingly though, if the object of citta is a dhamma, then I don't think that citta can possibly be akusala. It can be kusala (most notably in vipassana), vipaka and kiriya, but not akusala. Again this must have something to do with a specific condition and the way they work, but I don't really know. > +++++ > Dear Pt > If there is knowing of hardness or dosa or lobha or otehr dhammas it is always with kusala.? > For me 99% of teh time it is with avijja Sorry, I don't quite get what you are saying. If there's "knowing", do you mean panna arising in the mind-door process that has a dhamma as object? I'm not quite sure how can panna arise together with avijja. Maybe you mean "knowing" as thinking of dhammas, so concepts of a dhamma as object? Or do you mean something else? If I'm not mistaken, citta can be akusala with dhamma as object - but I think only in the sense-door process (namely, javana cittas). But this I think is a pretty specific case that has little to do with the differences between insight, meditation and that whole mess, so it seemed of little use to complicate matters with it at this point in the discussion. Best wishes pt #124304 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 17, 2012 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditational view upasaka_howard Hi, pt - In a message dated 5/17/2012 2:25:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard, > H: My perspective: I consider that meditation (in the fullest) is > occuring exactly whenever the hindrances are in abeyance. When they are not in > abeyance, at best, there is a pre-meditative state in effect. (Pre-meditative > states may well be quite auspicious, of course.)< If there's a hindrance present at the moment, is that not akusala citta? Maybe I'm a bit confused by the general terminology used here. What would be the description of the "at best" option in terms of cittas and cetasikas when a hindrance is present? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: Well, you tell me, pt: Is it all or nothing-at-all? If one hindrance is present, are they all present? And are there no degrees of hindrances, no cases of cetasikas stronger or weaker? A black-or-white, no-shades-of-gray kusala/akusala distinction that presumes completeness and doesn't recognize degrees and gradations is, IMO, foolish, harmful, and contrary to fact. ---------------------------------------------------- Best wishes pt ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124305 From: "alanpmcallister" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 9:15 pm Subject: mindfulness and its object in time alanpmcallister It has been a long time since I have posted to this group, and I do so to sort through my confusions. I am trying to grasp the temporal relationship of mindfulness to its objects. Am I correct in assuming that it depends on the object, in particular whether its object is wholesome or unwholesome? Mindfulness as a wholesome mental state can only be present with its object at the same time if the object is wholesome. In other words, if I am angry, I cannot be mindful at the same time, but I can be mindful of the passing away of anger in the previous moment. However, if my mental state is wholesome (e.g., I am being kind or generous), mindfulness can accompany (be simultaneous with) that mental state. Alan #124306 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 9:36 pm Subject: The Buddha's Doctor yawares1 Dear Members, I learned about Doctor Jivaka, the Buddha's doctor, when I was young. His achievement truly impressed me so much that I wanted my only daughter to also become a doctor. I would like to dedicate this story to my dear daughter Dr. Sirikanya Sastri, MD(a surgeon working for the US Airforce). ********************* Jivaka Kumarabhacca: The Buddha's Doctor [by Fotopoulu Sophia ,Archived in Religion section 08/05/2005] At the time of the Buddha, among the lay physicians, the most renowned was Jivaka Kumarabhacca, who is described as providing free medical care to the Buddha and other monks and donating his mango grove at Rajagaha for use as a monastic community, named Jivakarama. Jivaka's fame as a healer was widely known and tales about his life and medical feats can be found in almost all versions of Buddhist scriptures. Versions about Jivaka’s birth and infancy: The Pali version began with Salavati, a courtesan of Rajagaha, giving birth to a son whom was then given to a slave woman, who placed him in a winnowing basket, which was left at a rubbish heap on the roadside. In the Sanskrit-Tibetan account, a promiscuous wife of a merchant from Rajagaha gave birth to a son of King Bimbisara, placed the infant in a chest, and ordered maidservants to set the chest at the gate of the king’s palace. In the Chinese narrative, a divine virgin named Arampali, who was raised by a Brahman, gave birth to a son of King Bimbisara. The boy was born with a bag of acupuncture needles in his hand and therefore was predestined to become a doctor and a royal physician. His mother wrapped him in white clothes and ordered a slave to take him to the king. In all versions, the infant is taken and raised by the king’s son 'Prince Abhaya'. In the Pali account, the boy is given the name Jivaka because he was alive (from root jiv, to live), and because a prince cared for him he is called Kumarabhacca (nourished by a prince). Jivaka's Medical training Concerning his interest in medicine and his medical education, in the Pali account, Jivaka, as he approached the age at which he must seek his own livelihood, decided to learn the medical craft. Hearing about a world-famous physician in Taxila, he travelled to that city, famous for education, to apprentice with the eminent doctor. After seven years of medical study, he took a practical examination that tested his knowledge of medical herbs, passed with extraordinary success, and, with the blessings of mentor, went off to practice medicine. In the Sanskrit-Tibetan version, Jivaka desired to learn a craft. Seeing white-clad physicians, he decided to become a doctor and studied the art of healing. After acquiring the basics of medicine, he wished to increase his understanding by learning the art of opening skulls from Atreya , the king of physicians, who lived in the city of Taxila. So Jivaka went there, took the practical examination on medical herbs and performed other healings, and so deepened his knowledge of medicine that he could even advise his master on therapeutic procedures, thereby earning the latter’s respect. Pleased with Jivaka depth of understanding, Atreya communicated to him the special technique of opening the skull. Jivaka eventually left the company of Atreya and journeyed to the city Bhadrankata in Vidarbha, where he studied the textbook called “The Sounds of All Beings” (most probably a textbook related with the practice of dharanis and mantras). During his travels, he purchased a load of wood from a thin and feeble man and discovered in the woodpile a gem called “the soothing remedy of all beings"(The Bodhisattvas of Healing). This gem, when placed before a patient, illuminated his inside as a lamp light up a house, revealing the nature of illness. In the Chinese version Jivaka relinquished all claims to the throne and studied medicine. He found that the education he acquired from local physicians was inadequate and showed their deficiencies in the knowledge presented in the textbooks on plants, medical recipes, acupuncture, and pulse lore, which he had successfully mastered. He therefore instructed them in the essential principles of medicine and gained their respect. Hearing of a famous physician, Atreya, who lived in Taxila, he traveled to the city to learn medicine from him. After studying medicine for seven years, he took the practical examination on medical herbs and passed it with great success. When Jivaka departed, his master told him that, although he himself was first among the Indian physicians, after his death, Jivaka would become his successor. On his travels, Jivaka encountered a young boy carrying firewood and found he was able to see the inside of the boy’s body. Immediately realizing that the bundle of wood must contain a piece of the tree of the King of Healing, who, according to early Mahayana scriptures, is a Bodhisattva of healing, he bought the wood, discovered a twig of the auspicious tree, and used it to diagnose illnesses in the course of his famous medical practice. Jivaka is regarded as the Father of Medicine, a source of knowledge about the healing powers of plant, mineral, massage and so forth. His teachings travel to Thailand at the same time as Buddhism. Definitively a central figure in the Buddhist medical system, he is legitimately regarded as the aspiration for all practitioners of Ancient Massage. Jivaka became a disciple of the Buddha and would treat him and any monks or nuns when they became sick. He had a beautiful mango garden just outside the east gate of Rajagaha which he donated to the Buddha and which later developed into a large monastery. The remains of this monastery were discovered in 1954 and excavated by archaeologists. The Buddha delivered two discourses to Jivaka. In the first he gave the conditions under which monks and nuns can eat meat and in the second he defined a lay disciple as one who has taken the Three Refuges and who observes the five Precepts. Because of the dedicated attentive care with which he ministered to his patients, the Buddha praised Jivaka as chief amongst his disciples who were ‘loved by the people’ ------- Burmese version posted by myanmarpedia on September 27, 2007 Jivaka led a privileged life in the palace. His friends, however, often teased him as he had no mother. Jivaka, who was embarrassed by the teasing, questioned his father about his origin. When he heard about his origins and his will to live he decided that he would one day grow up to be a preserver of life. He felt that he had no real heritage or family as he was only the adopted son of the prince. Physicians, however, were treated with great respect. Determined to earn the respect he felt he lacked due to his birth, Jivaka decided to go to the University of Taxila to become a physician. Jivaka approached Disapamok, a well-known scholar, for his training. At this time Sakka, the King of the Heavens, was observing the world. He realized that it was time for Jivaka, who had in past births aspired to be the physician of the Buddha, to begin his training. Sakka, however, wanted to ensure that Jivaka had more than just the best training available in India. This was the young man who would have the privilege to be the physician of the Buddha. Sakka decided to take a hand in the training of young Jivaka so that he would have celestial knowledge in the art of medicine. With this in view, He entered the body of Disapamok. Jivaka excelled in his studies. Disapamok, however, soon realized that the training that he was providing was being influenced by celestial beings. The knowledge that was being imparted through him far excelled his knowledge of medicine. Jivaka quickly learned medicines and cures of which Disapamok himself had no knowledge. Jivaka completed in seven years the physicians training which usually took eleven years. Realizing that Jivaka’s education was complete, Disapamok asked him to go forth and bring back a plant, herb or root that could not be used for medicinal purposes for the preservation of life. After travelling far and wide Jivaka returned to his teacher to inform him that no such plant, herb, or root existed. All of nature’s treasures were beneficial for the preservation of life. The joyous teacher then praised his pupil by informing him that his education was complete. Jivaka had surpassed his teacher in knowledge. Jivaka decided to go back to Rajagaha to his adoptive father. On the way he stopped to rest in a city named Saletha. He soon heard that the young daughter of the city’s wealthiest nobleman was sick. Despite the ministering of many well-known physicians, she had suffered from severe headaches for seven years. Jivaka approached the nobleman, as he was confident that he could cure the maiden. The maiden, however, was not impressed by the very young man who claimed he could cure her when older, well-known physicians had failed. Offering his services for free, Jivaka continued to declare boldly that he could cure her. Gathering herbs and roots, Jivaka prepared the medicine which he then administered to her through her nostrils. Before long the maiden’s headaches disappeared. The grateful nobleman showered Jivaka with gifts and gold and provided him with a golden chariot. Jivaka approached Prince Abhaya’s palace in great style. Handing over his newly earned wealth to his adoptive father, Jivaka thanked him for his love, compassion, and caring. Prince Abhaya, however, returned all the wealth to Jivaka and informed him that he owed him naught as he was his true son and heir. He then told him that during his absence he had found out the full story of his origin. His mother, Salawathi, was the sought-after courtesan of the kings and nobility. Wanting to retain her freedom, she had discarded the baby whom she felt would be a burden to her. Prince Abhaya had unknowingly adopted his own child as he had loved his son dearly even prior to knowing that he was in fact his own child. Prince Abhaya built a palace to serve as Jivaka’s residence and provided him with many servants. Jivaka’s second patient was none other than his own grandfather, King Bimbisara. The king had a huge growth in his stomach that bled from time to time on his royal robe. So prominent was the growth that his consorts had started to tease the king by saying that he was with child. The king had been treated by all the great physicians of the country to no avail. Prince Abhaya informed Jivaka of his grandfather’s plight. Diagnosing the disease sight unseen, Jivaka immediately prepared the suitable medicine. Then hiding it on his person, he visited the king. After examining the king he administered the medicine that he had brought with him. Before long the king’s growth shrank and his wound healed. The grateful king called his entourage of five hundred consorts who had teased him unmercifully by asking if his first-born was to be a boy or a girl, and commanded them to give all their jewellery as a gift to Jivaka. Before long a mound of precious jewellery higher than Jivaka himself was placed at his feet. However, Jivaka refused this payment and requested permission from the king to return the ornaments back to his consorts. Even more impressed by Jivaka’s deportment, the king showered him with wealth, gifted him with the royal mango grove and made him the royal physician. Jivaka’s reputation as a great physician grew quickly. He was the physician of kings, noblemen and the Buddha. The text mentions that he operated and successfully removed two tumours from the brain of a rich merchant who was a good friend of King Bimbisara. He also operated successfully to remove a blockage in the intestines of a nobleman. In one instance when the Buddha was afflicted with stomach problems, Jivaka prepared the medicine, and applying it on a blue lotus flower, offered it to the Buddha. Jivaka then asked the Buddha to inhale the essence emanating from the flower. The medicine which Jivaka had prepared with devotion and presented so beautifully, cured the Buddha’s stomach ailment. Jivaka had in one instance risked his life to attend a very cruel and vicious king named Chanda Pradyotha. One of the King Pradyotha’s subjects had offered him a shawl that had been dropped by a Deva in the forest. Admiring the very beautiful shawl, the king had reflected that he should gift it to Jivaka who had risked his life to save him. Jivaka, however, felt that there was only one person worthy of such a shawl. He in turn offered it to the Buddha. The Buddha accepted the celestial shawl and, as requested by Jivaka, dispensed a sermon on the giving of robes. After listening to the discourse, Jivaka attained the first stage of enlightenment, Sotapanna. The Buddha felt that keeping such a valuable shawl in the monastery would attract thieves, which would endanger His monks. Addressing ananda, he requested that the shawl be cut into strips and resewn so that it would be of little value to thieves. This custom of wearing patched garments still remains among the Sangha. Even their new robes are made of strips of material that are sewn together so that even the robe they wear would help them in the practice of non-attachment. Jivaka built a monastery in his mango grove so that he could be close to the Buddha when attending to His needs. It was Jivaka who attended to the Buddha’sfoot when it was cut by the sliver of rock that Devadatta rolled down the hill at Gijjhakuta. It was also Jivaka who treated the Buddha in His last days, when He was overcome by stomach pains. ******************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #124307 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 9:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi Howard, > H: Well, you tell me, pt: Is it all or nothing-at-all? < Sorry, I'm trying to get my brain around Dhs atm, so considering in terms of kusala/akusala is usually the first point of reference. > H: If one hindrance is present, are they all present? < I think there can be one or several present, but I'm not sure why is that important? I mean, presence of a hindrance means an akusala cetasika, so an akusala citta, so not "bhavana" which I think equates to kusala citta with panna of whatever grade. > H: And are there no degrees of hindrances, no cases of cetasikas stronger or weaker? < There must be, I think. > H: A black-or-white, no-shades-of-gray kusala/akusala distinction that > presumes completeness and doesn't recognize degrees and gradations is, IMO, > foolish, harmful, and contrary to fact. < While I agree that there are degrees of kusala and degrees of akusala, I don't think there are degrees between akusala and kusala. E.g. there is either anger or there's non-anger (metta). Each can be of different degrees, but there's no degrees between anger and metta. Is there any text in particular that you take to point that there is a gradation between kusala and akusala, rather than gradation of kusala and gradation of akusala? Best wishes pt #124308 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 10:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhs ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Nina, RobK, Thanks for your replies. I got Khine translation now so it's all a bit more clear. I do have a few more questions on the topic. Here are the translations once again for reference. 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. Khine: (i) Dhammaa which are kamma-born as well as objects of clinging. (ii) Dhammaa which are not kamma-born but are objects of clinging. (iii) Dhammaa which are neither kamma-born nor are objects of clinging. Aanandajoti: [4] Things that are attached to and favourable to the attachments. Things that are not attached to (but) are favourable to the attachments. Things that are not attached to and are not favourable to the attachments. *** 1. It seems Rhys Davids translation is a bit more literal, while Khine translation is more according to the meaning? 2. For upaadi.n.na, it only refers to kamma-born ruupa? So, no naamas included there? 3. Further for upaadi.n.na, I don't quite get the connections between "kamma-born" and "grasped at" (or "clung to"). I mean, I would take "dhammas that are grasped at" to refer to any dhammas that arise simultaneously with grasping (clinging), whereas "dhammas that are kamma-born" seem to point to dhammas that are produced by kamma. So, "upaadin.n.a" seems to have that very specific meaning of referring to dhammas that are produced by kamma, if I understand correctly. 4. For upaadaaniyaa - dhammas that are grasped at or can be objects of clinging - I don't quite understand how can a dhamma be the object of clinging. I mean, i understand that clinging as strong lobha can co-arise with many other akusala dhammas. But if a dhamma that has just fallen away is the object of a mind-door process, then my impression was that there has to be panna at the time, otherwise a dhamma would not be the object of that mind-door process. Hence, I can't quite connect how can a dhamma also be an object of clinging (as that would seem to have to exclude panna). Best wishes pt #124309 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 10:26 pm Subject: Re: mindfulness and its object in time sarahprocter... Dear Alan, Nice to see you again! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "alanpmcallister" wrote: > > It has been a long time since I have posted to this group, and I do so to sort through my confusions. > > I am trying to grasp the temporal relationship of mindfulness to its objects. Am I correct in assuming that it depends on the object, in particular whether its object is wholesome or unwholesome? Mindfulness as a wholesome mental state can only be present with its object at the same time if the object is wholesome. In other words, if I am angry, I cannot be mindful at the same time, but I can be mindful of the passing away of anger in the previous moment. However, if my mental state is wholesome (e.g., I am being kind or generous), mindfulness can accompany (be simultaneous with) that mental state. .... S: Working back - 1.Sati (awareness) arises with all sobhana (beautiful) cittas, so, yes, it arises with all wholesome cittas, at moments of generosity, morality or mental development, regardless of the object. 2. Sati never arises with akusala (unwholesome) cittas, i.e when the consciousness is rooted in anger, attachment or ignorance. 3. Any reality which has just fallen away, including anger or any other unwholesome state or wholesome state, can be the object of following wholesome cittas. In such cases, sati is aware of the characeristic of that reality that has just fallen away. 4. Note it is sati that is aware, never you or me! 5. So when sati arises (with a wholesome citta), the object can be any kind of reality or concept. There seems to be some mixing up or accompanying mental states and objects in what you suggest above. 6. In other words, the "temporal relationship" is just that sati can only arise with sobhana cittas (kusala, kusala vipaka and kiriya cittas), not with akusala cittas. However, the object of sati when it arises can be any kind of citta, cetasika, rupa or concept (or nibbana). I'm not sure if I'll have clarified or confused.....let me know as these are good questions. I also forget if you're familiar with the Pali terms I've used. If not, I'll try to put into simple English or others may add more. Metta Sarah ==== #124310 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 10:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view philofillet Hi pt and Howard I think the gradation of kusala ( or akusala) you are looking for can be found in the prompted/unprompted pair, which AS prefers to call strong for unprompted....there is no semi-prompted fuzzy grey zone citta in Abhidhamma, though. Best stick to Abhidhamma rather than wandering off into our own cittastic creations, in my opinion. Phil #124311 From: "alanpmcallister" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 11:00 pm Subject: Re: mindfulness and its object in time alanpmcallister Thank you Sarah. Yes I am familiar with the pali terms. You have been sensitive to the point of confusion: > 5. So when sati arises (with a wholesome citta), the object can be any kind of reality or concept. There seems to be some mixing up or accompanying mental states and objects in what you suggest above. This is precisely where I think my confusion arises, as basic as this. I think I am getting confused around mindfulness and consciousness. If I am concentrating on my breathing, I can conscious of it, that is, the movement is my object of consciousness. If mindfulness arises concurrently (in the same mind moment), is its object the abdominal movement or the consciousness of it? Or could it be either, depending on the type of practice I am pursuing, anapanasati or cittanupassana? A quick review of this point might resolve my confusion. with metta, Alan #124312 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu May 17, 2012 11:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi Phil and Howard, > Ph: I think the gradation of kusala ( or akusala) you are looking for can be found in the prompted/unprompted pair, which AS prefers to call strong for unprompted....there is no semi-prompted fuzzy grey zone citta in Abhidhamma, though. Best stick to Abhidhamma rather than wandering off into our own cittastic creations, in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading Howard, but I think he was implying that there's a "fuzzy" area between kusala and akusala, whereas my contention is that there isn't. On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument between us that there is a gradation in kusala itself or akusala itself. E.g. some of the things that come to mind are - prompting, kamma patha or not, 3 levels of defilements, different insight knowledges, etc. Best wishes pt #124313 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 1:41 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > > RE: So what about this central importance of concepts in the Dhamma itself? And how does the pariyatti associated with these concepts translate into development of direct understanding? Why is there this singular relationship between correct concepts about realities and the discernment of the realities themselves. > > =============== > > J: There is no such thing as a `correct' (or an `incorrect') concept. There is only correct (or incorrect) thinking or understanding. So as mentioned above, it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'. I would like to challenge this idea to a certain extent. It seems that the argument you are making here is that the concept in question doesn't matter, only the understanding. If this is the case, the logical conclusion would be that it does not matter if one understands the concepts of Dhamma or if one understands the concept of table or person, as long as one understands it correctly. But it is my understanding that such an equality of concepts has a very specific exception written into the nature of the Dhamma itself, and that is that it is hearing the *Dhamma* that is the precondition for panna to arise, not merely hearing anything. Since it is the Dhamma only which leads to the arising of panna about the nature of realities, the concepts contained in the Dhamma constitute a special class of concepts, and clearly *do* make a difference as compared with any other concept under the sun. Even if we stiplate that the arising of panna under any given circumstance would do the trick, and that it does not have to be panna in relation to this concept or that concept, such understanding via the arising of panna is not going to take place unless one has specific understanding of the concepts of the Dhamma, and so the argument short-circuits itself. If you are saying that the hearing of Dhamma somehow conditions understanding without the Dhamma concepts themselves having any particular importance, I would be happy to hear how this is supposed to work, as I cannot imagine it myself. Personally, I think that the understanding of the concept itself does matter. Why? Because it is obvious from the existence of the Dhamma, and the stated necessity of understanding the Dhamma. The Dhamma is constituted by nothing at all except concepts and practices. Even to understand the practices one has to understand conceptually what those practices are, and so the descriptions of the practices are also concepts as presented in sutta and additional scriptures. So the specific content of these special concepts must be understood, or the required panna will not arise. It is also possible that the understanding of certain core Dhamma concepts, such as understanding realities directly, will then condition the arising of panna with some other totally unrelated concept - although I am not knowledgeable enough to envision how panna would arise in relation to a concept such as chair or person - I can only imagine panna arising in relation to a Dhamma concept or a direct reality, so perhaps you can enlighten me about this possibility. In the case of a Dhamma concept you have the possibility of pariyatti - understanding the correct idea about realities via a concept elucidated in the Dhamma, ie, one could form the correct understanding that dhammas arise without any control. That would presumably condition the future arising of direct understanding of this truth. But what would be the understanding via panna that would arise in relation to chair? It is my understanding [from you I think] that panna does not distinguish the falseness of concepts but only the reality of dhammas, so what would be the function of panna in relation to a non-Dhamma-based concept? There's no pariyatti there is there? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #124314 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 1:48 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon - part II on this little post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Regarding, "If one has a concept "the table is hard," ... the derivation of 'hardness' from the experience of the 'table' refers back to the experienced dhamma of 'hardness'". > > I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. If you are saying that when touching a `table' there can be the experience of hardness, I would agree, but this may occur with or without the thought of `the table is hard' occurring. That may be true, but doesn't settle the issue one way or the other whether the observation "the table is hard" has any potential for awakening an awareness of hardness or not. It seems to me that pariyatti includes thoughts about the characteristics of dhammas, and the understanding that dhammas have these characteristics rather than concepts. If one were thinking about this and thought "the table is hard" in this context, one might then identify the experience of hardness as a dhamma, conceptually speaking. This might be an instance of increased pariyatti based on the experience of hardness being conceptually separated from the table. If you think this sort of thing is unlikely, I would be interested in how increased clarity on the level of pariyatti takes place. One is thinking about the Abhidhamma statements about characteristics of dhammas and clarifying it intellectually. How does this lead to increased clarity about dhammas and does this relate to the experiences one notes in everyday life in any way, such as touching a table and thinking to oneself "This is an experience of hardness like I read about in the Abhidhamma." > Furthermore the principal condition for awareness of hardness arising in such an instance would be (a) having heard the teachings, etc., and (b) previous accumulations of awareness of hardness. How does one collect previous accumulations of awareness of hardness? Does it not come out of some kind of growing awareness of hardness as a characteristic when it is experienced in everyday life, and having such experiences with increasing clarity? There are stages of awareness, are there not, that include correct intellectual understanding and experience of nimittas, as well as eventually fleeting experiences of actual dhammas in situ. Don't all such experiences lead to accumulations as the development of understanding continues? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #124315 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 18, 2012 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditational view upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Phil) - In a message dated 5/17/2012 9:20:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Phil and Howard, > Ph: I think the gradation of kusala ( or akusala) you are looking for can be found in the prompted/unprompted pair, which AS prefers to call strong for unprompted....there is no semi-prompted fuzzy grey zone citta in Abhidhamma, though. Best stick to Abhidhamma rather than wandering off into our own cittastic creations, in my opinion. Maybe I'm misreading Howard, but I think he was implying that there's a "fuzzy" area between kusala and akusala, whereas my contention is that there isn't. On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument between us that there is a gradation in kusala itself or akusala itself. E.g. some of the things that come to mind are - prompting, kamma patha or not, 3 levels of defilements, different insight knowledges, etc. Best wishes pt ================================= What I am saying, to consider an extreme case, is that if one hindrance is active to a slight degree and all others are fully absent, to call such a mind state "unwholesome" is the height of one-sided pessimism. It is an inappropriate designation. An all-or-nothing-at-all attitude is one that is bound to lead to failure. A related digression: Suppose someone is in a homicidal rage, and someone else is merely mildly angry - a trifle annoyed for example, and suppose some "judge" says "Hey, they both have an akusala mind state!" I would have little use for such a judge. Things are not all 0/1 or black/white. There ARE shades of gray. Getting back to the hindrances, suppose that on a given occasion, a person is free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and anxiety, and fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but is a bit sleepy and low in energy. Is such a state akusala??? I say it is not. Moreover, at the very same time one could be experiencing considerable metta, karuna or mudita, and upekha. Such a state, while imperfect is dramatically more kusala than akusala. I think that any other characterization of such a state would be doctrinnaire nonsense. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124316 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 2:27 am Subject: Re: On concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >A: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.< > >Ok. What I find important is the issue of what is that "something" >that is being spoken about, or pointed to, regardless of what >terminology is used? >=================================== For example: Anicca, dukkha, anatta, tanha leads to dukkha, and cessation of tanha leads to cessation of dukkha. With metta, Alex #124317 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 3:56 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > Continuing this topic after a short break (sorry I don't have more time to write often). > > In summary, we've started with the below four questions: > > > a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? > b) what makes that moment/state of consciousness (be classified as) "kusala"? > c) what makes it "samatha bhavana" (tranquility meditation)? > d) what makes it "vipassana bhavana" (insight meditation)?< > > > We discussed the point (a). In summary, there are two possible objects of citta - a dhamma and a concept. To connect points (a) and (b) and move towards discussing (b): > > I think probably the most interesting issue is that the object does not necessarily make a citta a/kusala. E.g. a concept such as breath can be an object of citta, but that does not necessarily make the citta kusala. So the question is what does? > > Some thoughts on this that we might then discuss further: > > 1. What makes the citta a/kusala according to abhidhamma are primarily the roots (cetasikas) - lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites for kusala cittas. I'm sure these are related to citta by specific conditions, but I don't know much more on this. > > 2. Interestingly though, if the object of citta is a dhamma, then I don't think that citta can possibly be akusala. It can be kusala (most notably in vipassana), vipaka and kiriya, but not akusala. Again this must have something to do with a specific condition and the way they work, but I don't really know. > > 3. But when the object is a concept, then the citta can be both kusala [I changed this from akusala as I think it was a typo - Rob] and akusala (and kiriya I think, but not vipaka). > > 4. So then, when we are talking about samatha bhavana, which has a concept as the object of citta - such as breath for example - what makes the citta kusala, since it is not the object (breath)? > > 5. One of the things I remember from discussion in Manly with Jon and Sarah (and KenH via Skype) - the answer to that question was - "it's not the object that makes the citta kusala, but the manner in which the object is contemplated." I have heard similar statements as well, but let's remember your proviso above that if a dhamma is the object the citta cannot be akusala. That at least is a situation in which the citta is kusala based on the object. So it would be outside of that class that the manner of contemplation is the determining factor. I would guess that this is not because the object determines the wholesomeness of the citta, even in the case of dhamma as object, but rather that the state of consciousness/cetasikas necessary in order to discern a dhamma directly is past the point where any defilement is possible. I hope that thought is clear. Once citta reaches the level of insight where a dhamma can be directly experienced and understood, it is well beyond any akusala. > 6. My understanding of the phrase "the manner in which the object is contemplated" is that in essence it equates to saying - the arising of kusala root cetasikas at the time (alobha, adosa, amoha). But what does that mean in more accessible terms, I don't really know yet. Imagine those forms of contemplation/experience in which there is greater or lesser direct understanding, and without attachment or self-view. I think that would give a fair general picture of the type of contemplation that would not be akusala. > 7. For example, we've sort of established that the object (concept) does not make the citta kusala. Unless it is a dhamma, which necessitates a kusala citta. > Some of the other things that don't make the citta necessarily kusala are pleasant feeling (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas) and strong concentration (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas). Those are good observations; and adding to them, I would guess that it would *not* be possible for insight/panna of any kind to arise for an akusala citta, or with akusala roots or other akusala cetasikas. I would guess that panna and akusala mental states are mutually exclusive, even though this is not the case for concentration or pleasantness. > Anyway, some of the thoughts that came up at this point, feel free to break up the discussion into smaller manageable chunks. I hope the above is an adequate response to your very clear and helpful laying out of the current issues. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124318 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view epsteinrob Hi Howard, pt, et al. Jumping in for a moment... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: pt: > Maybe I'm misreading Howard, but I think he was implying that there's a > "fuzzy" area between kusala and akusala, whereas my contention is that there > isn't. > > On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument between us that > there is a gradation in kusala itself or akusala itself. ... > ================================= > What I am saying, to consider an extreme case, is that if one > hindrance is active to a slight degree and all others are fully absent, to call > such a mind state "unwholesome" is the height of one-sided pessimism. ... ...Suppose someone is in a homicidal rage, and > someone else is merely mildly angry - a trifle annoyed for example, and suppose > some "judge" says "Hey, they both have an akusala mind state!" I would > have little use for such a judge. ... There ARE shades of gray. > Getting back to the hindrances, suppose that on a given occasion, a > person is free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and > anxiety, and fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but is a bit sleepy > and low in energy. Is such a state akusala??? I say it is not. I think it is possible to be accurate, and give the kusala its due, without dismissing the akusala. I think what you are suggesting can be handled by the idea of degrees of kusala and akusala. I think the reason that people are talking about it in black and white terms is that they only consider one moment at a time, and any given moment would be a kusala or akusala moment in Abhidhamma terms. To take account of what you are talking about, I think what you'd say in their terms is that there are "many moments of kusala dotted by a small amount of akusala moments." In other words, the kusala is fully acknowledged when you look at the preponderence of moments over a period of time. What you may have further disagreement with, however, is that they would say that there are no coexisting divergent moments. The kusala and akusala would be taking turns, rather than occurring at the same time. I wonder if in Abhidhamma terms, kusala and akusala cetasikas/mind states or qualities, ever occur at the same time, for the same citta/moment of consciousness? That would be an interesting technical question. If so, then that would account for the type of situation you are talking about, where there is a little akusala in a mostly kusala mental condition. But I would agree with your basic take on the overall situation in common sense terms - that if someone is in a very positive state with a tiny bit of tiredness or distraction popping up, that is obviously a "mostly kusala state," rather than an akusala state. There are some cases in life where a tiny drop of akusala does ruin the kusala - if you have a delicious drink and it has a tiny drop of cyanide in it, that kind of ruins the whole drink. But if you have strong mindfulness and concentration with a little tiredness, that doesn't seem to be a big problem for the kusala to predominate. Moreover, at > the very same time one could be experiencing considerable metta, karuna or > mudita, and upekha. Such a state, while imperfect is dramatically more > kusala than akusala. I think that any other characterization of such a state > would be doctrinnaire nonsense. I think the main doctrinal question is whether the mental states you describe all take place at once or in succeeding moments. I don't think the Abhidhamma-oriented folks here will see one moment as necessarily containing all those qualities at once, but rather would see them as arising in particular groupings or one at a time, so then each moment could be evaluated for its kusala individually. But that would be a rather technical level of scrutiny. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #124319 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view epsteinrob Hi pt, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > H: My perspective: I consider that meditation (in the fullest) is > > occuring exactly whenever the hindrances are in abeyance. When they are not in > > abeyance, at best, there is a pre-meditative state in effect. (Pre-meditative > > states may well be quite auspicious, of course.)< pt: > If there's a hindrance present at the moment, is that not akusala citta? Maybe I'm a bit confused by the general terminology used here. What would be the description of the "at best" option in terms of cittas and cetasikas when a hindrance is present? Thanks. My question is whether an akusala cetasika can arise with an otherwise kusala citta. Must all the cetasikas be either kusala or akusala, or can they be mixed? Can there be strong mindfulness with a drop of agitation, or panna arising with a bit of torpor? Or must they all line up to be wholly kusala or akusala? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #124320 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 18, 2012 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditational view upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/17/2012 3:09:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I think the reason that people are talking about it in black and white terms is that they only consider one moment at a time, and any given moment would be a kusala or akusala moment in Abhidhamma terms. To take account of what you are talking about, I think what you'd say in their terms is that there are "many moments of kusala dotted by a small amount of akusala moments." In other words, the kusala is fully acknowledged when you look at the preponderence of moments over a period of time. What you may have further disagreement with, however, is that they would say that there are no coexisting divergent moments. The kusala and akusala would be taking turns, rather than occurring at the same time. ================================ Not quite so, IMO. A single mind state could be as I described: "... free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and anxiety, and fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but ... a bit sleepy and low in energy." And, moreover, at that very same instant, "... one could be experiencing considerable metta, karuna or mudita, and upekha." Such a state would be far more wholesome than unwholesome, and this has nothing to do with cetasika trades. It would make no sense whatsoever to describe such a mind state as akusala. It seem to me that do so promotes pessimism, even hopelessness. Instead of our always looking to what unwholesomeness may be present, better to see what is wholesome and take joy in it and promote it. Good pushes out bad unless we immerse ourselves in the bad, considering it all powerful. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124321 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 7:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view truth_aerator Hello Howard, >HCW:A single mind state could be as I described: "... >free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and >anxiety, and fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but ... a >bit sleepy and low in energy." And, moreover, at that very same >instant, "... one could be experiencing considerable metta, karuna or >mudita, and upekha." Such a state would be far more wholesome than >unwholesome, and this has nothing to do with cetasika trades. It >would make no sense whatsoever to describe such a mind state as >akusala. >====================================================== I think you are right. It is not very right to hold dogmatic and one-sided "it is either totally bad or totally good" rigid view. With best wishes, Alex #124322 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 8:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: ...A single mind state could be as I described: "... > free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and anxiety, and > fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but ... a bit sleepy and low > in energy." And, moreover, at that very same instant, "... one could be > experiencing considerable metta, karuna or mudita, and upekha." Such a state > would be far more wholesome than unwholesome, and this has nothing to do > with cetasika trades. It would make no sense whatsoever to describe such a > mind state as akusala. As I said, I think in terms of our human experience, it makes a lot of sense to look at such a mind state the way you describe it. It is obviously much more wholesome than unwholesome. In technical Abhidhamma terms, it may be looked at differently, but I'm not so on top of that to know how it would be defined. But I think the positive mental qualities would likely be acknowledged as kusala. > It seem to me that to do so promotes pessimism, even > hopelessness. Instead of our always looking to what unwholesomeness may be > present, better to see what is wholesome and take joy in it and promote it. Good > pushes out bad unless we immerse ourselves in the bad, considering it all > powerful. Well, I don't think it's an either/or alternative. I agree that we should fully appreciate and promote the positive attributes that are present, and experience the joy of whatever higher states we experience. I also think we can do this while acknowledging what is still a problem or an obstacle, and work on that as well, without falling into judgmentalism or pessimism. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #124323 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 8:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view truth_aerator Hello RobertE, Howard, all, >RE: As I said, I think in terms of our human experience, it makes a >lot of sense to look at such a mind state the way you describe it. It >is obviously much more wholesome than unwholesome. In technical >Abhidhamma terms, it may be looked at differently, but I'm not so on >top of that to know how it would be defined. But I think the positive >mental qualities would likely be acknowledged as kusala. >==================== When there is difference between experience and what a book says, with what will you side? With metta, Alex #124324 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Howard, all, > > >RE: As I said, I think in terms of our human experience, it makes a >lot of sense to look at such a mind state the way you describe it. It >is obviously much more wholesome than unwholesome. In technical >Abhidhamma terms, it may be looked at differently, but I'm not so on >top of that to know how it would be defined. But I think the positive >mental qualities would likely be acknowledged as kusala. > >==================== > > When there is difference between experience and what a book says, with what will you side? To me, it's not generally a question of taking sides, but of seeing if the writings in question shed light on the experience. If some writings seem to intellectualize experience and is not useful to you, then for sure don't follow it, but other writings may actually explain the significance of what you experience, or how to regard or understand it. Isn't that the reason for reading much of the Dhamma? If that is not the case, if what we read doesn't shed any new light on what we experience already, why bother to read at all? So I think what you may really be saying is that you don't think some books are worthwhile in the way they talk about reality. If that is the case, then I think it's helpful to be specific and say what you think is wrong with this or that writing. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #124325 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >Alex:When there is difference between experience and what a book >says, with what will you side? > >RE: To me, it's not generally a question of taking sides, but of >seeing if the writings in question shed light on the experience. >=================== To rephrase: When *experience contradicts what is written in the book, will you believe experience or the book? *assuming that one didn't seriously mis-percieve the experience for which some study is necessary. >RE: Isn't that the reason for reading much of the Dhamma? IMHO, 1st) It is to teach you how and what to observe, with specific and private experience being impossible for book to describe. 2nd) To inspire you to do the above. There are some things that I disagree, example: Trillions of cittas per split second (not taught in Tipitaka). Can this ever be directly perceived by us? Or is it just an abstraction? How can this produce more dispassion toward nama or rupa more than experiential momentariness? I fully affirm momentariness, but only to the degree that it is actually experienced and to the degree that it matters for craving and ignorance to cease once-and-for-all. With best wishes, Alex #124326 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:49 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124314) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon - part II on this little post. > ... > RE: That may be true, but doesn't settle the issue one way or the other whether the observation "the table is hard" has any potential for awakening an awareness of hardness or not. > =============== J: If the observation, "the table is hard", were to occur as part of a re-collection, with panna, of things previously heard and understood, then of course there could be some awareness of hardness ensuing. But it depends on the particular circumstances rather than on the concept per se. The same observation may occur with or without such recollection. > =============== > RE: It seems to me that pariyatti includes thoughts about the characteristics of dhammas, and the understanding that dhammas have these characteristics rather than concepts. If one were thinking about this and thought "the table is hard" in this context, one might then identify the experience of hardness as a dhamma, conceptually speaking. This might be an instance of increased pariyatti based on the experience of hardness being conceptually separated from the table. > =============== J: Of course pariyatti may include, or may arise in the course of, thinking about dhammas. And for each individual the thinking will be different. But it's the quality of the thinking, rather than the `wording' of the thought, that's important. > =============== > RE: If you think this sort of thing is unlikely, I would be interested in how increased clarity on the level of pariyatti takes place. One is thinking about the Abhidhamma statements about characteristics of dhammas and clarifying it intellectually. How does this lead to increased clarity about dhammas and does this relate to the experiences one notes in everyday life in any way, such as touching a table and thinking to oneself "This is an experience of hardness like I read about in the Abhidhamma." > =============== J: What you call "thinking about the Abhidhamma statements about characteristics of dhammas" may or may not involve kusala (and panna). Again, it's the nature of the thinking rather than the description of the thought that is significant. > =============== > > J: Furthermore the principal condition for awareness of hardness arising in such an instance would be (a) having heard the teachings, etc., and (b) previous accumulations of awareness of hardness. > > RE: How does one collect previous accumulations of awareness of hardness? Does it not come out of some kind of growing awareness of hardness as a characteristic when it is experienced in everyday life, and having such experiences with increasing clarity? There are stages of awareness, are there not, that include correct intellectual understanding and experience of nimittas, as well as eventually fleeting experiences of actual dhammas in situ. Don't all such experiences lead to accumulations as the development of understanding continues? > =============== J: Kusala moments accumulate (as do akusala) by virtue of having arisen. So the question "How does one collect previous accumulations of awareness of hardness?" does not really arise, at least not in that form. Jon #124327 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. > H: What I am saying, to consider an extreme case, is that if one > hindrance is active to a slight degree and all others are fully absent, to call > such a mind state "unwholesome" is the height of one-sided pessimism. It is an > inappropriate designation. < Ok, if you prefer to designate mind-states in a different manner, I don't see a problem with that. It's just that I assumed abhidhamma terminology as a common starting point, which does say I think that if an akusala cetasika, such as a (slight) hindrance, is present, then the citta is designated as akusala. > H: An all-or-nothing-at-all attitude is one that > is bound to lead to failure. < To be fair regarding the abhidhamma terminology, I think it does allow for a lot of gradation in akusala and kusala - for example the 3 levels of defilements - the slight ones (often described as 'microbes'), which I think carry over even with kusala cittas, the medium ones which are the common lobha and dosa, and the very strong ones, which are strong lobha and dosa that lead to kamma patha (if I remember all that right). > H: A related digression: Suppose someone is in a homicidal rage, and > someone else is merely mildly angry - a trifle annoyed for example, and suppose > some "judge" says "Hey, they both have an akusala mind state!" I would > have little use for such a judge. Things are not all 0/1 or black/white. > There ARE shades of gray. < Well, I think abhidhamma does allow for the above - e.g. the homicidal rage would be dosa capable of kamma patha, whereas a trifle annoyed state is dosa of mild (non-kamma patha) kind, so only accumulates more dosa, but not akusala vipaka. But yes, I think abhidhamma would class both cases as akusala cittas. > H: Getting back to the hindrances, suppose that on a given occasion, a > person is free of sensual desire, free of anger, free of restlessness and > anxiety, and fully trusting in the Buddha and his Dhamma, but is a bit sleepy > and low in energy. Is such a state akusala??? I say it is not. I think in abhidhamma terminology it would depend whether "a bit sleepy and low in energy" is an akusala cetasika of sloth, or whether it is a kusala cetasika of viriya for example, which is not very strong at the time. In the first case then the person would be mistaken thinking that it's a kusala state since I think akusala cetasikas cannot arise with kusala cittas. In the second case it would be a kusala citta, no problems there. > H: Moreover, at > the very same time one could be experiencing considerable metta, karuna or > mudita, and upekha. Such a state, while imperfect is dramatically more > kusala than akusala. I think that any other characterization of such a state > would be doctrinnaire nonsense. < I don't know really. My take is that abhidhamma goes to very high precision in determining what's akusala and what's kusala in order to avoid confusing the two - I think that taking akusala for kusala is one of the definitions of ignorance (or was it wrong view?). But it is very hard to tell the difference anyway. Like RobE, I too think that what's happening most of the time is a lot of akusala cittas alternating quickly with a few dotted kusala cittas, and this then often leads me to believe that things are a lot more kusala in general than how they really are. Best wishes pt #124328 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:00 am Subject: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator Hello Pt, I have a question. If someone with Self views gives generous Dana to Bhikkhus - A) Is that citta kusala or akusala? B) To what degree? With best wishes, Alex #124329 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:05 am Subject: Re: On concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Ok. What I find important is the issue of what is that "something" >that is being spoken about, or pointed to, regardless of what >terminology is used? > >=================================== > > For example: > Anicca, dukkha, anatta, tanha leads to dukkha, and cessation of tanha leads to cessation of dukkha. Ok, that sounds good. So, taking anicca for example, do you think the texts are saying that: - anicca is to be inferred from such things as mortality, decay of objects and cultures? - or is it to be directly understood in terms of a moment of perception for example? - or perhaps both? - how would you explain to a beginner each of the two modes of understanding? Best wishes pt #124330 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: On concepts truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt: - anicca is to be inferred from such things as mortality, decay >of >objects and cultures? >================================== Which fosters more dispassion, teaching about trillions of mind moments arising and ceasing every split second or material goods crumbling, bodies aging, beauty fading, getting sick, and dying, etc... Of course it is true that sense cognition is momentary. Look to the left, look to the right, and as you do so, many perceptions appear and cease. But it is important, IMHO, to keep the usefulness of the teaching in mind. Recognition of Anicca is to develop dispassion and make tanha fade away. Which is experientially more powerful? With metta, Alex #124331 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:18 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (124313) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: There is no such thing as a `correct' (or an `incorrect') concept. There is only correct (or incorrect) thinking or understanding. So as mentioned above, it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'. > > RE: I would like to challenge this idea to a certain extent. It seems that the argument you are making here is that the concept in question doesn't matter, only the understanding. If this is the case, the logical conclusion would be that it does not matter if one understands the concepts of Dhamma or if one understands the concept of table or person, as long as one understands it correctly. > =============== J: That `logical conclusion'(!) does not follow. What I said was, "it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'". > =============== > RE: But it is my understanding that such an equality of concepts has a very specific exception written into the nature of the Dhamma itself, and that is that it is hearing the *Dhamma* that is the precondition for panna to arise, not merely hearing anything. Since it is the Dhamma only which leads to the arising of panna about the nature of realities, the concepts contained in the Dhamma constitute a special class of concepts, and clearly *do* make a difference as compared with any other concept under the sun. > =============== J: See above. > =============== > RE: Even if we stiplate that the arising of panna under any given circumstance would do the trick, and that it does not have to be panna in relation to this concept or that concept, such understanding via the arising of panna is not going to take place unless one has specific understanding of the concepts of the Dhamma, and so the argument short-circuits itself. > =============== J: If you say so :-)) > =============== > RE: If you are saying that the hearing of Dhamma somehow conditions understanding without the Dhamma concepts themselves having any particular importance, I would be happy to hear how this is supposed to work, as I cannot imagine it myself. > =============== J: If what you call `Dhamma concepts' were spoken by a person who had no understanding of the teachings, I doubt they could condition understanding in a listener. > =============== > RE: Personally, I think that the understanding of the concept itself does matter. Why? Because it is obvious from the existence of the Dhamma, and the stated necessity of understanding the Dhamma. The Dhamma is constituted by nothing at all except concepts and practices. Even to understand the practices one has to understand conceptually what those practices are, and so the descriptions of the practices are also concepts as presented in sutta and additional scriptures. So the specific content of these special concepts must be understood, or the required panna will not arise. > =============== J: If you are saying that concepts are necessary for the communication of the understanding of the Dhamma from one person to another, then of course I agree. > =============== > RE: It is also possible that the understanding of certain core Dhamma concepts, such as understanding realities directly, will then condition the arising of panna with some other totally unrelated concept - although I am not knowledgeable enough to envision how panna would arise in relation to a concept such as chair or person - I can only imagine panna arising in relation to a Dhamma concept or a direct reality, so perhaps you can enlighten me about this possibility. > =============== J: Sorry, but I'm not getting your point here. > =============== > RE: In the case of a Dhamma concept you have the possibility of pariyatti - understanding the correct idea about realities via a concept elucidated in the Dhamma, ie, one could form the correct understanding that dhammas arise without any control. That would presumably condition the future arising of direct understanding of this truth. But what would be the understanding via panna that would arise in relation to chair? It is my understanding [from you I think] that panna does not distinguish the falseness of concepts but only the reality of dhammas, so what would be the function of panna in relation to a non-Dhamma-based concept? There's no pariyatti there is there? > =============== J: What you call the "correct understanding that dhammas arise without any control" has many levels. If it's understanding at the intellectual level only, then it may or may not "condition the future arising of direct understanding of this truth". For a start, much would depend on the individual's understanding of the term "dhammas". As regards your question "what would be the understanding via panna that would arise in relation to chair?", I may be missing the point, but I can't see there's anything to be understood by panna in relation to the concept `chair'. Jon #124332 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:35 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > pt: 5. One of the things I remember from discussion in Manly with Jon and Sarah (and KenH via Skype) - the answer to that question was - "it's not the object that makes the citta kusala, but the manner in which the object is contemplated." < < > > RE: I have heard similar statements as well, but let's remember your proviso above that if a dhamma is the object the citta cannot be akusala. That at least is a situation in which the citta is kusala based on the object. So it would be outside of that class that the manner of contemplation is the determining factor. < pt: Maybe it's best we hold on here for a bit as I might be wrong - I think RobK suggested that a dhamma can be an object of akusala citta, so let's see what he or anyone else says on the issue. That would definitely make things more difficult in the sense that even when a dhamma is object of citta, there's still no guarantee that it's a kusala citta. > RE: I would guess that this is not because the object determines the wholesomeness of the citta, even in the case of dhamma as object, but rather that the state of consciousness/cetasikas necessary in order to discern a dhamma directly is past the point where any defilement is possible. I hope that thought is clear. < pt: Agreed. > RE: Once citta reaches the level of insight where a dhamma can be directly experienced and understood, it is well beyond any akusala. < pt: Yes, I think so, though in strict technical terms, defilements (of the 'microbe' kind) would still be carried over with kusala cittas, which is why kusala cittas of mundane kind do not eradicate defilements, but only supramundane do. > > pt: 6. My understanding of the phrase "the manner in which the object is contemplated" is that in essence it equates to saying - the arising of kusala root cetasikas at the time (alobha, adosa, amoha). But what does that mean in more accessible terms, I don't really know yet. > > RE: Imagine those forms of contemplation/experience in which there is greater or lesser direct understanding, and without attachment or self-view. I think that would give a fair general picture of the type of contemplation that would not be akusala. < pt: Yes, that sounds alright. My dilemma is though what is "contemplation" especially when it comes to samatha bhavana? It's probably not focusing on the object (breath in our example), as the object does not make the citta kusala. Sarah and Jon said for example that when it comes to breath as object, then "kusala" contemplation of the samatha kind would be understanding that breath is the only thing that connects us to life, if I remember right. I feel that is fine for those momentary instances of samatha that happen in daily life, but say if we are talking about samatha bhavana in the case where one supposedly naturally sits under a tree for a while and all that, I'm not sure I understand how could that thing about life connection be contemplated for hours on end without thinking. But then if there's thinking, how can there be absorption. Etc. This shows you I don't really know much about samatha bhavana, so we're just discussing here. > > pt: Some of the other things that don't make the citta necessarily kusala are pleasant feeling (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas) and strong concentration (arises with both kusala and akusala cittas). > > RE: Those are good observations; and adding to them, I would guess that it would *not* be possible for insight/panna of any kind to arise for an akusala citta, or with akusala roots or other akusala cetasikas. I would guess that panna and akusala mental states are mutually exclusive, even though this is not the case for concentration or pleasantness. < pt: Yes, I think so. And yes, I think abhidhamma says that if citta is kusala, then all cetasikas are also kusala. And the corresponding relation between akusala citta and cetasikas. No mixing between kusala and akusala. Though as you say elsewhere, rapid succession of kusala citta with akusala citta, and the other way around, is most likely. And I remembered a few other things that I think cannot be taken as indicators of kusala: 1. The "feeling good" in the body which often happens in meditation - the definition is hard to pin down - is it cetaiska piti, or is it rupas produced by citta, or is it rupa of air, but the common term in meditation community is "energy" - the waves you basically feel expanding through the body and which feel really good, like pressure coursing through the body and making you feel uplifted, light, really good, calm, etc. I think this phenomenon, whatever it is, is common to both kusala and akusala states. 2. Absence of verbal thought. Again, I think it's possible during both kusala and akusala states. Any other indicators you can think of that we might look at? Best wishes pt #124333 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view ptaus1 Hi RobE, > My question is whether an akusala cetasika can arise with an otherwise kusala citta. Must all the cetasikas be either kusala or akusala, or can they be mixed? Can there be strong mindfulness with a drop of agitation, or panna arising with a bit of torpor? Or must they all line up to be wholly kusala or akusala? I think abhidhamma says that kusala citta can only have kusala cetasikas. No mixing possible. It's often said here though that in life akusala cittas succeed kusala cittas very quickly, so that certainly gives the impression that both kusala and akusala can be present at the same time. As mentioned, taking akusala for kusala is one of the main obstacles to the path I think, hence the usefulness I see in always questioning whether what I think is kusala is really so. And i find the precision of abhidhamma helpful there. Best wishes pt #124334 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:49 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala ptaus1 Hi Alex, > I have a question. If someone with Self views gives generous Dana to Bhikkhus - > A) Is that citta kusala or akusala? > B) To what degree? hard to tell, I'd guess if there's self-view, citta is akusala, if there's dana, citta is kusala. Hence, what is most likely is that one sort of citta is alternating with the other sort of citta. Hard to tell about the degrees. Best wishes pt #124335 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:57 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator Hello Pt, Howard, all, >A: I have a question. If someone with Self views gives generous Dana >to Bhikkhus - >A) Is that citta kusala or akusala? > B) To what degree? > > >Pt: hard to tell, I'd guess if there's self-view, citta is akusala, >if there's dana, citta is kusala. Hence, what is most likely is that >one sort of citta is alternating with the other sort of citta. Hard >to tell about the degrees. >=============================================== Maybe what you mean is something similar to what Howard was saying? Can this also apply to correct meditation practice to increase understanding? At first there are many minor akusala and few kusala cittas. Eventually the ratio will change with more and more kusala cittas arising until only kusala cittas arise. With metta, Alex #124336 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 12:00 pm Subject: Re: On concepts ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Which fosters more dispassion, teaching about trillions of mind moments arising and ceasing every split second or material goods crumbling, bodies aging, beauty fading, getting sick, and dying, etc... > Of course it is true that sense cognition is momentary. Look to the left, look to the right, and as you do so, many perceptions appear and cease. > > But it is important, IMHO, to keep the usefulness of the teaching in mind. Recognition of Anicca is to develop dispassion and make tanha fade away. Which is experientially more powerful? Anicca in terms of people and objects has its uses, I don't see the need to dismiss it. Though I was hoping we could discuss anicca on the momentary level as well, in reference to dhammas. No worries if you don't feel inclined to discuss it atm. Best wishes pt #124337 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 12:11 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Pt: hard to tell, I'd guess if there's self-view, citta is akusala, >if there's dana, citta is kusala. Hence, what is most likely is that >one sort of citta is alternating with the other sort of citta. Hard >to tell about the degrees. > > > A: Maybe what you mean is something similar to what Howard was saying? Yes, I think RobE already indicated that's a possibility, though I'm not sure Howard agrees. > A: Can this also apply to correct meditation practice to increase understanding? At first there are many minor akusala and few kusala cittas. Eventually the ratio will change with more and more kusala cittas arising until only kusala cittas arise. Hard to tell. I used to think so, but not anymore. E.g. just the fact that after two hours in meditation for example I feel great, the mind is clear, there are no verbal thoughts, the attention sticks clearly and continuously to the breath, the body feels so light that it is almost nonexistent, the mind feels expanded etc, etc - all this is not an indicator that any kusala actually happened during those two hours. There's a passage that Scott and RobK like to post (from atthasalini I think) which gives a long list of descriptions what is right and what is wrong concentration - and the only difference between the two is simply that one has wrong concentration, the other right, everything else being the same (all that business about feeling great etc). Best wishes pr #124338 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 12:18 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt: Hard to tell. I used to think so, but not anymore. E.g. just the >fact >that after two hours in meditation for example I feel great, >the >mind >is clear, there are no verbal thoughts, the attention >sticks >clearly >and continuously to the breath, the body feels so >light that >it is >?almost nonexistent, the mind feels expanded etc, >etc - all >this is not an indicator that any kusala actually >happened during >those two hours. >=============================== While it can be wrong type of calm, why can't it be good kind of calm? What about the hindrances? Were they present during meditation? If not, how quickly they emerged after the meditation? Also, if that calm was of good kind, then it is great. With that calm the contemplation of anicca, asubha dukkha, and anatta is more beneficial. Meditational calm is not the end goal but a help to contemplate tilakkhana better. Eventually with enough insight, the behavior will naturally change and Nibbana naturally reached without any idea of "Self" doing anything. With best wishes, Alex #124339 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 12:31 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala ptaus1 Hi Alex, > While it can be wrong type of calm, why can't it be good kind of calm? > What about the hindrances? Were they present during meditation? If not, how quickly they emerged after the meditation? > > Also, if that calm was of good kind, then it is great. With that calm the contemplation of anicca, asubha dukkha, and anatta is more beneficial. Meditational calm is not the end goal but a help to contemplate tilakkhana better. Eventually with enough insight, the behavior will naturally change and Nibbana naturally reached without any idea of "Self" doing anything. Yes, that might be so, of course, IF that calm was of a good kind. All I'm saying is that it's useful to look at the other possibility as well - that it is not of a good kind. While I feel we all naturally assume that what we're doing is right, it's a responsible thing to consider the opposite as well. Of course, not for the purpose of demeaning yours, or Howard's, or mine experiences, but just for the sake of understanding things a bit better. If it's all working out, no worries then, but in case it's not, then it seems useful to look at what might be a possible problem. Best wishes pt #124340 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 18, 2012 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditational view upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/17/2012 9:43:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi RobE, > My question is whether an akusala cetasika can arise with an otherwise kusala citta. Must all the cetasikas be either kusala or akusala, or can they be mixed? Can there be strong mindfulness with a drop of agitation, or panna arising with a bit of torpor? Or must they all line up to be wholly kusala or akusala? I think abhidhamma says that kusala citta can only have kusala cetasikas. No mixing possible. --------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: This would mean, for example, that at no time could one have a degree of sloth & torpor and also experience compassion. I consider that to be plain false! ---------------------------------------------------------------- It's often said here though that in life akusala cittas succeed kusala cittas very quickly, so that certainly gives the impression that both kusala and akusala can be present at the same time. As mentioned, taking akusala for kusala is one of the main obstacles to the path I think, hence the usefulness I see in always questioning whether what I think is kusala is really so. And i find the precision of abhidhamma helpful there. Best wishes pt =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124341 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 18, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: degree of kusala and akusala upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Alex) - In a message dated 5/17/2012 10:11:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: > >Pt: hard to tell, I'd guess if there's self-view, citta is akusala, >if there's dana, citta is kusala. Hence, what is most likely is that >one sort of citta is alternating with the other sort of citta. Hard >to tell about the degrees. > > > A: Maybe what you mean is something similar to what Howard was saying? Yes, I think RobE already indicated that's a possibility, though I'm not sure Howard agrees. =============================== I do not. One can have sloth & torpor, for example, and at the very same moment experience generosity and compassion. There is simply no incompatibility, and such co-occurrence is quite common. One can be restless and anxious, say about the welfare of a friend, and at the same time feel loving kindness (for that friend). This is FACT. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124342 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 1:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: degree of kusala and akusala ptaus1 Hi Howard, > One can have sloth & torpor, for example, and at the very > same moment experience generosity and compassion. There is simply no > incompatibility, and such co-occurrence is quite common. One can be restless and > anxious, say about the welfare of a friend, and at the same time feel loving > kindness (for that friend). This is FACT. Ok, no worries, agreement is not a prerequisite for participation :) I'm sure you're familiar with the explanation in abhidhamma terminology that akusala and kusala cittas can alternate very quickly, hence the appearance that they are happening at the same time, so I guess we can let this topic go at this point. Best wishes pt #124343 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Meditational view epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >Alex:When there is difference between experience and what a book >says, with what will you side? > > > >RE: To me, it's not generally a question of taking sides, but of >seeing if the writings in question shed light on the experience. > >=================== > > To rephrase: When *experience contradicts what is written in the book, will you believe experience or the book? That's a good question - is experience by itself clear without the teachings? If so, what are the teachings for? Why have a path? Experience is not self-evident, unfortunately, at least without the right perspective. > *assuming that one didn't seriously mis-percieve the experience for which some study is necessary. Well, that's the whole question, isn't it? Are we in a deluded state or not? If there is no delusion, then our perception is fine and we don't need the teachings - no Buddha necessary, no meditation and no wisdom required. We're just fine as we are. But if we are deluded, then what we experience is not what it seems, and the teachings are necessary. > >RE: Isn't that the reason for reading much of the Dhamma? > > IMHO, > 1st) It is to teach you how and what to observe, with specific and private experience being impossible for book to describe. It may just be a roadmap which you have to follow in your own way, but it's still necessary, and doing what you describe above is not easy. "How and what to observe" can take a very long time to learn. > 2nd) To inspire you to do the above. > > > There are some things that I disagree, example: > Trillions of cittas per split second (not taught in Tipitaka). Can this ever be directly perceived by us? Or is it just an abstraction? How can this produce more dispassion toward nama or rupa more than experiential momentariness? There's no doubt that there are continuous swift, fleeting experiences taking place, one after the other. Whether you call them cittas, or however you define moment-to-moment experience, it is certainly too fast to keep track of without exceptional awareness, so we are probably missing a large portion of what is going through the six doorways. I don't think that's very controversial. And the idea that you can become gradually more aware of what is going by and what the nature of such experience is, doesn't seem that controversial to me either. The specifics about how long a rupa lasts and that sort of thing, well you can take it as technically correct or not, but it doesn't change the basic teaching. > I fully affirm momentariness, but only to the degree that it is actually experienced Actual experience is how much of the moment you are aware of, it doesn't mean that there is not more taking place that one is not quite clear about. > and to the degree that it matters for craving and ignorance to cease once-and-for-all. I would say that would be the amount that is necessary to pay attention to, but the degree of experience taking place is always going to be more than you can fully consciously account for. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124344 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Of course pariyatti may include, or may arise in the course of, thinking about dhammas. And for each individual the thinking will be different. But it's the quality of the thinking, rather than the `wording' of the thought, that's important. ... > J: What you call "thinking about the Abhidhamma statements about characteristics of dhammas" may or may not involve kusala (and panna). Again, it's the nature of the thinking rather than the description of the thought that is significant. I would say it's got to be both, at least to some extent. While one can have clarity about any object, it is the clarification of Dhamma concepts that leads to understanding, is it not? If I have mental clarity about how to fix the leaky pipes in the kitchen, that's not going to lead to pariyatti, is it? So I think that understanding the correct subject matter is important too -- Dhamma subject -- as well as the clarity of the thinking involved. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #124345 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (124313) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: There is no such thing as a `correct' (or an `incorrect') concept. There is only correct (or incorrect) thinking or understanding. So as mentioned above, it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'. > > > > RE: I would like to challenge this idea to a certain extent. It seems that the argument you are making here is that the concept in question doesn't matter, only the understanding. If this is the case, the logical conclusion would be that it does not matter if one understands the concepts of Dhamma or if one understands the concept of table or person, as long as one understands it correctly. > > =============== > > J: That `logical conclusion'(!) does not follow. What I said was, "it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'". I don't get this. If I were to say 'dhammas are eternal' that would be incorrect. If this were my understanding my understanding would be incorrect. What is the difference between a correct concept about dhammas and correct understanding of dhammas? I don't see the difference. It seems to me they are two sides of the same coin. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #124346 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:26 pm Subject: 2007 audio - 7. Seeing a monk - kusala or akusala? sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** J: It seems to me that If we were just developing ordinary kusala we would still be developing conditions for life in samsara KS: And there is no understanding of akusala too. Because after seeing, there is akusala too. Who knows that? Only the Buddha taught about the very, very weak akusala which can follow each door-way instantly. After seeing, there is akusala. Who knows that? J: I don't know but I assumed that people before the time of the Buddha developed the high jhanas. Would they not know that level of akusala? KS: But not as close as in the same process. Han: Whatever you see, if it is followed by akusala....For example, when I see the Reverend, is it also akusala? KS: Yes. When there is no understanding of what's there.... Han: Very difficult. I thought if I saw the Reverend.... KS: Is that kusala or akusala? Good to see him? Han: I thought it would be kusala to see the monk. J: You mean kusala vipaka? Han: Yes. Kusala vipaka. J: But then Ajahn is talking about what follows straight after. Ven P: Is the akusala the idea "I see"? KS: Which do not understand the nature of visible object as it is and there is also clinging to seeing. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124347 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - a sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: and thanks for the feedback, Sarah . > I noted that my increased activity in recent postings let me neglect a bit to work with/on 'my own raft' . > Please excuse slow response and delay of the 'cetasika in daily life project'. .... S: Please take your time - you provide a lot of material in the project, so it's good if everyone has time to catch up with it and I know you have one or two threads still on the go with Nina and others as well. As for your own 'raft' - always now at this moment, no matter where or what or when:-)) Have a good weekend. Metta Sarah ===== #124348 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness and its object in time sarahprocter... Dear Alan, > From: alanpmcallister >>S: 5. So when sati arises (with a wholesome citta), the object can be any kind of reality or concept. There seems to be some mixing up or accompanying mental states and objects in what you suggest above. > >A: This is precisely where I think my confusion arises, as basic as this. > >I think I am getting confused around mindfulness and consciousness. If I am concentrating on my breathing, I can conscious of it, that is, the movement is my object of consciousness. If mindfulness arises concurrently (in the same mind moment), is its object the abdominal movement or the consciousness of it? Or could it be either, depending on the type of practice I am pursuing, anapanasati or cittanupassana? > >A quick review of this point might resolve my confusion. .... S: the confusions are understandable and your questions are helpful for everyone. If I remember correctly, you are a psychologist in Ontario. Terms like consciousness have very different meanings in the Abhidhamma as you know. At each moment there is a citta (consciousness) which experiences an object, is conscious of its object. Usually there is no sati (awareness) and even in the case of arahats, there is never any sati at moments of vipaka citta arising (results of kamma), such as at moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. There are 7 cetasikas (mental factors) that arise with every single citta. One of these is ekagatta cetasika (concentration or one-pointedness). So actually there is always a concentrating on the object, but this concentrating is performed by this cetasika and other associated cetasikas, not by you or me. It seems there can be consciousness or awareness of a posture or of movement of breath or abdominal movement, but actually this is thinking about what has been experienced through the sense doors. For example, there is the experience of softness or motion through the body-door (a vipaka citta) and this is immediately followed by thinking through the mind-door processes and ideas of breath, movement, abdomen and so on. If awareness arises, it has to be by its own conditions (not by "I" trying) and it can be aware of any reality at that moment. So it can be aware of softness, thinking, attachment or any other reality appearing now. Even confusion or doubt now can be the object of awareness. I think that as soon as we try to pursue a practice or be aware of a particular object, we forget about what the Buddha taught with regard to realities arising by conditions as being anatta, beyond anyone's control. Again, let me know how far this makes sense. Metta Sarah ====== #124349 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] transcribed discussion Jan 2002 sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, > From: rjkjp1 >Since srah and other sare kindly transcribing some talks I thoughT I would add a little. This is fromback in the day when Mike was in bangkok >Study Group (1/13/02) > >http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/bkk2002-01/2002-01-13-a.mp3 S: A great extract. There's so much good material in just a few minutes of discussion, or even in just a few words for wise reflection. >Just let it be like it should be by conditions. >When there's no awareness, it's no awareness. So there can be the understanding of the moment of being aware when awareness arises. >So that is the development of understanding the moment that will bring more and more understanding of realities. <....> >===================== >THAT IS ABOUT THE FIRST 7 MINUTES. I WIL TRY TO ADD MORE. >Dear sarah and jon if you dont mind I might add these the transcripts and the audio to my website in the future? ... S: Good idea. Metta Sarah ===== #124350 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 6:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditational view philofillet > > > Ph: I think the gradation of kusala ( or akusala) you are looking for can be found in the prompted/unprompted pair, which AS prefers to call strong for unprompted....there is no semi-prompted fuzzy grey zone citta in Abhidhamma, though. Best stick to Abhidhamma rather than wandering off into our own cittastic creations, in my opinion. > > > Maybe I'm misreading Howard, but I think he was implying that there's a "fuzzy" area between kusala and akusala, whereas my contention is that there isn't. Ph: No, I imagine you're reading him just right. Of course you're coreect, such a basic point hardly seems debatable. But Howard and others believe that their understanding gained through "experience" is superior to Abhidhamma. It's the way of the world, I guess. Kalamastica!!! Enjoy your discussions, you seem to have Nina/Sarah/Jon esque patience levels, or generosity, or something. Not me, monsieur. Though, again, I know they are good fellows. Phil On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument between us that there is a gradation in kusala itself or akusala itself. E.g. some of the things that come to mind are - prompting, kamma patha or not, 3 levels of defilements, different insight knowledges, etc. > > Best wishes > pt > #124351 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, >________________________________ > From: Robert E >> S: It's said in the commentaries that this is because the work done through the development of insight is completed by the magga (path) citta and that because the phala (fruition) citta closely examines the Truth of cessation, they are both referred to as lakkha.nupanijjhaana 'characteristic-examining >> jhaana.) Nibbana is the most powerful object. It 'bends' or draws the lokuttara cittas towards it by object predominance condition and it is experienced with such a strength that the various defilements are completely eradicated. It is the unconditioned dhamma which brings about this "cutting off". >> .... > >R: I really appreciate this explanation, which is fascinating in many ways. The part that I do not understand is why the characteristics of jhana are specifically part of the examination of the characteristic of cessation. .... S: It isn't that the "characteristics of jhana" are part of the examination, but that the magga citta experiences nibbana with a strength equivalent to the appana samadhi of mundane jhana. The path samadhi (ekaggata cetasika) and sankappa (vitakka cetasika) are of this strength on account of the object. So this jhaana is quite different from mundane jhana. Jhana literally means 'burning'. Here it is the defilements which are 'burnt', eradicated. In the case of mundane jhana, it is sensuous clinging which is temporarily 'burnt'. .... >R: Is it because jhana is a form of cessation or stilling of the defilements? What aspect of jhana is utilized by the magga and phala cittas in examining the characteristics of cessation? ... S: Hope it's clear above. Now our cittas all bend towards conditioned dhammas, so we cannot understand the unconditioned dhamma and its influence. .. > >I am also interested in how nibbana bends or draws the citta via "object predominance condition" - which implies that at least some very special objects do have a direct effect on the citta and that "all objects of sati or panna" are not necessarily 100% equal. Is nibbana the only object that has this effect, or are there others? .... S: It has to be a highly desirable object for attachment or a highly esteemed object for wholesome cittas. The following is from Nina's book on Conditions: As regards object-predominance-condition (aaramma.naadhipati-paccaya), not every object citta experiences is object-predominance-condition. An object which is predominance-condition is highly regarded by citta and the accompanying cetasikas so that they give preponderance to it. The predominant object is the conditioning factor (paccaya), and the citta and cetasikas which experience that object are the conditioned dhammas (paccayupanna dhammas). Object-predominance-condition is different from object-condition. For example, when we like the colour of a certain cloth, but we do not particularly want to possess it, that object conditions the lobha-muula-citta by way of object- condition. When we like that cloth very much and want to possess it, that object conditions the lobha-muula-citta by way of object- predominance-condition. We then give preponderance to that object. <....> We read in the “Pa.t.thaana” (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, Conditions: Positive, 1, Classification Chapter, Predominance, 10, § 413): “... After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one) esteems and reviews it. (One) esteems and reviews (such acts) formerly well done...” Wholesomeness can be object-predominance-condition for kusala citta which esteems and considers the wholesome deed which was done. In this case one gives preponderance to that object. When we have been generous we can recollect our generosity and this is a condition for the arising of other kusala cittas. We read in the same section (§ 414) that daana, siila and jhaana can be object-predominance-condition also for akusala citta. ... S: In the case of nibbana, it is object-predominance condition for the lokuttara cittas which experience it. ... >> S: Mundane jhana cannot be present at the moments of enlightenment because mundane jhana cittas have different objects - not nibbana. > >S: That does not really settle whether the mundane jhanas may prepare the way or create accumulations that would be taken up by the succeeding cittas, even if they have different objects at that point. ... S: As the extract above indicates, jhaana cittas or cetasikas can be object-predominance for kusala or akusala cittas. In other words, it depends on the accumulations of right understanding. Think of Devadatta. Jhaana cittas can also be a condition for lots of wrong view. Many like Bahiya thought they were already arahats. ... >>S: In terms of the eradication of defilements there is no difference and of course, at the end of the arahat's lifetime, at the moment of parinibbana, none of it makes any difference at all! > >Ha ha, well if we were gearing everything in terms of the final equality of parinibbana, we wouldn't do anything at all. Maybe that would be a good thing! :-) .... S:If we really understood what it means, we wouldn't be in the least fussed about what kind of dhamma arises now. All attachment has to be eradicated and all ideas of trying to develop particular states. And yes, no use in tortured thinking along the way:-) ... >I would agree that panna/vipassana is more valuable than serenity or concentration. ... S: I'm glad to hear that. > >> > 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. >> ... >> S: It's like any other kind of kusala - without insight, without direct understanding of such dhammas, along with all others, as conditioned realities, they are of no supporting nature. When there is the development of insight, the other paramis beginning with dana are of great support. In other words, they are only paramis (perfections) when they arise with understanding. > >That is a good point, and it is sort of exciting that panna can "activate" all of those other latent effects. Very interesting. >> S: The path has to be developed with detachment, detachment from what is conditioned at this moment. > >Good to remember. .... S: Thanks, Rob. I always enjoy and appreciate our discussions. Metta Sarah ====== #124352 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, > From: Robert E >> S: Again, it comes down to understanding and truthfulness of our cittas, not to evaluations of situations or judgments about others' behaviour. What kind of cittas do such judging? > >What I'm talking about is the idea that since concepts are not real - no people, no actions, etc., some people are going to interpret that as meaning that conventional events are unimportant and should be looked at coldly. This sort of debate has gone on in many spiritual circles, Buddhist ones included, between focusing totally on the spiritual level, or trying to impact everyday events. But I agree with you that they do not contradict each other, and I'm glad to hear that you see it that way. .... S: You remind me of the near and far enemies of the brahama viharas. For example, we know that equanimity, upekkha, is to be developed and that wise reflection on kamma can condition equanimity. However, its near enemy is indifference, when there is simply a lack of caring about others' welfare. I think you'll like the following quote on upekkha from the Atthasaalani, the commentary to the first book of the Abhidamma Pitaka: "The fool who has seen a visible object and who is deluded, an average man who has not overcome the limits of his lower nature and result of former births, who does not see the evils of all conditioned things, is unacquainted with the teaching- this average man is filled with such indifference as is not able to transcend the visible object. Hence it is called worldly, and is mere delusion. Owing to its similarity in not considering faults and merits, it is the near enemy of the Divine State of equanimity (upekkha>. From their dissimilarity in nature, both lust and aversion are its distant enemies. Hence equanimity should be cultivated secure from them. It is impossible that one should cultivate equanimity, and at the same time be enamoured with, or hurt another...." There are "cheating dhammas" that can easily mislead us into taking what is akusala, such as cold indifference, for what is kusala, true equanimity.Thanks for helping me to reflect further. It's been a useful thread. Metta Sarah ====== #124353 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 18, 2012 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes sarahprocter... Hi Howard, >________________________________ > From: "upasaka@..." >> HCW: > >> But I would add that I have little confidence in the commentarial >> notion of "bhavanga citta". It, like the Mahayanist notion of >"�laya-vijñ�na" >> (or "storehouse consciousness"), ... >... >S: In deep, dreamless sleep, what kind of cittas, what kind of >consciousness do you think there is? >---------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: >My view: Within a given mind stream, "during" complete unconsciousness >(i.e., no dreams or any thought processes at all, and no seeing, hearing, >tasting, smelling or bodily sensing), there is no consciousness whatsoever >and no passage of time at all. ..... S: Would there be any difference between the body during deep sleep and a lump of wood? .... >While time is proceeding in other mind >streams, it does not proceed "there". It is not that time marches on during a >consciousness gap, but in fact there is no gap at all and no time passage at >all. (After the fact, upon awakening, the state of consciousness is >radically different from the moment before, and the inference drawn is "Oh, I was >out!". .... S: Actually, a better question would be, how is this state different from nirodha samapatti said to only be possible to be experienced by anagamis and arahats who had attained jhanas just prior to enlightenment? For them there is said to be a cessation of consciousness for the specified time. Metta Sarah ====== #124354 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 9:50 pm Subject: Re: A letter about my dear friend... philofillet Dear Group Here is the revised version of the letter that was sent out. I think it's interesting to note how I ended up just referring to "Buddhist metaphors" at two points to share the teaching of the two darts and the emotions as passing clouds rather than give what felt like a mini-lecture on "Buddhist psychology" which would have seemed as using the tragedy as an opportunity to proseletyze. (sp?) And I just talked about two other points - the fluidity of mind states and physical and verbal intimation - without using any reference to Buddhism whatsoever. So in the end, a more effective sharing of the Dhamma. I also took out some harsh language. I find it interesting that though I was getting irritated by the whole procedure, effort arose to keep working on the letter, and finally a warm, well-toned letter went out that has been receiving a lot of appreciation. I think this was a case of karuna at work. There wasn't aversion anymore, not about the death anyways, but something kept pushing me to get the letter out in a better form. I think this part is especially good: "We can assign the role of sufferer to people, but we don't know, so it isn't fair. Happy people don't commit suicide, right? Wrong. Because there are no "happy people", there are only moments of happiness, or fear, or guilt, or generosity, or compassion or whatever that come and go. So let's not latch on to the idea of "Ned the sufferer." It is not fair." Please read, if you are interested. No need for any comment, cheers. ************** Dear Friends, I am writing to express some thoughts about the sad news. This is out of the blue, and probably proper manners would mean waiting until later, I'm not familiar with the proper etiquette here. But I really wanted to get some things down and out to you all. The initial e-mail by which I learned that Ned had died was of course shocking, but I found that the e-mails that followed in which people expressed their first reaction compounded the pain involved in the first one. I think I could say that those following e-mails took the intense pain that was involved in hearing about Ned's suicide, and immediately started to compound it into suffering. I'm kind of interested in the difference between pain and suffering - we are all subject to pain, it arises along with certain things we see, taste, touch, feel and so on. There is a metaphor in Buddhist psychology of two darts. The first dart is the pain, but the second dart is the way our mind takes the pain and compounds it into suffering. So what I felt in the e-mails was that people were immediately taking the pain of hearing about Ned's suicide, and starting immediately to compound it into a lot more suffering. First of all, our own suffering, of course, as people who had lost a beloved friend. But also by taking the pain Ned must have of course felt at times, maybe many times, and weaving it into a story about "Ned, the sufferer, who killed himself", "Ned who had so many problems", "Ned who had cut himself off from people" etc. His death and the way he died, and indeed the troubles he had in recent years is in fact just one aspect of who he is (he lives on in our minds) and was and identifying it with him in a way that traps him into the story of "Ned who commited suicide, Ned who was suffering so much" is just not fair. We start to create this scenario of Ned the sufferer, and latch on to it. I am not saying that there wasn't suffering for Ned - of course there was - but we are doing a terrible disservice to our dear friend if we define him in those terms. And we are also doing a disservice to ourselves by identifying with a painful story that our minds have worked together to create and feed. As I understand the mind, and our behaviour, what we do and think and say is not the product of a person who is fixed and locked into behaving in certain ways, what we do and think and say is actually the working of impulses of mental moments or intentions, they arise in a wink of an eye, and fall away again. It's all so fluid. What we take for "I" or "Ned" is a fluid working of these impulses. So if we say "Ned was a sad person", we should actually say "there were a lot of sad moments for Ned", that is coming closer to the truth. And we don't know. Nobody knows what kind of moments arise for people except the understanding of that person him or herself. We can assign the role of sufferer to people, but we don't know, so it isn't fair. Happy people don't commit suicide, right? Wrong. Because there are no "happy people", there are only moments of happiness, or fear, or guilt, or generosity, or compassion or whatever that come and go. So let's not latch on to the idea of "Ned the sufferer." It is not fair. There is another Buddhist metaphor I like, emotions as clouds that come and go in the sky, so fluid. Is there something shining constantly beyond the clouds, even the darkest ones? Well, that will depend on each person's beliefs. But it is definitely true that emotions are fluid, they come and go. And that was true for Ned too. I think there might be a tendency, again, to think of Ned as trapped in some dark tunnel of suffering, that he could not see out of, just an occasional glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel, and he lost sight of that light, and so on. But we don't know and evidence to be shared later goes against my being able to believe that. My impression is that for all of us on the highway of life, there are of course tunnels, we speed along, go through dark days and back into the light. I guess it is safe to speculate that for people who suffer from alcoholism, for example, there are more tunnels, and that they are probably longer and darker than for those of us who don't - that is a fair speculation maybe - and also that in those tunnels there are more and sharper curves, and plunges and swerves. My feeling is that Ned got into one of those occasional tunnels, and he crashed, he didn't make it out this time. He made it out before, but not this time. But the tunnel and what he experienced in it was not who he is, who he was. Let's not define him in those terms, please. I suppose I'm repeating myself here.... Here is something I find encouraging. As with many of you who lost touch with him in recent years, I spent a few years hearing long distance stories about Ned down and out in Montreal, out of touch with everyone, cutting himself off from people, in deep and dark and very dire straights. (straits?) And I fell into that trap of making stories and images of what his life was like, speculating about the misery. After a couple of years of that I finally had the chance to meet him, down at St. Pat's. Oh my god! What kind of ravaged ghoul would appear before my eyes??? What could I say to him, would he even talk to me???? Ummmm, guess what? He hadn't changed a bit! The same dazzling wit and intelligence, and physically he looked better than most of the other age-ravaged people I was seeing down there, and in the mirror! (haha, it's a joke...) We can say that people's mental moments, those impulses, take shape in their movements, in their facial expressions, in their tone of voice, and are written on their faces. In more conventional terms, we say that people grow into the faces they have earned. Some people look battered down by life, embittered, worn out. Well, in case you didn't have a chance to meet Ned in recent years, I have some good news. His was not the face, not the body language, not the voice, not the hug, not the smile, not the general atmosphere of a person who was beat down and battered. That kind of thing can't be hidden, or faked. I'm saying that he was not a person who was living in a dark tunnel, deprived of hope. Here's the best part. I could have reduced this whole long letter to this one anecdote. I saw Ned again last summer, in Montreal. By some happy chance I booked a hotel room on Park Avenue, not knowing where he lived, and it turned out he was literally a stone's throw away. It was a hard few days for me, for reasons related to my mother's Alzheimer's disease, and Ned was such a great support for me. I remember one hot, hot afternoon in particular when I got off the #80 bus at the corner of Park Avenue and Mount Royal and was just kind of standing there, jet-lagged and kind of in shock in probably the bleakest and darkest and most exhausted mood I can remember being in. Mostly it was due to my mother's condition, dealing with it on my own for a few days before Bill and Sue arrived later that week. (By the way, another story, but I think she has gone beyond most hardship now, that is one silver lining, but last summer was very hard because she was still living in the general community at her home, and it was causing very upsetting troubles...No, not Sue!!! My mother! Sorry, a little comic relief.) So I was exhausted, kind of in shock. And I was standing there at a total loss, when - I'm not making this up - I heard a familar voice call out my name and there was Ned, coming along the street, a saviour for me at that moment. We went for lunch, and talked, and laughed a lot, and then to his apartment, he loved it so and was so proud of it, with its sprawling view of the mountain. We listened to music, and talked and talked, and by the time I left, I felt so much better. So he was a pillar of strength for me that day. So the next time you find yourself imagining Ned as living in some kind of misery, alone in Montreal (he has lots of friends who adore him there, by the way) please remember Ned the way I remember him, the last time I saw him, shining for me when I needed someone to shine. En bref, he was doing ok. I would like to say great, but I guess that would be going too far. Umm, where am I going with this? There was something else....oh yes, of course, life goes on. Depending on various degrees to which we believe it or not, life goes on. A return to the light that we were born from, to that divine essence? Rebirth? Evolution through many lifetimes? Or something simply unexpressable in conventional terms? As I'm concerned there are just way too many hints about something beyond death for me to possibly believe that there was a being known as Ned that was snuffed out like a candle after burning briefly, end of story. (By the way, I read something interesting recently, that death is not the opposite of life, it is the opposite of birth. Life is something indpendent of birth and death, it goes on.) But even for those who believe that Ned was nothing but that briefly burning candle, what a brilliant candle! What a beautiful intelligence Ned had. Let us pay honour to his great intelligence by considering our response to this tragedy with intelligence rather than reducing it to pitiful stories that are so limited and limiting compared to the intelligence he represents. Of course an intelligent response involves sorrow, a lot of it. But the intelligence lives on, and Ned is and was an agent of that light, I believe that absolutely. I hope that is helpful, I find that writing it helped me at the very least. Hope to see you all this summer. *********************** Phil #124355 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what "dhamma" includes upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/18/2012 4:49:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: >While time is proceeding in other mind >streams, it does not proceed "there". It is not that time marches on during a >consciousness gap, but in fact there is no gap at all and no time passage at >all. (After the fact, upon awakening, the state of consciousness is >radically different from the moment before, and the inference drawn is "Oh, I was >out!". .... S: Actually, a better question would be, how is this state different from nirodha samapatti said to only be possible to be experienced by anagamis and arahats who had attained jhanas just prior to enlightenment? For them there is said to be a cessation of consciousness for the specified time. =============================== How would we know, Sarah? I don't. What is your knowledge of either of these? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #124356 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:25 pm Subject: Hello dear friends! buddhatrue Hi Everyone, This is James!!! Hehehe...yes, I want to let you all know that I am still alive; and I really miss arguing with you (I mean discussing..:-) with you all! I really love you all! I thought I should give an update to stay connected to the group. I have decided to stay away from all group activity right now because I don't want to upset the issues being discussed or the people. I seem to be forever an expert at that! ;-)) As for me, I will forever be dedicated to the teachings of the Buddha! But I have found it really hard to practice meditation techniques within daily living. Currently I work from 8 to 5, full- on!, and I am completely exhausted after work. But I still love the Buddha's teachings and I still want to improve myself... So, currently, I have been exploring more the esoteric/magical side of spirituality. I want to do meditation with my body because my mind is so tired. So, I have dedicated a room in my apartment to magic/meditation and I have been trying with my all my might to that path! (I refuse to be just be an "average consumer" for this current lifetime.) But, I can't be sure of proper rituals, proper paths, and proper reactions. So, now I have become a warlock like Milarepa! :-) (what a mess) And,I still cause problems in that Internet world as well. I am starting to think that I should just remain silent and write in my personal journal for myself...(but I still worry so much about others trying to find their way!) Anyway, just saying hi and letting you all know how I am doing. (a special thanks/shout out to Philip, Howard, Sarah, Jon, and Nina!). Metta, James #124357 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:26 pm Subject: spd 24 (bodily intimation) philofillet Dear Group Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "When citta wants to display a sign expressing its intention by means of ruupas of the body, citta produces the ruupa that is bodily intimation, or kaayavinnatti ruupa. This is a specific mode of expression by ruupas of the body that arise and display the intention of the citta, in the expression of facial features, comportment of the body or gestures. Citta may convey its intention, for example, by staring in a stern way, or by making grimaces displaying contempt or disapproval. If citta does not wish to display its intention, kaaya vinnatti ruupa does not arise.(32)" (end of passage) Phil #124358 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello dear friends! nilovg Dear James, Really so glad to see you back. But I have been thinking of you, and sometimes we came across your old letters. Good you are teaching the whole day, and still happy in Taiwan? Some controversial points you brought up were really good for us: stuff to consider ourselves what the dhamma is about! No, we did not forget you. Nina. Op 18-mei-2012, om 14:25 heeft Buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > (a special thanks/shout out to Philip, Howard, Sarah, Jon, and > Nina!). #124359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 18, 2012 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhs nilovg Dear pt, I am just back and I do not think someone else gave a reply? Op 17-mei-2012, om 14:22 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > 1. It seems Rhys Davids translation is a bit more literal, while > Khine translation is more according to the meaning? ----- N: Both are good, but Khine is more correct, I think. ------ > > pt:2. For upaadi.n.na, it only refers to kamma-born ruupa? So, no > naamas included there? ------ N: No, not vipaakacitta. It refers to ruupas of the body produced by kamma. ------ > > pt: 3. Further for upaadi.n.na, I don't quite get the connections > between "kamma-born" and "grasped at" (or "clung to"). I mean, I > would take "dhammas that are grasped at" to refer to any dhammas > that arise simultaneously with grasping (clinging), whereas > "dhammas that are kamma-born" seem to point to dhammas that are > produced by kamma. So, "upaadin.n.a" seems to have that very > specific meaning of referring to dhammas that are produced by > kamma, if I understand correctly. ------- N: So long as there are ignorance and craving there are conditions for kamma to produce ruupas of the body. Ignorance and craving push kamma along, are the attendants of kamma, as I see it. ---- > > pt: 4. For upaadaaniyaa - dhammas that are grasped at or can be > objects of clinging - I don't quite understand how can a dhamma be > the object of clinging. I mean, i understand that clinging as > strong lobha can co-arise with many other akusala dhammas. But if a > dhamma that has just fallen away is the object of a mind-door > process, then my impression was that there has to be panna at the > time, otherwise a dhamma would not be the object of that mind-door > process. Hence, I can't quite connect how can a dhamma also be an > object of clinging (as that would seem to have to exclude panna). ------- N: In sense-door processes and mind-door processes there are javanacittas and these can be kusala cittas or akusala cittas, but they are mostly akusala cittas. Dhammas that are objects of mind-door processes: any dhamma, except lokuttara dhamma, these can be objects of clinging. Why not? Akusala javanacittas with clinging. ----- Nina. #124360 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello dear friends! buddhatrue Hi Nina! It is sooooo good to chat with you again!! I think it has been more than a year since the last time. You are so super sweet! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear James, > Really so glad to see you back. But I have been thinking of you, and > sometimes we came across your old letters. Good you are teaching the > whole day, and still happy in Taiwan? > Some controversial points you brought up were really good for us: > stuff to consider ourselves what the dhamma is about! No, we did not > forget you. > Nina. Wow, you have really touched my heart! You know, that is why I think you are so awesome! Sarah told me a long time ago that I should just post some messages about how I am doing. I didn't know how to do that without disagreeing with something! LOL! I am really best at disagreeing...so I have been laying low. I don't want to cause problems. But, to answer your questions: Yes, I am still teaching the whole day. Yes, I am still happy (shaded by dukkha) in Taiwan. And I am still with my boyfriend who has the most amazing unending patience with me and my turbulent nature! ;-)) Glad you are doing well, Nina! Metta, James #124361 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello dear friends! nilovg Dear James, Op 18-mei-2012, om 15:03 heeft Buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Sarah told me a long time ago that I should just post some > messages about how I am doing. I didn't know how to do that without > disagreeing with something! LOL! I am really best at > disagreeing...so I have been laying low. I don't want to cause > problems. ----- N: you do not cause problems, you are so kindhearted. Lodewijk said that you are intelligent, have a goodstyle, and, when you brought up some problem, he said: James has a point. ----- Nina. #124362 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello dear friends! buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: you do not cause problems James: Uh, okay, I think you remember a different James...;-)) ,you are so kindhearted. James: Thank you! But others think I am evil incarnate! :-)) Lodewijk said > that you are intelligent, have a goodstyle, and, when you brought up > some problem, he said: James has a point. James: Yeah, Lodewijk is a really cool guy. If he wasn't married to you I would swear he was gay! LOL! > ----- > Nina. > Metta, James #124363 From: "alanpmcallister" Date: Fri May 18, 2012 11:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: mindfulness and its object in time alanpmcallister Sarah: Thanks for taking the time to help me sort through my confusions. >If I remember correctly, you are a psychologist in Ontario. Yes, that's me, although I am fading into retirement at present. > There are 7 cetasikas (mental factors) that arise with every single citta. One of these is ekagatta cetasika (concentration or one-pointedness). So actually there is always a concentrating on the object, but this concentrating is performed by this cetasika and other associated cetasikas, not by you or me. okay > It seems there can be consciousness or awareness of a posture or of movement of breath or abdominal movement, but actually this is thinking about what has been experienced through the sense doors. For example, there is the experience of softness or motion through the body-door (a vipaka citta) and this is immediately followed by thinking through the mind-door processes and ideas of breath, movement, abdomen and so on. > > If awareness arises, it has to be by its own conditions (not by "I" trying) and it can be aware of any reality at that moment. So it can be aware of softness, thinking, attachment or any other reality appearing now. Even confusion or doubt now can be the object of awareness. I read these sentences and there still appears to me to be ambiguity. You are emphasizing the difference between something arising by conditions versus my trying to make it happen. I get that (I think), but what I am really trying to do right now is nail the temporal aspect of the relationship of awareness (mindfulness) to its object. Saying something can be the object of awareness "now" does not resolve things because it leaves open (for me) whether the awareness and its object are concurrent or not. Presumably unwholesome states would have to have passed away to be objects of awareness? And, if so, would the awareness be adjacent to (in the next mind moment) its object or could the awareness arise several mind moments later? And is it correct that awareness accompanies (is concurrent with) all wholesome states? metta, Alan #124364 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 19, 2012 12:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello dear friends! upasaka_howard Hi, James - Wonderful to hear from you! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/18/2012 8:25:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Everyone, This is James!!! Hehehe...yes, I want to let you all know that I am still alive; and I really miss arguing with you (I mean discussing..:-) with you all! I really love you all! I thought I should give an update to stay connected to the group. I have decided to stay away from all group activity right now because I don't want to upset the issues being discussed or the people. I seem to be forever an expert at that! ;-)) As for me, I will forever be dedicated to the teachings of the Buddha! But I have found it really hard to practice meditation techniques within daily living. Currently I work from 8 to 5, full- on!, and I am completely exhausted after work. But I still love the Buddha's teachings and I still want to improve myself... So, currently, I have been exploring more the esoteric/magical side of spirituality. I want to do meditation with my body because my mind is so tired. So, I have dedicated a room in my apartment to magic/meditation and I have been trying with my all my might to that path! (I refuse to be just be an "average consumer" for this current lifetime.) But, I can't be sure of proper rituals, proper paths, and proper reactions. So, now I have become a warlock like Milarepa! :-) (what a mess) And,I still cause problems in that Internet world as well. I am starting to think that I should just remain silent and write in my personal journal for myself...(but I still worry so much about others trying to find their way!) Anyway, just saying hi and letting you all know how I am doing. (a special thanks/shout out to Philip, Howard, Sarah, Jon, and Nina!). Metta, James #124365 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 1:44 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt:Yes, that might be so, of course, IF that calm was of a good >kind. >======================================= I understand what you are saying and in part I do agree. It is very probably that in the beginning there will be more mistakes than not. This is why it can take a while for Awakening to occur - one keeps making some mistakes that prevent Awakening. What I believe is important is to be diligent, observant, wise and learn from them. Eventually there will be less and less mistakes and more and more wisdom. What is your opinion on intensive practice in a retreat that supposedly leads to various insight knowledges? Doesn't it suggest that intensive practice can develop more wisdom more than laid back "don't do anything" approach? With metta, Alex #124366 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 2:00 am Subject: Re: mindfulness and its object in time truth_aerator Hello Alan, >I am trying to grasp the temporal relationship of mindfulness to its >objects. Am I correct in assuming that it depends on the object, in >particular whether its object is wholesome or unwholesome? >======================== Object in itself is not wholesome or unwholesome, it is the response to it that is wholesome or unwholesome. Whenever there is moment of consciousness, at that time there is attention to something that is object of consciousness without which consciousness cannot be. With best wishes, Alex #124367 From: Alan McAllister Date: Sat May 19, 2012 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness and its object in time alanpmcallister Alex: I realize that I lapsed into an incorrect mode of speaking (and thinking). Thanks for clarifying that. I will rephrase: I am trying to understand the temporal relationship of mindfulness to objects such as anger (unwholesome state) and kindness or generosity (wholesome state): If I am aware of anger, my mindfulness cannot arise concurrent with the anger. It must occur after it. Must my awareness arise in the next moment after the passing away of anger? Does mindfulness always arise concurrent with a wholesome state? best wishes, Alan > > Hello Alan, > > > >I am trying to grasp the temporal relationship of mindfulness to its > >objects. Am I correct in assuming that it depends on the object, in > >particular whether its object is wholesome or unwholesome? > >======================== > > Object in itself is not wholesome or unwholesome, it is the response to it > that is wholesome or unwholesome. > > Whenever there is moment of consciousness, at that time there is attention > to something that is object of consciousness without which consciousness > cannot be. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > > > -- Dr. Alan McAllister, C.Psych. 91 Chemaushgon, Box 459 Bancroft, Ontario K0L 1C0 613-332-3115 website: attentivemind.ca #124368 From: Ken O Date: Sat May 19, 2012 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ashkenn2k Dear pt and Rob K >2. Interestingly though, if the object of citta is a dhamma, then I don't think that citta can possibly be akusala. It can be kusala (most notably in vipassana), vipaka and kiriya, but not akusala. Again this must have something to do with a specific condition and the way they work, but I don't really know. KC: the object of a citta does not determine the whether the citta is kusala or aksuala. Object can be a conditioning factor to kusala or aksuala cetasikas arising with cittas. A person who is thinks I am angry. The ditthi which is a dhamma that prodcues the I could be an object for an dosa mula citta cheers KC #124369 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta part 3 - a moellerdieter Dear Sarah, thanks, wishing you a nice weekend too. Hopefully a time I may progress with my list of 'still to answer' , taking your diligence corresponding to the many postings as an example ;-) with Metta Dieter #124370 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 am Subject: Re: mindfulness and its object in time truth_aerator Hello Alan, >A:I will rephrase: I am trying to understand the temporal >relationship >of mindfulness to objects such as anger (unwholesome >state) and kindness or generosity (wholesome state): >================================================ My opinion: If by mindfulness in this context we mean "don't forget not to get angry" and one "forgets and gets angry" then this type of mindfulness cannot occur at the same time. A and Not-A cannot happen at the same place and same time. If by mindfulness we mean, "observation", then it seems possible to observe anger as it arises, persist and cease. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #124371 From: "Christine" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 7:17 am Subject: Bodhgaya christine_fo... Hello all, Having been to Bodhgaya a few times, I am always struck by the huge crowds of pilgrims everyday, the intensity of the emotions expressed and felt, and the beauty of the Mahabodhi temple complex. Reading the suttas, I cannot see any reference to the Buddha returning there during the rest of his life after enlightenment. He spent many Rains Retreats in other places, and there are important suttas associated with them - but there seems to be no further return to Bodhgaya. Does anyone have any references showing that he did? And, if he didn't, why not? with metta Chris #124372 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 11:59 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: It isn't that the "characteristics of jhana" are part of the examination, but that the magga citta experiences nibbana with a strength equivalent to the appana samadhi of mundane jhana. The path samadhi (ekaggata cetasika) and sankappa (vitakka cetasika) are of this strength on account of the object. So this jhaana is quite different from mundane jhana. Jhana literally means 'burning'. Here it is the defilements which are 'burnt', eradicated. In the case of mundane jhana, it is sensuous clinging which is temporarily 'burnt'. Okay - just wondering - is there any relation between this "burning off" of defilements and the other popular attributes of jhana, ie, concentration and peacefulness? It would make sense that the burning away of a defilement could be related to pacifying it, but I am interested if there is anything there, or if it is just the eradication of the defilements that defines the 'jhana' in this case? > >R: Is it because jhana is a form of cessation or stilling of the defilements? What aspect of jhana is utilized by the magga and phala cittas in examining the characteristics of cessation? > ... > S: Hope it's clear above. Now our cittas all bend towards conditioned dhammas, so we cannot understand the unconditioned dhamma and its influence. That is also very interesting. That way of describing the pull of attachment - 'bending towards conditioned dhammas' is very intriguing. Though we say that the object is not the cause of the attachment, but rather the state of the citta + cetasikas, it seems like the object has a kind of magnetism to it, maybe leant to it by the mental condition of the citta, but still giving the object this pull. So I wonder if certain kinds of conditioned dhammas have greater magnetism for akusala citta than others? Or are they all similar? Obviously some cittas would be more attracted to particular kinds of akusala dhammas, such as a citta that desires to be dulled maybe having a pull towards objects of inebriation...etc.... And then it would make sense that nibbana would pull the kusala citta towards it, but only one that was prepared to take it as object, the highest cittas. > >I am also interested in how nibbana bends or draws the citta via "object predominance condition" - which implies that at least some very special objects do have a direct effect on the citta and that "all objects of sati or panna" are not necessarily 100% equal. Is nibbana the only object that has this effect, or are there others? > .... > S: It has to be a highly desirable object for attachment or a highly esteemed object for wholesome cittas. > > The following is from Nina's book on Conditions: > > As regards object-predominance-condition (aaramma.naadhipati-paccaya), not every object > citta experiences is object-predominance-condition. An object which > is predominance-condition is highly regarded by citta and the > accompanying cetasikas so that they give preponderance to it. Okay that makes sense. The > predominant object is the conditioning factor (paccaya), and the > citta and cetasikas which experience that object are the conditioned > dhammas (paccayupanna dhammas). Object-predominance-condition is > different from object-condition. For example, when we like the colour > of a certain cloth, but we do not particularly want to possess it, > that object conditions the lobha-muula-citta by way of object- > condition. When we like that cloth very much and want to possess it, > that object conditions the lobha-muula-citta by way of object- > predominance-condition. We then give preponderance to that object. So the desire to have or own or cling more fully to the object makes it predominant, whereas one can be attracted but not clinging/craving the object and then it is just object-condition. But in the case of nibbana, the unconditioned object, it becomes a condition for the kusala citta, and since nibbana is unconditioned, it would be pulling the conditioned citta towards the unconditioned state, yes? So nibbana conditions the citta to move towards the unconditioned state. Would this be correct? [Pretty exciting stuff.] > <....> > We read in the Pa.t.thaana (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation > Chapter, Conditions: Positive, 1, Classification Chapter, > Predominance, 10, § 413): > ... > > Wholesomeness can be object-predominance-condition for kusala citta > which esteems and considers the wholesome deed which was done. In > this case one gives preponderance to that object. When we have been > generous we can recollect our generosity and this is a condition for > the arising of other kusala cittas. Okay. > We read in the same section (§ 414) that daana, siila and jhaana can be > object-predominance-condition also for akusala citta. > ... > S: In the case of nibbana, it is object-predominance condition for the lokuttara cittas which experience it. Okay. > >> S: Mundane jhana cannot be present at the moments of enlightenment because mundane jhana cittas have different objects - not nibbana. What are the objects of the jhanas? Are they definite objects for each jhana? ... > S: As the extract above indicates, jhaana cittas or cetasikas can be object-predominance for kusala or akusala cittas. In other words, it depends on the accumulations of right understanding. Think of Devadatta. > Jhaana cittas can also be a condition for lots of wrong view. Many like Bahiya thought they were already arahats. > S:If we really understood what it means, we wouldn't be in the least fussed about what kind of dhamma arises now. All attachment has to be eradicated... That is good... > >I would agree that panna/vipassana is more valuable than serenity or concentration. > ... > S: I'm glad to hear that. My understanding of the value of panna increases gradually. However, my valuation of samatha, in a practical sort of way, has also increased. It's good to be calm, but real calm which comes from letting go, understanding that there's "nothing to get fussed about" is different than physiologically induced calm that is just temporary. Good to apply that understanding to the way in which the jhanas may be produced too. When calm is produced by force it is not going to stick, just a temporary expedient, but better to let it develop than force it. > ...When there is the development of insight, the other paramis beginning with dana are of great support. In other words, they are only paramis (perfections) when they arise with understanding. I still really like this statement - how understanding activates the paramis... ... > S: Thanks, Rob. I always enjoy and appreciate our discussions. Thank you, Sarah - I feel I'm getting the better end of the bargain, and I appreciate your help. :-) I also enjoy the conversations very much. When we get into details like the above, esp. when I occasionally understand them, it is very enjoyable. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #124373 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 12:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > >What I'm talking about is the idea that since concepts are not real - no people, no actions, etc., some people are going to interpret that as meaning that conventional events are unimportant and should be looked at coldly. ... But I agree with you that they do not contradict each other, and I'm glad to hear that you see it that way. > .... > S: You remind me of the near and far enemies of the brahama viharas. For example, we know that equanimity, upekkha, is to be developed and that wise reflection on kamma can condition equanimity. However, its near enemy is indifference, when there is simply a lack of caring about others' welfare. Great - this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at. I am glad to see that indifference is the near-enemy of equanimity; that explains perfectly how that sort of mistake is made. Thanks for thinking of that. > I think you'll like the following quote on upekkha from the Atthasaalani, the commentary to the first book of the Abhidamma Pitaka: I like this quote and the description of the person who doesn't care very much - it was put very clearly. ...this average man is filled with such > indifference as is not able to transcend the visible object. ... Owing to its similarity in not > considering faults and merits, it is the near enemy of the Divine State of > equanimity (upekkha>. Then the discussion of the far enemies is very good too, leaving equanimity squarely in the middle [way] between lust and aversion, which outlines very clearly where equanimity lies. I happened to be thinking about equanimity today. I have gone back to doing some simple meditation with the un-lofty goal of reaching a more relaxed state, and by taking on this simple meditation it was much easier than in the past. I found that the usual pulls and anxieties went away for a little while, and that is what I'm focusing on for the moment, close to yoga really. I was thinking that equanimity was a very simple state, really, where the physical and mental state were 'okay' and there wasn't the usual concern and turbulence. > From their dissimilarity in nature, both lust and > aversion are its distant enemies. ... It is impossible that one should cultivate equanimity, > and at the same time be enamoured with, or hurt another...." > There are "cheating dhammas" that can easily mislead us into taking what is akusala, such as cold indifference, for what is kusala, true equanimity.Thanks for helping me to reflect further. It's been a useful thread. Very good for me to hear about this and reflect on it as well! Thanks for the additional details and thoughts. I like those "cheating dhammas." Got to watch out for those little gremlins! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #124374 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Hello dear friends! epsteinrob Hi James. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Buddhatrue" wrote: > As for me, I will forever be dedicated to the teachings of the Buddha! But I have found it really hard to practice meditation techniques within daily living. Currently I work from 8 to 5, full- on!, and I am completely exhausted after work. But I still love the Buddha's teachings and I still want to improve myself... So, currently, I have been exploring more the esoteric/magical side of spirituality. I want to do meditation with my body because my mind is so tired. So, I have dedicated a room in my apartment to magic/meditation and I have been trying with my all my might to that path! (I refuse to be just be an "average consumer" for this current lifetime.) > > But, I can't be sure of proper rituals, proper paths, and proper reactions. So, now I have become a warlock like Milarepa! :-) (what a mess) And,I still cause problems in that Internet world as well. I am starting to think that I should just remain silent and write in my personal journal for myself...(but I still worry so much about others trying to find their way!) Anyway, just saying hi and letting you all know how I am doing. (a special thanks/shout out to Philip, Howard, Sarah, Jon, and Nina!). Hey James, I like all the crazy stuff you are doing, and personally I vote for you to come back and say whatever you like! It would be nice to have you back around, so please consider it at least. We crazy people have to stick together! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124375 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 1:05 pm Subject: Re: Hello dear friends! jonoabb Hi James Thanks for dropping by. Nice to hear from you again! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > ... > But, I can't be sure of proper rituals, proper paths, and proper reactions. So, now I have become a warlock like Milarepa! :-) > =============== J: Dare I ask ... :-)) Jon #124376 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 1:32 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: What you call "thinking about the Abhidhamma statements about characteristics of dhammas" may or may not involve kusala (and panna). Again, it's the nature of the thinking rather than the description of the thought that is significant. > > RE: I would say it's got to be both, at least to some extent. While one can have clarity about any object, it is the clarification of Dhamma concepts that leads to understanding, is it not? If I have mental clarity about how to fix the leaky pipes in the kitchen, that's not going to lead to pariyatti, is it? So I think that understanding the correct subject matter is important too -- Dhamma subject -- as well as the clarity of the thinking involved. > =============== J: There is understanding that is correct (and that, accordingly, has 'correct' concepts as its object), and understanding that is not correct. A person correctly understands something or he does not. 'Understanding' is, of course, a dhamma. As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing in the teachings as the understanding of a 'correct concept'. Jon #124377 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 1:46 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > J: That `logical conclusion'(!) does not follow. What I said was, "it's the understanding (about dhammas) that is the significant thing, not the concept or its `correctness'". > > I don't get this. If I were to say 'dhammas are eternal' that would be incorrect. If this were my understanding my understanding would be incorrect. What is the difference between a correct concept about dhammas and correct understanding of dhammas? I don't see the difference. It seems to me they are two sides of the same coin. > =============== J: The difference is this: - The statement 'dhammas are eternal' is an incorrect statement. A statement (correct or incorrect) is a concept and its correctness or otherwise is a matter of convention. - The understanding 'dhammas are eternal' would be incorrect understanding. Understanding is a dhamma. So they are not '2 sides of the same coin'. Jon #124378 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Hello dear friends! buddhatrue Hi Rob E, Howard, and Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Hey James, I like all the crazy stuff you are doing, and personally I vote for you to come back and say whatever you like! It would be nice to have you back around, so please consider it at least. We crazy people have to stick together! > You know, my favorite comedian is Kathy Griffin because she has such energy, bravery, and she always says whatever she feels like saying. As a result, she has been banned from several talk shows (sound familiar)? I have been banned from several Buddhist Yahoo groups and was just recently banned (last week) from a Yahoo group called Magical Knowledge! LOL! Nah, I just get into too much trouble...but it is nice to pop in every now and then. Metta, James #124379 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 19, 2012 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhgaya nilovg Dear Christine, Op 18-mei-2012, om 23:17 heeft Christine het volgende geschreven: > Does anyone have any references showing that he did? And, if he > didn't, why not? ------ N: Places were not important to him. He did not cling to any place and just thought of how to help other people by preaching Dhamma. With his Buddha eye he surveyed the world: who would he help and where was the being who needed help? Nina. #124380 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 19, 2012 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhs nilovg Dear pt, The Expositor p. 55, comments on the Triplets. It would be well worth getting this book. "In the triplet of 'Grasped and favourable 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 'favourable to grasping', because of the connection with grasping by having become objects. The term is applied to objects of grasping. 'Effects grasped and favourable to grasping' (upaadinnupaadaaniyaa) is a name given to material and mental states born of kamma attended by the 'intoxicants'(aasavas). " ------ Nina. #124381 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 5:43 pm Subject: Re: Hello dear friends! philofillet Hey James I hear your news sonetimes from Facebook, through Naomi. She digs you. I dig you too but I have bwcome very exclysive when it comes to Dhamma, mainly interested in Abhidhamma. As for "meditation", great, love the stuff, do it every morning, but I don't consider it to be Dhamma. It's for my heath and energy, and therefore rooted in attachment.... Let's see a warlock pic...or is just about mind work? Phil #124382 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 19, 2012 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 2007 audio - 7. Seeing a monk..... or seeing visible object? sarahprocter... Dear Friends, ***** Han: I'm asking when I see the Venerable monks, is that akusala? KS: But you see who, who do you see? Han: Venerable monks (....) KS: By thinking Han: Yes KS: So thinking at that moment can be kusala or akusala. Can that be known? Han: Thinking depends on what object... KS: Yes, but there can be kusala thinking which thinks or akusala which thinks. Can that be known, which is which? Han: It's very simple. If I see a monk, it's kusala citta. That's what I understand. The attachment comes later on. but at the moment of seeing a monk, it's kusala citta. Jon: But at the moment of seeing, there is no monk. You only know it's a monk by thinking afterwards, because seeing just sees visible object. Han: I cannot go that deep (laughs). Ven Dhammanando: is it always a desirable object? An intrinsically desirable visible object? KS: I think that only satipatthana can tell directly what moment is kusala or akusala because we think that it is kusala, but actually is it kusala or not kusala when there is no understanding about that reality. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #124383 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 19, 2012 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness and its object in time nilovg Dear Alan, Op 18-mei-2012, om 18:16 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > I will rephrase: I am trying to understand the temporal > relationship of > mindfulness to objects such as anger (unwholesome state) and > kindness or > generosity (wholesome state): > > If I am aware of anger, my mindfulness cannot arise concurrent with > the > anger. It must occur after it. Must my awareness arise in the > next moment > after the passing away of anger? ------ N: In a following process of cittas shortly after anger has fallen away. Cittas succeed one another so rapidly in different processes, that we can still speak of the present reality, though it has just fallen away. -------- > > A: Does mindfulness always arise concurrent with a wholesome state? ------- N: Sati arises with each sobhana citta, it is non-forgetful of kusala. There is sati of different levels: of daana, of siila, of samatha and of vipassanaa. Sati of satipa.t.thaana is sati of vipassanaa. It is aware of a naama or ruupa that appears through one of the six doorways. Only paramattha dhammas are objects of awareness, not concepts. Suppose cittas with generosity arise and fall away. Again, just as in the case of anger, shortly after generosity has fallen away, it can be object of mindfulness and in this way we learn that it is not "I" who is generous, just a kind of naama. Thus, any kind of nama or ruupa can be object of mindfulness, and we do not have to think of processes, just characteristics appear. Seeing can be object of mindfulness, and, thus, we learn that it is not self who sees, only a kind of naama. Not my seeing, my anger, my generosity. Whatever reality appears, it appears because of its own conditions and we cannot make it appear or select it. We cannot cause sati to be mindful of such or such object. It all depends on conditions. This must lead to detachment. All the teachings lead to detachment. ---- Nina. #124384 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 9:37 pm Subject: Re: Hello dear friends! buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hey James > > I hear your news sonetimes from Facebook, through Naomi. She digs you. > James: Thanks, I dig her and you too. (love that word "dig" :-) > I dig you too but I have bwcome very exclysive when it comes to Dhamma, mainly interested in Abhidhamma. As for "meditation", great, love the stuff, do it every morning, but I don't consider it to be Dhamma. It's for my heath and energy, and therefore rooted in attachment.... > James: Oh goodness, you have done a 180 again! I guess I have been gone too long. :-) > Let's see a warlock pic...or is just about mind work? > James: You know, just visualizations, astral travel, and invocations, no conjuring demons (yet :-)). > Phil > Metta, James #124385 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 19, 2012 9:40 pm Subject: spd 25 (principle and derived ruupas) philofillet Dear group, Here is today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "The four principle ruupas are the condition, the foundation, for the derived ruupas tha arise together with them in the same group. However, although the derived ruupas arise simultaneously with the principle ruupas in the same group and are dependent on them, theya re not in their turn the condition for the arising of the four principle ruupas." (28) (end of passage) phil p.s I always need to be reminded of the four derived ruupas that arise with every kalaapa. They are colour, odour, flavour, and nutritive essence. #124386 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders moellerdieter Dear Sarah, wow :14 days behind .. I really need to bring a better order in my mail filing system .. tks for your patience. The issue we are discussing has been or is still seemingly a matter of disputes (Ven.Nyanatiloka.: Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings..) you 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: we need further consideration of the question : are khandhas merely an abstract classification by the Buddha or realities , dhammas like dhatus , ayatanas as you state. I still favor the former . E.g. :Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" (S. XXII, 48). I like to emphasise 'whatever exists of .....belong to the ...group ' , i.e. what exists are the corporeal or mental phenomena/ dhammas, distinguished by the khandhas. The grouping itself is concept , has 'no real existence' , only its single constituents parts `can be called reality . Please compare with following I copied from Wiki 'Skandha' (hopefully the copy appears close to the orginal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha ) The scheme is nice , but -I.M.H.O. - fails with the classification of the citta . "The Abhidhamma and post-canonical Pali texts create a meta-scheme for the Sutta Pitaka's conceptions of aggregates, sense bases and dhattus (elements).[24] This meta-scheme is known as the four paramatthas or four ultimate realities The mapping between the aggregates, the twelve sense bases, and the ultimate realities is represented in this chart:[ah] aggregate external sense base internal sense base ultimate reality form visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch eye, ear, nose, tongue, body 28 material phenomena mental objects (dhamma) sensation 52 mental factors perception formation conscious- ness (vinnana) mind (mana) conscious- ness (citta) Nibbana ... >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. D: you don't agree to " each conditioned reality belongs to the (5/3/2) 'classificatory grouping ' , do you ? ;-) S: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. D: no doubt the khandas in perspective of a living being are impermanent due the breakdown and coming together at death and (re)birth . Another aspect is if the moment or the life is concerned ... we need to have a closer look to respective suttas. Perhaps it is a matter of speech ..in a way : yes, basically right ..but nitpicking (?) :-) S:The English translation 'aggregate' is totally misleading imho. D: my dictionary says 'a total number or amount made up of smaller amounts that are collected together' would you consider that misleading? with Metta Dieter #124387 From: Ken O Date: Sun May 20, 2012 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: degree of kusala and akusala ashkenn2k Dear all who are interested there could be times when many of us come to a situation that there is a mixed feelings of pleasand and unpleasant. To understand whether this is possible, we have to look into the D.O What it could be happiness that arise due to good things and mixed up with anger, so the becoming will be mixed also, so kamma is also mixed. If kamma is mixed, then how does kamma effect the result. So some say the result is mixed. This means we should have more than five realms of existence. then arise this question on the 8NP. If it is mixed with aksuala, then right view should be mixed. Then we really have a mixed 8NP. Then this another question, so thinking and seeing and all other sense could be mixed as well. this is going to be a chaotic world. There is tiredness of the body, which is a rupa. So Arahant and Buddha must sleep not because of sloth and torpor but because of rupa. there is also a severity in kuasala and aksuala, killing a human being is more severe than killing an animal. There is also dispositions and latency, cravings could be very strong for some situations while lack in strength in other situations. there is no simultaneously arising of two cittas, because it would mean DO must have two links, or kamma could be very confused as one citta could be good and while the other is bad there is no mixture of functions, seeing citta cannot be thinking. it can only see. If thinking could see, then there should not be any blind person. As I said earlier, dhamma has rules :-) Cheers KC #124388 From: "Christine" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhgaya christine_fo... Hello Nina, and all, Thanks Nina. Elsewhere, one friend (David) on Dhammawheel replied: ''Possibly this quote: "Bhikkhus, I wish to go into seclusion for three months. I should not be approached by anyone. The when those three months had passed, the Blessed One emerged from seclusion and addressed the bhikkhus thus: Bhikkhus, I have been dwelling in part of the abode in which I dwelt just after I became fully enlightened." Samyutta Nikaya 45.12 The value of pilgrimage: "Ananda, there are four places the sight of which will arouse strong emotion in those with faith. Which four? Here the Tathagata (enlightened one) was born, this is the first place. Here the Tathagata attained Enlightenment, this is the second place. Here the Tathagata set in motion the Wheel of the Dhamma, this is the third place. Here the Tathagata attained final Nibbana without remainder, this is the fourth place. The monk or nun, layman or laywoman, who has faith should visit these places. And anyone who dies while making a pilgrimage to these places with a devout heart will, at the breaking up of the body, be reborn in heaven." Digha Nikaya 16 The importance of Bodh Gaya is of course evident, but he did seem to spend most of his time around Vulture Peak and Shravasti.'' With metta Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Christine, > Op 18-mei-2012, om 23:17 heeft Christine het volgende geschreven: > > > Does anyone have any references showing that he did? And, if he > > didn't, why not? > ------ > N: Places were not important to him. He did not cling to any place > and just thought of how to help other people by preaching Dhamma. > With his Buddha eye he surveyed the world: who would he help and > where was the being who needed help? > Nina. > > > > > #124389 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 1:28 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: There is understanding that is correct (and that, accordingly, has 'correct' concepts as its object), Well, I don't see how that is any different from what I am saying. It is an acknowledgment that for understanding to be correct, the content that is thought of must also be correct. So the concept is involved and must also be correct. So the idea that there is 'no such thing as a correct concept in the teachings' may be true, but it is at least implied not only by the teachings, but what you yourself has said above. Since it is impossible to have a correct understanding of dhammas without a correct thought about them [on the level of pariyatti, prior to direct discernment of the dhamma itself] it is somewhat self-contradictory to maintain the idea that there are no 'correct concepts' involved. > and understanding that is not correct. A person correctly understands something or he does not. Right, and he can't understand something correctly without a correct thought or concept about it. Just to make things more confusing, a person could also have a correct understanding about a false statement. He could understand that "dhammas are eternal" is incorrect, and that would be correct understanding of an incorrect statement. > 'Understanding' is, of course, a dhamma. That is fine, but thinking must have an object, and if the object of thinking is conceptually incorrect or correct, that must be known as well, or there is not correct understanding. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #124390 From: "Christine" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 3:22 pm Subject: ''Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy'' christine_fo... Hello all, I wonder if those with a little more knowledge than I have would please read and comment on this article: Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy by Ven. Paobhāsa Bhikkhu http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/some-evidence-suggesting-the-spurious-\ nature-of-abhidhamma-philosophy-2-2/ with metta Chris #124391 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 4:14 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala ptaus1 Hi Alex, > I understand what you are saying and in part I do agree. It is very probably that in the beginning there will be more mistakes than not. This is why it can take a while for Awakening to occur - one keeps making some mistakes that prevent Awakening. > > What I believe is important is to be diligent, observant, wise and learn from them. Eventually there will be less and less mistakes and more and more wisdom. > > What is your opinion on intensive practice in a retreat that supposedly leads to various insight knowledges? Doesn't it suggest that intensive practice can develop more wisdom more than laid back "don't do anything" approach? My own pet theory on "intensive practice" is that it can work only in two cases: 1. If the practice is undertaken under a keen eye of a teacher - basically someone with highly developed faculty of wisdom. Then the practice becomes an excuse for making mistakes, and the teacher can then point them out. So, it's not really the practice that develops wisdom but rather it's the hearing and considering of what the teacher said. This is because savakas are imo largely incapable of learning from own mistakes (as relevant to developing wisdom, rather than intellectual thinking) since their faculties are so underdeveloped, and thus need someone wiser to point out the actual mistakes. Without a very wise teacher, I don't think it's possible for savakas to have an effective "intensive practice". 2. If the person undertaking the practice already has highly developed faculties, so he's almost there so to speak and has very little dust in his eyes, if I remember that metaphor right. Then the intensive practice is basically a natural outcome of developed faculties. That said, I still have a romantic notion that "intensive practice" is a really cool thing to attempt (so it's all rooted in pride more than understanding). But whenever I do find time for something like that, usually the only thing I can conclude I learned in the end is how to suppress things better, and suppression is not wisdom, and you don't have to be a buddhist to know how to suppress things well. Dosa doesn't discriminate. Anyway, that's my pet theory on all this, so don't give it much thought. Best wishes pt #124392 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: The difference is this: > - The statement 'dhammas are eternal' is an incorrect statement. A statement (correct or incorrect) is a concept and its correctness or otherwise is a matter of convention. > - The understanding 'dhammas are eternal' would be incorrect understanding. Understanding is a dhamma. > > So they are not '2 sides of the same coin'. I think you have just demonstrated that they are 2 sides of the same coin: You said: "The understanding 'dhammas are eternal' would be incorrect understanding." Yes, that is because the concept "dhammas are eternal" is incorrect. That is what makes the understanding incorrect. It is dependent on the concept involved. If the concept involved were "dhammas are momentary" the understanding would be correct. In both cases it is not just the cetasika "understanding" that is involved, but the concept which is the object of that understanding. It seems to me that panna can arise with a concept, as I think has been recently clarified, because the concept can be correct or incorrect. Right understanding takes a *correct* concept in its view; otherwise it woudl be wrong understanding. The two sides of the coin are: a. The cetasika "understanding," [right or wrong,] and b. The concept that is either correct or incorrect. Only a correct conceptual construction or thought can be present with right understanding, and only an incorrect conceptual construction or thought can be present for wrong understanding. I believe that understanding + concept are two sides of the coin for pariyatti. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #124393 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 20, 2012 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhgaya nilovg Dear Christine, thanks for the quote, interesting. Nina. Op 19-mei-2012, om 22:43 heeft Christine het volgende geschreven: > Bhikkhus, I have been dwelling in part of the abode in which I > dwelt just after I became fully > enlightened." > Samyutta Nikaya 45.12 #124394 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 10:28 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala philofillet Hi pt, A teacher pointing out mistakes???? It sounds like you're talking about piano lessons, which of course will please Alex... how on earth could "mistakes" be pointed out by a teacher in the development of satipatthana. Sounds like Goenka... Phil #124395 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 10:40 pm Subject: spd 26 (hunger) philofillet Dear Group Here us today's passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: "A ghost is tortured all the time by hunger and weariness. There are many different ghost planes. Every human being has a daily recurring disease, namely hunger, and that is the reason one can say that it is impossible to be without disease. Hunger is a grave disease, one can notice this when one suffers from hunger." (end of passage) phil #124396 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 20, 2012 10:45 pm Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala philofillet Hi again I wrote: > A teacher pointing out mistakes???? It sounds like you're talking about piano lessons, which of course will please Alex... how on earth could "mistakes" be pointed out by a teacher in the development of satipatthana. Sounds like Goenka... > There could be mistakes in theoretical understanding but "intensive practice" is a mustake in itself. Do dhammas appear differently when people are seeking them intensively? Peeshaw!!! Phil #124397 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 21, 2012 5:00 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator Hello Pt, Thank you for your post. It is interesting why intense meditators at intense retreats seem to get many nanas while here, with no practice perspective, some say about how long it takes... Is it coincidence or not? With best wishes, Alex #124398 From: "normand j" Date: Mon May 21, 2012 7:23 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala dragontribal3 To Alex, Read your last quote, you spoke of nanas.I have been doing research ,on this word, and came up empty .Tried Wiki,Access to insight,Google. Would you be so kind as to explain the origin or the meaning of the word. Thanking you in advance _/\_ loong the learner --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Pt, > > Thank you for your post. It is interesting why intense meditators at intense retreats seem to get many nanas while here, with no practice perspective, some say about how long it takes... Is it coincidence or not? > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #124399 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 21, 2012 8:15 am Subject: Re: degree of kusala and akusala truth_aerator >Read your last quote, you spoke of nanas.I have been doing research >,on this word, and came up empty .Tried Wiki,Access to insight,Google. > > Would you be so kind as to explain the origin or the meaning of the >word. > Here is the first example that comes to mind: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html With best wishes, Alex