#128200 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > > H: Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary > activity in my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing > occur all the time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not > voluntary - but looking and listening are. > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach the distinction between > activities that can be ceased (and would this include, for example, sitting > down, crossing one's legs, etc.) and activities that cannot. > > > > H: I think that makes sense - I would hesitate to refer to something > that cannot be ceased as an act, If I am doing something, it is implicit > that I can also not do it. > > =============== > > H: My point was that while you make a distinction between what you refer > to as voluntary activity and other activity that is not voluntary, in that > the former (only) should be ceased as part of the development of the path, > no such distinction is made in the teachings themselves. > > Firstly no, I am H: , you are J: :-) You continue to misunderstand me, but given the first point, I accept that this will continue. Only what is voluntary is an act, or an activity. Non-voluntary stuff is as relevant to kamma as rain is. Literally everything in the teachings points to the ceasing of voluntary activity. > There are however other distinctions that are made in the teachings. For > example: > - the distinction between kusala consciousness and akusala consciousness, > and between these 2 kinds of consciousness and vipaka consciousness > - the distinction between citta and its accompanying mental factors > - the distinction between nama dhammas and rupa dhammas. > > To my understanding, these are all differences that have to be known, by > direct experience, as part of the development of the path. > > You don't know it, but mostly you are agreeing with me. Let me know how you get on. > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128201 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: The mental factor of intention that accompanies such cittas is what > is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). > > > > > H: No, sorry, I don't buy that. Like I said - kamma patha, There is a > world of > > > difference between actually killing, stealing or lying, and thinking > about > > it. Thinking about killing, stealing or lying has no consequence, other > > than for thinking. > > =============== > > J: There appears to be a misunderstanding between us regarding the use of > intention/intending to. > > Because I agree with your observation that there is a difference between > intending to do something (as a prelude to doing the act) and actually > doing it. No argument on that point at all. > > However, in the teachings the term 'intention' denotes a specific mental > factor that accompanies all moments of consciousness, including those at > the 'intending to do' stage as well as those at the time of the actual > doing. > > In both cases the (mental factor of) intention is considered to be > 'kamma', but not necessarily kamma-patha. > > Of course, not all actual doing is kamma-patha. And while most kinds of > kamma-patha require some act of body or speech, there are some kinds of > kamma-patha that are purely mental 'conduct' requiring no act of body or > speech. > > So returning to the analysis of different classes of consciousness, these > include vipaka citta as one kind and kusala and akusala citta as another > (or 2 others). > > > Vipaka citta/consciousness is the moment of actual experiencing of a > sense-door object through one of the sense-doors (e.g., seeing, hearing), > before there is any liking or disliking of, or assigning of meaning to, or > `making sense of', what is being experienced. That citta moment is said to > be the result of past kamma. > > The subsequent functions of liking or disliking, or assigning of meaning > to, or `making sense of', what has just been experienced through a > sense-door are performed by the cittas that `run through' the object, and > these are either kusala or akusala. The mental factor of intention that > accompanies such cittas is what is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). > > Thus, rather than speak about 'actions that can be ceased' and actions > that cannot, the Buddha spoke about these different classes of > consciousness. Moments of actual seeing are vipaka citta, while the kusala > or akusala moment of consciousness that 'run through' the visible object > are, technically, moments of kamma. > > By kamma one is a farmer, by kamma one is a brahmin. That's the Buddha I know, your Buddha is actually called Buddhagosa. > Kamma-patha is, in terms of dhammas, the mental factor of intention that > accompanies certain kinds of conduct through body, speech or mind. > > Kamma-patha, as speech and bodily actions, in terms of Buddhagosa's dhammas, is utterly meaningless. So, what are you doing now? I'm typing :-) > Jon > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128202 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman and Jon. > This is a subject of some interest to me, so if you don't mind, I will > jump in. > With a little luck, I can find areas to disagree with both of you. :-) > > > > If we talk about action as being kamma, we need to know what aspect of > the > > > action in particular it is that constitutes the kamma. And the answer > is, > > > the accompanying intention. > > > > > > > > I would agree with you if we are talking about the fine material world or > > the immaterial world. > > > > But in the daily life world intention and action stand in no necessary > > relationship. Intention has no effect on the world, only on further > > thinking. It is action that has an effect, and therefore in this realm it > > is action, not intention, that counts in this realm. > > The word "action" is very dicey in this discussion, because it is not > being used at all the same way. It is one of those words that causes > trouble in talking about kamma. When you say intention is only significant > in a non-physical realm, you are using intention as a fine-material element > that will impact the actual doings of such a realm, and you are thinking of > action as being the physical expression that only applies to the physical > world. All movement of anything is a form of action, regardless of whether > the movement is material or immaterial. If one has a thought, that thought > is an action on the level of thought. Your thesis is that such an > "internal" or non-material action has no effect on the world of daily life > in a physically embodied world, but it would in an arupa world. But I think > in the intention-based theory of kamma the energetic or spiritual forces > put into play by intention do cause action on the arupa level, even if we > are living in a plane of physical manifestation. So rather than being a > choice between planes, I think it's more of a choice between theories. If > one believes in a world in which physical actions are causes rather than > effects, then that is the case in rupa plane or arupa plane. And if one > believes that it is the conscious act that creates the kamma, then it > doesn't matter if that conscious act is on the level of intention or > physical action. The thought will put spiritual energy into play, just as > thought connected to speech and action will put spiritual energy into play, > but it is always the consciousness which causes the intention that creates > kamma. In other words, accidents don't cause kamma, only intentional action > does. If a wheel falls off of a cart and crushes the person underneath, no > kamma. If a person sawed the wheel off because they intended to kill the > other person, kamma. So it is the intention that makes the difference. > > In the daily life world, it is the crushing weight of the now unsupported cart that makes the difference - that has the power to kill a person. Thinking has no power to effect change in the shared world, only doing. Thinking only has the power to modify the solipsist world. > The Buddha also conveniently identified three levels of kamma, mental, > spoken and physical action - each though emanates from cetana. > > > > > But either form of reference is OK. > > > > > > > =============== > > > > H: Do you agree that this is the appropriate reading here? > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) > > But Jon does not mean physical action by this definition, I believe. > > > > Cool. Taking it one step further, you asked me to elaborate on this: > > > > > but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a > > support for kamma. > > > > > > What I meant was that in the context of the daily life world, when there > is > > awareness/insight, whatever has been done in the past is never a reason > for > > what one is doing now - there is no necessary connection between vipaka > and > > action. Appeals to unknown conditions hold no water, they are lame > > excuses :-). > > There are many instances in conventional life in which past actions > gradually create conditions for future results. To take a simple example, > every time I see you I say something annoying. You register the annoyance > and a bit of irritation, but not enough to get angry at me. Every time I do > this you get a little more irritated, and eventually I say something to you > and you blow up and yell at me. Is there a necessary connection between > this result and the former conditions that were built up? Of course. The > lame excuse is when the irritating person says "Why did you yell at me?" as > if they had never said anything annoying to cause this reaction. Many times > the reactions or results we get are separated in time and in obvious > connection from the actions that cause these results, but the connection is > not obscure. It's a good metaphor for how kamma relates to vipaka. If you > extrapolate this metaphor to the level of spiritual forces at play - > depending on your belief system - it is very possible to imagine a similar > situation. I kill insects in anger a thousand times, and the universe > "owes" me an equal and opposite reaction to complete the waves caused by my > actions. Eventually I break my toe or someone hits me in the nose, or I get > kidney stones, or I'm born into a family of philosophers - various tortures > are possible in the future. > No disagreement here. But the key is that I prefaced my statement about kamma/vipaka with "awareness/insight". I accept that without these, people run on auto-pilot, and act on the basis of accumulated thinking. No such excuse exists with awareness/insight, there's not even a good excuse to do anything at all. Hence jhana :-) Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128203 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > What is visible object? > ... > S: Just that reality which is seen now. > ... > > > > We need to hear about visible object to see it? > ... > S: It is seen whenever there is seeing. However, this isn't usually known. > I appreciate your honesty, that visible object usually isn't known. I would not have faulted you if you had written that visible object is never known. > Usually there's the idea that objects and people are seen, shapes and > patterns. There is usually the idea that it's "I" or someone that sees too, > so no idea of realities, no understanding of anatta. > ... > > > >S: If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get > closer to > > > > the truth, never directly understand what appears now. > > > > > > > > > > If you are saying that you don't need to first understand all there is to > > know about cancer before one can give up smoking, I agree. > ... > S: I'm saying that an understanding of science doesn't help in the > slightest when it comes to an understanding of realities - of those > realities which can experience an object, such as seeing, and those > realities which cannot experience anything, like visible object. > ... > > > > > But Theravada is certainly guilty of straying into the domain of science, > > and many willingly continue to follow them their - that is the ongoing > > problem of much of science and Theravada - it is unrelated to the problem > > of human suffering. > ... > S: Whatever is read or said, all that matters is the understanding now of > the reality appearing. > This means that this version of "the Path" is a wild goose chase, because, as you partially admit, and I totally admit, there is never a knowing of the reality that is appearing > ... > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > . > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128204 From: "jagkrit2012" Ans: When you feel attached to something, that means lobha > is there. > > Achaan: Now? You think of lobha when you think of attachment > to whatever appears. But now, is there lobha? > > Ans: I think yes, but we can not recognize it. JJ: This observation of T.A. Sujin pointed out precisely that normally lobha is difficult for anyone who doesn't have certain understanding to directly experience it. This instruction of T.A. Sujin is so valuable with great reminder and the friend who answered was very honest. ==================== > Achaan: .............................. Is there any > attachment to visible object even when there is no idea about it? > > Ans: No, I think no. > > Achaan: Are you sure? > > Ans: Not very sure. > > Acharn: ........... So now, after > seeing, there is avija right? But one can not be sure whether there is just > avija or avija with attachment. Not understanding the teaching enough to begin > to understand one reality at a time. It is a great work to do, to develop > understanding... JJ: Again very good reminder of T.A. Sujin that confusing whether there is attachment does arise when there is no understanding enough. "It is very great and hard work to do, to develop understanding" Thank you very much Tam for your valuable extraction of T.A.Sujin' s dhamma discussion. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128205 From: "philip" Sending out an emails like this is just so self-defeating, Sarah. You > should be very careful who you write this sort of babble to, some out there > lack the discernment to realise you don't actually believe it at all. > Possibly it's Sarah who the lacks discernment to stop wasting time on you, or possibly she is just plain unlimited in her generosity. There is something in Tibetan Buddhism called idiot compassion. I guess it refers to lobha rooted cittas wanting to be nice to everyone no matter how abusive they are. But in Sarah's case it could be metta and othee kusala factors. More likely a mix of both As for me, at this moment cittas typically (accumulatuions) rooted in dosa condition bodily intimation of typing "if you think the teacher behind the foundation of this group is so fraudulent, maybe it's time for you to go away." (That rare "ciao" last week had my hopes up!) Phil p.s Today I heard my mother is dying, good chance to use emotional distress as a cover to write the above while still getting sympathy! Moderators, back in a week or so. #128206 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > > Hi Herman > > > > Sending out an emails like this is just so self-defeating, Sarah. You > > should be very careful who you write this sort of babble to, some out > there > > lack the discernment to realise you don't actually believe it at all. > > > > Possibly it's Sarah who the lacks discernment to stop wasting time on you, > or possibly she is just plain unlimited in her generosity. There is > something in Tibetan Buddhism called idiot compassion. I guess it refers to > lobha rooted cittas wanting to be nice to everyone no matter how abusive > they are. But in Sarah's case it could be metta and othee kusala factors. > More likely a mix of both > > As for me, at this moment cittas typically (accumulatuions) rooted in dosa > condition bodily intimation of typing "if you think the teacher behind the > foundation of this group is so fraudulent, maybe it's time for you to go > away." (That rare "ciao" last week had my hopes up!) > > Phil > > p.s Today I heard my mother is dying, good chance to use emotional > distress as a cover to write the above while still getting sympathy! > Moderators, back in a week or so. > > _ > Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128207 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Jagkrit, > > J: However, in kusala citta, there is tattramachatatta cetasika. > Tattramachatatta cetasika is the cetasika which is equitable, not > swaying and deprived of prejudice. Therefore, honesty can be > tattramachatatta cetasika as well. > > T: I've never thought about this. Interesting for further considering! > > There is no reason for me to type this. There is also no reason for me to not type this. What cetasika is interesting? That's the one that dominates here, I think. > Anumodana, > > Tam._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128208 From: Nina van Gorkom What makes a human being, is to have choices and to make use of > them. The range of our choices and our prior awareness of them will > expand with the growth of mindfulness and wisdom. And along with > the growth of these two qualities, those forces that seem to > "condition" and even compel our choices into the wrong direction > will become weakened. It is, indeed, a bold and heartening > assurance of the Buddha - a veritable "lion's roar" - when he said, > in such a wide and deep sense, that the good can be attained and > the evil can be conquered. ------ N: Instead of choice, I would rather emphasize understanding, and in particular, understanding of the anattaness. It is right understanding of kusala and akusala as just dhammas, conditioned dhammas which are not owned by anyone that will lead to having less defilements. Otherwise it is all the time self, my akusala, my kusala. The word choice may be misleading, it seems that a self can pause and make a choice. In fact, there is no time to pause, cittas arise and fall away in succession so exceedingly fast. No time to think over a choice. But as understanding develops, that knows that there are only dhammas arising and falling away, there will be less the idea of self to which we cling. ------ Nina. #128210 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, This was one of Lodewijk's favorite texts, he liked it very much. It is very encouraging. I just have a remark about the note. AdChoices #128211 From: "ptaus1" S: Apologies if I misunderstood your point(s). pt: Not at all, I think I'm just being overly pedantic. > >PT:.... Either way, we'd need to examine in each case what the other person means by 'control'. You give it ultimate definition (=dukkha, atta). For many though, it doesn't seem to relate to dhammas, but to people and activities, hence conventional. > .... > S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas. pt: Well, yes, so if we're talking about dhammas, then instead of control we should be saying ditthi, I think. That's a dhamma, whereas control can have any number of invested meanings. > S: (We could put 'anyone's' in apostrophes, but the point is that it is a very common belief that though dhammas are considered to be conditioned, it's still assumed that they are in 'someone's', 'anyone's' power or control.) pt: As a new internet buddhist, I wasn't familiar with dhammas, but I was intimately familiar with control. Consequently, it seemed like an important realisation that what seems like an apparent control to me is in fact just ditthi. A dhamma. And conditioned at that. On the other hand, the expression that dhammas cannot be controlled always seemed to miss that point. But I guess it speaks differently to different people. > S: Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development? pt: Yes. > S: If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?" pt: Thanks, hence I feel the validity of the conclusion that without powers, our "conscious attempts" to (have) insight (into) something (right now) is basically just ditthi (right now). (In other words, apparent control at this point is akusala.) > S: If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now? pt: I was more wondering about pre-jhana development of samatha. I mean, I assume powers must be developed before jhana can actually happen. Further I assume that it has to do with more than just wishing not to see, etc. I mean, if there are no powers, then this wish would be akusala, I assume. > >pt: I was wondering, in the development of samatha, long before jhana arises, samatha could be said to develop with each kusala citta, regardless of whether the citta (and cetasikas) classify as dana, sila or bhavana. I was wondering, if it is bhavana (so not sila nor dana), but not yet jhana (nor vipassana), what would be a daily-life example of that, and is there such an animal in the first place? > S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm. pt: Ok, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's outside of sasana and there's no knowledge of dhammas, so how would bhavana (pre-jhana, non-sila, non-dana, non-insight) occur? Thanks for the discussion. Best wishes pt #128212 From: "sukinderpal narula" >S: What is psychology? According to those who study it, psychology >is the study of mind and human behavior. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Right. Suffering is in the mind, and only in the mind can it be removed. Under the influence of lobha/dosa/moha, which are mental, a person can engage in harmful behavior to himself and others. S: What do you mean by "Suffering is in the mind"? Are you saying that the First Noble Truth is reference to mental suffering? Of course it is not. It is a reference to conditioned nama and rupa. But even if it is about mental suffering, this is not "*in* the mind", but is a mental reality. The way you phrase it appears to be so as to accommodate your view that the Four Noble Truths is psychology. And yes, lobha, dosa and moha are mental realities, but there is no "person who can engage in harmful behavior to himself and others". This latter is another attempt on your part to force the concept of "psychology" on to the Dhamma. === > >But is it not in fact about inference based on conventional / >conceptual observation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > What about inference about lobha/dosa/moha? S: Inference is inference. But lobha, dosa and moha are conditioned realities which can be directly experienced by panna, and the field of psychology does not teach this. === > >Were the Buddha's teachings reducible to psychology, then studying >it as one does any other field of study, would be O.K. But is >studying the Dhamma about thinking in the abstract and then seeking >to apply the theory, which in fact is just more thinking about >concepts? I don't think so. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Dhamma is all about application to avoid creating Suffering, if not, then what is the point of it? S: Yes, the Noble Eightfold Path is application. Indeed the development of understanding from the very beginning can be said to be application. But an idea conceived of under the influence of self-view is not, which is what I was pointing at when I said, "thinking in the abstract and then seeking to apply the theory". === > Modern psychology does not believe in Atta. > S: I think what you mean is that it does not believe in the existence of "soul". Buddhist meditators don't believe in soul either and they will tell you that there is no 'self'. But clearly they are motivated by self-view in their interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. A psychologist who has not heard and understood the Dhamma can't be expected not to come from self-view when making a statement about the nature of mind and human behavior. === > > > > And how the Sutta you cited verified my position? Because it is all about nama and rupa as confirmed by the statement: > > > > "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It also deals with "not getting what one wants" and "getting what one doesn't want". S: Dosa is a conditioned mental reality. Pointing to it should not therefore be seen as psychology, but a Truth. === > Also, puggala (which is Anatta) is not denied. S: Puggalavadins are not followers of the Dhamma. === > > Alex: > >And lets not forget the N8P, as 4th Truth. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >S: What about it? Is this not reference to a conditioned reality >which arises at the end of a long, long time development over many >lifetimes and not the result of a few years of academic study where >in the end one receives a degree and then go out and "practice"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Only if one studies incorrectly does it take a long time, and it takes long time because for that long time one was actively obstructing the progress in Dhamma. S: Only if one studies correctly is there any studying. This being in fact a momentary phenomenon, and given the otherwise great extent of ignorance and other unwholesome dhammas, it would be due exactly to ignorance and wrong view to think that understanding can develop quickly and become great in a short time. === > If a path requires multiple lifetimes, then it is hard to establish "cause and effect". Within that huge time something else, a correct understanding of Dhamma, might have done it all. S: If cause and effect between dhammas is understood to any extent, then development of understanding must be seen as happening over not just multiple, but countless lifetimes. Otherwise it does not make sense. === > A good simile: Lets say that person keeps going up and down parallel to the goal which is to the right. A Person under mistaken understanding can go up and down for a long long time, but if that person had correct understanding, he could step to the right and reach the goal. > S: Wrong View is eradicated by the Path consciousness of the Sotapanna. Ignorance is eradicated only by the Path consciousness of the Arahat. Only a Sotapanna is said to be on the stream. Before that, there must be lots of failings and fallings. A person with wrong view can't be said to move up. Even the Bodhisatta "fell" in one of his past lives. === > >S:"Religious psychology?!" > >>>>>>>>> > > Yes. Salvation by not producing anymore Dukkha. Ultimately Dhamma is religion. > S: Psychology is about change of attitude, not the eradication of ignorance and craving. The eradication of ignorance and other unwholesome dhammas is the function of wisdom. No more Dukkha does not only mean no more mental suffering, but birth and the experience of *all* conditioned phenomena. === > 1) We can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha as historical person even existed. S: Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special kind of wisdom. === > 2) We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist that He was fully Awakened. S: You are not studying the Dhamma, but history. === > 3) We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist and that He was fully Awakened, that He didn't use skillful means. S: The Teachings are there for you and I to refer to. I say that they are descriptions of reality / realities and you say that they are prescriptions for particular conventional activities. This debate between the two interpretations has been going on for a long time. Do you want start again? === > 4) We can't prove beyond any doubt that such and such tradition accurately carried his message. S: I am not trying to prove the historical Buddha, but the Dhamma. === > IMHO, I believe that practical results is what matters. > S: The first step is pariyatti understanding or suttamaya panna. This itself is ehipassiko and the basis for increased saddha. Without it there can't be patipatti understanding or bhavanamaya panna. Metta, Sukin #128213 From: "jagkrit2012" N;.......The word choice may be misleading, it seems that a self can pause and make a choice. In fact, there is no time to pause, cittas arise and fall away in succession so exceedingly fast. No time to think over a choice. But as understanding develops, that knows that there are only dhammas arising and falling away, there will be less the idea of self to which we cling. > > Han; Thank you very much for your useful comments. I fully agree with your comments. It is what the Buddha teaches and it is what the Sayadaws remind us. JJ: This notion is so subtle to understand. In conventional world, people think they always have choices and make choices in daily life. Starting early in the morning, they make a choice to get out of a bed, go to the bathroom, wash our faces and brush our teeth etc. But Nina's observation above shows the opposite. In absolute reality, is there any choice? What makes us think we make choices all the time. These is useful to understand more and more, again and again. Nina and Han, please, spend sometimes deliberate more on "choice" until it is clear about choosing choices or making decisions. =================== > H: However, although I cannot speak for other persons, for me as a puthujjana, it is difficult not to have the idea of self and not to cling to self. So the words written by Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi in the Note are added encouragement for me to abandon evil and to cultivate good. It may be "my" abandoning of evil and "my" cultivating of good. But at least my thoughts and my actions in that way will be those that are affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; although they may not be noble, taintless, supramundane, and the factors of the path [MN 117. Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta]. JJ: You remind me about "puthujjana". In sutta, there are 2 kinds of puthujjana. One is Antaputhujjana and the other is Kallajanaputhujjana. Antaputhujjana is a kind of person who never studys, thinks, listens, memorizes and contemplates on khandhas, dhatus, aavajjana etc. That is Antaputhujjana but a person who is aware of those called Kallajanaputhujjana. Khun Han, you are Kalljanaputhujjana who studies, thinks, listens, memorizes and comtemplates on dhamma teaching. Even though Kallajanaputhujjana still has the idea of self but the understanding of dhamma which gradually increases will lead him or her to cultivate more good deeds and kusala kammapatha, abandon bad deeds or kusala kammapatha until all good deeds and wholesomeness are pure because self is abandoned. Reaching the first step of Sotapatimak. Sakkaya dhiti is eradicated. T.A. Sujin always reminds us that enriching and carrying out good deeds together with studying dhamma. Performing good deeds is not enough because they are still tainted with self. Until self is abandoned, wholesomeness is complete. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128214 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Some part of dhamma discussion by Than Acharn Sujin Boriharnvanaket > Sobhanadhamma 06 session 2481 > > T.A. Sujin: There are some people who rarely listen to dhamma teaching but have a feeling that everything is impermanent. Everything changes and it is never stable. Therefore, no one should hold to anything with pleasure and satisfaction. > > There is someone, some moment, sometimes, having this kind of feeling. > But this simply knowledge is so shallow. > Because it is merely thinking about the impermanent. > It is not panna understanding and experiencing the characteristic of arising and falling away of reality at the moment. ===== #128215 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can there > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life? > > > > >H: Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not > exhaust what is real. .... S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about what has been seen, heard and so on. ... > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon: > > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa, > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except > hardness, only that is reality. > > Jon: And a lot of thinking! > > Acharn: Yes. > ======== S: Exactly, just my point! There is no thinking without the experiencing of sense objects. ... > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality ... S: No one has suggested otherwise. ... >H: As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would be in > the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking. > Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of daily > life cease. .... S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is thinking about concepts. When is there no more thinking? Does a Buddha think? ... >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making > futures). ... S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above? And who is this "you" who knows anything? Metta Sarah ===== #128216 From: "sarah" wrote: > > >S: All dhammas arise by conditions. > > .... > > S: How else could seeing now, visible object now, attachment now, arise? ... >H: I agree that it is an interesting question. I wouldn't agree that it is > wholesomely answered by adopting a position of which there can be no > certainty. .... S: With understanding there can be certainty. How could seeing arise now without causes or conditions? It is only when there is atta belief that there is doubt. ... > What we can be sure of is that thoughts about "all dhammas" are necessarily > speculative, because the only dhammas that are there are "these dhammas", > or "this dhamma". ... S: So let's start with the dhamma, the reality that can be known now. Attachment, annoyance now are realities. They have characteristics, they can be known directly. Hardness, softness, pleasant feeling - all realities that can be known when they appear. Just dhammas, no thing or self involved. Some are namas that can experience an object, such as feeling or attachment. Some are rupas which cannot experience anything, such as hardness or softness. ... >H: If there is no understanding of what led to the arising > of "this dhamma" (that applies to all of us), why bother to make claims > about dhammas that have not arisen? ... S: There can be a beginning of understanding now, starting with right theory, pariyatti. Gradually, with more understanding, this becomes firmer and leads to direct understanding. So now, it can be understood that without visible object, there can be no seeing. Without tangible object, there can be no bodily experience. Without the seeing of visible object or the touching of tangible object, there can be no thinking about what's been experienced. Right or wrong? Metta Sarah p.s did you try listening to any of the Poland audio discussions? I think you'd find them interesting. Lots of sceptical questions and good answers. ==== #128217 From: Nina van Gorkom However, although I cannot speak for other persons, for me as a > puthujjana, it is difficult not to have the idea of self and not to > cling to self. ------- N: Of course, for all of us it is difficult not to cling to a self, until we are sotaapannas. It is so common, it happens time and again. But by listening more, considering more, intellectual understanding grows until there is enough foundation to be directly aware of realities. As Jagkrit says, we can become kalyaa.na (beautiful) puthujjana, instead of andha (foolish) puthujjana. When there can be direct awareness and understanding of the present reality it becomes clearer that there is no self, but only at the stage of the sotaapanna the idea of self is eradicated. A long, long process. Very gradually we can learn that sound appearing now is just a dhamma, nobody created it. The same for hearing, nobody created it, it has its own conditions. When the sound is too loud, aversion (dosa) may arise. That also is a conditioned dhamma, only a reality. At such moments there is no need to think about choices, about akusala that should be abandoned, because at the moment of considering dhammas and studying it with awareness, kusala is already being cultivated, together with understanding. It can be done, as the Buddha said. ****** Nina. #128218 From: Nina van Gorkom Han; Thank you very much for your useful comments. I fully agree > with your comments. It is what the Buddha teaches and it is what > the Sayadaws remind us. ----- N: You mentioned the Sayadaws, I think the Burmese Sayadaws? It would be interesting to know what they said, if it is not too much trouble for you. it is always interesting for us to hear quotes from the Burmese books. What you wrote about sotaapanna in your last post could never be offensive. When we hear he word sotaapanna it is only a word for us and when one has not reached that stage it does not have much meaning. Therefore to know more about the dhamma that appears now is more valuable and we need not worry much or think much about it. As to choices, yes, in conventional sense we do speak about choices. Tomorrow there will be snow here and I made a choice to phone the taxibus instead of going afoot, too slippery. But if we consider the different moments of citta it is much more complex. Difficult to know when they are kusala cittas and when akusala cittas since they alternate all the time. ------ Nina. #128221 From: "truth_aerator" S:What do you mean by "Suffering is in the mind"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That only mind/consciousness can experience negative emotions and bodily pain. In another context, by suffering is in the mind, I mean emotional suffering due to kilesas as opposed to mere bodily pain that even the Buddha can have. >S:Are you saying that the First Noble Truth is reference to mental >suffering? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: All three types of sufferings: Dukkha-Dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara dukkha. >S:Of course it is not. It is a reference to conditioned nama and >rupa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conditioned namarupa is included within sankhara dukkha. >S:But even if it is about mental suffering, this is not "*in* the >mind", but is a mental reality. The way you phrase it appears to be >so as to accommodate your view that the Four Noble Truths is >psychology. >>>>>>>>>>>> A: Yes, suffering is mental phenomenon and it is uprooted in the mind. Pain, though, can be as long as the body lives, but not mental suffering about it. >S:And yes, lobha, dosa and moha are mental realities, but there is >no "person who can engage in harmful behavior to himself and >others". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Speaking conventionally, there is a person. There just isn't Atta. ================================================= "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html =================================================== >S: Inference is inference. But lobha, dosa and moha are conditioned >realities which can be directly experienced by panna, and the field >of psychology does not teach this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhist psychology does. > === > > >Were the Buddha's teachings reducible to psychology, then studying >it as one does any other field of study, would be O.K. But is >studying the Dhamma about thinking in the abstract and then seeking >to apply the theory, which in fact is just more thinking about >concepts? I don't think so. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Buddha's teaching is all about practice, not book learning. Otherwise it is like theoretic philosophy. Sounds wise, but useless in actual life. > S: I think what you mean is that it does not believe in the >existence of "soul". Buddhist meditators don't believe in soul >either and they will tell you that there is no 'self'. But clearly >they are motivated by self-view in their interpretation of the >Buddha's teachings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it. Suttas and Commentaries are filled with instructions "to do" and "to avoid". Without practice, Buddhism is just a useless philosophy that may not even be higher than more modern and advanced western philosophy. > > Also, puggala (which is Anatta) is not denied. > > S: Puggalavadins are not followers of the Dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>> How do you know? Maybe certain kinds of Theravada got it all wrong, and Puggalavadins (who I understand where anattavadins) got it right? ==================== "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html ============================== >S: If cause and effect between dhammas is understood to any extent, then development of understanding must be seen as happening over not just multiple, but countless lifetimes. Otherwise it does not make sense. > The suttas say that at least path of stream entry can occur in this life if one understands or believes in anicca. At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable. "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.001.than.html and other 9 suttas in SN25. > === > > A good simile: Lets say that person keeps going up and down parallel to the goal which is to the right. A Person under mistaken understanding can go up and down for a long long time, but if that person had correct understanding, he could step to the right and reach the goal. > > > > > S: Wrong View is eradicated by the Path consciousness of the >Sotapanna. >>>>>>>>>>>>> A: And this requires practice of right view. >Alex:We can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha as historical >person even existed. >================================================== >S:Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at >the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special >kind of wisdom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Same could be said about, lets say, Jesus. >Alex: We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist that He was fully Awakened. >============================================= >S: You are not studying the Dhamma, but history. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you merely believe? Why not believe in Jesus? >Alex: We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist >and that He was fully Awakened, that He didn't use skillful means. >================================================ >S:The Teachings are there for you and I to refer to. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Which teachings? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? >S:The first step is pariyatti understanding or suttamaya panna. This >itself is ehipassiko and the basis for increased saddha. Without it >there can't be patipatti understanding or bhavanamaya panna. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Which pariyatti? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? With best wishes, Alex #128222 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 7, 2012 8:17 am Subject: Re: A passage from Anguttara Nikaya kenhowardau Hi Nina and Han, --- > N: When we hear he word sotaapanna it is only a word for us and when one has not reached that stage it does not have much meaning. Therefore to know more about the dhamma that appears now is more valuable and we need not worry much or think much about it.As to choices, yes, in conventional sense we do speak about choices. Tomorrow there will be snow here and I made a choice to phone the taxibus instead of going afoot, too slippery. But if we consider the different moments of citta it is much more complex. --- KH: Perhaps we could say, in terms of the Satipatthana Sutta: when a sotaapanna is making a choice he knows the way things are in ultimate reality. Ken H #128223 From: han tun wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can > > light a fire..... > .... > S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and > no fire, just conditioned realities or elements. > > This is another self-refuting statement. I have said things like this about a number of your views a number of times now, and I really don't think you understand what it means for a statement to be self-refuting or self-defeating. What is an illusion, Sarah? And how do you tell illusion and non-illusion apart? Thank you , sincerely. Metta > > Sarah > ===== > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128225 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > > The non-issue of control as somehow being self-view is doing the rounds > > again. > > > > It's a non-issue because the notion of control is being misrepresented > or misunderstood. > > Like with most discussions here, my take is that the problems stem from > investing different meanings into the same term. E.g. the term 'control'. I > guess ideally a term is a tool that aids discussion, but it can also be a > block when there's no willingness to try to understand what the other > person is actually trying to say. > > How could a person, despite all their best efforts, understand a statement such as "This discussion is an illusion"? If that is unclear, imagine my position :-) Best wishes > pt > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128226 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > I'm going to butt in. I don't care whether you mind or not :-) > Dear Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" > wrote: > > Visible object, unless taken in abstract sense, IS seeing. Without > seeing, we cannot talk about anything visible. > > Some questions: Would you agree with the statement > > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." ? > > And, in this regard, are you defining "visible object" as form & "seeing" > as eye-consciousness? > > Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, then look > away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see the red ball & > blue chair? Or, more accurately, how do you account for the fact that the > things we see change but the fact of seeing & being able to see doesn't > change (as quickly, that is)? > These are leading questions. Once you understand how they are leading question, then you will understand how the whole Theravadan enterprise of the strictly distinguishable namas and rupas dichotomy thingo are also just leading questions - in other words a view. I am not accusing you of wrong view, honest :-) > In Dhamma > - Josh > > -- Yeah, me too Herman I do not know what I do not know #128227 From: "ptaus1" How could a person, despite all their best efforts, understand a statement > such as "This discussion is an illusion"? My take - look into the invested meaning in the terms, then extract the likely interpretation, then verify whether the interpretation is what the other guy was trying to say, and then finally see if the interpreted statement makes sense in real life or not. If yes, discuss further, if not, thank the guy and move on. E.g. if someone's using the term "illusion", it likely has to do with its opposite - "reality". What's the invested meaning? On dsg, illusion probably stands for concepts, whereas reality stands for dhammas. Likely interpretation then is that anything apart from dhammas is an illusion. E.g. cars, trees, people, countries, discussions, etc. Then we'd need to ask the person in question whether that's what they mean, and if it is, then I'd end up wondering if it makes sense in real life terms or no. For me personally, though I like conventional expressions, ultimate expressions (talking exclusively in terms of dhammas) have merits, though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life. That of course doesn't mean they're not true, but I probably won't spend my time arguing whether they are true or not. So it seems my approach is - understand the interpretation, and if it ever ends up making sense in real life, great, if not, well, at least I haven't wasted my time arguing whether the interpretation is true or not. Bit lazy, but works for me. Best wishes pt #128228 From: Nina van Gorkom My emphasis is on the fact that I do not have any ambition, and I > do not want to become anything. I will do what I have to do and > what I think is right. I am not worried at all about the results. > My kamma will decide the outcome for me. So I do not worry at all > about anything. ------ N: Very good. Kh Sujin said in the coffee shop in Warsaw at the end of the Poland trip: ------- Nina. #128230 From: han tun ------- Han: I admire and respect very much your kind understanding about me and your great patience towards me. Please do not think that I do not appreciate your kind advice. I do appreciate all your useful comments: it is just that I am a born-rebel! I thank you very much for your useful comment this time also. with metta and respect, Han #128231 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 8, 2012 8:02 am Subject: Re: The non-issue of control kenhowardau Hi Pt (and Herman), ------- >> H: How could a person, despite all their best efforts, understand a statement such as "This discussion is an illusion"? >> > Pt: My take - look into the invested meaning in the terms, then extract the likely interpretation, then verify whether the interpretation is what the other guy was trying to say, and then finally see if the interpreted statement makes sense in real life or not. If yes, discuss further, if not, thank the guy and move on. ------- KH: I suppose you could add to that, "if the statement answers a question you are asking." All Dhamma students are asking the question, "What is the world?" or in other words, "What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta) If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time. ------------------ > Pt: <. . .> ultimate expressions (talking exclusively in terms of dhammas) have merits, ------------------ KH: Sorry for nit-picking, but when we are asking the "loka" question *all* relevant answers are ultimate expressions (exclusively in terms of dhammas). Even if some of those answers are given in conventional language they are all meant to be understood in terms of dhammas. Otherwise they would not be answering the question. If someone in a Dhamma discussion were to say, "This discussion is an illusion," that person must mean, "All realities are devoid of permanent things." Discussions conceptually persist for a period of time. All realities are devoid of such persisting things. ------- > Pt: though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life. ------- KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? . . . Are these the only things that exist in the world? We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? Any highly technical Dhamma discussion would be just adding details. Ken H #128232 From: "jagkrit2012" H: I do not know what type of puthujjana I am. But it does not bother me, because I have no ambition. I do not want to become anything, be it Sotaapanna or something else. > > So, I am doing what I think is right, and I am happy with what I am doing. > > I apologize if I have offended you by saying like this. JJ: It should be my deepest apology toward my improper comment which step out of the line. My comparison, however, came with sincere respect and admiration by having chances to read your several valuable postings on important suttas and many time you help finding complete suttas I was unable to do that but only translated from Thai Tipitika. And many comment of suttas of you brings more clearer on the Lord Buddha teaching. Please forgive me for my careless comment. I'll be more caution in the future not to reckless intrude others with my idea and thinking. Thank you again for your honest reminder and I'm so sorry. Jagkrit #128233 From: han tun H: Please continue to write to me whatever is in your mind. I appreciate your ideas because you think and write very much the same as we, Burmese, think and write. JJ: Thank you very much for your kind understanding. This again reminds me about the word "kalyanamittata" which I can find some explanation in Mitta Sutta: A Friend translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Monks, a friend endowed with seven qualities is worth associating with. Which seven? He gives what is hard to give. He does what is hard to do. He endures what is hard to endure. He reveals his secrets to you. He keeps your secrets. When misfortunes strike, he doesn't abandon you. When you're down & out, he doesn't look down on you. A friend endowed with these seven qualities is worth associating with." He gives what is beautiful, hard to give, *****does what is hard to do, endures painful, ill-spoken words.******** His secrets he tells you, your secrets he keeps. When misfortunes strike, he doesn't abandon you; when you're down & out, doesn't look down on you. A person in whom these traits are found, is a friend to be cultivated by anyone wanting a friend. ==================== Thank you very much and it is very fortunate to have a chance to read, learn and discuss dhamma with you. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128235 From: sarah abbott wrote: Dear Khun Han JJ: Thank you very much for your kind understanding. This again reminds me about the word "kalyanamittata" which I can find some explanation in Mitta Sutta: A Friend translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu ------ Thank you very much and it is very fortunate to have a chance to read, learn and discuss dhamma with you. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128237 From: Nina van Gorkom I do appreciate all your useful comments: it is just that I am a > born-rebel! ------ N: You made me laugh and that is good. It seems that I forgot laughing lately. I know you long enough, but you are a very sympathetic rebel. Always kind and helpful. As Jagkrit said, taking so much trouble with all those sutta passages. That is kusala citta. About the quote of Kh Sujin, I like it because it is daily life and not at all complicated or theoretical. When listening to the Poland discussions I found she stressed the present moment all the time. Knowing more about our different cittas is not theoretical. We do not have to think of terms, but acquire more understanding of a characteristic (lakkha.na) when it presents itself. That is the reason she speaks all the time about characteristics. Thank you for the mitta sutta. Nina. #128238 From: Nina van Gorkom KH: All Dhamma students are asking the question, "What is the world?" or in other words, "What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta) > > If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time. pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked. If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to become messy. E.g. I guess the "process" would then be something like this: 1) there's the statement - answer about the world. 2) then there's interpreting of the terms used in the answer. 3) interpreting the overall meaning. 4) understanding intellectually what it's all about, or not. 5) (and hopefully) understanding "the world" with panna now, whether of pariyati sort or other. And all that is not even taking into account the motivation behind the answer, which often might be just about venting, wanting to be better than someone else, etc. It's a miracle anything useful ever comes across in discussions. But I guess it must. > KH: Sorry for nit-picking, but when we are asking the "loka" question *all* relevant answers are ultimate expressions (exclusively in terms of dhammas). Even if some of those answers are given in conventional language they are all meant to be understood in terms of dhammas. pt: And if they aren't understood that way, then I guess we got bogged down somewhere in the "process" described above. > KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? ... Are these the only things that exist in the world? pt: This brings me back to the beginning - if i ask myself these things, I still feel it's just intellectualising the reality, not panna. So, I still don't quite see how self-reminders about reality now can be kusala (unless maybe when powers come along)? So, despite all the messiness of the "process" of getting answers/reminders/descriptions from others, it seems it's one thing at least that can actually help beginners. > KH: We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? pt: Well, I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about "seeing now" terribly confusing. Since even such basic insight (panna) is missing, the whole premise that dhammas are true (or not) is a non-issue. I can't confirm nor deny. Hence, I conclude I must be here to learn about an interpretation/description, i.e. "What do you say is the world?" and not about "What is the world?"... Well this sucks. I didn't expect that would be the conclusion. Best wishes pt #128240 From: "philip" wrote: Dear Han, Han: I do appreciate all your useful comments: it is just that I am a born-rebel! ------ Nina: You made me laugh and that is good. It seems that I forgot laughing lately. I know you long enough, but you are a very sympathetic rebel. Always kind and helpful. As Jagkrit said, taking so much trouble with all those sutta passages. That is kusala citta. About the quote of Kh Sujin, I like it because it is daily life and not at all complicated or theoretical. When listening to the Poland discussions I found she stressed the present moment all the time. Knowing more about our different cittas is not theoretical. We do not have to think of terms, but acquire more understanding of a characteristic (lakkha.na) when it presents itself. That is the reason she speaks all the time about characteristics. Thank you for the mitta sutta. Nina. #128242 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Dec 9, 2012 10:14 am Subject: Re: The non-issue of control kenhowardau Hi Pt, --------- >> KH: <. . .>"What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta) If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time. > pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked. ----------- KH: I would say it is always the right question, even outside a Buddha's sasana. Asking what is real, now, means not wanting to be fooled or mollified. When the Dhamma is not available a jhana master would be the best person to ask. But the most you could learn from him would be temporary suppression of akusala. So he would be the best of a bad bunch, I suppose. :-) ------------------ > PT: If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to become messy. ------------------- KH: But in a Dhamma discussion we are considering the *Buddha's* answers, aren't we? We are helping each other to consider what we have heard indirectly *from the Buddha*. ----------------------- > Pt: E.g. I guess the "process" would then be something like this: 1) there's the statement - answer about the world. 2) then there's interpreting of the terms used in the answer. 3) interpreting the overall meaning. 4) understanding intellectually what it's all about, or not. 5) (and hopefully) understanding "the world" with panna now, whether of pariyati sort or other. And all that is not even taking into account the motivation behind the answer, which often might be just about venting, wanting to be better than someone else, etc. It's a miracle anything useful ever comes across in discussions. But I guess it must. ------------------------ KH: It doesn't really matter if we are talking to a troll who is using DSG to vent his spleen. The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the present moment. ------------- >> KH: Is there really an object that is seen? ... Are these the only things that exist in the world? > pt: This brings me back to the beginning - if i ask myself these things, I still feel it's just intellectualising the reality, not panna. -------------- KH: Whether it's intellectualising or panna, it's really just dhammas arising by conditions – beyond anyone's control. ----------------------- > Pt: So, I still don't quite see how self-reminders about reality now can be kusala (unless maybe when powers come along)? So, despite all the messiness of the "process" of getting answers/reminders/descriptions from others, it seems it's one thing at least that can actually help beginners. ----------------------- KH: I think the help came in the past, when there were moments of panna. Now (the present moment) is the time when that help can be put to use. And it doesn't matter if we are considering by ourselves or with others. --------- >> KH: We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? > pt: Well, I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about "seeing now" terribly confusing. ---------- KH: Go back to the beginning and ask, "The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?" (Loka Sutta). I think you will agree with the Buddha's answer: there are seven worlds in one of which absolute realities are rising and falling away now. And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it? Ken H #128243 From: sarah abbott wrote: > Show Details > f/w From Tam > ********* > Dear friends, -------------------------------------- Dear Sarah & all, Thanks Sarah for forwarding this message. Please introduce me with Tam. I am Htoo who posted in far past. ------------------------------------------- Tam: AS said whether a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala, it depends on the kamma which has produced it. When it is kusala vipaka, it is pleasant and when it is akusala is unpleasant. ------------------------------------------- Htoo: When a citta arises as a vipaaka citta it is just vipaaka citta. Not other citta. But it has characteristics, quality or properties. It can be modified as kusala or akusal. Pleasant or not is not determined by self. It has its true nature. ------------------------------------------ Tam: For example, two people being in the same air-con room, one finds the coolness pleasant and the other not. So for the first one, the coolness is the vipaka of kusala kamma, and for the second, it is vipaka of akusala kamma. (Please correct if I have understood wrongly!) -------------------------------------------- Htoo: You meant the same arammama.na? The object may be the same. But the receivers of sensation is not the same. Coolness perceived by warm body and coolness perceived by cold body cannot be the same even though the object is the same. Cold man will perceive with akusala-vipaaka citta while warm man will perceive with kusala-vipaaka. ------------------------------------------- Tam: My question is, for an arahant, who still has pleasant and unpleasant bodily feeling, but no longer has pleasant and unpleasant mental feeling. How it is determined, for example, a specific seeing vipaka, hearing vipaka etc… that arises is kusala or akusla? ---------------------------------------------- Htoo: Viapaaka citta is not determined by environment. It arises exactly when all causes for its arising are there. ------------------------------------------------ Tam: Thanks for your input, > Tam > ---------------------------------------------- Htoo: Vipaaka is right, javana is flexi-right. Flexibly right. Example: Rotten meat is sensed by a vulture. The vulture becomes happy even though the object is unpleasant. That object is sensed by a man. The man becomes unhappy because the object is unpleasant. An Arahant senses that very same object. The Arahant become indifferent to that object. That is neither happy not unhappy. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing (Dhamma Rakkhita_DMR) #128245 From: "aungsoeminuk" wrote: > Hi Pt, --------->> KH: <. . .>"What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta) > If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time. > > > > pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked. > ----------- > PT: If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm > just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual > understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm > basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an > interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to > become messy. ------------------ Htoo: 'Lujjatti plujatti'iti loko". It can disappear, it can totally disappear, it can completely disappear. So it is called loka. Ican vanish, it can totally vanish, it can completely vanish. So it is called loka. Evidence: You see something. It just vanishes. This is loka or world. When the event is analysed then the analysed object and analysed citta are not there as present moment. There the object (sight or thing to be seen), the eye which is not the viseral eye of the body but just kammogeic ruupa cakkhupasaada, and seeing-consciousness or cakkhuvi~n~naa.na. All these three arise at the very same time. So also do cetasikas of phassa or contact, vedanaa or feeling, cetanaa or volition manasikaara or attention and so on. All these things just arise and immediately vanish. This is loka. There is no permanent things in the world. Beyond the world (outside the boundry of the world) is lokuttara which is not loka. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128246 From: "jagkrit2012" Htoo: You meant the same arammama.na? The object may be the same. But the receivers of sensation is not the same. Coolness perceived by warm body and coolness perceived by cold body cannot be the same even though the object is the same. Cold man will perceive with akusala-vipaaka citta while warm man will perceive with kusala-vipaaka. > ------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Vipaaka is right, javana is flexi-right. Flexibly right. Example: Rotten meat is sensed by a vulture. The vulture becomes happy even though the object is unpleasant. That object is sensed by a man. The man becomes unhappy because the object is unpleasant. An Arahant senses that very same object. The Arahant become indifferent to that object. That is neither happy not unhappy. JJ: I'm not quite clear on those 2 different statements above. Arammaa.na can be ittarammaa.na which is good or can be anittaarammaa.na which is not good. Vipaaka citta which arises to experience good arammaa.na shall be kusala vipaaka. and vipaaka citta which arises to experience bad arammaa.na shall be akusala vipaaka. However, coolness which is suitable for general feeling of human being should be good or ittaaramaa.na. But for some person who loves or is familiar with cool weather may not like it. Can we call that the citta of the cool lover person which arises to experience this coolness which is ittaaramaa.na. is akusala vipaaka. Or in the example of rotten meat which is definitely bad rupaa or anittaarammaa.na, can the vipaaka citta of that vulture arises to experience the rotten meat be kusala? I'm not quite understand on this issue of vipaaka. Could you elaborate more about this. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128247 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) > > > > > > > > > H: Cool. Taking it one step further, you asked me to elaborate on this: > > > > > > but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a > > support for kamma. > > > > > > What I meant was that in the context of the daily life world, when there > is > > awareness/insight, whatever has been done in the past is never a reason > for > > what one is doing now - there is no necessary connection between vipaka > and > > action. Appeals to unknown conditions hold no water, they are lame > > excuses :-). > > > > If that is still not clear, feel free to ask some more. > > =============== > > J: Not much clearer, if at all, I'm afraid :-)) > > I broadly agree with the notion that `whatever has been done in the past > is never a reason for what one is doing now', in this sense: that what one > is doing now (for example, an angry reaction to something another person > says or does) is done because of one's accumulated tendencies (i.e., of > dosa) and cannot be attributed to the other person's conduct. > > OK, thanks. Attempting to clarify a little more - what I am saying is that even personality (which is I guess what you mean by accumulated tendencies) is not sufficient to explain behaviour. There is a disconnect between the past and the present - if that was not the case, living the the holy life would be impossible. > When I said that the 3 `vatta' each supported the other, I meant that > because of accumulated defilements there is bound to be attachment or > aversion arising following sense-door experiences (which are vipaka) and > such attachment or aversion is bound to lead to the commission of further > akusala kamma, and so the cycle is perpetuated. > > Again, if I am bound to do things because I have done those things in the past, then living the holy life is impossible. But the fact is, I am not bound to do anything. > Hoping this clarifies. > > Jon_._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128248 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman (and Tam) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > On 28 November 2012 13:55, Tam Bach wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > Dear Herman > > > > > > H: > > > > > > > I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well > > > > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are > > > > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not > all > > > > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the > cerebral > > > > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of > awareness, > > > or > > > > unconscious. > > > > > > T: Could you please explain how awareness is measured according to > > > science? In other words, what is the criteria to establish whether > > > awareness is present or not? Tks > > > > > > > H: Thank you for your interest. There is no short way to answer your > question, > > > as neuroscience is very complex. So it should be, too, because the human > > brain is the most complex structure known in the universe. > > =============== > > J: In your original post you say that, according to neuroscience, 'only > processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are represented in awareness' > and that since 'most, if not all visual pre-processing occurs in neural > pathways outside of the cerebral cortex' this means that 'those "seeing" > processes are outside of awareness' that is to say, occur unconsciously. > > I don't see how this has any bearing on the teachings regarding: > - seeing consciousness as consciousness arising at the eye-door that > experiences visible object > - mind-door consciousness as including processes of cittas that 'run > through' the visible object so experienced by seeing consciousness. > > Could you explain further the perceived contradiction? Thanks. > > I doubt I correctly understand what you are asking for, but I'll have a shot at answering, and we'll see where we end up. A healthy and awake person, with eyes open, will see and remember a photo displayed to them. A person in deep sleep, if their eyes are manually opened, will not see or remember an image displayed to them. What is my point? It is not the eye or eye-door that sees, it is the cerebral cortex that sees. > > =============== > > H: I kindly refer you to post 111146, which gives headings for only some > of > > > the aspects of seeing. > > > > Given the above, do you believe you can tell when there is seeing and > where > > there is thinking? > > =============== > > J: The question, surely, is not whether you or I can tell the difference > between moments of seeing and moments of thinking, but whether there is the > possibility of there being 2 such kinds of consciousness each with a > distinct inherent characteristic. > > OK, let's run with the question in your form. What kind of seeing could occur at the eye-door, and on what basis would you think this was possible? > Let's not get ahead of ourselves here :-)) > > Quite :-) > Jon > > __._,_,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128249 From: "jagkrit2012" H: Thank you very much for quoting the Mitta Sutta. > I have all the books, but I cannot read all. Only when a friend like you points out some suttas I read them. The Mitta Sutta is one such sutta which I have not yet read. Now that you have quoted it, I read. And I thank you very much because it is an excellent sutta. For Paa.li lovers, I print below the Paa.li text with the translation by Ven Thanisaro Bhikkhu. JJ: I have the same feeling of beauty of this Mitta Sutta like yours. And I think that any person who can understand Paa.li shall realise more deeply how excellent of this sutta is. =============== > H: You are indeed a Kalyaa.namitta! JJ: Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm so honored and have the same feeling to you with respect. Today, in Thai dhamma discussion at the foundation. We also discussed about good friend (Kalyaa.namitta) and bad friend (Paara.mitta). These are some interesting quotes that T.A.Sujin mentioned in the dicussion: " Do we want to have a good friend or do we want to be a good friend?" " In general, we always expect something from others. We expect good things from good friends. Therefore, to have a good friends or to be a good friend, which is better?" (remark: expectation is always lobha) " We hope not to have a bad or betrayed friend but are we betrayed friends?" " Which one is worst: having a betrayed friend or being a betrayed friend?" " Having a good friend or a bad friend is the consequence of how good or bad friend we were" "We will not be a betrayed friend even we have a betrayed friend." "Others may be heartless but can we be kind-hearted? Ready to be good friend and help them with metta until they become good." --------------- "Who never have a betrayed friend?" "When we don't know the betrayed friend, we are not aware that we have the betrayed friend with us all the time" "Lobha! it is our real betrayed friend" "Lobha is also our close friend, never leave us alone. It brings us anything we want." "Lobha eventually brings us suffering: it, then, explodes itself as the real betrayed friend" "Only pannaa will gradually take us part from this betrayed friend" -------------- Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128250 From: han tun wrote: Dear Khun Han and all JJ: I have the same feeling of beauty of this Mitta Sutta like yours. And I think that any person who can understand Paa.li shall realise more deeply how excellent of this sutta is. =============== > H: You are indeed a Kalyaa.namitta! JJ: Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm so honored and have the same feeling to you with respect. Today, in Thai dhamma discussion at the foundation. We also discussed about good friend (Kalyaa.namitta) and bad friend (Paara.mitta). These are some interesting quotes that T.A.Sujin mentioned in the dicussion: " Do we want to have a good friend or do we want to be a good friend?" " In general, we always expect something from others. We expect good things from good friends. Therefore, to have a good friends or to be a good friend, which is better?" (remark: expectation is always lobha) " We hope not to have a bad or betrayed friend but are we betrayed friends?" " Which one is worst: having a betrayed friend or being a betrayed friend?" " Having a good friend or a bad friend is the consequence of how good or bad friend we were" "We will not be a betrayed friend even we have a betrayed friend." "Others may be heartless but can we be kind-hearted? Ready to be good friend and help them with metta until they become good." --------------- "Who never have a betrayed friend?" "When we don't know the betrayed friend, we are not aware that we have the betrayed friend with us all the time" "Lobha! it is our real betrayed friend" "Lobha is also our close friend, never leave us alone. It brings us anything we want." "Lobha eventually brings us suffering: it, then, explodes itself as the real betrayed friend" "Only pannaa will gradually take us part from this betrayed friend" -------------- Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128251 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is > > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can > there > > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life? > > > > > > > >H: Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do > not > > exhaust what is real. > .... > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about > what has been seen, heard and so on. > ... > > OK. And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking another, does not accord with reality. > > > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon: > > > > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa, > > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of > > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except > > hardness, only that is reality. > > > > Jon: And a lot of thinking! > > > > Acharn: Yes. > > ======== > S: Exactly, just my point! There is no thinking without the experiencing > of sense objects. > ... > > > > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also > reality > ... > S: No one has suggested otherwise. > ... > > >H: As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would > be in > > > the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking. > > Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of > daily > > life cease. > .... > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is > thinking about concepts. > Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis? > When is there no more thinking? > We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana there is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing. > Does a Buddha think? > Not when in jhana. > ... > > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are > > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making > > futures). > ... > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above? > Seeing now in the above context is understanding now. Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path, unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without awareness. > And who is this "you" who knows anything? > > To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning / intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-) Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than we will not easily trip over words. Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born in Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes to travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly. My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it doesn't suit us. > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128252 From: "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking > another, does not accord with reality. > > > Dear Herman It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right? In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga): "It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness." Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati The sutta continues: "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ... " robert #128253 From: Nina van Gorkom With Alzheimer's the person you knew starts disapperaring well > before the death citta arises, that helps understanding no matter > how painful the disappearance process is. ------ N: I understand how difficult it was, also before her death. She may not have recognized you. My sympathy. Nina. #128255 From: "Robert E" wrote: > No disagreement here. But the key is that I prefaced my statement about > kamma/vipaka with "awareness/insight". I accept that without these, people > run on auto-pilot, and act on the basis of accumulated thinking. No such > excuse exists with awareness/insight, there's not even a good excuse to do > anything at all. Hence jhana :-) It's only a matter of excuses if volition equals accomplishment, which it generally does not. Again we seem to have a conflict between an idealized instantaneous view of enlightenment, and the long, hard plodding path that works in annoyingly tiny increments. Joseph Conrad said "Art is long and life is short and success is very far off." How much further off is enlightenment. Awareness can only be cultivated one breath at a time. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128256 From: "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > > Dear Nina > > First of all, thank you J and S for updloading the discüssions audio. > Nina, in last part there is discussion about how meditation goes wrong, and about the importance of understanding whatever has arisen (rather than trying to direct cittas, all that silabata-paramasa.) We hear about "the master" tanha, that is what is always/has always arisen. Are tanha and lobha synonymous? Is it just that we use "tanha" when we speak of 4nts, d.o? > > Phil > p.s my mother passed away but all is well here, for me. It is a holiday from work. Always me, me, me. Nothing/no one nearly as important as me, despite monents of believing otherwise. Actually even my father is doing well. With Alzheimer's the person you knew starts disapperaring well before the death citta arises, that helps understanding no matter how painful the disappearance process is. > #128257 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Pt: though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life. > ------- > > KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? . . . Are these the only things that exist in the world? > > We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? Any highly technical Dhamma discussion would be just adding details. ... S: I think you've expressed this well. Back to the basics that can be confirmed now. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Metta Sarah ===== #128259 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Throughout our pilgrimage we discussed the development of the > perfections. They should be developed along with satipatthaana, > otherwise enlightenment cannot be attained. Acharn Sujin reminded us > not to move away from our goal by clinging, even clinging to kusala. > She said: <...> >Is it not more beneficial to have right > understanding of all realities, also of our many defilements, subtle > and gross, and to know the many moments of unawareness? When there is > courage and strength to develop right understanding of the present > object, whatever it may be, the perfection of energy is being > developed and we are not distracted from our true goal. We will not > come to a halt midway. ... S: I appreciate this last reminder that "When there is courage and strength to develop right understanding of the present object, whatever it may be, the perfection of energy is being developed and we are not distracted from our true goal." No need to think of any other effort because that is bound then to be akusala effort, Self's effort. Metta Sarah ===== #128260 From: "sarah" wrote: > I found a sutta quote with "here-&-now". (still I think the word "Be" in Ram Dass' "Be Here Now" could be a form of Atta view. I wasn't criticizing dsg.) > +++ > "When a disciple of the noble ones discerns what is unskillful in this way, discerns the root of what is unskillful in this way, discerns what is skillful in this way, and discerns the root of what is skillful in this way, when � having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing � he has put an end to suffering & stress //right in the here-&-now//, it is to this extent that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view, one whose view is made straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and who has arrived at this true Dhamma." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html ... S: This is a description of the arahat. When we talk about the "here & now", we're talking about the realities that can be directly known now. The beginning is clearly understanding the distinction between those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing, hearing and attachment and those realities which cannot experience an object, such as visible object and sound. If there isn't this understanding, the right path which eventually leads to the eradication of defilements will never be followed. ... > > Antony: As for Atta view of permanent eyes and ears I understand that in Dependent Origination the arising of the salayatana is dependent on Ignorance and Sankharas. .... S: What do you understand by salayatana? Does it have anything to do with eyes and ears? .... > > BTW what are the 16? bodily sankharas in Dependent Origination? Ven Thanissaro just says that bodily-fabrication is the breath. ... S: Would you kindly give me a quote from the texts, so I can see what you're referring to here. I can't think what you mean by "the 16 bodily sankharas in DO". Thx. Good to discuss with you again. Metta Sarah ===== #128261 From: "sarah" wrote: > There can be thinking with pleasant feeling or with unpleasant > feeling but understanding knows that it is only thinking. So, one > does not mind whether there is pleasant or unpleasant feeling, it > only arises with thinking. Thinking with pleasant feeling or with > unpleasant feeling falls away; so, it does not hurt anyone at all. > When thinking arises there is no me or another person, it is only > thinking. There may be pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling about > situations or people, but one does not mind thinking; one realizes > that thinking is thinking. One realizes that the story one thinks of > is not true, but that the thinking is real. It is our own thought. > The situation might not be as we think. > > > ***** S: Usually we attach a lot of importance to the feeling and to the story that's thought about, but it's just thinking at such moments. No one involved at all. Metta Sarah ===== #128262 From: "sarah" wrote: > First of all, thank you J and S for updloading the disc�ssions audio. ... S: Thx for encouraging us. Lobha/tanha most the day, it's so precious when there are moments of kusala. > p.s my mother passed away but all is well here, for me. It is a holiday from work. Always me, me, me. Nothing/no one nearly as important as me, despite monents of believing otherwise. ... S: So true....always "me, me, me". Good to realise this so that gradually there can be the growth of more consideration for others. Best wishes to all your family at this time. Metta Sarah ===== #128263 From: "sarah" wrote: > Yes, I'm Lan, from Vietnam, I've met Jon and Sara in Hanoi :) > Why do I feel like hearing your voice when reading your words, Sara? :). Always so, reading and hearing the sound of the words being read. .... S: And I thought the words sounded like my dear friend, Lan:-) Always, good, probing, intelligent questions. I appreciate your approach and questioning of what you hear. ... > I've practised vipassana for the past 4 years, with the objects of rising-falling, and minds, and sensations and also read books of some meditation teachers and Bhikkhu Bodhi. During that time, there was not any wonder about the popupar meaning of satipatthana which is 4 foundations of mindfulness: body, sensation, minds and mind objects. > > Recently, I've just felt that it seems to have something behind that familiar meaning and behind things we used to know. Like the processing system behind the letters we see in the screen when typing :). Like the truth or the nature of impermance behind the rising and passing away of nama-rupa... ... S: I think, as we discussed in Hanoi, that we have to carefully consider the meaning of each word. For example, "vipassana", what is it? What does it mean to "practice vipassana"? If there is not the direct understanding now of realities, such as seeing and visible object, can there be any understanding of the impermanence of realities? If there is not the understanding of these realities, isn't it always "I" who is practising or meditating or trying to be aware? ... > > I'm feel glad like seeing some friends from past :) > @Prasad: where have you been and now here when i'm here :P ... S: You've met before. Good! Look forward to more discussions, Lan. Metta Sarah p.s As Nina also suggested, still hoping to seeing you in Thailand:-) ======== ===== #128264 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > We need to hear about visible object to see it? > > ... > > S: It is seen whenever there is seeing. However, this isn't usually known. > > > > >H: I appreciate your honesty, that visible object usually isn't known. I would > not have faulted you if you had written that visible object is never known. .... S: It is never known by ignorance. However, if it were not possible to understand it, the Buddha would not have taught for 45 years and there'd be no DSG. ... > > S: Whatever is read or said, all that matters is the understanding now of > > the reality appearing. ... >H: This means that this version of "the Path" is a wild goose chase, because, > as you partially admit, and I totally admit, there is never a knowing of > the reality that is appearing ... S: Understanding that there is ignorance and no knowing of reality now is a good start. By hearing and considering carefully about what the realities are now, gradually there will be the beginning of knowing what appears now, such as seeing or visible object. If there isn't the clear understanding, intellectually in the beginning about these realities as just realities, not-self, they will never be known. Metta Sarah ===== #128265 From: "salaflowers" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Throughout our pilgrimage we discussed the development of the > perfections. They should be developed along with satipatth�na, > otherwise enlightenment cannot be attained. Acharn Sujin reminded us > not to move away from our goal by clinging, even clinging to kusala. > She said: > > �There can be just unawareness, no wrong practice. But if one thinks > that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since > these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object > which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there > is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, > only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the > object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that > object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there > is no understanding of lobha as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One > has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is > more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. <...> #128266 From: Nina van Gorkom N: One has to understand different degrees of realities... > > SLF: Can you say more about different degrees of realities? ------ N: Lobha is a reality and it has many different degrees. We usually notice lobha when it is strong, for example, when we are greedy, when we want to eat too much, or when we want to possess beautiful things. We do not know lobha that is more subtle, such as attachment that often arises after seeing or hearing. We wish to see and hear, we wish to live and receive sense impressions. There are countless processes of cittas experiencing sense objects, and during these processes cittas with lobha arise time and again. Not only lobha has many degrees, also dosa, conceit, and other akusala cetasikas. Sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas that have to be developed have many degrees. Understanding has many degrees, beginning with intellectual understanding stemming from listening to the teachings, and this can develop so that it becomes direct understanding which eventually can become lokuttara pa~n~naa experiencing nibbaana and leading to the eradication of all defilements. ------- Nina. #128267 From: Nina van Gorkom My question is, for an arahant, who still has pleasant and > unpleasant bodily feeling, but no longer has pleasant and > unpleasant mental feeling. How it is determined, for example, a > specific seeing vipaka, hearing vipaka etc… that arises is kusala > or akusla? ------- N: Seeing and hearing are just one moment of vipaakacitta accompanied by indifferent feeling. These cittas pass very rapidly and it is hard to find out whether such moments are kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka. But why should we try to find out? That is thinking about a reality that has fallen away already. When seeing appears its characteristic can be known as just a dhamma, not self, not my seeing. That is more important than knowing whether it is kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka. -------- Nina #128268 From: "nori" wrote: > > Hi Sukin, all, > > >S:What do you mean by "Suffering is in the mind"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > That only mind/consciousness can experience negative emotions and bodily pain. > > In another context, by suffering is in the mind, I mean emotional suffering due to kilesas as opposed to mere bodily pain that even the Buddha can have. > --- Sorry to intrude.. I think a great example to elucidate what is occurring, regarding this point, is the phenomenon of the "Phantom Limb". Many people who have their legs, arms or other body parts amputated or removed have what are called 'phantom' sensations, as though their limbs still existed. Mostly it is pain that they experience. "Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb.." Excerpt from article: "A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.[1][2][3] Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful.[4] Phantom sensations may also occur after the removal of body parts other than the limbs, e.g. after amputation of the breast, extraction of a tooth (phantom tooth pain) or removal of an eye (phantom eye syndrome). The missing limb often feels shorter and may feel as if it is in a distorted and painful position... Although not all phantom limbs are painful, *** patients will sometimes feel as if they are gesturing, feel itches, twitch, or even try to pick things up.*** For example, Ramachandran and Blakeslee describe that some people's representations of their limbs do not actually match what they should be, for example, one patient reported that her phantom arm was about "6 inches too short"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb --- I think we can deduce from this experience that all perceptions and sensations occur in the "mind", even 'mere bodily pain' as Alex mentions. Nori (Incidentally, Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran found a cure to Phantom Limb pain using a simple mirror: "His next subject, Jimmy, felt that his phantom hand was always agonisingly clenched, with his phantom fingernails digging into his missing hand. Ramachandran put a mirror between Jimmy's arms and asked him to move both his phantom and healthy limb simultaneously, while looking at the reflection of the healthy limb - effectively fooling Jimmy's brain into thinking his phantom was moving in a normal way. Jimmy felt his clenched fist release almost immediately. "This is because you are creating intense sensory conflict - the vision is telling you the limb is moving," Ramachandran explains. "One way the brain deals with conflict is to say, 'To hell with it! There is no arm,' and the arm disappears. "I tell my medical colleagues that it is the first example in the history of medicine of successful amputation of a phantom limb." ... In 2007, an army medic in the US Dr Jack Tsao, performed a controlled test on 22 amputees with remarkable results. All those using the mirror reported a reduction in pain over four weeks, those using a control reported no result or increased pain. At the UK army's rehabilitation centre, Hedley Court, mirror therapy has also been used for the past four years to help amputee soldiers to manage phantom pain. "Prosthesis-wearing is key," says army physiotherapist Major Pete LeFeuvre. Those who wait longer for a fake limb seem to suffer more from phantom pain. This suggests it is the visual feedback of seeing an arm rather than the feedback from nerves within it that stops the brain getting confused. ... " http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15938103 #128269 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > p.s my mother passed away but all is well here, for me. It is a holiday from work. Always me, me, me. Nothing/no one nearly as important as me, despite monents of believing otherwise. Actually even my father is doing well. With Alzheimer's the person you knew starts disapperaring well before the death citta arises, that helps understanding no matter how painful the disappearance process is. > ============== Very sorry to hear about your mother's passing away. My condolences. Jon #128270 From: "philip" > > With Alzheimer's the person you knew starts disapperaring well > > before the death citta arises, that helps understanding no matter > > how painful the disappearance process is. > ------ > N: I understand how difficult it was, also before her death. She may > not have recognized you. My sympathy. > Nina. > Do you remember I referred to a letter my cousin's father wrote after he committed suicide this summer: "You never know," he wrote, noting that he felt relief that his troubled son had died rather than anguish. We never know what our cittas will be, let alone knowing the cittas of others. There is not much sorrow in the air as we approach the funeral tomorrow, but who knows, perhaps there will be. Anatta, fascinating as always! I'll write again when back in Japan about an interesting appreciation of shared experiences of a long married couple (tge kamma involved) vs the memories of those experiences. I couldn't quite get it across to my dad cuz I couldn't refer to kamma...well, perhaps I could have... phil Phil phil AdChoices #128271 From: "Robert E" wrote: > >H: This means that this version of "the Path" is a wild goose chase, because, > > as you partially admit, and I totally admit, there is never a knowing of > > the reality that is appearing > ... > S: Understanding that there is ignorance and no knowing of reality now is a good start. By hearing and considering carefully about what the realities are now, gradually there will be the beginning of knowing what appears now, such as seeing or visible object. If there isn't the clear understanding, intellectually in the beginning about these realities as just realities, not-self, they will never be known. When clearing out the "little dust in our eyes," most of us have to start with a shovel! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #128272 From: Nina van Gorkom We hear about "the master" tanha, that is what is always/has always > arisen. Are tanha and lobha synonymous? Is it just that we use > "tanha" when we speak of 4nts, d.o? -------- N: Tanha is lobha cetasika but in the Dhammasangani, § 1059, we read that there are almost a hundred names for lobha, denoting the many aspects, intensities, objects that lobha can take. In the D.O. we read that tanhaa conditions upaadaana and upaadaana is stronger. Both of them are lobha cetasika, but they denote different aspects. Vusuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 242. < Text Vis.: 'Firmness of craving' is a name for the subsequent craving itself, which has become firm by the influence of previous craving, which acts as its decisive-support condition. But some have said: Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping his objective. ------- N: The Tiika explains that craving, tanhaa, as aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, is like excitement or trembling (paritassana). Clinging is firm grasping. ---------- Text Vis.: These states oppose fewness of wishes and contentment and so they are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding (see D.ii,58f.). The remaining three kinds of clinging are in brief simply [false] view. ------- N: According to the Tiika, tanhaa, craving, is opposed to fewness of wishes, whereas clinging is opposed to contentment, santu.t.thi. Craving is the root of suffering due to searching for what one wants, and clinging is the root of suffering since one has to protect what one has acquired. > --------- Nina. - #128273 From: "sukinderpal narula" >S:What do you mean by "Suffering is in the mind"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > That only mind/consciousness can experience negative emotions and bodily pain. > > In another context, by suffering is in the mind, I mean emotional suffering due to kilesas as opposed to mere bodily pain that even the Buddha can have. > > >S:Are you saying that the First Noble Truth is reference to mental >suffering? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: All three types of sufferings: Dukkha-Dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, > and sankhara dukkha. Suk: So "suffering is in the mind" is misleading, is it not? === > >S:Of course it is not. It is a reference to conditioned nama and >rupa. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Conditioned namarupa is included within sankhara dukkha. Suk: Right, and this is what the "Noble" truth is about. It is this which stands in contrast to the Third Noble Truth namely, the unconditioned Nibbana. === > >S:But even if it is about mental suffering, this is not "*in* the >mind", but is a mental reality. The way you phrase it appears to be >so as to accommodate your view that the Four Noble Truths is >psychology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > A: Yes, suffering is mental phenomenon and it is uprooted in the mind. > Pain, though, can be as long as the body lives, but not mental suffering about it. Suk: The Noble Truth of Suffering refers to all conditioned realities, namas and rupas, therefore to mental suffering as well. But this not because of its particular characteristic, but the general one. === > A: Speaking conventionally, there is a person. There just isn't Atta. > > ================================================= > "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html > =================================================== Suk: Yes, no persons, only conditioned namas and rupas. === > >S: Inference is inference. But lobha, dosa and moha are conditioned >realities which can be directly experienced by panna, and the field >of psychology does not teach this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Buddhist psychology does. Suk: This is an inference made by those who don't understand the Dhamma. Understanding Dhamma means understanding that there are only dhammas. No place for the concept of psychology there, Buddhist or otherwise. === > > Right. Buddha's teaching is all about practice, not book learning. Otherwise it is like theoretic philosophy. Sounds wise, but useless in actual life. Suk: But is it psychology? Dhamma is *not* about book learning. However, patipatti can't happen without pariyatti. It is therefore very important to make this particular distinction and not think that the Buddha's teaching is "all about practice". It can't be. === > > S: I think what you mean is that it does not believe in the >existence of "soul". Buddhist meditators don't believe in soul >either and they will tell you that there is no 'self'. But clearly >they are motivated by self-view in their interpretation of the >Buddha's teachings. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Prove it. Suttas and Commentaries are filled with instructions "to do" and "to avoid". Suk: Can the "practice" not happen now while one reads a post on the computer screen? If so, what is the cause? If you believe that this can't happen, what is your reason? When kusala actions through body, speech or mind occurs, can we not identify this as an instance of "doing good" or "avoiding evil"? === > Without practice, Buddhism is just a useless philosophy that may not even be higher than more modern and advanced western philosophy. Suk: The sasana does not only include patipatti and pativedha, but pariyatti as well. Better one single moment of pariyatti than a lifetime of miccha patipatti. === > > > Also, puggala (which is Anatta) is not denied. > > > > S: Puggalavadins are not followers of the Dhamma. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > How do you know? Maybe certain kinds of Theravada got it all wrong, and Puggalavadins (who I understand where anattavadins) got it right? Suk: Puggala is a concept. Taking it for reality can't come from an understanding about anatta. === > "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html > ============================== Suk: You cited the same Sutta above when making the point that "person" is only conventional. Now you use it to prove that puggala is real?! === > >S: If cause and effect between dhammas is understood to any extent, then development of understanding must be seen as happening over not just multiple, but countless lifetimes. Otherwise it does not make sense. > > > > > The suttas say that at least path of stream entry can occur in this life if one understands or believes in anicca. Suk: "If one understands". And this understanding is the result of accumulated understanding over countless lifetimes and just "believing in anicca" is certainly not sign of this. Tell me Alex, do you believe that the story regarding the Bodhisatta going through aeons of development before becoming a Perfectly Enlightened One is true? === > > > A good simile: Lets say that person keeps going up and down parallel to the goal which is to the right. A Person under mistaken understanding can go up and down for a long long time, but if that person had correct understanding, he could step to the right and reach the goal. > > > > > > > S: Wrong View is eradicated by the Path consciousness of the >Sotapanna. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: And this requires practice of right view. Suk: But the practice that the Buddha referred to, requires "long time hearing". === > >Alex:We can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha as historical >person even existed. > >================================================== > >S:Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at >the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special >kind of wisdom. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: Same could be said about, lets say, Jesus. Suk: You mean the Bible contains the teachings on the Four Noble Truths and therefore that "ignorance" is ignorance of these same Truths? === > >Alex: We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist that He was fully Awakened. > >============================================= > >S: You are not studying the Dhamma, but history. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > So you merely believe? Why not believe in Jesus? Suk: I don't study the bible because what it teaches is not the Four Noble Truths. But you say it does…..? But again, I study the Dhamma for what it teaches and not because I believe that the Buddha existed. === > >Alex: We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist >and that He was fully Awakened, that He didn't use skillful means. > >================================================ > >S:The Teachings are there for you and I to refer to. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: Which teachings? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? Suk: So you are admitting here that you have no reason to think that the Pali canon is correct. You think that it is possible that one or more of those other versions of the Buddha's teachings are? === > >S:The first step is pariyatti understanding or suttamaya panna. This >itself is ehipassiko and the basis for increased saddha. Without it >there can't be patipatti understanding or bhavanamaya panna. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > A: Which pariyatti? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? > Suk: What do you understand by pariyatti? And why do you dismiss what many of us have been telling you for so many years regarding its meaning? Metta, Sukin #128274 From: "sukinderpal narula" p.s my mother passed away but all is well here, for me. It is a holiday from work. Always me, me, me. Nothing/no one nearly as important as me, despite monents of believing otherwise. Actually even my father is doing well. With Alzheimer's the person you knew starts disapperaring well before the death citta arises, that helps understanding no matter how painful the disappearance process is. Sorry to hear about your mother's passing away. But it is good to see that you can give us good Dhamma reminders even in this situation. Metta, Sukin #128275 From: "sarah" wrote: > JJ: It is so true that panna is invaluable especially when one is in any kind of trouble. Trouble of kilesas. T.A. Sujin gave a simile that an ordinary person who is full of kilesas falls and traps in a deep canyon. The only way out is through climbing with a rope. Climbing with a rope is like developing of panna for the purpose of getting out of the canyon of kilesas. If we are keeping on climbing, at last we will eventually reach the edge. If we let go the rope, we eternity stay with trouble of kilesas. > ============= S: A good simile. It's so true that the only trouble in life is the trouble of kilesas. No lobha, dosa, moha, no trouble. It may seem like a long climb, but the only way is the development of panna. Thx for sharing from the Thai discussions, Jagkrit. Look forward to seeing you again soon. Also Phil, of course. Metta Sarah ==== #128276 From: han tun --------- with metta and respect, Han --- On Tue, 12/11/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Phil, N: Tanha is lobha cetasika but in the Dhammasangani, § 1059, we read that there are almost a hundred names for lobha, denoting the many aspects, intensities, objects that lobha can take. In the D.O. we read that tanhaa conditions upaadaana and upaadaana is stronger. Both of them are lobha cetasika, but they denote different aspects. #128277 From: Tam Bach T: I didn't ask the question to find out this or that is kusala or > akusala, but to understand the principle of how a vipaka citta is > determined as kusala or akusala, as it is not clear at all. I've > heard two differences answers to this: > 1. The one given by AS, which gives rise to this dilemma of the > Arahat's vipaka > 2. The one like in Jagkrit's comment, that the aramana is it-self > desirable or undesirable according to the common man's standard, > which gives rise to the dilemma of the rotten meat being found to > be desirable to an vulture, and undesirable to a human. > > I was just wondering if there was something I fail to grasp on this > issue ------ N: Before, we had discussions about this subject on dsg. Commentaries were quoted, and some said that the common man's standard determines whether an object is desirable or undesirable. Then the end conclusion was that the experience of a desirable object (note: the citta which experiences) is the result of kusala kamma and the experience of an undesirable object is the result of akusala kamma. Usually we think in terms of conventional language, like rotten meat, but we have to think of countless cittas arising and falling away and experiencing objects. For example, visible object, people may think of a pleasant or unpleasant thing, but in fact, when we define a thing, so many ruupas have arisen and fallen away already. Who could catch an infinitesimal tiny ruupa and tell whether it is pleasant and unpleasant? Moreover it has fallen away before one can think of it. We usually think of vipaaka and we believe that we know whether it is kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka, but it has fallen away already when we think of it with like or dislike. BTW, we should add vipaaka after kusala or akusala, otherwise there may be confusion as to what is meant. Nina. #128280 From: "sarah" T: AS said whether a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala, it depends on the kamma which has produced it. When it is kusala vipaka, it is pleasant and when it is akusala is unpleasant. ... S: Let's be clear that the vipaka citta is just that - vipaka citta. It is called kusala or akusala vipaka just because it's the result of kusala or akusala kamma respectively. Some vipaka cittas, such as seeing,hearing, smelling and tasting consciousness are only ever accompanied by neutral feeling, others, such as body consciousness are accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant (bodily) feeling, depending on the kamma that conditioned them. So it is not the vipaka that is pleasant or unpleasant, but the objects of the vipaka cittas which are pleasant or unpleasant. Seeing consciousness experiences pleasant/desirable or unpleasant/undesirable visible object, for example. ... >For example, two people being in the same air-con room, one finds the coolness pleasant and the other not. So for the first one, the coolness is the vipaka of kusala kamma, and for the second, it is vipaka of akusala kamma. (Please correct if I have understood wrongly!) .... S: The coolness in not vipaka. The bodily consciousness is vipaka and it depends on past kamma whether at that or this instant whether it experiences heat, coolness or any other tangible object. As Nina said, cittas pass away so quickly. When there is pleasant feeling, usually this is the pleasant feeling with attachment which follows the bodily (and other sense experiences) so quickly. As you suggest, we may all sit in the same air-con room and depending on past kamma, there are different kinds of vipaka, followed by different kinds of kusala and akusala for each. In reality, of course, no people, no room - just different kinds of cittas arising and falling away, experiencing different objects. ... > My question is, for an arahant, who still has pleasant and unpleasant bodily feeling, but no longer has pleasant and unpleasant mental feeling. How it is determined, for example, a specific seeing vipaka, hearing vipaka etc that arises is kusala or akusla? ... S: Let's be very clear that when we refer to pleasant and unpleasant bodily feelings that these are vedana, namas, just as the following pleasant and unpleasant feelings arising subsequently are. They are called bodily feelings just because they accompany body consciousness. I mention this as there was some confusion on this point when we visited. So in the arahat's case, there are the cittas experiencing tangible objects through the body-sense, accompanied by pleasant and unpleasant feelings. These are followed by other vipaka cittas in the sense door process and then experienced by kiriya cittas in that process and afterwards, kiriya cittas in the mind door process too. These kiriya cittas can be accompanied by neutral or pleasant feeling, but never by unpleasant feeling because dosa has been eradicated. You ask how it is determined as to whether the vipaka, such as seeing or hearing is kusala or akusala. Again, I'd like to stress that the vipaka itself is never kusala or akusala. It is the result of kusala or akusala kamma. So it is the kamma which is the determiner of what kind of vipaka arises now - whether for a worldling or an arahat or even the Buddha. It's a good topic that people have a lot of confusion about. They think that seeing a diamond is always kusala vipaka or smelling dung is always akusala vipaka, but this is just a conventional understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand that there are just different cittas experiencing different objects and we can't tell from the outer appearance or situation what kind of citta arises at this moment. What we know is that vipaka cittas are the result of kusala and akusala kamma and it is the kilesa (the attachment, aversion and ignorance) that arise on account of what is experienced that is the real problem, not the vipaka. Metta Sarah ====== #128281 From: Nina van Gorkom N: Thus, you will see, there are four jaatis (classes) of citta: kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. Kusala vipaaka and akusala vipaaka are just one jaati, the jaati which is vipaaka. They are just result. One jaati is enough. Now the Dispeller: it is explained about the common man: It is distinguishable according to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials... etc. It is explained: according to the average man's impulsion. Impulsion is the translation of javanacitta. These are either kusala or akusala. Those moments are not vipaaka. Then it is said; distinguishable according to result (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion. It is mentioned that through the perversion of perception (sa~n~naavipallaasa) lust and hate arise for the objects. ------ Nina. Thus, TT #128282 From: "truth_aerator" Suk: So "suffering is in the mind" is misleading, is it not? It is not. >================================================= >"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be >said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is >called the carrier of the burden. >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html >=================================================== >Suk: Yes, no persons, only conditioned namas and rupas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huh? Persons do exist. Carrier of a burden does exist. Only Atta does not, and this Atta has nothing to do with empiric, non-metaphysical person. >Suk:Can the "practice" not happen now while one reads a post on the >computer screen? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can, but to what extent and for whom? A young seedling needs protection from certain natural conditions elements, a mature tree can easily withstand those natural conditions. It is one thing to read Dhamma book and consider Dhamma when one is in quite room, it is much harder to do it while in busy and loud shopping mall. See the above metaphor about seedling and mature tree. >Suk: Puggala is a concept. Taking it for reality can't come from an >understanding about anatta. >>>>>>>>> Puggala is anatta. Even though cars and trees are concepts, it doesn't mean that one can easily drive a conceptual car through conceptual tree. Or have a conceptual dinner to satiate conceptual hunger. > Suk: You cited the same Sutta above when making the point that >"person" is only conventional. Now you use it to prove that puggala >is real?! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puggala is real and it is anatta. >Suk: "If one understands". And this understanding is the result of >accumulated understanding over countless lifetimes and just >"believing in anicca" is certainly not sign of this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the reason why it takes so long is because one is wasting one's time learning either useless or false information. In what scholars consider to be the earliest teachings we have, there is no teaching about Bodhisattvahood or needing to go through many lifetimes earning paramis. Maybe "lots of lifetimes of parami hunt" is to get to the position we ALREADY are. Now it is time to make the most of it. >Tell me Alex, do you believe that the story regarding the >Bodhisatta going through aeons of development before becoming a >Perfectly Enlightened One is true? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not believe this. It is not in the early suttas. > Suk: But the practice that the Buddha referred to, requires "long >time hearing". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How long? Few hours? Few days? Satipatthana promises results in as little as 7 days, which is actually quite long when compared to another sutta (MN85) that claims that good disciple can achieve Arhathood in 1 day (12 hours). > > >Alex:We can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha as historical >person even existed. > > >================================================== > > >S:Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at >the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special >kind of wisdom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > A: Same could be said about, lets say, Jesus. > > > Suk: You mean the Bible contains the teachings on the Four Noble >Truths and therefore that "ignorance" is ignorance of these same >Truths? > What I am saying if we use "This is authority, I believe him, thus the issue is settled" is no different from what many different religions say. Each religion believes that it has The Truth. > === > > >Alex: We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist that He was fully Awakened. > > >============================================= > > >S: You are not studying the Dhamma, but history. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > So you merely believe? Why not believe in Jesus? > > > Suk: I don't study the bible because what it teaches is not the >Four Noble Truths. But you say it does…..? >>>>>>>>>> And a Christian can say that they don't study the Dhamma because it is not work of God and doesn't teach about Jesus and his sacrifice that saved us all... :) >A: Which teachings? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? >Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Suk: So you are admitting here that you have no reason to think that >the Pali canon is correct. You think that it is possible that one or >more of those other versions of the Buddha's teachings are? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practical result is the final criterion of truth. If teaching doesn't produce results but excuses that "after billion of lives it will work", I have trouble accepting that. >Suk: What do you understand by pariyatti? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn to swim in theory, then practice it. Dry learning is useful only to the extend that one uses it to swim in water, not one's fantasies. With best wishes, Alex #128283 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. > > > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and > thinking > > another, does not accord with reality. > > > > > > > > Dear Herman > It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right? > In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' > (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga): > > "It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness > is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that > name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is > known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and > sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises > because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if > consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- > consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is > known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and > mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness." > > Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena > teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati > vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca > sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. > Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, > ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca > uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. > Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, > kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca > uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati > > The sutta continues: > > "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by > that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a > stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a > chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a > grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a > cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to > it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ... > " > robert > > Perhaps we are using the word thinking in different ways? "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." MN43 -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128285 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > >S: All dhammas arise by conditions. > > > > .... > > > S: How else could seeing now, visible object now, attachment now, > arise? > ... > >H: I agree that it is an interesting question. I wouldn't agree that it is > > > wholesomely answered by adopting a position of which there can be no > > certainty. > .... > S: With understanding there can be certainty. How could seeing arise now > without causes or conditions? > This is a rhetorical question based on an argument from incredulity - a logical fallacy. That you find it incredible that things could happen without causes or conditions in no way makes it false. But if you are so sure that seeing arises now because of causes and conditions, I invite you to please name them. Perhaps you could also say what makes you so certain that they are causes and conditions of seeing now. > It is only when there is atta belief that there is doubt. > ... > > Again, another logical fallacy - this one is a false dichotomy. You claim that seeing now is either caused/conditioned or there is atta view in there is false. On what basis do you reject the possibility of random events? > > > What we can be sure of is that thoughts about "all dhammas" are > necessarily > > speculative, because the only dhammas that are there are "these dhammas", > > or "this dhamma". > ... > S: So let's start with the dhamma, the reality that can be known now. > Attachment, annoyance now are realities. They have characteristics, they > can be known directly. Hardness, softness, pleasant feeling - all realities > that can be known when they appear. > Yes, indeed. > Just dhammas, no thing or self involved. > Now you deviate into conditionality as though that can be known in the same way as hardness or annoyance. But that is false. Unless you know all the conditions for the arising of a dhamma, then you are speaking from ignorance. > Some are namas that can experience an object, such as feeling or > attachment. Some are rupas which cannot experience anything, such as > hardness or softness. > See above. > ... > >H: If there is no understanding of what led to the arising > > > of "this dhamma" (that applies to all of us), why bother to make claims > > about dhammas that have not arisen? > ... > S: There can be a beginning of understanding now, starting with right > theory, pariyatti. Gradually, with more understanding, this becomes firmer > and leads to direct understanding. > > It is probably safer to refer to pariyatti as hypothesis, not theory. Theory has the distinction of being testable - and thoroughly tested. > So now, it can be understood that without visible object, there can be no > seeing. > Visible object is known directly. That requires no concepts, theory or pariyatti or understanding. What can be understood about seeing is that it requires thinking to arrive at a conception of it. You don't see seeing, you think it. > Without tangible object, there can be no bodily experience. > Bodily experience is thinking about tangible object. > Without the seeing of visible object or the touching of tangible object, > there can be no thinking about what's been experienced. > > Seeing, properly, is an explanation for visible object. Explanations are not known directly. They are inferred, they are arrived at and known by thought. > Right or wrong? > > It is all thinking, Sarah, and circular thinking at that. > Metta > > Sarah > p.s did you try listening to any of the Poland audio discussions? I think > you'd find them interesting. Lots of sceptical questions and good answers. > ==== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128286 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > There can be thinking with pleasant feeling or with unpleasant > feeling but understanding knows that it is only thinking. So, one > does not mind whether there is pleasant or unpleasant feeling, it > only arises with thinking. Thinking with pleasant feeling or with > unpleasant feeling falls away; so, it does not hurt anyone at all. > When thinking arises there is no me or another person, it is only > thinking. There may be pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling about > situations or people, but one does not mind thinking; one realizes > that thinking is thinking. One realizes that the story one thinks of > is not true, but that the thinking is real. It is our own thought. > The situation might not be as we think. > > > ***** S: Usually we attach a lot of importance to the feeling and to the story that's thought about, but it's just thinking at such moments. No one involved at all. <....> #128287 From: "jagkrit2012" N: I found the commentary: Dispeller of Delusion, I, Classification of > the aggregates, page 11. > it is explained about the common man: It is distinguishable according > to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials... etc. > > It is explained: according to the average man's impulsion. > > Impulsion is the translation of javanacitta. These are either kusala > or akusala. Those moments are not vipaaka. > > Then it is said; distinguishable according to result (vipaaka) only, > not according to impulsion. profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is > unprofitable result that has arisen.> > > It is mentioned that through the perversion of perception > (sa~n~naavipallaasa) lust and hate arise for the objects. JJ: I've found some explanation in the commentary of Thai Tipitika which I may extract and translate as follow: Commentary in Sutta Pitaka, Samyutta Nikaya, Sagatha Vagga, Panja Rajja Sutta, Book 1 session 1 When naming ittaarammaa.na (desirable) and anittaarammaa.na (undesirable), it is hard to differentiated but there should be the explanation. The great king can not be counted because he will not appreciate even very find and devine object or arammaa.na. The poor can not be counted because even bad seed of rice and rotten meat presents very delicious and supreme taste to him. The common person like a courtier, a wealthy person or a merchant can be considered because he will sometimes receive a desirable object and sometimes he receives an undesirable object. Desirable and undesirable object, however, can not be judged by javana citta. Javana citta indeed appreciates a desirable object but it, however, can also appreciate an undesirable object. Vipaaka citta experiences a desirable or an undesirable object without desirable or undesirable. When wrong view people see the Lord Buddha or monks, they will close their eyes. When they hear dhamma, they will close their ears. But that seeing and hearing is kusala vipaaka to them. Even, a pig love to smell and eat feces. Its seeing, smelling and tasting, however, must indeed be akusala vipaaka. JJ: I totally agree with the Dispeller Nina mention "Then it is said; distinguishable according to result (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen." thank you and anumodhana. Jagkrit #128288 From: "sarah" JJ: I've found some explanation in the commentary of Thai Tipitika which I may extract and translate as follow: > > Commentary in Sutta Pitaka, Samyutta Nikaya, Sagatha Vagga, Panja Rajja Sutta, Book 1 session 1 > > When naming ittaarammaa.na (desirable) and anittaarammaa.na (undesirable), it is hard to differentiated but there should be the explanation. > > The great king can not be counted because he will not appreciate even very find and devine object or arammaa.na. > > The poor can not be counted because even bad seed of rice and rotten meat presents very delicious and supreme taste to him. > > The common person like a courtier, a wealthy person or a merchant can be considered because he will sometimes receive a desirable object and sometimes he receives an undesirable object. > > Desirable and undesirable object, however, can not be judged by javana citta. > > Javana citta indeed appreciates a desirable object but it, however, can also appreciate an undesirable object. ... S: In other words, our judgment of what is a desirable or undesirable object is unreliable and cannot be the criterion. Because of citta and sanna vipallaasa and a lack of developed pa~n~naa, we have no idea and as Nina has said, it's a big mistake to try to determine whether a desirable or undesirable object is being experienced by vipaka cittas. They fall away far too quickly and it's impossible to know. ... > > Vipaaka citta experiences a desirable or an undesirable object without desirable or undesirable. > > When wrong view people see the Lord Buddha or monks, they will close their eyes. When they hear dhamma, they will close their ears. But that seeing and hearing is kusala vipaaka to them. .... S: Ajahn Sujin told me that seeing the Buddha was the one time we know there must be kusala vipaka. At other times, we cannot make a rule by judging the situation. ... > Even, a pig love to smell and eat feces. Its seeing, smelling and tasting, however, must indeed be akusala vipaaka. ... S: The point being that the kind of vipaka cannot be judged by the attachment that follows. Sa~n~naa vipallaasa. Many different vipaka cittas followed by many different kusala and usually, akusala cittas. We can generalise from "situations", but kamma is the only true determiner of whether desirable or undesirable objects are experienced. ... > JJ: I totally agree with the Dispeller Nina mention > > "Then it is said; distinguishable according to result (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen." .. S: Yes, this is really all we can say. It's so important to understand about realities, otherwise there are just long stories of good and bad kamma without any reference to these. Metta Sarah ====== #128289 From: "salaflowers" wrote: <...> > S: I think, as we discussed in Hanoi, that we have to carefully consider the meaning of each word. For example, "vipassana", what is it? What does it mean to "practice vipassana"? If there is not the direct understanding now of realities, such as seeing and visible object, can there be any understanding of the impermanence of realities? If there is not the understanding of these realities, isn't it always "I" who is practising or meditating or trying to be aware? <...> #128290 From: Tam Bach wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > H: Attempting to clarify a little more - what I am saying is that even > personality (which is I guess what you mean by accumulated tendencies) is > not sufficient to explain behaviour. There is a disconnect between the past > and the present - … > =============== J: I would say that what we call 'personality' is only a *partial* manifestation of the accumulated (and otherwise latent) tendencies. It is of course true in a general sense that "personality is not sufficient to explain behaviour", but it cannot be concluded from this that there is a disconnect between the past and the present; what it establishes is that there is no direct relationship between known accumulated tendencies (i.e., as previously manifested) and current action. Going back to my example of the person ('A') who reacts with anger to something said or done by another, it can be said that regardless of whether A's reaction is consistent with his (known) personality, it is the case that his reaction is the manifestation of accumulated (and otherwise latent) tendencies of dosa. Absent any such tendencies (i.e., the case of the being who has become enlightened to the appropriate stage) an angry reaction is not possible; for the rest it remains a possibility given the right circumstances. > =============== > H: ... if that was not the case, living the the holy life would be impossible. > =============== J: If by 'living the holy life' you mean the life of a member of the order of monks, then this is certainly not possible for all. It is only possible for those of certain disposition and level of accumulated understanding. If, however, you mean the development of the path, then to my understanding this is possible for any person who has heard the teachings that are unique to a Buddha, has understood sufficiently and has appropriately reflected upon what has been understood, regardless of the known 'personality'. > =============== > > J: When I said that the 3 `vatta' each supported the other, I meant that > > because of accumulated defilements there is bound to be attachment or > > aversion arising following sense-door experiences (which are vipaka) and > > such attachment or aversion is bound to lead to the commission of further > > akusala kamma, and so the cycle is perpetuated. > > H: Again, if I am bound to do things because I have done those things in the > past, then living the holy life is impossible. > > But the fact is, I am not bound to do anything. > =============== J: Correct, nobody is certain to do anything, in the sense of a specific predicted action. However, in those with abundant kilesas, attachment and aversion are certain to arise from time to time and, on occasion, to motivate the commission of akusala kamma patha. But again, while those accumulated kilesas could preclude properly living the life of an ordained monk, only strong wrong view can preclude the development of the path if there is opportunity to hear the true dhamma etc. Just going back to the 3 `vatta' which I think started this part of our exchange, I understand it to mean as follows: Where there are still abundant accumulated defilements there is going to be attachment or aversion arising from time to time following sense-door experiences (these being vipaka); such attachment or aversion will inevitably lead to the commission of further (unspecified) akusala kamma on occasion; and so the cycle of existence is continued. Jon #128292 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: In your original post you say that, according to neuroscience, 'only > > processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are represented in awareness' > > and that since 'most, if not all visual pre-processing occurs in neural > > pathways outside of the cerebral cortex' this means that 'those "seeing" > > processes are outside of awareness' that is to say, occur unconsciously. > > > > I don't see how this has any bearing on the teachings regarding: > > - seeing consciousness as consciousness arising at the eye-door that > > experiences visible object > > - mind-door consciousness as including processes of cittas that 'run > > through' the visible object so experienced by seeing consciousness. > > > > Could you explain further the perceived contradiction? Thanks. > > H: I doubt I correctly understand what you are asking for, but I'll have a > shot at answering, and we'll see where we end up. > > A healthy and awake person, with eyes open, will see and remember a photo > displayed to them. > > A person in deep sleep, if their eyes are manually opened, will not see or > remember an image displayed to them. > > What is my point? It is not the eye or eye-door that sees, it is the > cerebral cortex that sees. > =============== J: Thanks for the explanation. Of course, 'cerebral cortex' is by no means the necessary conclusion from the assumptions given :-)) As the teachings explain it, there is indeed a state of deep sleep in which there is no experiencing of objects (by consciousness) through any of the sense-doors: no seeing consciousness, no hearing consciousness, etc. At such times, the object of consciousness (bhavanga citta) is an object from the past. If the person remains in a deep sleep when his eyes are prized open, then seeing consciousness still does not arise. If on the other hand a light is shone and the person perceives light through still-closed eyelids, it is seeing consciousness that so perceives. > =============== > > J: The question, surely, is not whether you or I can tell the difference > > between moments of seeing and moments of thinking, but whether there is the > > possibility of there being 2 such kinds of consciousness each with a > > distinct inherent characteristic. > > > > > H: OK, let's run with the question in your form. > > What kind of seeing could occur at the eye-door, and on what basis would > you think this was possible? > =============== J: I'm not sure I understand the question, but here goes anyway :-)). If there is seeing now, it is seeing consciousness that is experiencing visible object (with many processes of thinking about the seen object in between the moments of seeing consciousness). That seeing consciousness arises at the eye-base so it is said to experience its object through the eye-door. Does this address the point raised? Jon #128293 From: Nina van Gorkom Everyday waking up, checking mail, reading some messages from DSG, > raising question if any comes, naturally. That's enough for me. > Here and now, not ready for Jan or anything else :) ------ N: That is very good what you are doing. I would say, keep on asking if something is not quite clear. Even if you keep on asking, it is very good, the way to understand more. Nina. #128294 From: "sukinderpal narula" Suk: So "suffering is in the mind" is misleading, is it not? Alex: It is not. Sukin: My response above was to this from your last post: Quote: >S:Are you saying that the First Noble Truth is reference to mental >suffering? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: All three types of sufferings: Dukkha-Dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara dukkha. Sankhara Dukkha is Dukkha inherent on all conditioned realities, therefore the case whether or not something is experienced. ==== >Suk: Yes, no persons, only conditioned namas and rupas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: Huh? Persons do exist. Carrier of a burden does exist. Only Atta does not, and this Atta has nothing to do with empiric, non-metaphysical person. Sukin: So you really believe in the reality of person? Again, this is from your last post: Quote: >S:And yes, lobha, dosa and moha are mental realities, but there is >no "person who can engage in harmful behavior to himself and >others". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Speaking conventionally, there is a person. There just isn't Atta. So "carrier of the burden" is just speaking conventionally or is it not? If a reality, through which doorway is it experienced and what is its characteristic and function? Is it a kusala, akusala or abhyakata dhamma? === >Suk:Can the "practice" not happen now while one reads a post on the >computer screen? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: It can, but to what extent and for whom? Sukin: This is irrelevant and distracting. The question is about causes and conditions for the arising of panna and not who does or does not have the panna. === Alex: A young seedling needs protection from certain natural conditions elements, a mature tree can easily withstand those natural conditions. Sukin: Panna needs to develop, not protected. It is "self" that looks for protection and projects in the name of right practice what is not. Panna of no matter what level is accompanied by a corresponding level of detachment. It is characteristic of this detachment that one does not mind what the present moment is. It is self that seeks to have more and therefore looks for a better time, place and activity. === Alex: It is one thing to read Dhamma book and consider Dhamma when one is in quite room, it is much harder to do it while in busy and loud shopping mall. See the above metaphor about seedling and mature tree. Sukin: The metaphor can be used by anyone, even a Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Hindu to justify a ritualistic practice. Indeed the Dhamma teaches us to see through this. In a quiet room the kilesas are still very much there to take on any object experienced through the senses or concepts which thinking thinks about. Driving a car does not involve objects more easy to attach to than does reading a book in the privacy of one's room. === >Suk: Puggala is a concept. Taking it for reality can't come from an >understanding about anatta. >>>>>>>>> Alex: Puggala is anatta. Sukin: And anicca and dukkha? What is the individual characteristic of puggala and what function does it perform? === Alex: Even though cars and trees are concepts, it doesn't mean that one can easily drive a conceptual car through conceptual tree. Or have a conceptual dinner to satiate conceptual hunger. Sukin: Car is a concept, so why do you qualify it further by stating "conceptual car"? You want to make it sound silly that we drive cars while thinking that it is not real, but you are the one who is being silly with wrong application of logic. Just as it is now when typing this mail, there is no belief that I, typing, computer screen or mail are real, but that what we take for them are in reality, conditioned and conditioning nama and rupa, same with when driving a car and eating to satisfy hunger. What is the problem? === > Suk: You cited the same Sutta above when making the point that >"person" is only conventional. Now you use it to prove that puggala >is real?! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: Puggala is real and it is anatta. Sukin: Right, so tell me more about it, like how it is anatta, anicca and dukkha. What jati is it? How is it known to exist etc.? === >Suk: "If one understands". And this understanding is the result of >accumulated understanding over countless lifetimes and just >"believing in anicca" is certainly not sign of this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: Maybe the reason why it takes so long is because one is wasting one's time learning either useless or false information. Sukin: Such as that, in reality there are only conditioned namas and rupas and all these are anatta? === Alex: In what scholars consider to be the earliest teachings we have, there is no teaching about Bodhisattvahood or needing to go through many lifetimes earning paramis. Sukin: So you do not believe in the concept of Bodhisatta…. === Alex: Maybe "lots of lifetimes of parami hunt" is to get to the position we ALREADY are. Now it is time to make the most of it. Sukin: See again, how you mischaracterize something in order to make your point. You talk about the accumulation of parami in the same way as you do about the need for deliberate practice, namely "hunt" vs. "make most of it". This is how the sasana becomes corrupted i.e. when self-view interprets the Dhamma and starts rejecting what does not fit its agenda. Wait a few years and I think that you will express doubt in kamma / vipaka as well. === >Tell me Alex, do you believe that the story regarding the >Bodhisatta going through aeons of development before becoming a >Perfectly Enlightened One is true? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: I do not believe this. It is not in the early suttas. Sukin: What else in the Pali canon do you reject at this point? === > Suk: But the practice that the Buddha referred to, requires "long >time hearing". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: How long? Few hours? Few days? Satipatthana promises results in as little as 7 days, which is actually quite long when compared to another sutta (MN85) that claims that good disciple can achieve Arhathood in 1 day (12 hours). Sukin: What is it that is lacking in *you*? Or have you actually attained….? Don't feel shy, just say it. ;-) === > > >S:Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at >the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special >kind of wisdom. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > A: Same could be said about, lets say, Jesus. > > > Suk: You mean the Bible contains the teachings on the Four Noble >Truths and therefore that "ignorance" is ignorance of these same >Truths? Alex: What I am saying if we use "This is authority, I believe him, thus the issue is settled" is no different from what many different religions say. Each religion believes that it has The Truth. Sukin: What in my previous statement re: "Buddha refers to the Awakened One. This can be understood even at the intellectual level, as being the end result of a very special kind of wisdom." was suggestive of reliance on authority? After so many years on DSG you still get the impression that we are all blind followers here? === > > So you merely believe? Why not believe in Jesus? > > > Suk: I don't study the bible because what it teaches is not the >Four Noble Truths. But you say it does…..? >>>>>>>>>> Alex: And a Christian can say that they don't study the Dhamma because it is not work of God and doesn't teach about Jesus and his sacrifice that saved us all... :) Sukin: So I just answered your question didn't I? Now you are creating yet another diversion by making it sound as if the question was about something else. === >A: Which teachings? Sarvastivadin? Puggalavadin? Sutrantika? >Yogacara? Chan? Zen? Tibetan (which lineage?) Theravadin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Suk: So you are admitting here that you have no reason to think that >the Pali canon is correct. You think that it is possible that one or >more of those other versions of the Buddha's teachings are? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: Practical result is the final criterion of truth. If teaching doesn't produce results but excuses that "after billion of lives it will work", I have trouble accepting that. Sukin: So I guess you'll find a more agreeable company amongst Sikhs for example. Sikhs express a similar idea regarding the need to attain union within this very life. They think that there is only this lifetime to do whatever needs to be done, because after death one is only dust. Besides they believe in soul and in God and you believe in puggala, and these two have the same roots. Practical results? Detachment is one indicator and I don't see this anywhere in what you say, rather the opposite. === >Suk: What do you understand by pariyatti? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: Learn to swim in theory, then practice it. Dry learning is useful only to the extend that one uses it to swim in water, not one's fantasies. Sukin: Please give a direct answer to my above question. Anyway, there are only dhammas now or at any other time. The perception that one activity is to be on dry land and another is to swim, one theory and the other practice, is due to not understanding that at any given moment, there are only dhammas. Intellectual understanding does not mistake itself for direct understanding. Rather, the belief that deliberate practice is equivalent to patipatti, it is this that is delusory. Metta, Sukin #128295 From: Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. ---------------------------- HCW: Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. --------------------------- > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128297 From: "truth_aerator" >Suk: So "suffering is in the mind" is misleading, is it not? > > Alex: It is not. > > Sukin: My response above was to this from your last post: > > Quote: > >S:Are you saying that the First Noble Truth is reference to mental >suffering? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: All three types of sufferings: Dukkha-Dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara dukkha. > >Sankhara Dukkha is Dukkha inherent on all conditioned realities, >therefore the case whether or not something is experienced. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suttas say that ""Whatever is felt comes under stress." - SN36.11. When one is fully unconscious, one cannot cognize anything, including suffering, stress, etc. The dukkha of unconscious state, as I understand it, is only in the sense that it is inconstant and one can come out of it and thus regain consciousness, feelings, and experience stress and suffering again. Any feeling or cognition is mental. Insentient rock doesn't experience anything. >Sukin: So you really believe in the reality of person? Again, this >is from your last post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course people, as conditioned phenomena, do exist. This is why you should avoid driving into a person, and when loved one dies, a person can experience lots of grief. If people didn't exist, we wouldn't grieve over death of loved one, and it would be impossible to drive into a person that doesn't exist. The only mode in which people don't exist is sukkha, nicca, atta. > > So "carrier of the burden" is just speaking conventionally or is it >not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conventional speaking is true, and in fact more realistic than so called "ultimate speech". We can't experience trillions of cittas occuring every split second and various other "how many angels fit on a point of a needle". We do experience people, cars, trees, plate with food, fork, knife, etc... Of course all these things are anicca, dukkha, anatta. >If a reality, through which doorway is it experienced All are experience only through ONE doorway, the brain. > >Suk:Can the "practice" not happen now while one reads a post on the >computer > screen? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Alex: It can, but to what extent and for whom? > >Sukin: This is irrelevant and distracting. The question is about >causes and conditions for the arising of panna and not who does or >does not have the panna. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Distraction is cause against panna for most most beginners. Panna of a wise worldling and Arahant is on totally different levels. What is almost insurmountable distraction for a worldling is nothing to an Arahant. > === >Alex: A young seedling needs protection from certain natural >conditions elements, a mature tree can easily withstand those >natural conditions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Sukin: Panna needs to develop, not protected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it will never develop if external elements prevent its development before it grew strong enough. If you are not yet good swimmer, you should jump strait into a very hard flowing water. You start with a swimming pool or some other safe place, and train from there. >It is "self" that looks for protection and projects in the name of >right practice what is not...It is self that seeks to have more and therefore looks for a better time, place and activity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So self does exist then? Because if it didn't then how could (non-existent self) look for protection? >Panna of no matter what level is accompanied by a corresponding >level of detachment. >>>>>>>>>>>> If detachment is weak, then not very strong blow of external conditions can easily stimulate kilesas. It is matter of degrees. >Sukin: The metaphor can be used by anyone, even a Muslim, >Christian, Sikh or Hindu to justify a ritualistic practice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I described is not ritualistic practice. >In a quiet room the kilesas are still very much there to take on any >object experienced through the senses or concepts which thinking >thinks about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but the key is TO A LESSER DEGREE. There are less external conditions for kilesas, thus they are temporary weaker, thus there is more chance for little seed of wisdom to develop. It is just like with planting a seed. At first it is weak and needs lots of care and protection. After it grew, which can take time, then it is more resistant to external circumstances. >Driving a car does not involve objects more easy to attach to than >does reading a book in the privacy of one's room. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your life or life other people is at stake, nothing to say about your or their cars. Of course there is possibility of MUCH MORE attachment when driving, as much more expensive and serious things are involved. If you are going to consider Dhamma when driving, then chance of accident is much higher. Considering Dhamma while sitting in your room is much safer. >Alex: Puggala is anatta. >Sukin: And anicca and dukkha? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and asubha. >What is the individual characteristic of puggala and what function >does it perform? >>>>>>>> Person is born, lives, and dies. Person can get sick, can get stronger or weaker, can learn this or that. Puggala can read or type this... > === >Alex: Even though cars and trees are concepts, it doesn't mean that >one can easily drive a conceptual car through conceptual tree. Or >have a conceptual dinner to satiate conceptual hunger. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Sukin: Car is a concept, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then jump under one... If concepts don't perform any function, there is no danger, right? Things occur and serve function. To deny that is wrong and potentially fatal. >You want to make it sound silly that we drive cars while thinking >that it is not real, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is silly to claim that they don't exist. They exist and serve function. They can be cause and effect. I believe that paramattha dhammas are concepts because it is not something invariably experienced. >This is how the sasana becomes corrupted i.e. when self-view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or when adopts a naive reductionist nihilistic view that Suttas reject also? >Sukin: What in my previous statement re: "Buddha refers to the >Awakened One. This can be understood even at the intellectual level, >as being the end result of a very special kind of wisdom." was >suggestive of reliance on authority? After so many years on DSG you >still get the impression that we are all blind followers here? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that, lets say, Jesus or Guru Nanak, or whoever, is not the Awakened one who is end result of a very special kind of wisdom? Practical result such as cessation of Dukkha is what matters. Truth needs to be experienced and analyzed. If some nihilistic theory contradicts daily life, then I question that theory. With best wishes, Alex #128298 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > It is of course true in a general sense that "personality is not sufficient to explain behaviour", but it cannot be concluded from this that there is a disconnect between the past and the present; what it establishes is that there is no direct relationship between known accumulated tendencies (i.e., as previously manifested) and current action. ... > Just going back to the 3 `vatta' which I think started this part of our exchange, I understand it to mean as follows: Where there are still abundant accumulated defilements there is going to be attachment or aversion arising from time to time following sense-door experiences (these being vipaka); such attachment or aversion will inevitably lead to the commission of further (unspecified) akusala kamma on occasion; and so the cycle of existence is continued. Thanks for this extremely clear and sensible post. I think it explains our basic situation in a common-sense way that is very accessible. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128300 From: "Robert E" > Hi, Herman - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. > ---------------------------- > HCW: > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > --------------------------- The availability of the codeine and the experience of taking it may also be vipaka. Kamma could lead one to be in extreme pain with no codeine available. That would also be vipaka. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - AdChoices #128301 From: "philip" Alex, we don't grieve because people exist, we grieve because >of >lobha related to ideas about people. >>>>>>>> If we didn't experience existence of people, then there would be no lobha. >I think beings do have existence but there can only be experience of >people as xoncepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People and things do exist, but in a mode of anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta. People and things that are nicca, sukkha, atta do not exist. With best wishes, Alex #128303 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi, Herman - > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. > ---------------------------- > HCW: > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > --------------------------- > I may be totally off the mark here, but it was my distinct impression that pleasant feeling is held to be the result of kusala kamma. I would think it a bit of a long bow to suggest that the effects of codeine are kamma related, at all. > > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128304 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Howard, Herman and all. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Herman - > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > > > > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > > > > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > > > > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > > > > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > > --------------------------- > > The availability of the codeine and the experience of taking it may also > be vipaka. Kamma could lead one to be in extreme pain with no codeine > available. That would also be vipaka. > > Sorry Rob, I meant to include you in my reply to Howard. > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128305 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: It is of course true in a general sense that "personality is not sufficient to explain behaviour", but it cannot be concluded from this that there is a disconnect between the past and the present; what it establishes is that there is no direct relationship between known accumulated tendencies (i.e., as previously manifested) and current action. > > ... > > > Just going back to the 3 `vatta' which I think started this part of our exchange, I understand it to mean as follows: Where there are still abundant accumulated defilements there is going to be attachment or aversion arising from time to time following sense-door experiences (these being vipaka); such attachment or aversion will inevitably lead to the commission of further (unspecified) akusala kamma on occasion; and so the cycle of existence is continued. > > RE: Thanks for this extremely clear and sensible post. I think it explains our basic situation in a common-sense way that is very accessible. > =============== J: Thanks, and glad you appreciate it. Of course, all credit for the fundamental view/information being conveyed must go to the Buddha. And credit for any clarity and accessibility (i.e., mode of expression) must, I feel, go to Herman for obliging me to refine the original version a number of times to meet his comments/disagreements :-)) Jon #128306 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > On 13 December 2012 23:38, wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi, Herman - > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > > > > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > > > > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > > > > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > > > > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > > --------------------------- J: In addition to Howard's comment, I'd like to suggest that if the same set of facts (dental pain, codeine ingestion) was repeated a number of times and with different subjects there would be a considerable variation in the nature and degree of the 'resulting' sensation. So no absolute rule. > =============== H: I may be totally off the mark here, but it was my distinct impression that > pleasant feeling is held to be the result of kusala kamma. > =============== J: The experience of pleasant object through the body-sense is said to be the result of kusala kamma (and is accompanied by pleasant feeling). For example, a cool drink on a hot day is, as regards the temperature rupa that is involved, kusala vipaka and will be accompanied by pleasant feeling. > =============== > H: I would think it a bit of a long bow to suggest that the effects of codeine > are kamma related, at all. > =============== J: Kamma/vipaka has to be considered in terms of namas and rupas rather than of conventional objects. Jon #128307 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > On 13 December 2012 23:38, wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi, Herman - > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Last weekend my cheek blew up like a balloon. I was in much pain. > > > > > > On Monday, the dentist pulled out a molar. I was in much pain. > > > > > > Later that afternoon, unwilling to bear the pain, I took some codeine. > > > > > > Soon I was bathed in pleasant sensations. > > > > > > Apparently, codeine influences vipaka. > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > > --------------------------- > > > > I may be totally off the mark here, but it was my distinct impression that > pleasant feeling is held to be the result of kusala kamma. --------------------------------- HCW: My understanding too, but vipaka requires supporting conditions in addition to the kamma as precondition. --------------------------------- > > I would think it a bit of a long bow to suggest that the effects of codeine > are kamma related, at all. > > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > Seamless Interdependence > > > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > > > (Anonymous) > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128309 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Alex, All, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" > wrote: > > > > Hi Sukin, all, > > > > >S:What do you mean by "Suffering is in the mind"? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > That only mind/consciousness can experience negative emotions and bodily > pain. > > > > In another context, by suffering is in the mind, I mean emotional > suffering due to kilesas as opposed to mere bodily pain that even the > Buddha can have. > > > --- > > Sorry to intrude.. > > I think a great example to elucidate what is occurring, regarding this > point, is the phenomenon of the "Phantom Limb". > > Many people who have their legs, arms or other body parts amputated or > removed have what are called 'phantom' sensations, as though their limbs > still existed. Mostly it is pain that they experience. "Approximately 60 to > 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in > their amputated limb.." > > Excerpt from article: "A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated > or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the > body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.[1][2][3] > Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience > phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the > sensations are painful.[4] Phantom sensations may also occur after the > removal of body parts other than the limbs, e.g. after amputation of the > breast, extraction of a tooth (phantom tooth pain) or removal of an eye > (phantom eye syndrome). The missing limb often feels shorter and may feel > as if it is in a distorted and painful position... > > Although not all phantom limbs are painful, > > *** patients will sometimes feel as if they are gesturing, feel itches, > twitch, or even try to pick things up.*** > > For example, Ramachandran and Blakeslee describe that some people's > representations of their limbs do not actually match what they should be, > for example, one patient reported that her phantom arm was about "6 inches > too short"." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb > > --- > > I think we can deduce from this experience that all perceptions and > sensations occur in the "mind", even 'mere bodily pain' as Alex mentions. > > Nori > > (Incidentally, Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran found a cure to Phantom Limb > pain using a simple mirror: > > "His next subject, Jimmy, felt that his phantom hand was always > agonisingly clenched, with his phantom fingernails digging into his missing > hand. > > Ramachandran put a mirror between Jimmy's arms and asked him to move both > his phantom and healthy limb simultaneously, while looking at the > reflection of the healthy limb - effectively fooling Jimmy's brain into > thinking his phantom was moving in a normal way. > > Jimmy felt his clenched fist release almost immediately. > > "This is because you are creating intense sensory conflict - the vision is > telling you the limb is moving," Ramachandran explains. > > "One way the brain deals with conflict is to say, 'To hell with it! There > is no arm,' and the arm disappears. > > "I tell my medical colleagues that it is the first example in the history > of medicine of successful amputation of a phantom limb." > > ... > > In 2007, an army medic in the US Dr Jack Tsao, performed a controlled test > on 22 amputees with remarkable results. All those using the mirror reported > a reduction in pain over four weeks, those using a control reported no > result or increased pain. > > At the UK army's rehabilitation centre, Hedley Court, mirror therapy has > also been used for the past four years to help amputee soldiers to manage > phantom pain. > > "Prosthesis-wearing is key," says army physiotherapist Major Pete > LeFeuvre. Those who wait longer for a fake limb seem to suffer more from > phantom pain. This suggests it is the visual feedback of seeing an arm > rather than the feedback from nerves within it that stops the brain getting > confused. ... " > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15938103 > I thought this was a very useful post. Thank you. Sometimes there is confusion between homunculus views (a little man that controls) and the very real cortical homunculus (the various representations of the body in the brain). When a limb is severed, the limb is gone, but not it's representation in the brain - and as pain is "made: in the brain, hence there is the possibility of pain in a limb that is not there. > __._, > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128310 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Living alone in the Texas Hill Country or with friends in Havertown, PA > USA, it is the same mentally... it is all Dhamma... > > Drowning in sensations in the Hill Country or in Havertown would indeed be the same. Not drowning in sensations in either place would also be the same. However, the belief that it makes no difference to the possibility of not drowning, regardless of whether one is surrounded by friends or not, is quite mistaken. > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128311 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > (128247) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > H: Attempting to clarify a little more - what I am saying is that even > > > personality (which is I guess what you mean by accumulated tendencies) is > > not sufficient to explain behaviour. There is a disconnect between the > past > > and the present - … > > =============== > > J: I would say that what we call 'personality' is only a *partial* > manifestation of the accumulated (and otherwise latent) tendencies. > > It is of course true in a general sense that "personality is not > sufficient to explain behaviour", but it cannot be concluded from this that > there is a disconnect between the past and the present; what it establishes > is that there is no direct relationship between known accumulated > tendencies (i.e., as previously manifested) and current action. > > Going back to my example of the person ('A') who reacts with anger to > something said or done by another, it can be said that regardless of > whether A's reaction is consistent with his (known) personality, it is the > case that his reaction is the manifestation of accumulated (and otherwise > latent) tendencies of dosa. Absent any such tendencies (i.e., the case of > the being who has become enlightened to the appropriate stage) an angry > reaction is not possible; for the rest it remains a possibility given the > right circumstances. > > > =============== > > H: ... if that was not the case, living the the holy life would be > impossible. > > =============== > > J: If by 'living the holy life' you mean the life of a member of the order > of monks, then this is certainly not possible for all. It is only possible > for those of certain disposition and level of accumulated understanding. > > If, however, you mean the development of the path, then to my > understanding this is possible for any person who has heard the teachings > that are unique to a Buddha, has understood sufficiently and has > appropriately reflected upon what has been understood, regardless of the > known 'personality'. > > > =============== > > > J: When I said that the 3 `vatta' each supported the other, I meant > that > > > > because of accumulated defilements there is bound to be attachment or > > > aversion arising following sense-door experiences (which are vipaka) > and > > > such attachment or aversion is bound to lead to the commission of > further > > > akusala kamma, and so the cycle is perpetuated. > > > > H: Again, if I am bound to do things because I have done those things in > the > > > past, then living the holy life is impossible. > > > > But the fact is, I am not bound to do anything. > > =============== > > J: Correct, nobody is certain to do anything, in the sense of a specific > predicted action. However, in those with abundant kilesas, attachment and > aversion are certain to arise from time to time and, on occasion, to > motivate the commission of akusala kamma patha. > > But again, while those accumulated kilesas could preclude properly living > the life of an ordained monk, only strong wrong view can preclude the > development of the path if there is opportunity to hear the true dhamma etc. > > Just going back to the 3 `vatta' which I think started this part of our > exchange, I understand it to mean as follows: Where there are still > abundant accumulated defilements there is going to be attachment or > aversion arising from time to time following sense-door experiences (these > being vipaka); such attachment or aversion will inevitably lead to the > commission of further (unspecified) akusala kamma on occasion; and so the > cycle of existence is continued. > > Jon > Like RobE, I appreciate this post muchly. Thanks also for your very kind acknowledgements :-) > _ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128312 From: "Robert E" wrote: > Sorry Rob, I meant to include you in my reply to Howard. Thanks! No problem... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128313 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > HCW: > > Why would it not? Surely vipaka doesn't have kamma alone as precondition. > > --------------------------- > > > > I may be totally off the mark here, but it was my distinct impression that > pleasant feeling is held to be the result of kusala kamma. > > I would think it a bit of a long bow to suggest that the effects of codeine > are kamma related, at all. I may be covering ground already partially covered, but a couple of points. 1. Is there any scriptural material that would clarify the exclusivity of vipaka to influence of kamma? Since it is called "kamma vipaka" my assumption is that whatever is correctly called vipaka is the direct [though delayed] result of kamma. It may be that certain conditions are necessary for the kamma to be realized as vipaka, but those conditions would be supporting conditions and not causal. 2. I'd also like to clarify to what extent conditions can be seen as caused by kamma. Since part of vipaka is personal appearance, health, what kind of circumstances you are born into, it seems very possible that the availability of codeine - something that allows you to have a certain pleasant or helpful experience under duress - could be caused by kamma as well. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128314 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > (128248) > > > What kind of seeing could occur at the eye-door, and on what basis would > > you think this was possible? > > =============== > > J: I'm not sure I understand the question, but here goes anyway :-)). > > If there is seeing now, it is seeing consciousness that is experiencing > visible object (with many processes of thinking about the seen object in > between the moments of seeing consciousness). > > That seeing consciousness arises at the eye-base so it is said to > experience its object through the eye-door. > > Does this address the point raised? > > Yes, it helps. Thanks. But more directly, what is visible object (like)? And to follow up, what, if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door? > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128315 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > RE: Thanks for this extremely clear and sensible post. I think it explains our basic situation in a common-sense way that is very accessible. > > =============== > > J: Thanks, and glad you appreciate it. > > Of course, all credit for the fundamental view/information being conveyed must go to the Buddha. And credit for any clarity and accessibility (i.e., mode of expression) must, I feel, go to Herman for obliging me to refine the original version a number of times to meet his comments/disagreements :-)) Well, I think that's a pretty good demonstration of the "nature of the Sangha" - that is, in general terms, not the monastic Sangha. Through thrashing out and communicating the understanding of the Dhamma, it becomes clarified and everyone comes out of it a little smarter. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128316 From: "truth_aerator" RE: Is there any scriptural material that would clarify the >exclusivity of vipaka to influence of kamma? Since it is called >"kamma vipaka" my assumption is that whatever is correctly called >vipaka is the direct [though delayed] result of kamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is interesting Sivaka sutta. "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html#fnt-2 Note that kamma is one of many conditions. With best wishes, Alex #128317 From: "azita" -------- > N: Tanha is lobha cetasika but in the Dhammasangani, § 1059, we read > that there are almost a hundred names for lobha, denoting the many > aspects, intensities, objects that lobha can take. In the D.O. we > read that tanhaa conditions upaadaana and upaadaana is stronger. Both > of them are lobha cetasika, but they denote different aspects. > Vusuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 242. > < Text Vis.: 'Firmness of craving' is a name for the subsequent > craving itself, which has become firm by the influence of previous > craving, which acts as its decisive-support condition. But some have > said: Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet > reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the > dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, > like the thief's grasping his objective. > ------- > N: The Tiika explains that craving, tanhaa, as aspiring to an object > that one has not yet reached, is like excitement or trembling > (paritassana). Clinging is firm grasping. > ---------- > Text Vis.: These states oppose fewness of wishes and contentment and > so they are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding > (see D.ii,58f.). The remaining three kinds of clinging are in brief > simply [false] view. > ------- > N: According to the Tiika, tanhaa, craving, is opposed to fewness of > wishes, whereas clinging is opposed to contentment, santu.t.thi. > Craving is the root of suffering due to searching for what one wants, > and clinging is the root of suffering since one has to protect what > one has acquired. > azita: these descriptions of tanha are wonderful. When one sees something that one likes e.g. tasty food, nice clothes, good books, craving is there immediately and it certainly doesn't feel like contentment!!!! It feels like sticky glue ready to stick to anything. patience, courage and good cheer azita #128318 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hello RobertE, Herman, Howard, all, > > >RE: Is there any scriptural material that would clarify the >exclusivity > of vipaka to influence of kamma? Since it is called >"kamma vipaka" my > assumption is that whatever is correctly called >vipaka is the direct > [though delayed] result of kamma. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is interesting Sivaka sutta. > > "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on > internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the > change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh > treatment... from the result of kamma. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html#fnt-2 > > Note that kamma is one of many conditions. > > Very interesting, indeed. And very relevant. A comprehensive answer for all my questions :-) With best wishes, > > Alex > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128319 From: "philip" wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman (and Howard) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > On 13 December 2012 23:38, wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Hi, Herman - > > > > > > =============== > > H: I would think it a bit of a long bow to suggest that the effects of > codeine > > > are kamma related, at all. > > =============== > > J: Kamma/vipaka has to be considered in terms of namas and rupas rather > than of conventional objects. > > I agree :-) 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress. AN3:99 > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128321 From: Nina van Gorkom p.s the grief that wasn't there in the days following my mother's > death struck hard after I got back to Japan, you never know. I find > the mustard seed story is more helpful than reflection on death in > single citta terms. How are you doing these days, Nina? ------ N: Yes, my thoughts went also very often to the mustard seed story, death and separation are so common. I read Lodewijk's diaries and he wrote (1959) that he had bought in Calcutta short storis by Rabindranath Tagore. I found them and read: <...he reflected philosophically that in life there are many separations, many deaths. What point was there in going back? Who belonged to whom in this world?...We cling with both arms to false hope, refusing to believe the weightiest proofs against it, embracing it with all our strength. In the end it escapes, ripping our veins and draining our heart's blood; until, regaining consciousness, we rush to fall into snares of delusion all over again.> But thinking of stories makes me very sad, like: he never comes back, gone for good. This is also said of citta, and it is so true. Each single citta never, never returns. When people ask how are you doing I answer that it depends on the moment. I would rather have it that nobody asks, no stories, than I feel O.K. Nina. #128322 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I am glad that I made you laugh. It is said that the laughter is a kind of medicine. > > Lately, I could not laugh. I am extremely worried about one of my grandchildren. > > A friend tells me that I am like a man who is in the middle of the river, about to be drowned, but who is worried about someone of drowning; someone who is on the bank far away from the water! ... S: I'm so sorry to hear about your worry about your grandchild. More beloved ones, more worries, life after life. Without the Dhamma, we are completely lost, but with the Dhamma, we find there is a refuge, the only refuge, by developing the Path. Best wishes to you and your grandchild and family, dear Friend. Metta Sarah ===== #128324 From: "sarah" wrote: > Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, then look > > away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see the red ball & > > blue chair? Or, more accurately, how do you account for the fact that the > > things we see change but the fact of seeing & being able to see doesn't > > change (as quickly, that is)? > > > > >H: These are leading questions. Once you understand how they are leading > question, then you will understand how the whole Theravadan enterprise of > the strictly distinguishable namas and rupas dichotomy thingo are also just > leading questions - in other words a view. .... S: Do you believe the Buddha taught about " strictly distinguishable namas and rupas" just to give some "leading questions - in other words a view?" Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction really not be known? Metta Sarah ===== #128325 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can > > > light a fire..... > > .... > > S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and > > no fire, just conditioned realities or elements. ... >H: This is another self-refuting statement. ..... > What is an illusion, Sarah? And how do you tell illusion and non-illusion > apart? ... S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire. Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts. The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality. Metta Sarah ===== #128326 From: "sarah" wrote: > pt: I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about "seeing now" terribly confusing. Since even such basic insight (panna) is missing, the whole premise that dhammas are true (or not) is a non-issue. I can't confirm nor deny. Hence, I conclude I must be here to learn about an interpretation/description, i.e. "What do you say is the world?" and not about "What is the world?"... Well this sucks. I didn't expect that would be the conclusion. ... S: When it "sucks", it is just thinking, aversion, doubt and other realities - can't these be known? However we refer to seeing of the visible and that which is seen, can't it be known that they are not the same? The first experiences the object like now and the second is that which is seen. It may just be thinking about such realities - those that experience and those that don't, no self involved, but this is right basic understanding. We're so used to thinking about people and things and taking them for real that we need to hear a lot of reminders to really get used to understanding that there are only different realities. There can be the confirmation now that this is "the world" - just moments of experiencing the visible, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects, thinking about them. Never mind the words or the details, but isn't it correct now that there are just moments of experiencing objects and those objects experienced? Not the same at all. Seeing can never be visible object - 2 distinct realities. Let's discuss this further as it's such an important topic. Metta Sarah p.s I also suggested in my other note that you take some of the recent recordings with you on your trip to listen to on flights and so on. ===== #128327 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas. > > pt: Well, yes, so if we're talking about dhammas, then instead of control we should be saying ditthi, I think. That's a dhamma, whereas control can have any number of invested meanings. ... S: When there is an idea that we have control in life, it is ditthi. It's a way of explaining a kind of atta-view. There are different kinds of ditthi. The Buddha elaborated and explained these using many different kinds of words. We can read or hear anything with right or wrong view. ... > pt: As a new internet buddhist, I wasn't familiar with dhammas, but I was intimately familiar with control. Consequently, it seemed like an important realisation that what seems like an apparent control to me is in fact just ditthi. A dhamma. And conditioned at that. On the other hand, the expression that dhammas cannot be controlled always seemed to miss that point. But I guess it speaks differently to different people. ... S: Dhammas cannot be controlled because they are conditioned and there is no one to exert any control. I think it is the ignorance and wrong view that is the problem, rather than the wording. For example, we can read different translations of suttas inc TB's with or without any misunderstanding. We can read newspaper reports or anything with or without wrong understanding too .... > > S: Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development? > > pt: Yes. ... S: !! ... > > S: If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?" > > pt: Thanks, hence I feel the validity of the conclusion that without powers, our "conscious attempts" to (have) insight (into) something (right now) is basically just ditthi (right now). (In other words, apparent control at this point is akusala.) ... S: And with these balas, powers, there would be no "conscious attempts" to have insight or any other realities arise because there is the clear understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta. Even for the Buddha, whatever arose was by conditions. ... > > > > S: If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now? > > pt: I was more wondering about pre-jhana development of samatha. I mean, I assume powers must be developed before jhana can actually happen. Further I assume that it has to do with more than just wishing not to see, etc. I mean, if there are no powers, then this wish would be akusala, I assume. ... S: Of course - any wishing for anything to arise is akusala. Even for those with highly developed samatha, non-attachment to seeing does not occur by wishing, but by the development of panna. It always comes back to panna - whether we are talking about the development of samatha or satipatthana. ... > > S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm. > > pt: Ok, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's outside of sasana and there's no knowledge of dhammas, so how would bhavana (pre-jhana, non-sila, non-dana, non-insight) occur? ... S: Like now, through the wise consideration of objects that can bring calm. For example, even without any understanding of realities, there can be wise or unwise consideration about death, about kindness to others, about colour, about breath, about generosity. Of course, occasional moments of wise consideration with calm cannot be considered as bhavana - they are just occasional moments of kusala. In order to be bhavana, it is to be a habit, a development of such wise consideration. Would we like to have more such wise consideration, more such calm? Is that our reason for wishing to know? In that case, it's bound to be attachment, not detachment. .. > Thanks for the discussion. ... S: Always a pleasure, Pt. You always raise good points and topics which help me and others too, I'm sure. metta Sarah ==== #128328 From: Nina van Gorkom p.s I also suggested in my other note that you take some of the > recent recordings with you on your trip to listen to on flights and > so on. ----- N: Yes, especially Poland with many explanations about seeing right now, and, it is not in the book. ----- Nina. #128329 From: Nina van Gorkom AdChoices #128331 From: "philip" ------ > N: Yes, my thoughts went also very often to the mustard seed story, > death and separation are so common. And I like the mustard seed story because it gets at the more common issue, which is the lobha dosa moha of the bereaved person (remedied by the Buddha's wise advice) of the surviving person, rather than the deeper meaning of death as just one citta, like now. (Which is also true but of such a profound depth that it can, in my opinion, only be appreciated properly in rare moments of understanding that come and go.) > When people ask how are you doing I answer that it depends on the > moment. I would rather have it that nobody asks, no stories, than I I think it depends on the way people ask, it would also be upsetting if nobody asked, I think. I'm sure many people ask having already decided that you are miserable, and no matter how you answer, there will be that assumption that you are miserable. But a Dhamma friend or a friend who is wise in other ways can ask with curiosity and respect for your wisdom and with understanding that feelings come and go, moment by momemnt, and should not be assumed. Phil #128332 From: "sarah" wrote: > Can the study of psychology condition pariyatti understanding? No, because only a teaching on the nature of present moment realities can. And one reason for this is because realities are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Psychology is based on atta and presupposes something lasting in time to which one can return in order to examine. The Dhamma tells us otherwise from the very beginning. ... Great to see you posting again and appreciating your discussions with Alex. Metta Sarah ===== #128333 From: Nina van Gorkom And I like the mustard seed story because it gets at the more > common issue, which is the lobha dosa moha of the bereaved person > (remedied by the Buddha's wise advice) of the surviving person, > rather than the deeper meaning of death as just one citta, like > now. (Which is also true but of such a profound depth that it can, > in my opinion, only be appreciated properly in rare moments of > understanding that come and go.) > ------- N: The Buddha also taught the way leading to liberation from dukkha, that is, liberation from arising and passing away of each conditioned reality. Even though it seems a simple advice we are reading in a sutta, still, we have to see this in the whole context of the Tipitaka, otherwise the true meaning will escape us all the time. For a moment consoling words will help us, but if they do not go to the root, they are not really effective. Death of each citta, yes, difficult to realize so long as one has not reached the stage of insight which is direct understanding of the arising and falling away of one naama and one ruupa at a time. It is best to begin now to learn the nature of naama and ruupa, knowing their different characteristics. We do not know whether we are still in the human plane where we can listen to Dhamma, tomorrow, today, the next moment. Death can come so quickly, beyond control. Before we know we are gone. -------- > > > When people ask how are you doing I answer that it depends on the > > moment. I would rather have it that nobody asks, no stories, than I > > Ph: I think it depends on the way people ask, it would also be > upsetting if nobody asked, I think. I'm sure many people ask having > already decided that you are miserable, and no matter how you > answer, there will be that assumption that you are miserable. But a > Dhamma friend or a friend who is wise in other ways can ask with > curiosity and respect for your wisdom and with understanding that > feelings come and go, moment by momemnt, and should not be assumed. > ------- N: I know they mean well. I should not mind so much. It is not in the Thai culture to ask much, like, how is your mother, how is your aunt, etc. I feel well in the Thai culture. Feelings change all the time. I had a musical session with my nephews (accompanying the recorder and cello on the clavecymbel) and I felt happy continuing to do what Lodewijk used to do. I could laugh again. Laughing and crying. They are only dhammas, but, to realize this at the moment? I am really forgetful and obviously haven't listened enough. Listening and considering is never enough. ------ Nina. #128334 From: "philip" I could laugh again. > Laughing and crying. They are only dhammas, but, to realize this at > the moment? I am really forgetful and obviously haven't listened > enough. Listening and considering is never enough. Indeed. When we listen to reminders about the present reality it seems so clear, then we are swept away again and again. But that is the way it has to be, if there is an idea of consistent mindfulness, it is lobha, with an idea of self that is in control. Perhaps this will be my last message for awhile. Also very sorry to say that I had to advise Sarah and Sukin that I won't be able to make the trip to Thailand, the sudden trip to Canada, and another trip to see my father before long, with Naomi, this time. She hasn't seen him for a few years now. That will have to take precedence. I was looking forward to meeting you. Hopefully in 2014! With respect and gratitude, Phil #128335 From: Nina van Gorkom It seems to have a thin line between determination with self and > determination without self which is perfection. How can we > understand clearly on this distinction and not misunderstand one > from another? ------- N: Perhaps the clue is in the last sentence; When the perfections are developed together with satipatthaana we learn to see them as only a dhamma. But this is not so easy. We are inclined to think of "my determination". Even that kind of thinking is only a dhamma. We accumulated the wrong kind of thinking already for aeons, how could we unlearn this quickly? Acharn warned us not to think, I have to develop the perfections, but rather: accumulate all kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind, then the perfections are being developed. We do not have to think of the perfections. ----- Nina. #128338 From: Nina van Gorkom > I could laugh again. > > Laughing and crying. They are only dhammas, but, to realize this at > > the moment? I am really forgetful and obviously haven't listened > > enough. Listening and considering is never enough. > > Indeed. When we listen to reminders about the present reality it > seems so clear, then we are swept away again and again. But that is > the way it has to be, if there is an idea of consistent > mindfulness, it is lobha, with an idea of self that is in control. > > Perhaps this will be my last message for awhile. Also very sorry to > say that I had to advise Sarah and Sukin that I won't be able to > make the trip to Thailand, > ------ N: We never know what will happen and understandable that because of circumstances you cannot make the trip. I do not know about 2014, can I still walk around and travel? Nina. #128339 From: Herman wrote: > Dear Herman (& Josh), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, then look > > > away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see the red ball & > > > blue chair? Or, more accurately, how do you account for the fact that the > > > things we see change but the fact of seeing & being able to see doesn't > > > change (as quickly, that is)? > > > > > > > > >H: These are leading questions. Once you understand how they are leading > > question, then you will understand how the whole Theravadan enterprise of > > the strictly distinguishable namas and rupas dichotomy thingo are also just > > leading questions - in other words a view. > .... > S: Do you believe the Buddha taught about " strictly distinguishable namas and rupas" just to give some "leading questions - in other words a view?" > > Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction really not be known? > Hearing is the collective term for all the conditions that give sound. We know the difference because we know sound, but not all the conditions for it arising. I don't believe that the Buddha taught that we need to know all the conditions that give rise to hearing of sound in order to end suffering. He was an ethicist, not a scientist. As experience, sound and all the conditions that make it arise are equivalent. In other words, as experience, sound and hearing it are two sides of the one coin. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > Cheers Herman > #128340 From: Herman wrote: Hi Sarah, > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can > > > > light a fire..... > > > .... > > > S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and > > > no fire, just conditioned realities or elements. > ... > >H: This is another self-refuting statement. ..... > > > What is an illusion, Sarah? And how do you tell illusion and non-illusion > > apart? > ... > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire. > > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts. > You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is called solipsism. > > The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality. > I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such an illusion about reality > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > #128341 From: "jagkrit2012" N: Perhaps the clue is in the last sentence; mindfulness of the > nåma or rúpa which appears now we actually accumulate the perfection > of determination, aditthåna, without there being the need to think, > "I have to develop determination".> > When the perfections are developed together with satipatthaana we > learn to see them as only a dhamma. But this is not so easy. We are > inclined to think of "my determination". JJ: Thank you very much for your pinpoint . When discussing about perfection of determination or aditthana, we understand that there must be the development without self because all perfections are about abandoning all kind of akusala. Especially, perfections with satipatthanna with mindfulness of naama and rupa always be selfless because this is very high level of development. But for us who are studying dhamma in the level of Pariyatti, determination shall be understood clearly. For me, for example, when I study about determination of which there are 4 kinds in sutta : determination to truthfulness, relinquishment, wisdom (panna) and tranquility (upasamaa). I, always, feel that I shall develop those 4 determinations. Determinations of myself. Like conventional life, on New Year which is coming soon, people make New Year resolution. People determine to do something for their own good. I'm still unclear about this issue of determination in the direction of perfection realm vs conventional concept. Could you give more explanation about this? It is good if we can understand this and in the same time not increase ourself admiration. Thank you very much and anumodhana Jagkrit #128342 From: "azita" I'm still unclear about this issue of determination in the > direction of perfection realm vs conventional concept. > > Could you give more explanation about this? It is good if we can > understand this and in the same time not increase ourself admiration. ----- N: What you write is very good. When conventional: we think rather of a situation, as if determination is something that can stay for a while and that we can get hold of. When according to paramattha dhammas, we have to consider moments, everything is momentary. Determination is a fleeting dhamma, it escapes our control. ----- Nina. #128346 From: Nina van Gorkom =============== J: Sorry to hear that. Will miss your contribution to the discussion. (Will continue with the editing of KK 2012 for you to listen to anyway!) Jon #128348 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > > RE: Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external nobility itself. > > > =============== > > > > J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. > > RE: But the killer must have the intention to kill, yes? If he accidentally kills a noble person, that doesn't count, does it? > =============== J: Yes, one of the necessary factors of the kamma-patha of killing another being is the intention to cause death. > =============== > > J: So the analogy you give (below) is not quite on all fours. > > RE: Perhaps not; but perhaps it can stand up and bark. > =============== J: And do other tricks too, I'm sure :-)) > =============== > RE: If I raise my hand in a rage and kill someone, the fact that I did not know they were a noble, virtuous person does not let me off the hook. I have killed someone of special status, and so I take the consequence of my act of rage, even if I did not particularly intend to kill someone of that sort. > > I think that a person who kills takes on the kamma of whatever factors exist in that situation, but they still must have akusala cetana or the kamma is not activated. > > Would you disagree? > =============== J: Agreed there must be the appropriate cetana (I did not mean to suggest otherwise). Jon #128349 From: "jonoabb" =============== J: Visible object is the object that is being experienced by seeing consciousness right now, as this message is being read. That object can only be explained by saying that it's that which is there when seeing consciousness arises and is not there when it doesn't :-)). Roughly speaking, this can be equated to that which appears when the eyes are open but not when they're closed (although we've discussed in earlier messages why this is not exactly correct and hence not a definition). So, not people or specific things (such as words on a screen), but the light/colour/visible mass by virtue of which it can be said 'I can see' or 'There is seeing now'. Difficult to 'get' but very important to appreciate even at a purely intellectual level. > =============== H: And to follow up, what, if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door? > =============== J: To my understanding, the characteristic of a dhamma remains the same regardless of whether it is being experienced through a sense-door or through the mind-door. In any event, panna will know the answer to your question when it has been sufficiently developed :-)) Jon #128352 From: "dsgmods" wrote: > This morning I had an Email with a request to translate into Korean > my book on Physical Phenomena in Daily Life. So I really anumodana > for the people in Korea who are interested. > I just wanted to share this with you. #128356 From: "sarah" wrote: >R: The availability of the codeine and the experience of taking it may also be vipaka. Kamma could lead one to be in extreme pain with no codeine available. That would also be vipaka. ==== S: The vipaka is the bodily consciousness accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant feeling at such a time when experiencing a tangible object. Vipaka is the result of kamma. When in "extreme pain" or "taking codeine" there are in fact many, many different moments of bodily consciousness, some kusala vipaka accompanied by pleasant feeling, some akusla vipaka, accompanied by unpleasant feeling. In between these, there are many akusala cittas accompanied by lobha or dosa and always moha, whilst thinking about the experiences. There are also other sense door processes, followed by mind door processes. Metta Sarah ===== #128357 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:48 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Jon (and Rob E), ----- > > > RE: Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external nobility itself. > > > =============== > > > > J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. ----- KH: You might remember the problem I had on my one trip to Krang Kajan. I couldn't reconcile kamma with ultimate reality. In particular, I was told dana required an `act of dana.' (There had to be a recipient, a suitable gift, an acceptance of the gift . . . . In short, there had to be a whole lot of non-realities!) That was back in 2007, and I have made no progress since then. This conversation you are having with Rob, for example, goes over my head. Ultimately, there are no people, so why are we talking about awareness of noble, and other, people? It seems to me that kamma should be entirely about cittas with kusala, or akusala, cetana and other cetasikas. Sila, for example, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and virati. Dana, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and . . . what? That's where I was back in 2007, when the answer to my question was `There has to be an act of dana.' I didn't understand it then, and I still don't. Don't worry, you're not expected to break this impasse for me, after so many failed attempts. I'm just letting you know there has been no progress. :-) Ken H #128358 From: Nina van Gorkom Thank you for sharing this good news. Who are the people in Korea > who are interested to do this? -------- Bhante Buddharakkhita wrote to me: < Bodhi Vipassana Meditation Center has been the first ever to be well-known for its vigorous mission of delivering Theravada Buddhism in Korea.> I wrote that for those who speak English to contact our dhammastudygroup and I gave the link. Nina. #128359 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Rob E), > > ----- > > > > RE: Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, > for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of > the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external > nobility itself. > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. > ----- > > KH: You might remember the problem I had on my one trip to Krang Kajan. I couldn't reconcile kamma with ultimate reality. In particular, I was told dana required an `act of dana.' (There had to be a recipient, a suitable gift, an acceptance of the gift . . . . In short, there had to be a whole lot of non-realities!) > > That was back in 2007, and I have made no progress since then. This conversation you are having with Rob, for example, goes over my head. Ultimately, there are no people, so why are we talking about awareness of noble, and other, people? > > It seems to me that kamma should be entirely about cittas with kusala, or akusala, cetana and other cetasikas. Sila, for example, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and virati. Dana, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and . . . what? > > That's where I was back in 2007, when the answer to my question was `There has to be an act of dana.' I didn't understand it then, and I still don't. > > Don't worry, you're not expected to break this impasse for me, after so many failed attempts. I'm just letting you know there has been no progress. :-) I'm probably the last one to say anything that would rate an official check mark, but I think it is possible to translate "acts of X" into cetana + rupas. So an "act of dana," like the "act of murder" in kammapatha, a physical act represents the completion of the intention/mental act of volition. Rupas that are produced by citta [if I've got that right] would fit neatly with that formulation. One has the intention to commit murder, many cittas of rage and revenge and imagining the 'killing of a being' with akusala cetana arise and if strong enough lead to the production of physical rupas that we all "the act of murder." If one likewise imagines and intends a wholesome act "towards a being" the fact that the being doesn't exist is beside the point, as it is a focal point for the production of kusala citta, which, if strong enough, lead to the production of rupas that we call "an act of dana." This is probably a very approximate idea of what happens, even if somewhat correct, but maybe gives an idea of the possibility of the cetana leading to "an act of dana" consisting purely of namas and rupas in paramatha terms. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128362 From: "jagkrit2012" Tam: ......As for the content of the Vietnamese version, there are translations of AS's discussions in Hanoi lately, as well as Nina's Buddhism in daily life, Taking refuge in Buddhism, Vipassana letters. Soon we will post gradually ""Survey of paramatha dhammas" and "ten Perfections" following translation work... Some of my friends that you met have greatly helped with translations, typing etc, it's a collective work... JJ: A lot of valuable teachings. Anumodhana to you and our friends. ==================== >Tam: I guess the vietnamese pages appear to you just the same way the Thai pages appear to us :-) JJ: Exactly! But in Thai page we have the news about Vietnamese page launching and many Thai dhamma friends expressed their gratitude. Moreover, we have your photos during last trip as well. ;-] ==================== > Tam: See you again soon, if conditions are right. JJ: Great! never waste a second without understanding. See you then. ==================== Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit AdChoices #128363 From: "jagkrit2012" N: The commentary to the Cariyapitaka [1] mentions the difficulties the > Bodhisatta may encounter while he develops the perfections. In such > circumstances he reflects about his self-surrender, his complete > dedication to the Buddhas. We read: > > "For when the Great Man, straining and striving for the fulfilment of > the requisites of enlightenment, encounters troubles difficult to > endure, depriving him of happiness and his means of support, or when > he encounters injuries imposed by beings and formations- difficult to > overcome, violent, sapping the vitality- then, since he has > surrendered himself to the Buddhas, he reflects: `I have relinquished > my very self to the Buddhas. Whatever comes, let it come.' For this > reason he does not waver, does not quake, does not undergo the least > vacillation, but remains absolutely unshaken in his determination to > undertake the good." > [1] Ven. Bodhi, p. 323. JJ: Thank you very much for your posting this commentary. I learn more about right determination concerning self. When the Bodhisatta surrendered himself to the Buddhas, he does not waver, does not quake....... to any troubles. Because there is no self left to be. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128364 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, > > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of > > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in > > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about > > what has been seen, heard and so on. > > ... > > > > >H: OK. > >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking > another, does not accord with reality. .... S: It may not accord with how they seem when experienced with ignorance, but in fact there is only one citta arising at a time. When there is seeing, there is no thinking and vice versa. ... > > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is > > thinking about concepts. ... >H: Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis? ... S: No. In deep sleep there are bhavanga cittas arising, no sense door or mind door experiences at all. .... > >S: When is there no more thinking? ... >H: We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana there > is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing. ... S: There is no seeing, but there are mind door cittas experiencing a concept (usually) or nimitta of a concept at such times. What I meant when I asked when there was no more thinking was when is there never any thinking again? Answer, only at the death of an arahat, parinibbana. Even the Buddha thought about concepts and realities, but with no illusion or attachment, of course. ... > >S: Does a Buddha think? ... >H: Not when in jhana. ... S: Was the Buddha in jhana all the time? ... > > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are > > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents > > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making > > > futures). > > ... > > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above? ... >H: Seeing now in the above context is understanding now. .... S: So you'd say "Until you know how to get to "understanding now", until you know what you are doing that prevents "understanding now"....." It all seems to be about Self getting to "understanding" or doing what leads to "understanding". In other words, no understanding now. ... > >H: Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path, > unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without > awareness. ... S: Unskilful babies see all day long without awareness. Unless there are kusala cittas following seeing, there is no awareness at all. If there is no understanding, no awareness of seeing as distinct from what is seen, there will be no understanding of dhammas as not self, no path at all. ... > >S: And who is this "you" who knows anything? > > > > > To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers > are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning / > intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-) > Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than we > will not easily trip over words. ... S: The reason for asking is to find out what is meant by the words. ... > > Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born in > Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah > Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes to > travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly. > > My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it > doesn't suit us. ... S: Exactly my point. When the stories and ideas about people are taken for being realities or "absolutes", it shows there is no understanding of dhammas or realities at all. Metta Sarah p.s seems like the glitch has been fixed by yahoo. will take another look at your ipad sent messages to see if they show up now. ===== #128365 From: "sarah" wrote: > > >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. >H: Perhaps we are using the word thinking in different ways? > > > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. > It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate > the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one > perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not > disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them." > > > MN43 ... S: What the sutta is saying is that whenever citta (consciousness) arises, it is always accompanied by feeling, perception (and the other universal cetasikas). This is true of seeing consciousness, mind door consciousness or any other citta. Metta Sarah ===== #128366 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > RE: Thanks for this extremely clear and sensible post. I think it explains our basic situation in a common-sense way that is very accessible. > > > =============== > > > > J: Thanks, and glad you appreciate it. > > > > Of course, all credit for the fundamental view/information being conveyed must go to the Buddha. And credit for any clarity and accessibility (i.e., mode of expression) must, I feel, go to Herman for obliging me to refine the original version a number of times to meet his comments/disagreements :-)) > > Well, I think that's a pretty good demonstration of the "nature of the Sangha" - that is, in general terms, not the monastic Sangha. Through thrashing out and communicating the understanding of the Dhamma, it becomes clarified and everyone comes out of it a little smarter. :-) > =============== J: Yes, I agree, although I tend to think of it more in terms of the value of discussing Dhamma with persons interested in the teachings as recorded and passed down to us. Discussion works only if there's an agreed point of reference or authority, and in our case that's the original teachings and the commentarial tradition. Thanks for the comments. Jon #128367 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > > J: Kamma/vipaka has to be considered in terms of namas and rupas rather > > than of conventional objects. > > > > > > H: I agree :-) > > > 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its > result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the > opportunity for the right ending of stress. > > AN3:99 > =============== J: Thanks for the sutta reference. Checking on the ATI website, I find the sutta concerns two statements or views, one 'wrong' and the other 'right', namely: A. 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' B. 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' For the person holding view A, there is said to be 'no living of the holy life, no opportunity for the right ending of stress', while the opposite applies for the person holding view B. The sutta then sets out 2 cases which presumably illustrate the point being made: "There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment." Plenty there to reflect on. Jon Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. "But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress. "There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. …" AN 3.99 PTS: A i 249 Thai 3.101 Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html #128368 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Rob E), > ... > > > J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. > ----- > > KH: You might remember the problem I had on my one trip to Krang Kajan. I couldn't reconcile kamma with ultimate reality. In particular, I was told dana required an `act of dana.' (There had to be a recipient, a suitable gift, an acceptance of the gift . . . . In short, there had to be a whole lot of non-realities!) > =============== J: As I've heard it explained, the terms 'act of dana', 'recipient', 'suitable gift', etc., are all conventional terms to be understood as denoting dhammas. For example, 'recipient' means a stream of bhavanga cittas other than that of the 'giver'. > =============== > KH: That was back in 2007, and I have made no progress since then. This conversation you are having with Rob, for example, goes over my head. Ultimately, there are no people, so why are we talking about awareness of noble, and other, people? > =============== J: That is simply the use of conventional designations for convenience :-)). We understand that in then ultimate (i.e., Dhamma) sense the reference is to dhammas. > =============== > KH: It seems to me that kamma should be entirely about cittas with kusala, or akusala, cetana and other cetasikas. Sila, for example, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and virati. Dana, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and . . . what? > =============== J: There are different kinds of kusala cetana. The cetana concerned with 'giving something of use to another' is different from that which is (simply) 'kindly disposed towards another' (i.e., metta) or which 'abstains from doing an akusala act' (i.e., sila). Jon #128369 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: With understanding there can be certainty. How could seeing arise now > > without causes or conditions? .... > But if you are so sure that seeing arises now because of causes and > conditions, I invite you to please name them. ... S: The main conditions are visible object, eye-sense and contact. If there is no object to be seen, there cannot be any seeing. If there is no eye-sense - for example in the completely blind - there is no seeing. If there is no contact with the object (phassa), there is no seeing. ... >Perhaps you could also say > what makes you so certain that they are causes and conditions of seeing now. ... S: Because a) there is seeing now, b) nothing can arise without causes. There is no self, no God, no outer force to make realities arise. Just the various dhammas arising and falling away now. It makes perfect sense according to what can be directly tested now and is taught in detail by the Buddha. I have a lot of confidence in these teachings. ... > >S: It is only when there is atta belief that there is doubt. > > ... >H: Again, another logical fallacy - this one is a false dichotomy. You claim > that seeing now is either caused/conditioned or there is atta view in there > is false. On what basis do you reject the possibility of random events? ... S: Even what we call "random events" refer to realities which have causes and conditions. ... > > S: So let's start with the dhamma, the reality that can be known now. > > Attachment, annoyance now are realities. They have characteristics, they > > can be known directly. Hardness, softness, pleasant feeling - all realities > > that can be known when they appear. > > > >H: Yes, indeed. ... S: Good.... ... > > >S: Just dhammas, no thing or self involved. >H: Now you deviate into conditionality as though that can be known in the same > way as hardness or annoyance. But that is false. Unless you know all the > conditions for the arising of a dhamma, then you are speaking from > ignorance. ... S: You agree that attachment or hardness are realities that can be known now. When there is understanding of such realities, there is just that reality appearing, no 'thing', no 'self', no 'random event'. ... > > S: There can be a beginning of understanding now, starting with right > > theory, pariyatti. Gradually, with more understanding, this becomes firmer > > and leads to direct understanding. > > > > > It is probably safer to refer to pariyatti as hypothesis, not theory. > Theory has the distinction of being testable - and thoroughly tested. ... S: Pariyatti understanding becomes firmer and firmer as it is directly "tested". When there is direct understanding of attachment, hardness, seeing, visible object and other realities, no more doubt or hypothesising about the theory. For example, you agreed that the characteristic of attachment can be known. If someone tells you that this is just a hypothesis and cannot be tested, what will you say? Metta Sarah ==== #128370 From: "ptaus1" It seems to me that kamma should be entirely about cittas with kusala, or akusala, cetana and other cetasikas. Sila, for example, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and virati. Dana, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and . . . what? I too was wondering about this. From memory, every kusala citta would have the roots of adosa (kindness) and alobha (generosity). Thus, I assume for dana, the predominant root would be alobha, generosity, with cetana following suit. For sila, the predominant root (alobha or adosa) would depend on the type of citta, e.g. for some kamma pathas lobha is the main akusala root, while for other it's dosa. So accordingly, when it comes to sila, sometimes adosa, sometimes alobha would be predominant, with cetana following suit, and there'd be virati cetasikas as well, etc. When it comes to "the act of dana", i don't know either. My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that for sila and dana cittas - concepts are objects of cittas at the time. Particularly, concepts of persons, but I don't know if concepts of acts, gifts, etc, would also need to be present for dana to take place. That's an interesting question. Best wishes pt #128371 From: Nina van Gorkom Even our worry is a conditioned reality, it is only a reality, not self. When the nåma > or rúpa which appears is seen as only a reality, there is a lessening of the > clinging to self. Then there will be less worry. Acharn Sujin said: > "Just awareness now, no worry, what about this, what about that, that > is the perfection of determination, aditthåna påramí." thanks for these useful thoughts #128373 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > You wrote: > > See you again soon, if conditions are right. > > HH: Would you be able to see each other again if conditions weren't right? > Anumodana, > Tam > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128374 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > > RE: Thanks for this extremely clear and sensible post. I think it > explains our basic situation in a common-sense way that is very accessible. > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: Thanks, and glad you appreciate it. > > > > > > Of course, all credit for the fundamental view/information being > conveyed must go to the Buddha. And credit for any clarity and > accessibility (i.e., mode of expression) must, I feel, go to Herman for > obliging me to refine the original version a number of times to meet his > comments/disagreements :-)) > > > > Well, I think that's a pretty good demonstration of the "nature of the > Sangha" - that is, in general terms, not the monastic Sangha. Through > thrashing out and communicating the understanding of the Dhamma, it becomes > clarified and everyone comes out of it a little smarter. :-) > > =============== > > J: Yes, I agree, although I tend to think of it more in terms of the value > of discussing Dhamma with persons interested in the teachings as recorded > and passed down to us. Discussion works only if there's an agreed point of > reference or authority, and in our case that's the original teachings and > the commentarial tradition. > > HH: I guess you meant to say the Theravadin commentarial tradition? I mention it only because there are many rich and varied commentarial traditions that are based on the Suttas. > Thanks for the comments. > > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128375 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > Don't worry, you're not expected to break this impasse for me, after so > many failed attempts. I'm just letting you know there has been no progress. > :-) > > Perhaps an occasion to realise that there must be a clinging to views? > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128376 From: "sarah" wrote: > Thank you for your care about me :) > > Sarah, do you want to put me into the hot seat, again, hehe? ... S: Always happy to do this, Lan:-) ... > > There are a lot of things useful, detailed and clear about realities which arise and pass away when listening to discussions here. Deep and professional ;) > > That's a good way to discuss because even reading the same sutta or same book but different understanding about those things written. ... S: Very true. ... > > It's not a problem for me to practise or not practise. Just did it, in a traditional way, by conditions. That's not to attach, not to reject. ... S: Actually, just conditioned dhammas, no matter how our lives go. .. > > The first time, last year, Sis Tambach sent me some short teachings of Achan, I read a bit then informed her that could not get in, later see more usefulness. Some books already in my rack for years but didnt open those (but others) until one day, read and feel interest. That is, by conditions. ... S: Yes, we never know what will happen or what we'll take an interest in. ... > > Everyday waking up, checking mail, reading some messages from DSG, raising question if any comes, naturally. That's enough for me. Here and now, not ready for Jan or anything else :) ... S: Good. Look forward to any qus anytime. Just "here and now", realities to be known. Ready for whatever appears now! Did you listen to any of the edited recordings from Poland or the ones we're editing and uploading now from Kaeng Krachan 2012? I think you'd appreciate these a lot. Metta Sarah p.s would be nice if you and Tam and any of the other members could put your photos in the member album on the homepage. ===== #128377 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:59 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------ > RE: I'm probably the last one to say anything that would rate an official check mark, but I think it is possible to translate "acts of X" into cetana + rupas. ------ KH: I am sure you're right – so an unofficial check mark from me! :-) My problem, however, has been in thinking it was a fairly straightforward translation. There seem to be some difficulties. --------- > RE: So an "act of dana," like the "act of murder" in kammapatha, a physical act represents the completion of the intention/mental act of volition. --------- KH: I think it would have to be a single-moment act of volition. Otherwise it would still be a concept. --------------- > RE: Rupas that are produced by citta [if I've got that right] would fit neatly with that formulation. One has the intention to commit murder, many cittas of rage and revenge and imagining the 'killing of a being' with akusala cetana arise and if strong enough lead to the production of physical rupas that we call "the act of murder." ---------------- KH: According to my understanding, rupas do not act together to form concepts. But what do I know? :-) ---------------- > RE: If one likewise imagines and intends a wholesome act "towards a being" the fact that the being doesn't exist is beside the point, as it is a focal point for the production of kusala citta, ----------------- KH: That sounds right to me, but I would leave the explanation there. I wouldn't add a theory about rupas `forming physical actions.' ------ > RE: This is probably a very approximate idea of what happens, even if somewhat correct, but maybe gives an idea of the possibility of the cetana leading to "an act of dana" consisting purely of namas and rupas in paramatha terms. ------ KH: Thanks for your help Robert, it will be good to see what others think of your theory. Ken H > > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > #128378 From: "sarah" wrote: > >S: Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction really not be known? >H: Hearing is the collective term for all the conditions that give sound. ... S: Not according to the Buddha's Teachings. Sound and the other rupas in the kalapa arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether they are heard or not. If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not be the hearing of it. ... >H:We know the difference because we know sound, ... S: The distinction is only known when there is clear comprehension of both sound and hearing - two distinct realities with very different characteristics. Sound cannot experience anything at all for a start, whereas hearing experiences sound. ... >H: but not all the conditions for it arising. I don't believe that the Buddha taught that we need to know all the conditions that give rise to hearing of sound in order to end suffering. He was an ethicist, not a scientist. ... S: He taught a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound because they have to be understood as dhammas, as anatta. The sense objects experienced have to be understood as impermanent dhammas, distinct from those realities which experience them. This is the only way the unsatisfactoriness of dhammas can be known. From SN 35:136, "Delight in Forms" (Bodhi transl): "Forms, sounds, odours, tastes, Tactiles and all objects of mind - Desirable, lovely, agreeable, So long as it's said: 'They are.' "These are considered happiness By the world with its devas; But where these cease, That they consider suffereing. "The noble ones have seen as happiness The ceasing of identity. This [view] of those who clearly see Runs counter to the entire world. "What others speak of as happiness, That the noble ones say is suffering; What others speak of as suffering, That the noble ones know as bliss. "Behold this Dhamma hard to comprehend: Here the foolish are bewildered. For those with blocked minds it is obscure, Sheer darkness for those who do not see. "But for the good it is disclosed, It is light here for those who see. The dullards unskilled in the Dhamma Don't understand it in its presence. "This Dhamma isn't easily understood By those afflicted with lust for existence, Who flew along in the stream of existence, Deeply mired in Maara's realm. "Who else apart from the noble ones Are able to understand this state? When they have rightly known that state, The taintless ones are fully quenched." **** Metta Sarah ==== #128379 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Jon, ------ J: As I've heard it explained, the terms 'act of dana', 'recipient', 'suitable gift', etc., are all conventional terms to be understood as denoting dhammas. ------ KH: That's what I assumed from the beginning. But then it seemed that you and others were telling me there was something more to it, something I was missing. --------- > J: For example, 'recipient' means a stream of bhavanga cittas other than that of the 'giver'. --------- KH: I don't want to side-track the conversation, but it would be good to know why you specify bhavanga cittas. Apart from that, however, I am not helped much by the term `stream of cittas.' A stream is not a nama or a rupa, is it? It is just a concept. --------- > > KH: <. . .> so why are we talking about awareness of noble, and other, people? > J: That is simply the use of conventional designations for convenience :-)). We understand that in the ultimate (i.e., Dhamma) sense the reference is to dhammas. ---------- KH: Yes, that sounds right. ---------------- > KH: <. . . > Dana, could be described as citta with kusala cetana and . . . what? > J: There are different kinds of kusala cetana. The cetana concerned with 'giving something of use to another' is different from that which is (simply) 'kindly disposed towards another' (i.e., metta) or which 'abstains from doing an akusala act' (i.e., sila). ----------------- KH: And I presume the different types of kusala cetana require different concepts to be taken as objects. So dana requires the concept of a gift and a recipient and so on. But there is more to it than that, isn't there? Something I haven't understood yet. Do the concepts need to have ultimate validity of some kind? I don't know. Just guessing! :-) Ken H #128380 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire. > > > > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts. ... >H: You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is called solipsism. ... S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is real but the concept is not. The Buddha taught about the six worlds that are experienced, about what leads to the end of samsara. ... > >S: The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality. > >H: I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such an illusion about reality ... S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment, what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self or thing. Of course, if there were not various arising and falling away experiences of different rupas, there would not be such an idea or any illusion of a being lighting a fire. SN 35:85 "Empty is the World": "Then the Venerable Aananda approached the Blessed One...and said to him: 'Venerable Sir, it is said, 'Empty is the world, empty is the world.' In what way, venerable sire, is it said, 'Empty is the world'?' " 'It is, Aananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Aananda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self...Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant- that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self. " 'It is, Aananda because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' " *** Metta Sarah ==== #128381 From: "sarah" wrote: > But for us who are studying dhamma in the level of Pariyatti, determination shall be understood clearly. For me, for example, when I study about determination of which there are 4 kinds in sutta : determination to truthfulness, relinquishment, wisdom (panna) and tranquility (upasamaa). I, always, feel that I shall develop those 4 determinations. Determinations of myself. Like conventional life, on New Year which is coming soon, people make New Year resolution. People determine to do something for their own good. ... S: So when it is a wishing to develop these determinations for oneself - to be more truthful, wise, calm etc, it is like New Year resolutions again - wishing good for oneself. This is not the same as developing understanding and detachment of whatever is conditioned now without thought for oneself. It's like when people ask how to have more awareness or more metta - no understanding at all, but just accumulating more lobha, more thought about the precious "ME". ... >J: 'm still unclear about this issue of determination in the direction of perfection realm vs conventional concept. .. S: If there is no understanding of realities now, there cannot be the development of adhitthaana which can only develop with understanding and detachment from the idea of self. Otherwise, as you suggest, it will just be more self-view, more attachment, more "self admiration". A good topic to discuss further in Hua Hin. Metta Sarah ==== #128382 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi pt, ------- > pt: I too was wondering about this. From memory, every kusala citta would have the roots of adosa (kindness) and alobha (generosity). Thus, I assume for dana, the predominant root would be alobha, generosity, with cetana following suit. --------- KH: That could be right, I'm not sure. In a recent post Jon said there were different types of kusala cetana. So maybe it's not just a case of kusala cetana taking its lead from a dominant alobha or adosa root. ----------- > pt: For sila, the predominant root (alobha or adosa) would depend on the type of citta, e.g. for some kamma pathas lobha is the main akusala root, while for other it's dosa. So accordingly, when it comes to sila, sometimes adosa, sometimes alobha would be predominant, with cetana following suit, and there'd be virati cetasikas as well, etc. > When it comes to "the act of dana", i don't know either. My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that for sila and dana cittas - concepts are objects of cittas at the time. Particularly, concepts of persons, but I don't know if concepts of acts, gifts, etc, would also need to be present for dana to take place. That's an interesting question. ------------ KH: Memory is failing me again, but I think I have been told dana and sila could begin in sense-consciousness processes. So even virati cetasika (restraint from harming) could take a sense rupa as its object. Thanks for your input pt, this is a tricky area. Ken #128383 From: Tam Bach S: So when it is a wishing to develop these determinations for oneself - to be more truthful, wise, calm etc, it is like New Year resolutions again - wishing good for oneself. This is not the same as developing understanding and detachment of whatever is conditioned now without thought for oneself. > It's like when people ask how to have more awareness or more metta - no understanding at all, but just accumulating more lobha, more thought about the precious "ME". JJ: Thank you very much for more reminder. Wrong starting always brings wrong result. ======================= > S: If there is no understanding of realities now, there cannot be the development of adhitthaana which can only develop with understanding and detachment from the idea of self. > Otherwise, as you suggest, it will just be more self-view, more attachment, more "self admiration". JJ: Your comment above and Nina' posting below explain clearly about right understanding of adhittahaana. "N: If we are resolute nothing can distract us from the development of right understanding, no matter how tired we are, no matter how unpleasant the object is. Whatever comes let itcome, it is conditioned already and it can be object of mindfulness. We may worry whether we should do this or should not do that, in order to have more mindfulness. Even our worry is a conditioned reality, it is only a reality, not self. When the nåma or rúpa which appears is seen as only a reality, there is a lessening of the clinging to self. Then there will be less worry. Acharn Sujin said: "Just awareness now, no worry, what about this, what about that, that is the perfection of determination, aditthaana Paarami." ==================== JJ: During India trip this year, Than Acharn Sujin gave short words explaining aditthaana paarami. T.A. Sujin said: "Living this live for panna to be developed" This is aditthaana paarami. ==================== > A good topic to discuss further in Hua Hin. JJ: Sure it is. I'm looking forward to hearing this precious discussion. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128386 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:40 am Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Tam, Thanks for joining in. I must warn you I am a difficult person to talk to on the subjects of dana, sila, theft and murder. To my mind they all seem like concepts, not realities. We see dana described as the giving of a suitable gift to a person who accepts that gift. But, since there is ultimately no person to give to, and no gift (no article of a permanent, non-momentary, nature), why isn't there ultimately no dana? Jon has assured me that `person' `gift' and `giving' can be understood as references to various conditioned dhammas. That is good to hear, and it is what I have always presumed. However, nobody has ever told me what those dhammas were. The closest I have got so far has been where Jon told me that `person' was a reference to a stream of bhavanga citas. I find that hard to grasp, but it is a step in the right direction. So, to cut a long story short, you can see why I am a difficult person to talk to on this subject. :-) I might add: Some time ago DSG discussed a point made by Ajhan Sujin – that each of us was "totally alone in the universe." I like that; it seems undeniable. (It means that even our good friends don't really exist; our only real friends are panna and the other wholesome cetasikas.) But then we hear murder, for example, being defined as a situation in which there is not only an intention to kill, but also the *actual death* of the victim *directly due to our intention*. (!) Which victim is that? If we are totally alone in the universe (as I am sure we are) how can the death of another have any relevance to us? One day it will all become clear, and I will see how dim-witted I have been – not seeing what people were telling me all along. One day! :-) Ken H #128389 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > >S: Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction really > not be known? > > >H: Hearing is the collective term for all the conditions that give sound. > ... > S: Not according to the Buddha's Teachings. Sound and the other rupas in > the kalapa arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether they are > heard or not. If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not be > the hearing of it. > ... > I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Unheard sound is not something I intend to pursue, mainly because it is impossible to do so :-) I would have to say, though, that for you unheard sound has to have implications for the reality of the present moment. Surely, there is a lot of unheard sound happening right now, not to mention all those unseen sights. Ahh, and the unfelt pleasures, what unfelt bliss! > >H:We know the difference because we know sound, > ... > S: The distinction is only known when there is clear comprehension of both > sound and hearing - two distinct realities with very different > characteristics. Sound cannot experience anything at all for a start, > whereas hearing experiences sound. > Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be clearer than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) like a little atta to me. > ... > >H: but not all the conditions for it arising. I don't believe that the > Buddha taught that we need to know all the conditions that give rise to > hearing of sound in order to end suffering. He was an ethicist, not a > scientist. > ... > S: He taught a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound > because they have to be understood as dhammas, as anatta. The sense objects > experienced have to be understood as impermanent dhammas, distinct from > those realities which experience them. This is the only way the > unsatisfactoriness of dhammas can be known. > > From SN 35:136, "Delight in Forms" (Bodhi transl): > > "Forms, sounds, odours, tastes, > Tactiles and all objects of mind - > Desirable, lovely, agreeable, > So long as it's said: 'They are.' > > "These are considered happiness > By the world with its devas; > But where these cease, > That they consider suffereing. > > "The noble ones have seen as happiness > The ceasing of identity. > This [view] of those who clearly see > Runs counter to the entire world. > > "What others speak of as happiness, > That the noble ones say is suffering; > What others speak of as suffering, > That the noble ones know as bliss. > > "Behold this Dhamma hard to comprehend: > Here the foolish are bewildered. > For those with blocked minds it is obscure, > Sheer darkness for those who do not see. > > "But for the good it is disclosed, > It is light here for those who see. > The dullards unskilled in the Dhamma > Don't understand it in its presence. > > "This Dhamma isn't easily understood > By those afflicted with lust for existence, > Who flew along in the stream of existence, > Deeply mired in Maara's realm. > > "Who else apart from the noble ones > Are able to understand this state? > When they have rightly known that state, > The taintless ones are fully quenched." > **** > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > Thank you for the discussion. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128390 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > H: But more directly, what is visible object (like)? > > =============== > > J: Visible object is the object that is being experienced by seeing > consciousness right now, as this message is being read. > > That object can only be explained by saying that it's that which is there > when seeing consciousness arises and is not there when it doesn't :-)). > > Roughly speaking, this can be equated to that which appears when the eyes > are open but not when they're closed (although we've discussed in earlier > messages why this is not exactly correct and hence not a definition). > > So, not people or specific things (such as words on a screen), but the > light/colour/visible mass by virtue of which it can be said 'I can see' or > 'There is seeing now'. > > Difficult to 'get' but very important to appreciate even at a purely > intellectual level. > > > =============== > H: And to follow up, what, > > if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced > through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door? > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the characteristic of a dhamma remains the same > regardless of whether it is being experienced through a sense-door or > through the mind-door. > > In any event, panna will know the answer to your question when it has been > sufficiently developed :-)) > > Thanks for expanding. It seems to me from your descriptions there is no distinction possible between entirely mind-made percepts and eye-sense based percepts. That is perhaps an explanation for the solipsistic tendencies in Khun Sujin's teachings. Ken's example today "we are totally alone in the universe" was a very good example of that trend. > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128391 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, > > > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of > > > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. > Even in > > > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still > about > > > what has been seen, heard and so on. > > > ... > > > > > > > >H: OK. > > > >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. > > > > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and > thinking > > another, does not accord with reality. > .... > S: It may not accord with how they seem when experienced with ignorance, > but in fact there is only one citta arising at a time. When there is > seeing, there is no thinking and vice versa. > ... > > HH: I do not see any option but to leave the discussion here. How things are in fact is not something I would entrust Buddhagosa.to recite to me. > > > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is > > > thinking about concepts. > ... > >H: Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis? > ... > S: No. In deep sleep there are bhavanga cittas arising, no sense door or > mind door experiences at all. > .... > > More of the same. All very nice psychological hypothesis - totally untestable. Happy to leave it. > > >S: When is there no more thinking? > ... > >H: We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana > there > > > is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing. > ... > S: There is no seeing, but there are mind door cittas experiencing a > concept (usually) or nimitta of a concept at such times. > > What I meant when I asked when there was no more thinking was when is > there never any thinking again? Answer, only at the death of an arahat, > parinibbana. > You are totally caught up in these stories aren't you, Sarah? No more comments. Thanks for the discussion. > > Even the Buddha thought about concepts and realities, but with no illusion > or attachment, of course. > ... > > > >S: Does a Buddha think? > ... > >H: Not when in jhana. > ... > S: Was the Buddha in jhana all the time? > > ... > > > > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you > are > > > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents > > > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" > (making > > > > futures). > > > ... > > > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above? > ... > >H: Seeing now in the above context is understanding now. > .... > S: So you'd say "Until you know how to get to "understanding now", until > you know what you are doing that prevents "understanding now"....." > > It all seems to be about Self getting to "understanding" or doing what > leads to "understanding". In other words, no understanding now. > ... > > > >H: Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path, > > > unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without > > awareness. > ... > S: Unskilful babies see all day long without awareness. Unless there are > kusala cittas following seeing, there is no awareness at all. > > If there is no understanding, no awareness of seeing as distinct from what > is seen, there will be no understanding of dhammas as not self, no path at > all. > ... > > > >S: And who is this "you" who knows anything? > > > > > > > > > To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers > > are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning / > > intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-) > > Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than > we > > will not easily trip over words. > ... > S: The reason for asking is to find out what is meant by the words. > ... > > > > > Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born > in > > Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah > > Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes > to > > travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly. > > > > My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it > > doesn't suit us. > ... > S: Exactly my point. When the stories and ideas about people are taken for > being realities or "absolutes", it shows there is no understanding of > dhammas or realities at all. > > Metta > > Sarah > > p.s seems like the glitch has been fixed by yahoo. will take another look > at your ipad sent messages to see if they show up now. > ===== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128392 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > ... > S: Pariyatti understanding becomes firmer and firmer as it is directly > "tested". When there is direct understanding of attachment, hardness, > seeing, visible object and other realities, no more doubt or hypothesising > about the theory. > > For example, you agreed that the characteristic of attachment can be > known. If someone tells you that this is just a hypothesis and cannot be > tested, what will you say? > > Attachment, like anything else that is experienced, is known directly. It doesn't require understanding or hypothesis of any kind. > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know AdChoices #128393 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being > who can light a fire. > > > > > > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any > understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible > object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be > an illusion when referring to such concepts. > ... > >H: You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external > to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is > called solipsism. > ... > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is > real but the concept is not. > > There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts that refer to realities of the world. While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real heat, very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept makes known. > The Buddha taught about the six worlds that are experienced, about what > leads to the end of samsara. > ... > > > >S: The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the > non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about > reality. > > > > >H: I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily > demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such > an illusion about reality > ... > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment, > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self > or thing. > A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they? > > Of course, if there were not various arising and falling away experiences > of different rupas, there would not be such an idea or any illusion of a > being lighting a fire. > > SN 35:85 "Empty is the World": > > "Then the Venerable Aananda approached the Blessed One...and said to him: > 'Venerable Sir, it is said, 'Empty is the world, empty is the world.' In > what way, venerable sire, is it said, 'Empty is the world'?' > > " 'It is, Aananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self > that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' And what is empty of self and of > what belongs to self? The eye, Aananda, is empty of self and of what > belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. > Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact > is empty of self and of what belongs to self...Whatever feeling arises with > mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or painful or > neither-painful-nor-pleasant- that too is empty of self and of what belongs > to self. > > " 'It is, Aananda because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self > that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' " > > *** > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128394 From: "sarah" wrote: >S:....If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not be > > the hearing of it. ... >H: Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be clearer > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) like > a little atta to me. ... S: Let's stick to what is written in the texts, rather than how it seems to us. Sound has to have arisen for the cittas in an ear-door process (up to 17) to experience it. In other words, sound lasts 17 times as long as a moment of hearing. Not all sounds are heard! From CMA 111, Guide to 8, Analysis of Functions: "...Seeing, etc: In a cognitive process at the sense doors, after the moment of adverting, there arises a citta which directly cognizes the impingent object. This citta, and the specific function it performs, is determined by the nature of the object. If the object is a visible form, eye-consciousness arises seeing it; if it is a sound, ear-consciousness arises hearing it, and so forth. ........Receiving, etc: In the case of a cognitive process through any of the five sense doors, following the citta that performs the function of seeing, etc., there arise in succession cittas that perform the functions of receiving, investigating, and determining the object...." Prior to seeing and after the determining citta there are other cittas which experience the object. Hearing consciousness is just one citta in the ear-door process. There are sound kalapas (groups of rupas inc sound) conditioned by temperature that are arising and falling away all the time without any experience of them. Metta Sarah ==== #128395 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > >S:....If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not be > > > > the hearing of it. > ... > > >H: Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > > > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be > clearer > > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) > like > > a little atta to me. > ... > > S: Let's stick to what is written in the texts, rather than how it seems > to us. > > Sound has to have arisen for the cittas in an ear-door process (up to 17) > to experience it. In other words, sound lasts 17 times as long as a moment > of hearing. Not all sounds are heard! > > From CMA 111, Guide to 8, Analysis of Functions: > > "...Seeing, etc: In a cognitive process at the sense doors, after the > moment of adverting, there arises a citta which directly cognizes the > impingent object. This citta, and the specific function it performs, is > determined by the nature of the object. If the object is a visible form, > eye-consciousness arises seeing it; if it is a sound, ear-consciousness > arises hearing it, and so forth. ........Receiving, etc: In the case of a > cognitive process through any of the five sense doors, following the citta > that performs the function of seeing, etc., there arise in succession > cittas that perform the functions of receiving, investigating, and > determining the object...." > > Prior to seeing and after the determining citta there are other cittas > which experience the object. Hearing consciousness is just one citta in the > ear-door process. > > There are sound kalapas (groups of rupas inc sound) conditioned by > temperature that are arising and falling away all the time without any > experience of them. > > HH: Perhaps an answer to this will make it clearer for me - are unexperienced kalapas a reality of the present moment? > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128396 From: "sarah" wrote: > HH: Perhaps an answer to this will make it clearer for me - are > unexperienced kalapas a reality of the present moment? ... S: The rupas in a kalapa are realities regardless of whether they are experienced or not. If any rupa is not experienced now, it is not an experienced reality at the present moment. Note: only one rupa in a kalapa that has arisen can be experienced at a time. Metta Sarah ===== #128397 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > HH: Perhaps an answer to this will make it clearer for me - are > > unexperienced kalapas a reality of the present moment? > ... > S: The rupas in a kalapa are realities regardless of whether they are > experienced or not. If any rupa is not experienced now, it is not an > experienced reality at the present moment. > > Note: only one rupa in a kalapa that has arisen can be experienced at a > time. > > Thank you - that clarifies. How are kalapas known? > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128398 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: There are different kinds of kusala cetana. The cetana concerned with > 'giving something of use to another' is different from that which is (simply) > 'kindly disposed towards another' (i.e., metta) or which 'abstains from doing an > akusala act' (i.e., sila). > ----------------- > > KH: And I presume the different types of kusala cetana require different concepts to be taken as objects. So dana requires the concept of a gift and a recipient and so on. > > But there is more to it than that, isn't there? Something I haven't understood yet. Do the concepts need to have ultimate validity of some kind? > =============== J: The situation/view we're discussing is this: Different kinds of kusala where the cetasikas involved are the same, but the conventional situation/set of facts differs. Example: The same kusala cetasikas are involved in both metta and dana, but in the latter there is, in addition to metta, the 'giving of something useful'. Your question is whether holding this view involves vesting the concepts with some kind of 'ultimate validity'. I don't think it does. It means, however, that the 'only dhammas' aspect of the teachings cannot be fully appreciated by taking a snapshot of a single moment. Consider the fact that the teachings can only be understood at times when the lifespan of human beings is within a certain range (not too short, not too long), so that if the lifespan is too long, the truths of old age, sickness and death cannot become sufficiently apparent (no 'sense of urgency' arises). Thinking in terms of concepts is an inherent part of life in the 5-senses realm. Jon PS There is a obverse example to the one discussed above, where the kind of kusala is the same (conventionally) but the cetasikas involved are different. Example: Abstaining from wrong speech in the course of one's livelihood (involves the mental factor of right livelihood) vs. in any other circumstance (right speech). #128399 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Herman, Howard, all, > > >RE: Is there any scriptural material that would clarify the >exclusivity of vipaka to influence of kamma? Since it is called >"kamma vipaka" my assumption is that whatever is correctly called >vipaka is the direct [though delayed] result of kamma. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > There is interesting Sivaka sutta. > > > "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html#fnt-2 > > > Note that kamma is one of many conditions. Thanks for that - what you are saying seems very well justified by the quote. However, I don't really understand it. It seems to me that the whole idea of kamma is that the forces put into play by intentional action will eventually be satisfied by yielding the fruit or result that is the natural outcome of that intention. So the seeming arbitrariness of all these other conditions that may or may not bring out a particular result along with kamma, depending on how they all interact, doesn't seem to do much justice to the "lawful" realization of kamma as vipaka. As far as I understand, many conditions cause various results, but only kamma causes vipaka. So these other events that come from other causes are not vipaka. It makes sense that kamma needs other conditions to arise to allow for the realization of the consequent vipaka, but that is as supporting conditions, while the kamma is causal. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =