#128600 From: "azita" > Hallo friends, > > We arrived here 2 days ago and are staying at a most wonderful resort, and better than anything we have at least 4 hrs of dhamma discussion with T.A. Sujin each day. ====== #128603 From: "connie" > ----- > > > C: I think the part Howard really likes goes: > > > > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > > Would not posit as categorically true or false > > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > > ----- > > > > KH: I'd like to rush in with a vaguely possible interpretation: > > > > When the Buddha is teaching Dhamma to people who can understand it, he will never imply that a concept can have inherent characteristics. (Ken H) > --------------------------- > HCW: > So, Ken, are you taking "anything seen, heard, or sensed" as concept? > --------------------------- c: Bodhi's footnote 668: I paraphrase Mp's explanation of this verse: "He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (di.t.thigatikaa) - who are 'self-constrained' (sayasa.mvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions - to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (eva.m sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m uttama.m katvaa na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyaayeyya), thinking: 'This alone is true and anything else is false.'" This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, "the Tathaagata did not become subservient to it." hope you have a speedy and comfortable recovery, Howard. connie AdChoices #128604 From: "Lukas" Yes, fortunate indeed to be in such good company with friends from all over the world. Very lively dhamma discussions. L: That's the best acctually to see so many Dhamma friends in one place. Today we were with Alberto on a beach. There were Tam and Vietnameas group also with us. We talked with Alberto about nimitta and anupayanncana when I saw a beautiful girl on the beach, And I fall in love instantly carrying her with me all the time while she acctually disappeard long long ago. Just moments of seeing and visible object says Alberto, gone, and nimitta, the sign and the anupayancana, minor details of things. all just followed by many thinkings moments. He said also he saw a girl, but he didnt notice her at all. Later we went with Sukin to Hua Hin and see a places there by night with dinner at the Indian restaurant. Nice talks on dhamma in between. And wonderful dinner. This is so great that there are so many people interested in dhamma. Best wishes Lukas #128605 From: "connie" RobE:> We are in a sense asked to throw away the more intelligent description of sound via science as a certain form of wave or vibration which gives one some detailed understanding of its nature, and substitute for this something which really has little to say about how it is formed or constituted. To do so does not seem on its face a very intelligent choice, unless there is more experiential/phenomenological detail somewhere that can equal the descriptive power of the scientific alternative. > sure, it takes some getting used to, but don't worry about starving your intellect, RobE, there's no lack of detail! And they're not all sweet little "free tibets" like these, courtesy of Buddhaghosa: Vism, xiv, 53. Like snakes, crocodiles, birds, dogs, and jackals, that gravitate to their own respective resorts, that is to say, ant-hills, water, space, villages, and charnel grounds, so the eye, etc., should be regarded as gravitating to their own respective resorts, that is to say, visible data, and so on (cf. Dhs314). 54. 6. As regards visible data, etc., which come next, a visible datum has the characteristic of impinging on the eye. Its function is to be the objective field of eye-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. Its proximate cause is the four great primaries. And all the [following] kinds of derived materiality are the same as this. Where there is a difference we shall mention it. This [visible datum] is of various kinds as 'blue, yellow' (Dhs.617) and so on. 55. 7. Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'drum sound, tabor sound' (Dhs.621) and so on [447] 56. 8. Odour has the characteristic of impinging on the nose. Its function is to be the object of nose-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'root odour, heartwood odour' (Dhs.625) and so on. 57. 9. Flavour has the characteristic of impinging on the tongue. Its function is to be the object of tongue-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'root flavour, trunk flavour' (Dhs.629) and so on. Maybe a little tougher to chew: {note 32}. '"Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" (cf.§46). But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water-element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water-element. What is it then? It is just the fire-element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is that to be known? because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. And if coldness were the water-element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat: but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water-element. And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air-element; for if coldness were the air-element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air-element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water-element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape. For this is said by the Ancients: 'Three elements coexisting with fluidity Together form what constitutes a tangible; That "I succeed in touching this fluidity" Is a common misconception in the world And as a man who touches elements, And apprehends a shape then with his mind, Fancies "I really have been touching shape", So too fluidity is recognized.' (Pm.459) Dig in! connie #128606 From: "truth_aerator" Vism,xiv, 53.Like snakes, crocodiles, birds, dogs, and jackals, that >gravitate to their own respective resorts, that is to say, >ant-hills, >water, space, villages, and charnel grounds, so the eye, >etc., should >be regarded as gravitating to their own respective >resorts, that is >to say, visible data, and so on (cf. Dhs314). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is hopefully an error in translation. Eye, ear, etc does NOT gravitate toward anything. Rather, electromagnetic wave comes into the eye, or vibrating medium to the ear, and corresponding consciousness results. With best wishes, Alex #128607 From: "connie" > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: I know of no way of describing sound other than as that which is experienced by hearing consciousness, except that I seem to recall a mention of sound as that which is created by the collision of rupas of hardness. Don't know if that helps at all. > > Yes, that is somewhat helpful, as it is an independent physical description of the rupa without reference to the act of hearing itself. I would be content to hear that it was some form of "audible vibration" which sounds somewhat to me like the "collision of rupas of hardness," and is also not dissimilar in a way from the scientific description of sound. > =============== J: Thanks. Will try to find the passage in question, in case my memory is off-track (high chance!). But I have no recollection of sound being explained in terms of vibration of the air waves, if that's what you have in mind. Jon #128609 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 8, 2013 9:48 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Ken) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > ----- > > > > C: I think the part Howard really likes goes: > > > > > > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > > > Would not posit as categorically true or false > > > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > > > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > > > ----- > > > > > > KH: I'd like to rush in with a vaguely possible interpretation: > > > > > > When the Buddha is teaching Dhamma to people who can understand it, he will never imply that a concept can have inherent characteristics. (Ken H) > > --------------------------- > > HCW: > > So, Ken, are you taking "anything seen, heard, or sensed" as concept? > > --------------------------- > > c: Bodhi's footnote 668: I paraphrase Mp's explanation of this verse: "He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (di.t.thigatikaa) - who are 'self-constrained' (sayasa.mvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions - to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (eva.m sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m uttama.m katvaa na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyaayeyya), thinking: 'This alone is true and anything else is false.'" This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, "the Tathaagata did not become subservient to it." ------------------------------- HCW: Mmm, thanks. I'm not sure I'm totally getting this, but I will work on it. ------------------------------ > > hope you have a speedy and comfortable recovery, Howard. --------------------------- HCW: Thanks so much, Connie! I'm home now - with a catheter that I find tolerable and with gradually lessening discomfort. Tomorrow morning I'm scheduled to have the catheter removed. That's good, of course, though I'm not looking forward to the removal procedure, as the catheter diameter appears to be about 1/4". (Ah, well! ;-) ---------------------------- > > connie > ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128610 From: "sarah" Han: I want to continue such learning process when I come across some important passages. > Is there any way I can get the English text for the Dispeller of Delusion on-line? > .... S: As far as I know it's not on-line. If it becomes available anytime, I'm sure Connie or someone will let us know. Meanwhile, I highly recommend the PTS translation to anyone interested. Metta Sarah ==== #128611 From: "connie" > > > > J: I seem to recall a mention of sound as that which is created by the collision of rupas of hardness. #128612 From: "wojciechczypicki" > Dear Sarah and Azita, > > > Yes, fortunate indeed to be in such good company with friends from all over the world. Very lively dhamma discussions. > > L: That's the best acctually to see so many Dhamma friends in one place. Today we were with Alberto on a beach. There were Tam and Vietnameas group also with us. > > We talked with Alberto about nimitta and anupayanncana when I saw a beautiful girl on the beach, And I fall in love instantly carrying her with me all the time while she acctually disappeard long long ago. Just moments of seeing and visible object says Alberto, gone, and nimitta, the sign and the anupayancana, minor details of things. all just followed by many thinkings moments. He said also he saw a girl, but he didnt notice her at all. > > Later we went with Sukin to Hua Hin and see a places there by night with dinner at the Indian restaurant. Nice talks on dhamma in between. > And wonderful dinner. > > This is so great that there are so many people interested in dhamma. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #128613 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Lukas, > > I'm happy to read you are doing fine. > > I liked the story with a girl you carried around :) Dhamma in practice! > =============== J: Actually, he's still carrying her around (still practising :-)) > =============== > Greetings to all Dhamma friends in Hua Hin. > =============== J: Nice to hear from you Jon #128614 From: "jagkrit2012" > Hi Lukas, > > I'm happy to read you are doing fine. > > I liked the story with a girl you carried around :) Dhamma in practice! > > Greetings to all Dhamma friends in Hua Hin. > > Wojtek > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah and Azita, > > > > > Yes, fortunate indeed to be in such good company with friends from all over the world. Very lively dhamma discussions. > > > > L: That's the best acctually to see so many Dhamma friends in one place. Today we were with Alberto on a beach. There were Tam and Vietnameas group also with us. > > > > We talked with Alberto about nimitta and anupayanncana when I saw a beautiful girl on the beach, And I fall in love instantly carrying her with me all the time while she acctually disappeard long long ago. Just moments of seeing and visible object says Alberto, gone, and nimitta, the sign and the anupayancana, minor details of things. all just followed by many thinkings moments. He said also he saw a girl, but he didnt notice her at all. > > > > Later we went with Sukin to Hua Hin and see a places there by night with dinner at the Indian restaurant. Nice talks on dhamma in between. > > And wonderful dinner. > > > > This is so great that there are so many people interested in dhamma. > > > > Best wishes > > Lukas > > > #128615 From: Lukas I'm happy to read you are doing fine. >I liked the story with a girl you carried around :) Dhamma in practice! Yeap, and you know how Alberto can be :P in this case it concerns being non attached to a girl or I would say visible object :P I acctually took an example from him, that a nice looking girls do not make any impresion on him. Sometimes i would like to be like this. Warm Hugs from Hua Hin, Lukas #128616 From: "Lukas" J: Thanks. Will try to find the passage in question, in case my memory is off-track (high chance!). But I have no recollection of sound being explained in terms of vibration of the air waves, if that's what you have in mind. L: I think that for hearing there must be four conditions. sound, ear, space and attention (if i remember correctly, but this better check. There was said on that for each of 5 senses somewhere in tipitaka). So as I understand that sound and ear are not enought to hear,cause there must be space and also manasikara for hearing consciousness. Like the same was said with conditions for seeing. There must be visible object, eye, light and manasikara. If there is no light nothing can be seen, just darkness. Even for cameras there must be a flash, if we want to take a picture by night. The same may be with, sound, ear, space and attention. If no space, whatever that means, than no conditions for sound to be heard. Attention in both cases may be kiriya citta that is pancadvaraavajjanacitta. This kind of attention always arises before visible object is seen, or sound is heard. First it needs attention. Best wishes Lukas #128617 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:44 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Connie and Howard, Thanks, Connie, for that extra explanation via Mp and Bodhi B. ------- > Howard: > So, Ken, are you taking "anything seen, heard, or sensed" as concept? ------- KH: I think I see what you mean, Howard. The self-constrained theorists might be wrong in their theories, but they still see visible objects and hear audible objects etc. And so it would seem, from the quote, that it was those paramatha dhamma objects that the Buddha would not posit as "categorically true or false." The crux of the mater is, I think, that the theorists experienced sense rupas *and then conceived them as being something else.* They conceivde them as things capable of being clung to, or identified with, or viewed as pertaining to a self. So it was those concepts (conceived things) that the Buddha would not posit as being categorically true or false. Ken H PS: Glad to hear you are home and feeling tolerably well. #128618 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Connie (and Ken) - > > > > > hope you have a speedy and comfortable recovery, Howard. > --------------------------- > HCW: > Thanks so much, Connie! I'm home now - with a catheter that I find tolerable and with gradually lessening discomfort. Tomorrow morning I'm scheduled to have the catheter removed. That's good, of course, though I'm not looking forward to the removal procedure, as the catheter diameter appears to be about 1/4". (Ah, well! ;-) > ---------------------------- J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. Jon #128619 From: "thomaslaw03" > > Hi all > > One of the highlights of my trip to Thailand was meeting Ivan (known as Matt Roke on this board) because he has always impressed me in his posts or in recorded discussions, such clear strong explanation of Dhamma. The most impressive thing he said to me in Thailand was seemingly obvious but contains so much of the Dhamma in a few words: "A citta rises and falls away. And then another one arises." > For some reason that is the message that sticks with me ftom my trip, along with A Sujin saying "not enough" (about my beloved conventional sila) and "be confident with understanding." (As Nina said in her recent post to me - thanks for that Nina - there has to be confidence or understanding will not develop.) > > So thank you, Ivan, if you are reading this, it was great to meet you. > > Metta, > > Phil > > p.s. another one sticks with me. I am fond of speculating on my balance/accumulated preponderance of kilesas - as in the caritas- but what Sukin said helped clear up that: "One thing for sure is that there is always moha.". So as always it all comes back to understanding. > #128621 From: "connie" > AN 4.24 > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > > Would not posit as categorically true or false > > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > ---delete----- > > c: Bodhi's footnote 668: << I paraphrase Mp's explanation of this verse: "He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (di.t.thigatikaa) - who are 'self-constrained' (sayasa.mvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions - to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (eva.m sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m uttama.m katvaa na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyaayeyya), thinking: 'This alone is true and anything else is false.'" This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, "the Tathaagata did not become subservient to it." >> ------------------------------- HCW: Mmm, thanks. I'm not sure I'm totally getting this, but I will work on it. ------------------------------ c: What, subservience?^ It was more the Safeguarding Truth verse I thought you -& Stephen Hawking - would appreciate. I’d dropped the mind-bending chicken & egg matter by the way, in case you thought I’d lost you following that crossroad. (Part of my cruel streak: torturing the language). I love that footnote: who will save Di.t.thigatika, the mad scientist, from his own pet theories - and other travesties of misplaced faith! But they lure us in, these yakkhii: close your eyes, listen... this is what it looks like in the dark, their breath* sweet like the ether where they weave their spells & you’re touched, dancing like you wear red shoes... you don’t want to hear that story. Once (Mi511), But most of us don’t want our eyes opened about the harpies, either. We’d rather hang on and die. Well now, tears! <> as Buddhaghosa reminds us: <>. When you get right down to it, the monsters are clinging and wrong-views; they live outside the books, yes, but even doubters have been known to fear catching a glimpse peeking in the covers. so yaks connie! ^Bodhi, AN 4.24 –note #666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads #128622 From: "connie" > .... Once (Mi511), << Magandiya said to the Lord: I have confidence that if the good Gotama were to teach me Dhamma, I could rise from my seat no longer blind. >> .... Well now, tears! << This is the watery element exuding from the eyes >> as Buddhaghosa reminds us: << And in mentally grasping tears, the student should grasp them as they fill the eye-sockets >>. .... those quotes were all that was worth sending the first time! c --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > hey Howard, KenH, > > > > AN 4.24 > > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > > > Would not posit as categorically true or false > > > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > > > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > > > ---delete----- > > > > c: Bodhi's footnote 668: << I paraphrase Mp's explanation of this verse: "He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (di.t.thigatikaa) - who are 'self-constrained' (sayasa.mvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions - to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (eva.m sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m uttama.m katvaa na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyaayeyya), thinking: 'This alone is true and anything else is false.'" This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, "the Tathaagata did not become > subservient to it." >> > ------------------------------- > HCW: > Mmm, thanks. I'm not sure I'm totally getting this, but I will work on it. > ------------------------------ > > c: What, subservience?^ It was more the Safeguarding Truth verse I thought you -& Stephen Hawking - would appreciate. I’d dropped the mind-bending chicken & egg matter by the way, in case you thought I’d lost you following that crossroad. (Part of my cruel streak: torturing the language). > > I love that footnote: who will save Di.t.thigatika, the mad scientist, from his own pet theories - and other travesties of misplaced faith! But they lure us in, these yakkhii: close your eyes, listen... this is what it looks like in the dark, their breath* sweet like the ether where they weave their spells & you’re touched, dancing like you wear red shoes... you don’t want to hear that story. > > Once (Mi511), But most of us don’t want our eyes opened about the harpies, either. We’d rather hang on and die. > > Well now, tears! < > as Buddhaghosa reminds us: < >. > > When you get right down to it, the monsters are clinging and wrong-views; they live outside the books, yes, but even doubters have been known to fear catching a glimpse peeking in the covers. > > so yaks connie! > > > ^Bodhi, AN 4.24 â€"note #666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." > > *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads > > > #128623 From: "Christine" > Dear Dhamma friends, > > I am interested in the story of the Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) that the Buddha showed in Sravasti (?). > > The story seems rather unusual, superstitious, and irrational. Could anyone give some explanations and textual information of the story please? > > Thank you. > > Thomas Law > Hello Thomas, There has been a thread about this previously. You may find this information by Han Tun to be of interest: Twin Miracle (yamakapaa.tihaariya) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/126555 with metta Christine #128624 From: "jonoabb" > > > J: Many thanks for giving us the Bh Bodhi translation and commentary notes. So the meaning is no misconceiving by way of craving, conceit or wrong view. Makes sense. > > c: sure, and just to ramble on- > > Bodhi's note 663: Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Mp: "The Tathaagata did not become subservient to any object at the six sense doors, that is, he did not take it up (na upaga~nchi) through craving or views. For it is said: 'The Blessed One sees a form with the eye, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind ... The Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind' (see SN 35:232; IV 164-65). By this the plane of arahantship (khii.naasavabhuumi) is indicated." > ... > I think the part Howard really likes goes: > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > Would not posit as categorically true or false > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > ================ J: Thanks, Connie. Interesting. However, the passage quoted by Howard (Msg #128530) seems different: "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." This is the equivalent to the following passage from the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation: "So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees. Perhaps Howard could give us his reading of the passage quoted, as it relates to the point under discussion. Jon #128625 From: "jonoabb" > Good friend Jon, el al > > 1. I added your e-mail addy in case this message should be off-list, okay? > > 2. Sincere warm thanks for your honest response on the chanting. Personally, I prefer studying the Abhidhamma Pitaka as I get lost in the nuances of the Sutta Pitaka. I do not know Pali!!! The Abhidhamma Pitaka is more in my engineering/math way of thinking/understanding... > =============== J: There's a lot of overlap (and no essential difference) between the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, so I think you can say you study both! > =============== > 3. On the Night Market, the Chieng Mai is larger and some of it is in doors. > > 4. Off-list, would you tell me about the resort you were at? Thanks. > =============== J: I give a link below. Please feel free to ask any specific questions off-list. Jon http://www.banyanthailand.com/ #128626 From: "sarah" Sorry to hear about Ivan. I pass on a post that I wrote after meeting him for the first time a couple of years ago. ... S: Good to share these comments again and I'll show them or forward them to his wife, Ell. This morning we all drove through some beautiful countryside to a harbour pier at the mouth of a river and travelled out to sea in a police launch with the urn of ashes and buckets of flower petals. Out at sea, a monk made a blessing and then the urn of ashes was lowered into the water along with the incense sticks we each had and all the handfuls of flower petals with left a trail and then formed a circle as we drove around. Very lovely. All gone, like the citta now and now..... nothing left at all. Ivan's family were all very cheerful and appreciative of the support of so many Dhamma friends. Living alone now with seeing, hearing or thinking..... no matter where we are, no matter what realm. Just one citta at a time. Metta Sarah ===== #128627 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Connie. > ... > > c: Ye te /sotavin~n~neyyaa/ saddaa assutaa > > Those sounds /cognizable by the ear/, which have not been heard > > > > - assutapubbaa, na ca su.naasi, na ca te hoti su.neyyan-ti- > > - which formerly have not been heard, (which) you are not hearing, and which you do not expect to hear - > > > > atthi te tattha chando vaa raago vaa pema.m vaa? ti > > can there be desire or passion or love relating to them? > > RE: Thank you, that is a very nice description. I like the poetry in the last line. However, it also is sometimes perplexing to me that in an analysis that is often so detailed and even convoluted, that in the basic definitions of things they are often opaque, so that sound is basically defined as...sound, or that which can be heard, which is the same thing, and does not go into any detail on what constitutes it as a unique rupa other than by reference to what otherwise would simply be the ear. > =============== J: Since sound can be known by us only as object of hearing consciousness, that is the description we need to have. > =============== > RE: We are in a sense asked to throw away the more intelligent description of sound via science as a certain form of wave or vibration which gives one some detailed understanding of its nature, and substitute for this something which really has little to say about how it is formed or constituted. To do so does not seem on its face a very intelligent choice, unless there is more experiential/phenomenological detail somewhere that can equal the descriptive power of the scientific alternative. > =============== J: I don't feel I'm being asked to throw away the scientific definition of sound. I see the dhamma of sound as being one thing and the scientific perspective as referring to something different. Jon #128628 From: "jonoabb" > hi RobE, Jon, > another Vsm footnote reads: > 'Vacii-bheda - speech utterance' is not in PTS Dict., which does not give this use of bheda. Pm. (p.452) explains: 'The function (-"knocking together") of the vocal apparatus (-"clung-to matter")'. > =============== J: That's the one! As I recall, "clung-to matter" is a reference to rupas that are produced by kamma (kammaja rupa), since the context here is speech. But the principle is the same in any context, namely that it's the knocking together of rupas that gives sound. Thanks for coming up with the reference. Jon #128629 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Jon, > I dont remeber this clearly. > > > J: Thanks. Will try to find the passage in question, in case my memory is off-track (high chance!). But I have no recollection of sound being explained in terms of vibration of the air waves, if that's what you have in mind. > > L: I think that for hearing there must be four conditions. sound, ear, space and attention (if i remember correctly, but this better check. There was said on that for each of 5 senses somewhere in tipitaka). So as I understand that sound and ear are not enought to hear,cause there must be space and also manasikara for hearing consciousness. Like the same was said with conditions for seeing. There must be visible object, eye, light and manasikara. If there is no light nothing can be seen, just darkness. Even for cameras there must be a flash, if we want to take a picture by night. > The same may be with, sound, ear, space and attention. If no space, whatever that means, than no conditions for sound to be heard. Attention in both cases may be kiriya citta that is pancadvaraavajjanacitta. This kind of attention always arises before visible object is seen, or sound is heard. First it needs attention. > =============== J: Thanks for this. I know the set of conditions you refer to. As best I recall, they are as you say (sound, ear, space and attention). I think Rob E's interest lies in the definition of the first of the 4 factors, sound. But the fact that space is also necessary may be of significance (this may refer to the hollow of the ear, I believe). Jon #128630 From: "Lukas" J: Thanks for this. I know the set of conditions you refer to. As best I recall, they are as you say (sound, ear, space and attention). I think Rob E's interest lies in the definition of the first of the 4 factors, sound. But the fact that space is also necessary may be of significance (this may refer to the hollow of the ear, I believe). L: I remember Acharn Sujin talk on akasa rupa, a space, that functions as a pariccheda rupa, that seperates rupas and also as that is a space. She said bigger than that while she is asked by someone if this is air and sky. But I assume she refers more to the space as a concept in that aspect. Also I recall the previous discusions on dsg as the another unconditioned dhamma is space. Best wishes Lukas #128631 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Jon, I could see you in front of your laptop when I just came back from a meal. > =============== J: Just finishing up now ... > =============== > > J: Thanks for this. I know the set of conditions you refer to. As best I recall, they are as you say (sound, ear, space and attention). I think Rob E's interest lies in the definition of the first of the 4 factors, sound. But the fact that space is also necessary may be of significance (this may refer to the hollow of the ear, I believe). > > L: I remember Acharn Sujin talk on akasa rupa, a space, that functions as a pariccheda rupa, that seperates rupas and also as that is a space. She said bigger than that while she is asked by someone if this is air and sky. But I assume she refers more to the space as a concept in that aspect. Also I recall the previous discusions on dsg as the another unconditioned dhamma is space. > =============== J: Space is a difficult one to figure out. As I remember, a distinction must be drawn between: - the space between rupas - space as in `outer space' - spaces such as caves, ear cavities, etc. 2 of these 3 are rupas, and the other is not (but I'm not sure which is which, apart from the fact that the space between rupas is one of the 2 space rupas). Perhaps someone (Sarah?) could sort this topic out for us :-)) Jon #128632 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Lukas (and Rob E) > > > L: I think that for hearing there must be four conditions. sound, ear, space and attention (if i remember correctly, but this better check. There was said on that for each of 5 senses somewhere in tipitaka). So as I understand that sound and ear are not enought to hear,cause there must be space and also manasikara for hearing consciousness. Like the same was said with conditions for seeing. There must be visible object, eye, light and manasikara. If there is no light nothing can be seen, just darkness. Even for cameras there must be a flash, if we want to take a picture by night. > > > The same may be with, sound, ear, space and attention. If no space, whatever that means, than no conditions for sound to be heard. Attention in both cases may be kiriya citta that is pancadvaraavajjanacitta. This kind of attention always arises before visible object is seen, or sound is heard. First it needs attention. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for this. I know the set of conditions you refer to. As best I recall, they are as you say (sound, ear, space and attention). I think Rob E's interest lies in the definition of the first of the 4 factors, sound. But the fact that space is also necessary may be of significance (this may refer to the hollow of the ear, I believe). > =============== J: I happened to come across the sets of conditions in the Vism. (see below). It's in the section on the Elements. As regards hearing, it's pretty much as you said, except that instead of `space' it says `aperture' (I think this refers to the ear cavity). Jon ********************************************** Path of Purification, Ch XV, 39. And not only are the eye and visible data, etc., conditions for the eyeconsciousness element, etc., [respectively], but also light, etc., are too. Hence the former teachers said: "- Eye-consciousness arises due to eye, visible datum, light, and attention. - Ear-consciousness arises due to ear, sound, aperture, and attention. - Nose-consciousness arises due to nose, odour, air, and attention. - Tongue-consciousness arises due to tongue, flavour, water, and attention. - Bodyconsciousness arises due to body, tangible datum, earth, and attention. - Mindconsciousness arises due to life-continuum-mind, mental datum, and attention." ********************************************** #128633 From: "thomaslaw03" > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > > > Dear Dhamma friends, > > > > I am interested in the story of the Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) that the Buddha showed in Sravasti (?). > > > > The story seems rather unusual, superstitious, and irrational. Could anyone give some explanations and textual information of the story please? > > > > Thank you. > > > > Thomas Law > > > Hello Thomas, > > There has been a thread about this previously. You may find this information by Han Tun to be of interest: > > Twin Miracle (yamakapaa.tihaariya) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/126555 > > with metta > Christine > AdChoices #128634 From: "Robert E" sure, it takes some getting used to, but don't worry about starving your intellect, RobE, there's no lack of detail! ... > Maybe a little tougher to chew: > > {note 32}. '"Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" ... Well, that is a little better... :-) It is still a challenge to look at these experiential qualities and see them side-by-side with discoveries of substance and vibration that do exist in the objective physical world; but that is another, larger issue... Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #128635 From: "Robert E" J: Thanks. Will try to find the passage in question, in case my memory is off-track (high chance!). But I have no recollection of sound being explained in terms of vibration of the air waves, if that's what you have in mind. Thanks, Jon - if you do find the passage that will be good to see. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #128636 From: "Robert E" > hi RobE, Jon, > another Vsm footnote reads: > 'Vacii-bheda - speech utterance' is not in PTS Dict., which does not give this use of bheda. Pm. (p.452) explains: 'The function (-"knocking together") of the vocal apparatus (-"clung-to matter")'. > hope that helps. Interesting descriptions - thank you. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #128637 From: "Robert E" J: I don't feel I'm being asked to throw away the scientific definition of sound. I see the dhamma of sound as being one thing and the scientific perspective as referring to something different. I think that's an important subject, and as I respect your point of view, I would appreciate if you would say a little more about what you think each discipline refers to and how they may coincide or perhaps completely diverge in what they are each referencing. For instance, does the object-of-hearing rupa have any relation at all to that which can be discovered and described by the increasing observational capabilities of science? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128638 From: "Robert E" > Hi Connie & Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > hi RobE, Jon, > > another Vsm footnote reads: > > 'Vacii-bheda - speech utterance' is not in PTS Dict., which does not give this use of bheda. Pm. (p.452) explains: 'The function (-"knocking together") of the vocal apparatus (-"clung-to matter")'. > > =============== > > J: That's the one! As I recall, "clung-to matter" is a reference to rupas that are produced by kamma (kammaja rupa), since the context here is speech. But the principle is the same in any context, namely that it's the knocking together of rupas that gives sound. "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #128639 From: "connie" Lukas: We talked with Alberto about nimitta and anupayanncana when I saw a beautiful girl on the beach, And I fall in love instantly carrying her with me all the time while she acctually disappeard long long ago. Just moments of seeing and visible object says Alberto, gone, and nimitta, the sign and the anupayancana, minor details of things. all just followed by many thinkings moments. He said also he saw a girl, but he didnt notice her at all. > c: first sutta of AN, how the form, sound, odor, taste, touch of another obsess the mind... : : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5QfXjsoNe4 :(hi icaro) no words needed ;) but i like this version: Yes I would give my heart gladly, But each day, when she walks to the sea She looks straight ahead, not at me Tall, and tan, and young, and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking And when she passes, I smile - but she doesn't see (doesn't see) (She just doesn't see, she never sees me...) -- walk this way! eyes right ;) < They bind one whose mind is muddled with a glance and a smile, with their dress in disarray, and with gentle speech. It is not safe to approach such a person though she is swollen and dead. These 5 objects of sensual pleasure are seen in a woman's body: forms sounds, tastes, and odors, and also delightful touches. Those swept up by the flood of sensuality, who do not fully understand sense pleasures, are plunged headlong into sa.msaara, [into] time, destination, and existence upon existence. - an 5.55, bodhi p684 peace, connie ps Phil: > Thanks also re the Pole Dancer. I will stop tucking dollar bills in her garter belt and place perfectly plucked Dhamma passages instead! > another determined effort to strive for perfection in giving! not bad, fellow smell thief. The good man thinks his goodness is but sin, So long as it has ripened not to fruit. But when his goodness unto ripeness grows, The good man surely sees "'twas good I wrought." - dhp120. c #128640 From: "connie" "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? > each mind moment is only one citta & it is aware of only one "object". those are ones, but recall there are at least a handful of cetasikas arising with the citta, also that rupas arise in a group of at least 8... and they're sort of reproductive, too. take care, connie #128641 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: That's the one! As I recall, "clung-to matter" is a reference to rupas that are produced by kamma (kammaja rupa), since the context here is speech. But the principle is the same in any context, namely that it's the knocking together of rupas that gives sound. > > RE: "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. > =============== J: That's a lot of heavy stuff to impute to an innocent little phrase like "knocking together of rupas" :-)) As regards `capability to take up objective existence', what is spoken of in the texts is conditioned arising for the briefest of moments. As regards `simultaneous existence in physical space', I don't see why not (if, that is, you see value in speaking in those terms). Unless the conditions for the momentary arising just mentioned include being the object of consciousness, then some kind of such existence is presumably the case. However, keep in mind that only those rupas that are in fact object of consciousness can be known. > =============== > RE: Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? > =============== J: There is no `rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment'. You may be thinking of one citta at a time, or one object per citta (as mentioned by Connie). Jon #128642 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: I don't feel I'm being asked to throw away the scientific definition of sound. I see the dhamma of sound as being one thing and the scientific perspective as referring to something different. > > RE: I think that's an important subject, and as I respect your point of view, I would appreciate if you would say a little more about what you think each discipline refers to and how they may coincide or perhaps completely diverge in what they are each referencing. > > For instance, does the object-of-hearing rupa have any relation at all to that which can be discovered and described by the increasing observational capabilities of science? > =============== J: The rupa that is object of hearing is for that moment the object of consciousness, whereas the stuff of science is defined otherwise (vibrations through the air or something like that). What more is there to say? :-)) What's the significance of any (apparent) similarity/divergence? Jon #128643 From: Kenneth Elder > Hi, Jon - > > I understand your perspective. Mine is different. I think my perspective is in line with the Dhamma, and you do not. I could be wrong! I'm not looking to debate it - if I'm wrong, then i'm wrong. That's fine with me. :-) > > =============== J: It's fine with me too :-)). And I'm not looking to debate anything. But since this is a discussion group, don't be surprised if someone asks you to explain what you've said :-)) > =============== > HCW: > I take hearing and heard to be mutually dependent, but I take neither to be "the cause" of the other. I view prior kamma as the primary cause. > =============== J: Again, this goes to the experiencing of the sound but not to the question of an independent and prior arising of the sound. While your pov is clear, the basis for the unlikelihood/impossibility of the latter, as you see it, has never been explained. An article of faith for you, perhaps? Jon #128645 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:53 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Connie) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Connie and Howard, > > Thanks, Connie, for that extra explanation via Mp and Bodhi B. > > ------- > > Howard: > > So, Ken, are you taking "anything seen, heard, or sensed" as concept? > ------- > > KH: I think I see what you mean, Howard. The self-constrained theorists might be wrong in their theories, but they still see visible objects and hear audible objects etc. And so it would seem, from the quote, that it was those paramatha dhamma objects that the Buddha would not posit as "categorically true or false." > > The crux of the mater is, I think, that the theorists experienced sense rupas *and then conceived them as being something else.* They conceivde them as things capable of being clung to, or identified with, or viewed as pertaining to a self. > > So it was those concepts (conceived things) that the Buddha would not posit as being categorically true or false. > > Ken H > > PS: Glad to hear you are home and feeling tolerably well. > =============================== Ken, thank you for the clarification, and thank you very much for your kind wishes! :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128646 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:00 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Connie (and Ken) - > > > > > > > > hope you have a speedy and comfortable recovery, Howard. > > --------------------------- > > HCW: > > Thanks so much, Connie! I'm home now - with a catheter that I find tolerable and with gradually lessening discomfort. Tomorrow morning I'm scheduled to have the catheter removed. That's good, of course, though I'm not looking forward to the removal procedure, as the catheter diameter appears to be about 1/4". (Ah, well! ;-) > > ---------------------------- > > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. ----------------------------------- HCW: Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. ------------------------------------- > > Jon > ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128647 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:09 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Sorry! Surely the yakkhas aren't messing with me? > Let me fill back in what ended up blanked out, however! > > .... > Stephen Hawking << The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. >> > .... > Once (Mi511), << Magandiya said to the Lord: I have confidence that if the good Gotama were to teach me Dhamma, I could rise from my seat no longer blind. >> > .... > Well now, tears! << This is the watery element exuding from the eyes >> as Buddhaghosa reminds us: << And in mentally grasping tears, the student should grasp them as they fill the eye-sockets >>. > .... > > those quotes were all that was worth sending the first time! > c ================================ I especially like the Hawkings' quote! (A related one: "He who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know is a fool - shun him.") With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128648 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Jon) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi Connie & Rob E > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > > hi RobE, Jon, > > > another Vsm footnote reads: > > > 'Vacii-bheda - speech utterance' is not in PTS Dict., which does not give this use of bheda. Pm. (p.452) explains: 'The function (-"knocking together") of the vocal apparatus (-"clung-to matter")'. > > > =============== > > > > J: That's the one! As I recall, "clung-to matter" is a reference to rupas that are produced by kamma (kammaja rupa), since the context here is speech. But the principle is the same in any context, namely that it's the knocking together of rupas that gives sound. > > "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? ------------------------------- HCW: What rule is that? Are you perhaps conflating dhammas with cittas? -------------------------------- > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - > ========================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128649 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > I understand your perspective. Mine is different. I think my perspective is in line with the Dhamma, and you do not. I could be wrong! I'm not looking to debate it - if I'm wrong, then i'm wrong. That's fine with me. :-) > > > > =============== > > J: It's fine with me too :-)). And I'm not looking to debate anything. > > But since this is a discussion group, don't be surprised if someone asks you to explain what you've said :-)) > > > =============== > > HCW: > > I take hearing and heard to be mutually dependent, but I take neither to be "the cause" of the other. I view prior kamma as the primary cause. > > =============== > > J: Again, this goes to the experiencing of the sound but not to the question of an independent and prior arising of the sound. > > While your pov is clear, the basis for the unlikelihood/impossibility of the latter, as you see it, has never been explained. An article of faith for you, perhaps? --------------------------------- HCW: No, not an article of faith but a pragmatic presumption that I'm prepared to (somehow) have shown to be false. (Pragmatic in that all we can ever experience is content of consciousness. There may well be unexperienced phenomena, but they are, indeed, unexperienced.) ================================ With metta, Howard /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) > > Jon > #128650 From: "Lukas" J: As regards hearing, it's pretty much as you said, except that instead of `space' it says `aperture' (I think this refers to the ear cavity). L: What in the case of beings that has no ears or no ear cavity? For eample let's say some beings from animal world, like this one diver today that jumped into our swimming pool :D ? Best wishes Lukas > ********************************************** > Path of Purification, Ch XV, 39. > > And not only are the eye and visible data, etc., conditions for the eyeconsciousness element, etc., [respectively], but also light, etc., are too. Hence the former teachers said: > "- Eye-consciousness arises due to eye, visible datum, light, and attention. > - Ear-consciousness arises due to ear, sound, aperture, and attention. > - Nose-consciousness arises due to nose, odour, air, and attention. > - Tongue-consciousness arises due to tongue, flavour, water, and attention. > - Bodyconsciousness arises due to body, tangible datum, earth, and attention. > - Mindconsciousness arises due to life-continuum-mind, mental datum, and attention." > ********************************************** > #128651 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon - > > > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) > =============== J: Fingers crossed for you :-)) > =============== > Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. > =============== J: Thanks. So far have been able to keep the symptoms to manageable levels. Jon #128652 From: "thomaslaw03" > Tests by some psychologists showed that about 7% > of the population have psychic abilities. It tends to run in families thus has > a genetic aspect. This is probably why some Arahats have mastery of psychic > powers and some do not. I think that those of you who doubt the existence of > psychic powers are not being objective and have not really studied the matter. > I am a long term vipassana and metta meditator and have a little psychic > ability. But my most psychic friend was also one of the most foolish and > egotistical of my friends and came to a bad end. He was heavily into the > Eternal Self delusion. Most psychics are. Materialist skeptics probably have > had many lives as nihilists believing that there is nothing beyond death but > material disintegration. By seeing conditioned arising and passing away process > of our body, mind and consciousness by going through the n(y)anas of vipassana we understand that it is a mental > process conditioned by craving that continues from life to life not some unchanging > Self or self. > > > #128653 From: "azita" > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) > > =============== > > J: Fingers crossed for you :-)) ------------------------------- Thanks! :-) ------------------------------- > > > =============== > > Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. > > =============== > > J: Thanks. So far have been able to keep the symptoms to manageable levels. ---------------------------------- Good!! --------------------------------- > > Jon > ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128656 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:03 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Kenneth Elder, ----------- > KE: Tests by some psychologists showed that about 7% of the population have psychic abilities. It tends to run in families thus has a genetic aspect. This is probably why some Arahats have mastery of psychic powers and some do not. I think that those of you who doubt the existence of psychic powers are not being objective and have not really studied the matter. ------------- KH: Can you give me an Abhidhamma description of psychic powers please? That is, can you tell me which cittas and cetasikas perform the functions you are referring to? ---------------------- > KE: I am a long term vipassana and metta meditator and have a little psychic ability. ---------------------- KH: Here at DSG many of us are wary of the term, meditation. In the Tipitaka the Pali word bhavana (often translated as meditation) means the actual arising of panna-cetasika. In modern-day usage, however, meditation tends to mean whatever the speaker intends it to mean. -------------------------- > KE: But my most psychic friend was also one of the most foolish and egotistical of my friends and came to a bad end. He was heavily into the Eternal Self delusion. Most psychics are. -------------------------- KH: The psychic powers referred to in the Tipitaka and Visuddhimagga were possessed only by jhana masters. There are no jhana masters in the world today, as far as I know. So I think the modern equivalent of psychic power must be something altogether different. ---------------- > KE: Materialist skeptics probably have had many lives as nihilists believing that there is nothing beyond death but material disintegration. By seeing conditioned arising and passing away process of our body, mind and consciousness by going through the n(y)anas of vipassana we understand that it is a mental process conditioned by craving that continues from life to life not some unchanging Self or self. ------------------ KH: We need to keep the company of wise friends, from whom we can hear the Buddha's teaching. That way, with some wise consideration of what we have heard, we can clearly understand that there are only dhammas (nama and rupa) all of which are anatta. I think it's the only way. Ken H #128657 From: "Robert E" J: I happened to come across the sets of conditions in the Vism. (see below). It's in the section on the Elements. As regards hearing, it's pretty much as you said, except that instead of `space' it says `aperture' (I think this refers to the ear cavity). > > Jon > > > ********************************************** > Path of Purification, Ch XV, 39. > > And not only are the eye and visible data, etc., conditions for the eyeconsciousness element, etc., [respectively], but also light, etc., are too. Hence the former teachers said: > "- Eye-consciousness arises due to eye, visible datum, light, and attention. > - Ear-consciousness arises due to ear, sound, aperture, and attention. > - Nose-consciousness arises due to nose, odour, air, and attention. > - Tongue-consciousness arises due to tongue, flavour, water, and attention. > - Bodyconsciousness arises due to body, tangible datum, earth, and attention. > - Mindconsciousness arises due to life-continuum-mind, mental datum, and attention." > ********************************************** In trying to sort out the types of conditions involved, is the aperture of the ear considered a rupa, or a concept/construct? And if the latter, can a concept serve as a condition for the arising of a reality? Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128658 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: That's the one! As I recall, "clung-to matter" is a reference to rupas that are produced by kamma (kammaja rupa), since the context here is speech. But the principle is the same in any context, namely that it's the knocking together of rupas that gives sound. > > > > RE: "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. > > =============== > > J: That's a lot of heavy stuff to impute to an innocent little phrase like "knocking together of rupas" :-)) Yes, I recall that you also thought the "rubbing against each other" of the cows in the Vism. was also quite innocent. ... > As regards `simultaneous existence in physical space', I don't see why not (if, that is, you see value in speaking in those terms). Unless the conditions for the momentary arising just mentioned include being the object of consciousness, then some kind of such existence is presumably the case. I see - rupas can arise together, just not serve as objects of citta at the same time. However, the consequent sound that results from their knocking into each other can be experienced in a single moment by citta. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. However, I am still suspicious about the cows. > However, keep in mind that only those rupas that are in fact object of consciousness can be known. Understood. > > =============== > > RE: Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? > > =============== > > J: There is no `rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment'. You may be thinking of one citta at a time, or one object per citta (as mentioned by Connie). Yes, that is a good clarification for me. Thanks. So there are trillions of things all happening together and perhaps also affecting each other in multiple ways, but citta can only experience them sequentially. Very limited access to reality... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128659 From: "Robert E" ------------------------------- > HCW: > What rule is that? Are you perhaps conflating dhammas with cittas? > -------------------------------- Yes, I had some confusion about that. The idea of rupas all running around together knocking into each other is new to me in this context. Now I see that citta is more limited than other event-parameters in the Universe! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128660 From: "Robert E" > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) > Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. > ------------------------------------- I am very glad to hear that you are back from surgery and are recovering so well. I hope everything goes smoothly from here! I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128661 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:23 pm Subject: Re: New member but not new it is Htoo htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: Hi Htoo, H: This is very short description. But Bahiya Daaruciriya who originally a simple layman (puthujjana) had become an arahat. > > > Seeing. Stop thinking anew but seeing is recognised. Hearing. Stop thinking more > but hearing is recognised. Reaching (of smell, taste, touch to body). Stop > thinking further but reaching is recognised. Rising of thought. Stop further > thinking but recognised that thought by meditating mind. > > > This is hard to do. ------------------------------- KH: Yes, but is it hard for you or me to do? I don't think it is. Nor do I think it is easy for you or me to do. I think satipatthana is practised, not by you or me, but by conditioned dhammas over which there is no control. --------------------------------- Htoo: Right. There is no control. Initially one has to note everything that arises at the moment. By noting there is no time to wander about. On the otherhand one has to study dhamma to understand. Simple understanding is not penetrative knowledge (pa.tivedha). ---------------------------------- K: When the conditions for those dhammas are present nothing will stop them from practising. So it will not be hard for them to do so. ------------------------------------ Htoo: By noting more and more one can recognize that anything arises vanishes. This is first recognition on the general markers of sa~nkhaara dhamma. If someone sees a dog as an only dog there is no change in the power of dhamma. But if he sees all points and accept what he sees is a dog then he is right. Here I mean all points as seeing colour, form & shape and its impernance and so on. ----------------------- K: However, when the conditions are not present, it will be impossibly hard for them to practise. ----------------------- Htoo: If there are no condition then there will not be anything related to that condition. I agree with you. ---------------------- K: That rule applies for all conditioned dhammas, not just for Magga-citta. So, when the Buddha said the Middle Way was particularly hard to see, I think he was saying the conditions for seeing it arose very rarely. -------------------------------- Htoo: When there are 5 parts of NEP (noble eightfold path) that is sammasankappa, sammaditthi, sammavaayama, samma-sati and samma-sammasamaadhi one is on the right track. Pancangika magga. atthangika magga only arise when magga citta arises. --------------------------------- > ---------------------- > H: > > With practice there will be less and less intervening > thought-series. --------------------- KH: Do you mean with practice there will be more seeing and less thinking? How would that help? ----------------- Htoo: No. Like tracing the mind track disappearing objects and disappearing minds will truely recognize as they are. ------------------- K: I think with practice there will be more conditions for seeing to be understood when it arises. And there will be more conditions for *thinking* to be rightly understood when *it* arises. -------------------------- Htoo: Here thinking has to be samma-sankappa. ------------- > H: When there is stronger mental power then more and more > aaramma.na or objects will be recognised without intervening thought. > ------------- KH: Is that what the sutta means by, "in the cognized there will be only the cognized?" I have always thought it meant the cognized will be known as anatta (devoid of a permanent self). ------------------------------------- Htoo: One has to be continuously see anatta while arising objects are being noted. -------------------------- > Ken H ----------------- With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128662 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) > > Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. > > ------------------------------------- > > I am very glad to hear that you are back from surgery and are recovering so well. I hope everything goes smoothly from here! > > I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. > > Best, > Rob E. ---------------------------------- Dear Rob E, Howard, Jon and all, Late Moegoke Sayadaw emphasized 1st noble truth. It is the most important thing to understand and recognize. At any moment of magga citta there are 4 things happen. 1st noble truth is recognized, 2nd noble truth is eradicated, 3rd noble truth is directly faced and 4th noble truth is developed. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128663 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:11 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Howard. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > J: As a fellow sufferer of bph, wishing you a speedy recovery and, in due course, relief from the symptoms that prompted the surgery. > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Amazingly, there is already dramatic improvement! (Now I just have to wait to see that there are no undesirable side effects. ;-) > > Sorry that you also have bph, though it is of course common for those of us who are no longer "very young" (LOL!). Thank you for your good wishes, Jon. I do hope that through meds or other means you get good relief from symptoms. > > ------------------------------------- > > I am very glad to hear that you are back from surgery and are recovering so well. I hope everything goes smoothly from here! --------------------------------------- HCW: Thanks!! :-) -------------------------------------- > > I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. --------------------------------------- HCW: I suppose that *thorougly* comprehending the 1st must involve (or directly lead to) a comprehending of the 2nd as well. ---------------------------------------- As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. ---------------------------------------- HCW: There is very much that we find unpleasant, and we don't leave it at merely being "unpleasant" but view it as "intolerable," which reaction is an instance of suffering. And, of course, what is pleasant we cling to and desire more of, and these reactions are also instances of mental pain, i.e.suffering. ------------------------------------------ > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > ==================================== With metta, Howard /Whis is rich? He who is satisfied with his lot./ (From the Pirke Avot [Verses of the Fathers], the Talmud) AdChoices #128664 From: "Robert E" Late Moegoke Sayadaw emphasized 1st noble truth. It is the most important thing to understand and recognize. At any moment of magga citta there are 4 things happen. 1st noble truth is recognized, 2nd noble truth is eradicated, 3rd noble truth is directly faced and 4th noble truth is developed. Thanks for telling us about this. It is very good to have this information on the realization of the 4NT. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128665 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob, > > > "Knocking together of rupas" to produce sound makes it sound as if the rupas have the capability to take up objective existence in physical space and also exist simultaneously in order to knock together. Does that not at the very least break the rule against co-existence of two dhammas at the same moment? > > > > each mind moment is only one citta & it is aware of only one "object". > those are ones, but recall there are at least a handful of cetasikas arising with the citta, also that rupas arise in a group of at least 8... and they're sort of reproductive, too. :-) Do the groups of rupas arise together, or in sequence? Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128666 From: "Robert E" ---------------------------------------- > As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. > ---------------------------------------- > HCW: > There is very much that we find unpleasant, and we don't leave it at merely being "unpleasant" but view it as "intolerable," which reaction is an instance of suffering. And, of course, what is pleasant we cling to and desire more of, and these reactions are also instances of mental pain, i.e.suffering. I think this brief statement gives a good idea of the richness of the first noble truth, containing not only the fact of unpleasantness, suffering and unsatisfactoriness of phenomena, but also the second arrow which constantly makes things worse through further proliferation/propagation of mental suffering. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128667 From: "Robert E" > For instance, does the object-of-hearing rupa have any relation at all to that which can be discovered and described by the increasing observational capabilities of science? > > =============== > > J: The rupa that is object of hearing is for that moment the object of consciousness, whereas the stuff of science is defined otherwise (vibrations through the air or something like that). > > What more is there to say? :-)) What's the significance of any (apparent) similarity/divergence? I guess I think it is important that the way in which the object of hearing is defined does some justice to its actual reality, rather than formatting the experience to a term of philosophy that makes it fit into a system of thought. While science does this also in its own way, it has the saving grace of doing a good degree of real observation and trying to fit its understanding to what actually takes place. I think that is the objective in Abhidhamma as well, and it would thus make some sense if there were some similarity in the descriptive idea of what constitutes a sound in both, even if they are interested in different aspects of the experience. It strikes me at least as somewhat disconcerting if the Abhidhamma description has no notion of the understandings that science gets from looking more closely at what is taking place when a sound occurs. I'm not saying that is the case, but that is why I look for a description in Abhidhamma as well that has descriptive rigor, just as I would in science. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128668 From: "sarah" > That could makes sense. I was more wondering about the reason for being good at something now, rather than remembering things from past life - like if you are good at languages, there's certainly no memory of you learning a language in a past life, but yet, there's this ability to learn a language quickly, have a good grasp of the grammar, etc. What's that ability based on and how much would it have to do with accumulations in sanna? ... S: I did bring up this point in passing and Achan Sujin said it was all based on accumulated sanna. Hope you're having a good trip. We're back in Bangkok for a couple of days before going on a trip to the NE early Tuesday. Metta Sarah ===== #128669 From: "connie" > rupas arise in a group of at least 8... and they're sort of reproductive, too. > > :-) Do the groups of rupas arise together, or in sequence? > The bare octad (earth, water, fire, air + color, odor, flavor, nutritiment) arises and falls as a single kalapa. consider your body. lots of rupas come and go. do you imagine we're still getting rupas descended from the intense heat of big bang theory? <--rhetorical. rupas also descend from kamma, citta and _____ / 'food'. moment after moment, connie #128670 From: "sarah" > >S:However, the views referred to in the sutta are wrong views (micha >ditthi). The Pali given is `di.t.thi', translated as `dogmatic view' >by Saddhatissa. Unless di.t.thi is modified by samma, it nearly always >refers to wrong views. > >>>>============================================= > > Dear Sarah, I do not believe the above. I think that it ridicules the Buddha's profound teaching. ..... S: See the following from Nyantiloka's dictionary under "Ditthi": **** "If not qualified by sammaa, it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight). Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchaa-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22: "No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering." From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27). <...> In the Brahmaajala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described, comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world. See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmaajala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS). Further s. D.15, D.23, M.24, D.28; M.11, M.12, M.25, M.60, M.63, M.72, M.76, M.101, M.102, M.110; A.II.16; A.X.93; S.XXI, S.XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathaa, etc. Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. aasava), clingings (s. upaadaana), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallaasa). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I. On right view (sammaa-ditthi), s. magga and M.9 " **** >A: Anyone would say that "one should have right view, and no wrong views". It doesn't require a Buddha to say such obvious truism. ... S: It takes a Buddha to teach us what right view is, however. ... > > What is hard to see is clinging and artificiality of all views, "right" or "wrong". .... S: Are you suggesting that the samma ditthi of the eightfold path is "artificial"? ... > Experience doesn't come in nicely labeled boxes. Any and all views are subjective interpretations and being subjective, can be expressions of one's subjective bias. ... S: Clearly this is an expression of a "subjective bias", agreed:-) Did the Buddha teach the Truth or was it just another "subjective bias"? Metta Sarah ===== #128671 From: "sarah" I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. ... S: How do you understand the first noble truth and its "centrality"? Metta Sarah ==== #128672 From: "jonoabb" > Thanks Jon for Vism. quotaion on that. Now it seems more clearer. > > > J: As regards hearing, it's pretty much as you said, except that instead of `space' it says `aperture' (I think this refers to the ear cavity). > > L: What in the case of beings that has no ears or no ear cavity? For eample let's say some beings from animal world, like this one diver today that jumped into our swimming pool :D ? > =============== J: Yes, handsome little critter, wasn't he? :-)) If no ears, then no hearing, I suppose. If ears, then presumably an aperture of some kind, no matter how small (but I'm open to correction on this). Jon #128673 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > > ********************************************** > > Path of Purification, Ch XV, 39. > > > > And not only are the eye and visible data, etc., conditions for the eyeconsciousness element, etc., [respectively], but also light, etc., are too. Hence the former teachers said: > > "- Eye-consciousness arises due to eye, visible datum, light, and attention. > > - Ear-consciousness arises due to ear, sound, aperture, and attention. > > - Nose-consciousness arises due to nose, odour, air, and attention. > > - Tongue-consciousness arises due to tongue, flavour, water, and attention. > > - Bodyconsciousness arises due to body, tangible datum, earth, and attention. > > - Mindconsciousness arises due to life-continuum-mind, mental datum, and attention." > > ********************************************** > > RE: In trying to sort out the types of conditions involved, is the aperture of the ear considered a rupa, or a concept/construct? And if the latter, can a concept serve as a condition for the arising of a reality? > =============== J: I take the aperture to refer to the rupa of space (Pali: akasa rupa). As far as I know, concepts cannot be a condition for the arising of a reality (except to the extent that a concept may be the object of citta and thus object condition for that dhamma). Jon #128674 From: "sarah" Htoo: Thanks for your welcoming again. > 'Di.t.the di.t.thamattam bhavissati--sute sutamattam bhavissati--mute mutamattam bhavissati--vi~n~naate vi~n~naa.namattam bhavissati--'. > > This is very short description. But Bahiya Daaruciriya who originally a simple layman (puthujjana) had become an arahat. > > Seeing. Stop thinking anew but seeing is recognised. Hearing. Stop thinking more but hearing is recognised. Reaching (of smell, taste, touch to body). Stop thinking further but reaching is recognised. Rising of thought. Stop further thinking but recognised that thought by meditating mind. .... S: After seeing, hearing and other sense experiences, it's impossible for thinking not to arise. I read the sutta as pointing to the danger of akusala following such sense experiences: From a post I wrote before: >S: Let me add the Peter Masefield translation with commentary notes: "There, Baahiya, you should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen,........cognised - so should you, Baahiya, train yourself. When for you, Baahiya, with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen,......cognised, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therewith*. When you, Baahiya, are not *therewith*, then you, Baahiya, will not be *therein*. When you , Baahiya, are not *therein*, then you, Baahiya, will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both - this alone is the end of dukkha". ..... Udana 1:10 commentary to just the last part. [Square brackets give my insertions taken from PM's notes]: ">Therewith (tena)<: with that seen and so on, or alternatively with that lust and so forth that is subject to the seen and so on.[tena di.t.thaadinaa di.t.thaadipa.tibaddhena raagaadinaa vaa]. This is what is said: "Baahiya, at such time as, or alternatively as a result of that reason by means of which, there will be for you, as you are practising the method spoken of by me, with respect to the seen and so on merely the seen and so forth, through unequivocal awareness as to their own nature [sabhava], at that time, or alternatively as a result of that [tena va] reason, you will not be in concert with that lust and so on [raagaadinaa saha na bhavissasi] that is subject to the seen and so forth, you will not be either excited or blemished or deluded, or alternatively you will not be subject, in concert with the seen and so on, (thereto,) on account of your being one for whom lust and so on are abandoned [pahiinaraagaadikattaa]." >Then you, Baahiya, will not be therein (tato tva.m Baahiya na tattha)<: when, or alternatively since, you will be neither excited with [these refs to `with' refer back to >therewith (tena)< above] that lust [tena raagena vaa ratto], blemished with that anger, nor deluded with that delusion, then, or alternatively therefore, you will not be therein, in that seen and so on, you will not be attached, established, either in that seen or in that heard, sensed, cognised, by way of craving, conceit and (wrong) view thinking "This is mine, this I am, this is for me the self" - to this extent there is indicated, by causing full understanding as to abandoning to reach the summit, the plane of the one in whom the aasavas have been destroyed. >Then you, Baahiya, will be neither here nor there nor, additionally, in both (tato tva.m Baahiya nev'idha na hura.m na ubhayamantarena)<: when you, Baahiya, will not be therein, subject to the seen and so forth, with that lust and so on, then you will be neither in this world nor in the next world, nor also [pi] in both [ubhayattha]. >This alone is the end of dukkha (es'ev'anto dukkhassa)<: for this alone is the end, this the demarcation, limitation [paricchedo pariva.tumabhaavo], of dukkha in the form of the defilements and of dukkha belonging to the cycle......'" [end previous quotes] .... >H: This is hard to do. With practice there will be less and less intervening thought-series. When there is stronger mental power then more and more aaramma.na or objects will be recognised without intervening thought. ... S: Are you suggesting that the Buddha and arahats had no thinking cittas after seeing, hearing and other sense experiences? How did they teach the Dhamma or attend to daily needs? Metta Sarah ====== #128675 From: "connie" > > That could makes sense. I was more wondering about the reason for being good at something now, rather than remembering things from past life - like if you are good at languages, there's certainly no memory of you learning a language in a past life, but yet, there's this ability to learn a language quickly, have a good grasp of the grammar, etc. What's that ability based on and how much would it have to do with accumulations in sanna? > ... > S: I did bring up this point in passing and Achan Sujin said it was all based on accumulated sanna. > sure. i think. isn't it sa~n~naa marks and the memory 'falls into' sankhaara-khanda: accumulated with the efficiency of the javana - so, pakati? connie #128676 From: "sarah" > I am interested in the story of the Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) that the Buddha showed in Sravasti (?). > > > > The story seems rather unusual, superstitious, and irrational. Could anyone give some explanations and textual information of the story please? <...> >C: There has been a thread about this previously. You may find this information by Han Tun to be of interest: > > Twin Miracle (yamakapaa.tihaariya) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/126555 ... S: Thank you for coming in to assist. It's always helpful when you give links like this. We appreciate everyone's assistance, especially at this time while we're travelling and have days with no or very limited internet access. Tom & Bev were asking after you btw. Any update appreciated:) Metta Sarah ==== #128677 From: "sarah" > Dear Jon, I could see you in front of your laptop when I just came back from a meal. ... S: Was it Jon or visible object? :) ... > L: I remember Acharn Sujin talk on akasa rupa, a space, that functions as a pariccheda rupa, that seperates rupas and also as that is a space. She said bigger than that while she is asked by someone if this is air and sky. But I assume she refers more to the space as a concept in that aspect. Also I recall the previous discusions on dsg as the another unconditioned dhamma is space. ... S: In brief, two kinds of akasa rupa, both realities: 1) the pariccheda rupa you mention 2) the open space, as in a cave, the ear cavity or the sky. See the following which Han recently quoted from the Rahulavada Sutta, MN61: 12. "What, Raahula, is the space element? [Note 644] The space element may be either internal or external. What is the internal space element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to, that is, the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the door of the mouth, and that [aperture] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to: this is called the internal space element. Now both the internal space element and the external space element are simply space element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the space element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the space element. [Note 644] Space (aakaasa) is not a primary material element but is classified under derivative material form (upaadaa ruupa). .... S: Both the inner and outer space referred to are the 2nd kind of akasa rupa I referred to above. If it was not a reality, there would be no reference to seeing it with "proper wisdom" and it would not be a rupa. Metta Sarah ====== #128678 From: "sarah" Lukas: We talked with Alberto about nimitta and anupayanncana when I saw a beautiful girl on the beach, And I fall in love instantly carrying her with me all the time while she acctually disappeard long long ago.<...> > c: first sutta of AN, how the form, sound, odor, taste, touch of another obsess the mind... #35323, from Connie's transl:)) "Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekaruupampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati yathayida.m, bhikkhave, itthiruupa.m. Itthiruupa.m, bhikkhave, purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatii"ti. Pa.thama.m. "I do not say, bhikkhus, there is another single thing of form, the perception of which so persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind, bhikkhus, as the form of a woman. The form of a woman, bhikkhus, persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind." This is the first thing. 2. "Naaha.m, bhikkhave, añña.m ekasaddampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati yathayida.m, bhikkhave, itthisaddo. Itthisaddo, bhikkhave, purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatii"ti. Dutiya.m. "I do not say, bhikkhus, there is another single sound, the perception of which so persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind, bhikkhus, as the sound of a woman. The sound of a woman, bhikkhus, persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind." This is the second thing. 3. "Naaha.m, bhikkhave, añña.m ekagandhampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati yathayida.m, bhikkhave, itthigandho. Itthigandho, bhikkhave, purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatii"ti. Tatiya.m. "I do not say, bhikkhus, there is another single scent, the perception of which so persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind, bhikkhus, as the scent of a woman. The scent of a woman, bhikkhus, persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind." This is the third thing. 4. "Naaha.m bhikkhave, añña.m ekarasampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati yathayida.m, bhikkhave, itthiraso. Itthiraso, bhikkhave, purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatii"ti. Catuttha.m. "I do not say, bhikkhus, there is another single taste, the perception of which so persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind, bhikkhus, as the taste of a woman. The taste of a woman, bhikkhus, persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind." This is the fourth thing. 5. "Naaha.m bhikkhave, añña.m ekapho.t.thabbampi samanupassaami ya.m eva.m purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati yathayida.m, bhikkhave, itthipho.t.thabbo. Itthipho.t.thabbo, bhikkhave, purisassa citta.m pariyaadaaya ti.t.thatii"ti. Pañcama.m. "I do not say, bhikkhus, there is another single touch, the perception of which so persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind, bhikkhus, as the touch of a woman. The touch of a woman, bhikkhus, persistently overwhelms and stays in a man's mind." This is the fifth thing. and so on.... Metta Sarah ===== #128679 From: "sarah" I am a long term vipassana and metta meditator and have a little psychic > ability. ... S: Could you explain what each of these phrases means? What is a "long term vipassana and metta meditator", for example? Metta Sarah ===== #128680 From: "sarah" L: What in the case of beings that has no ears or no ear cavity? ... S: No hearing of sound then. ... >For eample let's say some beings from animal world, like this one diver today that jumped into our swimming pool :D ? ... S: Could our diver friend not hear anything in the pool? Metta Sarah ==== #128681 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > > > J: That's a lot of heavy stuff to impute to an innocent little phrase like "knocking together of rupas" :-)) > > RE: Yes, I recall that you also thought the "rubbing against each other" of the cows in the Vism. was also quite innocent. > =============== J: Yes, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of doubt :-)) > =============== > RE: I see - rupas can arise together, just not serve as objects of citta at the same time. However, the consequent sound that results from their knocking into each other can be experienced in a single moment by citta. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. > =============== J: As regards rupas being arisen but not serving as object of citta, this could be said of both (a) a rupa that becomes the object of citta and (b) the rupas in the same kalaapa as that rupa. (a) According to the texts, the experiencing of a rupa through a sense-door occurs as follows: - the sense-door (also a rupa) is impinged on by an arisen rupa causing the stream of bhavanga cittas to be `disturbed'; - the stream of bhavanga cittas is interrupted and the sense-door process of cittas begins; - in the beginning moments of the sense-door process the rupa is the object of citta but is not *experienced* (i.e., known) as such; - some moments into the sense-door process the rupa is experienced by the sense-door consciousness; - after the sense-door process of cittas ends, there are mind-door processes of cittas for which the rupa (or its nimitta) is the object. Thus, there are moments of consciousness prior to the actual moment of sense-door consciousness in which the rupa is arisen but is not the object of consciousness or, if the object, is not experienced as such. (b) Also according to the texts, rupas arise together in groups (Pali: kalaapas) of not less than 8. All kalaapas consist of at least the 8 inseparable (avinibbhoga) rupas, these being the Earth-element, Water-element, Fire-element, Air-element, Form, Smell, Taste and Nutriment. However, only 1 of the rupas of a kalaapa can be the object of consciousness at a given moment. Thus at the moments that a rupa is being experienced through a sense-door, the other rupas in the kalaapa are arisen but are not the object of citta. > =============== > > However, I am still suspicious about the cows. > =============== J: Just cows being cows; no need to impute one's own values to the poor things :-)) Jon #128682 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: So there are trillions of things all happening together and perhaps also affecting each other in multiple ways, but citta can only experience them sequentially. Very limited access to reality... > =============== J: Regarding "Very limited access [by citta] to reality...", that of course depends on your definition of `reality' :-)) In the Dhamma, there is no `reality' in the abstract sense of the word, just `dhammas', things that have a unique inherent characteristic that can be known if arisen and within the range of perception. These dhammas have the characteristic of not-self, but they are taken for self. Hence the importance of their being seen as they truly are; and this is the function of insight. The `status' of things that are not within the sphere of present moment experience is not really relevant to the development of the path. Jon #128683 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: I guess I think it is important that the way in which the object of hearing is defined does some justice to its actual reality, rather than formatting the experience to a term of philosophy that makes it fit into a system of thought. While science does this also in its own way, it has the saving grace of doing a good degree of real observation and trying to fit its understanding to what actually takes place. I think that is the objective in Abhidhamma as well, and it would thus make some sense if there were some similarity in the descriptive idea of what constitutes a sound in both, even if they are interested in different aspects of the experience. > =============== J: Regarding "the objective in Abhidhamma", the Buddha declared that he taught the end of suffering and nothing else. So I don't think there's any basis for expecting an overlap between the Dhamma and science. > =============== > RE: It strikes me at least as somewhat disconcerting if the Abhidhamma description has no notion of the understandings that science gets from looking more closely at what is taking place when a sound occurs. I'm not saying that is the case, but that is why I look for a description in Abhidhamma as well that has descriptive rigor, just as I would in science. > =============== J: Regarding "the understandings that science gets from looking more closely at what is taking place", this of course will vary from age to age, even culture to culture (not to mention plane of existence to plane of existence :-)). The truths of which the Dhamma speaks, on the other hand, are said to be valid for all ages, places and beings. Jon #128684 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon - > ... > HCW: > No, not an article of faith but a pragmatic presumption that I'm prepared to (somehow) have shown to be false. (Pragmatic in that all we can ever experience is content of consciousness. There may well be unexperienced phenomena, but they are, indeed, unexperienced.) > =============== J: So your view is based on a presumption that itself depends on a presumption(!!), namely, the notion of `content of consciousness', an expression unknown to the Pali Canon. BTW, it is the arising moment of the *presently experienced sense-door object* that we are discussing, not some `unexperienced' phenomenon. > =============== > /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > > "When hearing... > > "When sensing... > > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ > > (From the Kalaka Sutta) > =============== J: Would be interested to know whether you read this passage as indicating that the arising moment of the presently experienced sense-door object could not possibly have preceded the arising moment of the experiencing consciousness. Jon #128685 From: Chan Kin Sung > That could makes sense. I was more wondering about the reason for > being good at something now, rather than remembering things from past life > - like if you are good at languages, there's certainly no memory of you > learning a language in a past life, but yet, there's this ability to learn > a language quickly, have a good grasp of the grammar (yes, you're right, > here is the grasping of the features and signs of a seeing object), etc. > What's that ability based on and how much would it have to do with > accumulations in sanna? > My understanding is this, Sanna is the function of the mind in remembering the features of the signs of a seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching object. And, the ability of sanna at work or in other words, the ability to remember the features and signs of an object, depends very much on one's own skill, training, experience, and past life. > > Take for example, a person is talking in English to you, due to your > familiarity with the language itself, you can remember what the person has > said. However, if the person is talking to you in a language you're alien > with. What happens to the mind? The mind can only hear, hearing process is > happenning. But, perception (sanna) can't really function, because you have > no memory of the language the person is speaking. > > So, in the case of the the person who is talking to you in a language > you're familiar and a language you're unfamiliar, hearing process is > happening. However, the perception is different in both cases. In the first > case, the mind can perceive the features and signs of the hearing object > much better compared to the the second case, the mind doesn't perceive the > object so well. > A few examples of a person that has a "good" sanna, a) can remember the suttas very well (a scholar) b) can remember the music and play it out after listening once (a musician) c) cann remember the tastes of food easily (a good cook) For all the six sense doors, they're people in the world who are good at perceiving different objects better than the others. #128686 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > (128649) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > HCW: > > No, not an article of faith but a pragmatic presumption that I'm prepared to (somehow) have shown to be false. (Pragmatic in that all we can ever experience is content of consciousness. There may well be unexperienced phenomena, but they are, indeed, unexperienced.) > > =============== > > J: So your view is based on a presumption that itself depends on a presumption(!!), namely, the notion of `content of consciousness', an expression unknown to the Pali Canon. ---------------------------- HCW: Oh, my - no such thing then! I stand corrected: There is no such thing as content of consciousness. Also, though there was an Ananda according to the Pali canon, there are no Jonathan Abbott and Howard Wasserman, and no corresponding namas and rupas, for none of these are mentioned in the Pali canon. (Sorry, couldn't resist being a smart ass! ;-) ---------------------------- > > BTW, it is the arising moment of the *presently experienced sense-door object* that we are discussing, not some `unexperienced' phenomenon. > > > =============== > > /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > > > > "When hearing... > > > > "When sensing... > > > > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ > > > > (From the Kalaka Sutta) > > =============== > > J: Would be interested to know whether you read this passage as indicating that the arising moment of the presently experienced sense-door object could not possibly have preceded the arising moment of the experiencing consciousness. ------------------------------ HCW: What I take this passage as indicating is that with regard to what can be seen, there is nothing other than as content of (visual, say) consciousness (a sight); i.e., there is no external thing that is seen, no existing visible object that is unseen (a thing in itself, independent of seeing), no external thing that will be seen, amd also no entity/agent (such as a person or even an eye-door citta) that sees. (This is what I take the passage to assert, and I impose nothing further. For me, the Buddha's meaning here is clear. I admit, though, thst it is a startling assertion.) ------------------------------- > > Jon > ================================ With metta, Howard P. S. Jon, you do know by now that this is my understanding, do you not? The Aggregates are Void /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) #128687 From: "truth_aerator" >> RE: In trying to sort out the types of conditions involved, is the aperture of the ear considered a rupa, or a concept/construct? And if the latter, can a concept serve as a condition for the arising of a reality? >> =============== > >J: I take the aperture to refer to the rupa of space (Pali: akasa rupa). > >As far as I know, concepts cannot be a condition for the arising of a reality (except to the extent that a concept may be the object of citta and thus object condition for that dhamma). > >Jon > > > > > #128689 From: Ken O > Late Moegoke Sayadaw emphasized 1st noble truth. It is the most important thing to understand and recognize. At any moment of magga citta there are 4 things happen. 1st noble truth is recognized, 2nd noble truth is eradicated, 3rd noble truth is directly faced and 4th noble truth is developed. > >Thanks for telling us about this. It is very good to have this information on the realization of the 4NT. > >Best, >Rob E. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > #128692 From: Ken O > Hello Howard, all, > > What is the difference between: > > 1)"consciousness" and "content of consciousness"? > 2)"seeing" and "the seen"? ----------------------------------- HCW: I don't know what possible definitional answer I could provide. Don't you distinguish between these? I do. One is a knowing and the other the known, two mutually dependent poles of a cognitive event. Though co-occuring, they aren't the same thing at all, analogous to(but, of course, merely analogous to) inside & outside. ------------------------------------ > > With best wishes, > > Alex > =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128695 From: "truth_aerator" > Hi, Alex - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Howard, all, > > > > What is the difference between: > > > > 1)"consciousness" and "content of consciousness"? > > 2)"seeing" and "the seen"? > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't know what possible definitional answer I could provide. Don't you distinguish between these? I do. One is a knowing and the other the known, two mutually dependent poles of a cognitive event. Though co-occuring, they aren't the same thing at all, analogous to(but, of course, merely analogous to) inside & outside. > ------------------------------------ > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Alex > > > =================================== > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > #128696 From: "sarah" > S: I did bring up this point in passing and Achan Sujin said it was all based on accumulated sanna. > > > >C: sure. i think. isn't it sa~n~naa marks and the memory 'falls into' sankhaara-khanda: accumulated with the efficiency of the javana - so, pakati? ... S: Sa~n~naa marks and remembers. Not sure what is meant by "the memory 'falls into' sankhaara-khanda"??? Yes, agree about the accumulated part and so, pakati, natural, as you say. We may think we can remember and recall this and that, but no "we" to do anything, just sa~n~naa performing its function from moment to moment. Metta Sarah ====== #128697 From: "sarah" My understanding is this, > > Sanna is the function of the mind in remembering the features of the signs > of a seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching object. And, the > ability of sanna at work or in other words, the ability to remember the > features and signs of an object, depends very much on one's own skill, > training, experience, and past life. .... S: Can we say it depends on previously accumulated tendencies of sanna to mark and remember similar objects? Skills, training and experience in past and the present lives. > >? Take for example, a person is talking in English to you, due to your > > familiarity with the language itself, you can remember what the person has > > said. However, if the person is talking to you in a language you're alien > > with. What happens to the mind? The mind can only hear, hearing process is > > happenning. But, perception (sanna) can't really function, because you have > > no memory of the language the person is speaking. ... S: Forget whose comment this was that you quoted, but I'd say that it's not a matter of sanna not really functioning in this example, but marking different objects. Sanna fully functions at each moment, regardless of the object. ... > >? So, in the case of the the person who is talking to you in a language > > you're familiar and a language you're unfamiliar, hearing process is > > happening. However, the perception is different in both cases. In the first > > case, the mind can perceive the features and signs of the hearing object > > much better compared to the the second case, the mind doesn't perceive the > > object so well. ... S: I wouldn't say that sanna "doesn't perceive the object so well", it just marks different objects. When there is thinking about what is seen and heard, sanna, vitakka and other cetasikas perform their tasks according to accumulated tendencies. .... >CKS: A few examples of a person that has a "good" sanna, > > a) can remember the suttas very well (a scholar) > b) can remember the music and play it out after listening once (a musician) > c) cann remember the tastes of food easily (a good cook) > > For all the six sense doors, they're people in the world who are good at > perceiving different objects better than the others. ... S: I would say this is more like a conventional idea of good memory or perception. Good sanna or wholesome sanna depends on the kusala citta and accompanying kusala mental factors to arise. For example, there may be forgetfulness of the sutta or music, but if sati arises, sanna is "good". Looking forward to further discussions after we return from the next trip at the weekend. Metta Sarah p.s King Sung & all, pls would you kindly: a) Make it clear who you are addressing, even if "All", and b) sign off with your "real" name that we can address you by. Thanks in advance. ========= #128698 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Jon > > Isn't object condition for the dhamma where the dhamma is reality :-).   Object can be a condition for a reality especially when we have strong object conditioning where lobha arise > =============== J: Of the 24 conditions, there are (at least) 2 that mention 'object', namley, object condition and object decisive support condition. To my understanding, concepts are included among the objects of citta for object condition. As regards object decisive support condition, I was under the impression that this referred to dhammas only, but I notice that Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary says otherwise (see below). Nice to see you again. Jon Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, entry for 'paccaya': ********************************************* (2) Object-condition (aarammana-paccaya) is called something which, as object, forms the condition for consciousness and mental phenomena. Thus, the physical object of sight consisting in colour and light ('light-wave'), is the necessary condition and the sine qua non for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakkhu-vinnaana), etc.; ... further, any object arising in the mind is the condition for mind-consciousness (mano-viññana). The mind-object may be anything whatever, corporeal or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary. ... (9) Decisive-support (or inducement) condition (upanissaya-paccaya) is threefold, namely: (a) by way of object (aarammanuupanissaya-paccaya), (b) by way of proximity (anantaruupanissaya), (c) natural decisive support (pakatupanissaya). These conditions act as strong inducement or cogent reason. (a) Anything past, present or future, corporeal or mental, real or imaginary, may, as object of our thinking, become a decisive support, or strong inducement, to moral, immoral or karmically neutral states of mind. Evil things, by wrong thinking about them, become an inducement to immoral life; by right thinking, an inducement to moral life. But good things may be an inducement not only to similarly good things, but also to bad things, such as self-conceit, vanity, envy, etc. ... ********************************************* http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/paccaya.htm #128699 From: "Robert E" > hi RobE, > > > > rupas arise in a group of at least 8... and they're sort of reproductive, too. > > > > :-) Do the groups of rupas arise together, or in sequence? > > > > The bare octad (earth, water, fire, air + color, odor, flavor, nutritiment) arises and falls as a single kalapa. > > consider your body. lots of rupas come and go. do you imagine we're still getting rupas descended from the intense heat of big bang theory? <--rhetorical. rupas also descend from kamma, citta and _____ / 'food'. > > moment after moment, > connie one moment at a time - eight rupas at a time, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #128700 From: "thanhtaam" I'm very happy to join DSG, especially after the discussion trip in Hua Hin with Achaan Sujin last week. > It was difficult for a beginner like me with new concepts, Pali terms or Abhidhamma knowledge,.. however, on the other hand, I gained a lot from that. ... S: It is difficult and I know many of the terms seem very long to Veitnamese speakers who have a monosyllabic language! You may wish to print out the Pali glossary which is in the files section to refer to when reading some messages. Also, the dictionary at this link may be helpful: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html I know you have your own Vietnamese glossary too. ... > I felt encouraged from other friends about the their diligence and perseverance in studying Dhamma throughout their lives, for many years now. I had a bit more understanding from Achaan's reminder about now, it has to begin at this very moment. It's not me who can do anything to develop panna, lobha is not me in wanting to have more understandings, etc,.... It's never enough to be reminded about realities from wise person. ... S: You've really summarised the gist and the main point that has been stressed - this moment and just dhammas which are anatta, out of anyone's control. Please keep sharing your wise reflections. ... > Thank you DSG admin for creating this very useful forum which benefits a lot for the accumulation of understanding. .. S: Thanks so much "Tiny" Tam and very best wishes to Thai - we look forward to seeing you both again in Vietnam in September!! Metta Sarah p.s packing now for our next little trip away! ===== #128702 From: "jagkrit2012" T: I had a bit more understanding from Achaan's reminder about now, it has to begin at this very moment. It's not me who can do anything to develop panna, lobha is not me in wanting to have more understandings, etc,.... It's never enough to be reminded about realities from wise person. JJ: It is so true that never enough to be reminded about reality from wise person. Because our ignorance is accumulated for a long long time, therefore, acquaintance with wise persons as kalayanamitr (good friend) is very important and the Lord Buddha said this is one of the most 38 propitious things. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128703 From: Chan Kin Sung wrote: > ** > > > Dear Tam > > JJ: Welcome you on board for the long trip to dhamma understanding. > > When you mentions the difficulty of understanding dhamma, Than Acharn > Sujin always says that you worship the wisdom-ship of the Lord Buddha. > > > T: I had a bit more understanding from Achaan's reminder about now, it > has to begin at this very moment. It's not me who can do anything to > develop panna, lobha is not me in wanting to have more understandings, > etc,.... It's never enough to be reminded about realities from wise person. > > JJ: It is so true that never enough to be reminded about reality from wise > person. Because our ignorance is accumulated for a long long time, > therefore, acquaintance with wise persons as kalayanamitr (good friend) is > very important and the Lord Buddha said this is one of the most 38 > propitious things. > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > > > #128704 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Howard, all, > > It seems that distinguishing is merely in name. There isn't "knowing" without something "being known". There is no such thing as blank awareness or knowledge without something that one is aware of, of something that is known. ---------------------------- HCW: I seem to be aware of both knowing and of known, and I find quite different qualities in them. My experience is that they are inseparable but not identical. ---------------------------- > > IMHO, > > With best wishes, > > Alex =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128705 From: "jagkrit2012" > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. > ... > S: How do you understand the first noble truth and its "centrality"? It seems to me that one of the big functions of delusion is to try to avoid/distract/rationalize the constant arising of suffering and unsatisfactory forms that cause anything from dissatisfaction to powerful degrees of suffering. I think that squarely facing the fact of suffering in each arisen form in each moment would cause an instant degree of disenchantment and detachment. The illusion that things are going to get better keeps the vicious cycle going. The 1st Noble Truth does not stand by itself - the other three are important too! - but I think the Buddha said that the full realization of the pervasiveness of dukkha was the key to his full enlightenment because this is the simple glaring fact that samsara is designed to avoid, and that once seen through unravels the whole system. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128707 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I am recently reading a book on Buddhism by a friend who is emphasizing Buddha's statement that thoroughly comprehending the first noble truth was the key to his complete enlightenment. As we go through the various illnesses and deaths in our lives, it reminds me of the centrality of the 1st noble truth. > ... > S: How do you understand the first noble truth and its "centrality"? Just to clarify my last post, I think the significant aspect of dukkha is not just that it arises - many traditions acknowledge suffering - but that it is inherent in every moment of reality. It's baked in and there's no way out without exiting the whole system of attachment to forms. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128708 From: "connie" one moment at a time - eight rupas at a time, In theory & pure octads only! The kamma stork drops the likes of us off as a triad of 10-rupa kalapas - sense bases rupas not included. This is one being born blind. Kamma, citta, nutritive essence and temperature each go on feeding/producing the body... pretty much right up until kamma says it's time to move on & according to their own strength, etc - kamma can produce rupas at each minor moment but citta doesn't, stuff like that. To feed curiosity: www.zolag.co.uk/downloads/physical_phenomena.pdf PPn vii 27 [202] ...: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; connie #128709 From: KC > one moment at a time - eight rupas at a time, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - > > #128710 From: KC wrote: > Hi Kin Sung > > Welcome you to DSG. > > I do hope that you find various knowledges of dhamma on this board. > > There are different purposes of studying dhammas among our friends. > > One purpose which is the main objective of learning dhamma from the teaching of the Lord Buddha is to understand reality at this moment. > > As you may follow or join some discussions, you shall find that many friends explain and discuss about ultimate realities or Paaramattha Dhammas which is crucial and interesting to understand because realities appear to us all the time and most of the time without awareness and understanding. Until understanding these realities more and more, one may start to realise more and more about 4 noble truths which is the hearth of the Lord Buddha's teaching. > > Once, I myself obsessed with meditation. Because in Thailand, we have a lot of reputed meditation centers. I've tried various methods of meditating since I was a kid until I grown up and also ordained as a monk of some period of years. I meditated with hope to raise wisdom from the moment of calmness during the process. Believe in or not, the wisdom never comes. And I found out later that I was missing one important factor during those meditation practices: it is a real understanding about meditation practice or Samaatha Bavanaa. I meditated just as the master told me to do without really understand anything. I was played by lobha (attachment) all along with pleasure of calmness. Every time I meditated I was looking and hoping for calmness and more deeper calmness and more. The calmness I faced was not the real calmness because a lot of subtle lobha and ignorance arised without any notices. Real calmness shall be freed from any unwholesomeness or kilesas at all. > > Therefore, now I incline toward learning and understanding realities right now more than meditation practice which I still have no clue to understanding the right way to practice it. I will not lose my precious time during this life to do something I don't know but rather learn something which is real at the moment. > > (Please be noted that, meditation for health of body and mind is the other thing.) > > Do hope that you enjoy dhamma and learn more about realities which all are dhamma around us at the moment and these realities may reflect to us even while studying any Suttas if we accumulate enough curtain understanding of them. > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > > #128711 From: KC #128714 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Howard, Ken O and all, ---- <. . .> > Howard: P. S. Jon, you do know by now that this is my understanding, do you not? ----- KH: The beauty of a Dhamma discussion group is that members can ascertain whether any given understanding is (or is not) consistent with the Dhamma. I don't know what we would do if discussion was not permitted. Ken O, for example, likes to assert that ritualised meditation forms part of the Path (what a wonderful topic!) but he refuses to be drawn on it. Ken's alternative, it would seem, is to post tracts of Buddhist text, apropos of nothing. What is the point of that? I have a library of Buddhist texts; I come to DSG for discussion, not for communal reading. Comments welcome! :-) Ken H #128715 From: "connie" > PPn vii 27 [202] ...: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; > to back up a step, for the sake of clear comprehension ;) this is in Recollection of the Buddha: PPn xvii 27. [202] Besides, he has discovered all things rightly by himself step by step thus: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; the prior craving that originates it by being its root-cause is the Truth of Origin; the non-occurrence of both is the Truth of Cessation; the way that is the act of understanding cessation is the Truth of the Path. And so too in the case of the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. 28. And the following things should be construed in the same way: The six bases beginning with visible objects, The six groups of consciousness beginning with eye consciousness, The six kinds of contact beginning with eye contact, The six kinds of feeling beginning with the eye-contact-born, The six kinds of perception beginning with perception of visible objects, The six kinds of volition beginning with volition about visible objects, The six groups of craving beginning with craving for visible objects, The six kinds of applied thought beginning with applied thought about visible objects, The six kinds of sustained thought beginning with sustained thought about visible objects, The five aggregates beginning with the aggregate of matter, The ten kasinas, The ten recollections, The ten perceptions beginning with perception of the bloated, The thirty-two aspects [of the body] beginning with head hairs, The twelve bases, The eighteen elements, The nine kinds of becoming beginning with sensual becoming {6}, The four jhanas beginning with the first, The four measureless states beginning with the development of lovingkindness, The four immaterial attainments, The factors of the dependent origination in reverse order beginning with ageing-and-death and in forward order beginning with ignorance (cf. Ch.XX,§9). {6}. See Ch.XVII,253-4. The word bhava is rendered here both by 'existence' and by 'becoming'. The former, while less awkward to the ear, is inaccurate if is is allowed a flavour of staticness. 'Becoming' will be more frequently used as this work proceeds. Loosely the two senses tend to merge. But technically, 'existence' should perhaps be used only for atthitaa, which signifies the momentary existence of a dhamma 'possessed of the three instants of arising, presence and dissolution'. 'Becoming' then signifies the continuous flow or flux of such triple-instant moments; and it occurs in three main modes: sensual, fine-material, and immaterial. For remarks on the words 'being' and 'essence' see Ch.VIII, n.68. --- while we tarry... 246. Herein in so far as means as many as. Dhammas [means] individual essences. {68} Whether formed or unformed: whether made by conditions going together, coming together, or not so made. {69} Fading away is pronounced the best of them: of these formed and unformed dhammas fading away is pronounced the best, is called the foremost, the highest. {68}. 'In such passages as "Dhammas that are concepts" (Dhs. p.1; §1308) even a non-entity (abhaava) is thus called a "dhamma" since it is borne (dhaariiyati) and affirmed (avadhaariiyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his saying "Dhammas [means] individual essences". The act of becoming (bhavana), which constitutes existingness (vijjamaanataa) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bhaava); it is with essence (saha bhaavena), thus it is an individual essence (sabhaava); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhamaanaruupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called "dhamma (bearers)" because they bear (dhaara.na) their own individual essences (sabhaava), and they are called "individual essences" in the sense already explained' (Pm.282; cf Ch.VII, n.1). In the Pi.takas the word sabhaava seems to appear only once (Ps.i,178). It next appears in the Netti (p.79), the Milindapa~nhaa (pp.90, 164, 212, 360). It is extensively used for exegetical purposes in the Visuddhimagga and main commentaries and likewise in the sub-commentaries. As has just been shown, it is narrower than dhamma (see also Ch.XXIII, n.18). It often roughly corresponds to dhaatu (element - see e.g. Dhs263) and to lakkha.na (characteristic - see below), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa (function - see Ch.I,21). The Atthasaalinii observes: 'It is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (Dhs.63); on which the Muula-Tiikaa comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas. The generality is the individual essence common to all consisting in impermanence, etc.; also in this context (i.e. Dhs.1) the characteristic of being profitable may be regarded as general because it is the individual essence common to all that is profitable; or alternatively it is their individual essence because it is not common to the unprofitable and indeterminate [kinds of consciousness]' (DhsAA.63). The individual essence of any formed dhamma is manifested in the three instants of its existence (atthitaa, vijjamaanataa), namely, arising, presence (= ageing) and dissolution. It comes from nowhere and goes nowhere (Ch.XV,15) and is borne by the mind. Dhammas without individual essence (asabhaava-dhamma) include the Attainment of Cessation (see Ch.XXIII, n.18) and some concepts. Space and time belong to the last-mentioned. Of space (aakaasa) the Tiikaa to the Majjhima Nikaaya says: 'Space, which is quite devoid of individual essence, is called empty' (commenting on M.Sutta 106), while of time (kaala) the Mula Tiikaa says: 'Though time is determined by the kind of consciousness [e.g. as specified in the first paragraph of the Dhammasa'nganii] and is non-existent (avijjamaana) as to individual essence, yet as the non-entity (abhaava) before and after the moment in which those [conascent and co-present] dhammas occur, it is called the "container (adhiikarana)"; it is perceived (symbolized) only as the state of a receptacle (aadhaara-bhaava)' (DhsAA.62). Of nibbana (for which see Ch.XVI,64ff), which has its own individual essence, the Mula Tiikaa says: 'Nibbana is not like other dhammas; because of its extreme profundity it cannot be made an object of consciousness (aalambitu'm) by one who has not realized it. That is why it has to be realized by Change-of-lineage. It has profundity surpassing any individual essence belonging to the three periods of time' (Vbh.AA.38). 'Sabhaava' has not the extreme vagueness of its parent 'bhaava', which can mean anything between 'essence' (see e.g. Dhs61) and '-ness' (e.g. natthi-bhaava = non-existingness - Ch.X,35). This may be remembered when sabhaava is defined as above thus 'It is with essence (saha bhaavena) thus it is individual essence (sabhaava)' (Pm.282), and when it is defined again thus 'A dhamma's own essence or its existing essence (sako vaa bhaavo samaano vaa bhaavo) is its individual essence (sabhaava)' (Pm.433). Sabhaava can also be the basis of a wrong view, if regarded as the sole efficient cause or condition of any formed thing (Ch.XVI, n.23). The Sanskrit equivalent, svabhaava, had a great vogue and chequered history in philosophical discussions on the Indian mainland. This (unlike the word, dhamma, which has many 'referents') is an instance in which it is of first importance to stick to one rendering. The word is a purely exegetical one; consequently vagueness is undesirable. 'Individual essence' has been chosen principally on etymological grounds, and the word 'essence' (an admittedly slippery customer) must be understood from the contexts in which it is used and not prejudged. Strictly it refers here to the triple moment of arising etc., of formed dhammas that can have such 'existence' in their own right and be experienced as such; and it refers to the realizability of nibbana. We are here in the somewhat magical territory of Ontology, a subject which is at present undergoing one its periodical upheavals in Europe, this time in the hands of the Existentialists. Consequently it is important to approach the subject with an open mind. {69}. '"Made" is generated. "Not so made" is not made by any conditions at all' (Pm.281). --- later, connie #128716 From: "connie" ---------------------------- > HCW: > Oh, my - no such thing then! I stand corrected: There is no such thing as content of consciousness. Also, though there was an Ananda according to the Pali canon, there are no Jonathan Abbott and Howard Wasserman, and no corresponding namas and rupas, for none of these are mentioned in the Pali canon. (Sorry, couldn't resist being a smart ass! ;-) > ----- > The Aggregates are Void > the deva in the beginning of the visuddhimagga asks about the << Tangle within, without, lo! in the toils Entangled is the race of sentient things. ... arising within one's own and others' individualities and what thereto appertains, in the organs subjective and objective. >> under another label (pa~n~natti), Rita's own (love potion): puggala #9, 'an average man'. ;) a round of extracts from ch17(Plane of Understanding) Maung, POP: POP p625 n2: Sustenance, craving, feeling, contact, sense, name-and-form, consciousness are of the present. Activities and ignorance are of the past. < And it is ignorance which has "no knowledge" of the meanings of the aggregates as a heap, of the sense-organs as extension, of the elements as being void, of the controlling faculties as dominant influence, of the truths as being true. > < In what remains to be said: that which is aware is consciousness; that which names is name; that which is corruptible is form (or shape); that which extends what comes (within its causal relationship), and also, leads to the long stretch (of the ocean of life) is sense; > later, connie Alas! this world has fallen upon trouble. There is getting born and growing old, and dying and falling and being born. KS ii 6. #128717 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Howard, Alex and Lucas, -------- <. . .> > HCW: I seem to be aware of both knowing and of known, and I find quite different qualities in them. My experience is that they are inseparable but not identical. -------- KH: Lucas told us recently that the space around a rupa was bigger than the sky. That would make nama and rupa absolutely separable, wouldn't it? (Separable in the ultimate sense.) Ken H #128718 From: "philip" > Hi Connie, > hi Sarah, > > > > S: I did bring up this point in passing and Achan Sujin said it was all based on accumulated sanna. > > > > > > >C: sure. i think. isn't it sa~n~naa marks and the memory 'falls into' sankhaara-khanda: accumulated with the efficiency of the javana - so, pakati? > ... > S: Sa~n~naa marks and remembers. Not sure what is meant by "the memory 'falls into' sankhaara-khanda"??? Yes, agree about the accumulated part and so, pakati, natural, as you say. We may think we can remember and recall this and that, but no "we" to do anything, just sa~n~naa performing its function from moment to moment. > uhm, having fallen, today's kamma springs up in tomorrow's sankhaara-khanda? just "conditioned", any "special" abilities or "inheritance". i should stick to quoting texts! connie #128720 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:27 pm Subject: Re: New member but not new it is Htoo kenhowardau Hi Htoo, Thanks for your reply. Most of the discussions at DSG are between one person who thinks the Dhamma is about doing something, and another person who thinks it is about understanding the present reality. I suspect this is one of those occasions. :-) --- <. . .> > Htoo: Right. There is no control. Initially one has to note everything that arises at the moment. ---- KH: I suspect we have different definitions of control. My definition covers everything that happens (is imagined to happen) in the conventionally known world. By my definition, `making a note of things' would be an example of control. In ultimate reality there is just one moment of conditioned nama and rupa; there is no note, and there is no one that can make a note. --------------- > Htoo: By noting there is no time to wander about. --------------- KH: It makes no difference to satipatthana. If a distracted citta becomes the object of consciousness, panna knows it as a distracted citta. If an undistracted citta becomes the object of consciousness, panna knows it as undistracted. It all depends on whether the factors for satipatthana have been put in place. And the practice of `making a note of concepts' is not one of those factors. ---------------- > Htoo: On the otherhand one has to study dhamma to understand. Simple understanding is not penetrative knowledge (pa.tivedha). ---------------------------------- KH: I think you are saying there are two ingredients to vipassana: knowing the Dhamma, and performing a ritual. To my way of thinking the second negates the first. When there is belief in the efficacy of noting (or any other conventional meditation practice) there is wrong understanding. --------- <. . .> > Htoo: By noting more and more one can recognize that anything arises vanishes. --------- KH: As I said, the practice of noting is not one of the factors leading to satipatthana. There is no mention of it in the Tipitaka. ---------------- > Htoo: This is first recognition on the general markers of sa~nkhaara dhamma. If someone sees a dog as an only dog there is no change in the power of dhamma. But if he sees all points and accept what he sees is a dog then he is right. Here I mean all points as seeing colour, form & shape and its impernance and so on. ---------------- KH: Yes, when a monk is walking he practices walking satipatthana, when a monk is looking at a dog he practices looking-at-a-dog satipatthana. (That is, he knows the characteristics of whatever conditioned dhamma happens to become the arramana at the time.) It makes no difference what one is doing in the conventional sense of doing, the important thing is that satipatthana happens in the present moment. ---------------------- <. . .> >> KH: I think with practice there will be more conditions for seeing to be understood when it arises. And there will be more conditions for *thinking* to be rightly understood when *it* arises. >> > Htoo: Here thinking has to be samma-sankappa. ----------------------- KH: Any kind of thinking – samma or miccha, kusala or akusala – can be understood when it arises. ------------- <. . .> >> KH: Is that what the sutta means by, "in the cognized there will be only the cognized?" >> >>I have always thought it meant the cognized will be known as anatta (devoid of a permanent self). >> > Htoo: One has to be continuously see anatta while arising objects are being noted. --------------- KH: I have just read Sarah's explanation (thank you, Sarah) and I see it means there is no akusala following on from the cognized. Thanks again for your reply, Htoo, I hope I am not being too divisive on the control/no-control front. :-) Ken H #128721 From: KC wrote: > Hi Howard, Ken O and all, > > ---- > <. . .> > > Howard: P. S. Jon, you do know by now that this is my understanding, do you not? > ----- > > KH: The beauty of a Dhamma discussion group is that members can ascertain whether any given understanding is (or is not) consistent with the Dhamma. > > I don't know what we would do if discussion was not permitted. Ken O, for example, likes to assert that ritualised meditation forms part of the Path (what a wonderful topic!) but he refuses to be drawn on it. > > Ken's alternative, it would seem, is to post tracts of Buddhist text, apropos of nothing. What is the point of that? I have a library of Buddhist texts; I come to DSG for discussion, not for communal reading. > > Comments welcome! :-) > > Ken H > > #128722 From: "rjkjp1" > Hi Howard, Alex and Lucas, > > -------- > <. . .> > > HCW: I seem to be aware of both knowing and of known, and I find quite different qualities in them. My experience is that they are inseparable but not identical. > -------- > > KH: Lucas told us recently that the space around a rupa was bigger than the sky. That would make nama and rupa absolutely separable, wouldn't it? (Separable in the ultimate sense.) > > Ken H > #128723 From: "connie" like a hot girl covered with coconut oil. > > What I know, I know and what I do not know I also know. > a tender young nymph descended from the heavens, i'm sure! run and don't look back, Lotty! take me with a grain of salt, but your honey's good with her stilletto. OH! and remember when she plucked out her eye? Gross! as opposed to subtle, the gross are the 12 rupa/s that seem more 'substantial' or 'more materialized': 5 "sensus takers" & their 7 "sensus data" start knocking about & we're off! chasing "perceptions of resistance", connie And the first truth is vile because it is the haunt of many dangers, and it is empty because it is devoid of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self, conceived by rash people. -vsm AdChoices #128724 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ------ > RK: I am not sure why lukas thought that space around kalapas ( i think that is what you mean) was bigger than the sky.Do you have the post where he stated that? ------ KH: I hope I was not misquoting Lucas. In post # 128677 he recalls a conversation in which A Sujin was asked about the space separating rupas – was it air and sky? A.S replied it was bigger than that. As I said, my understanding of this was that the space between rupas was absolute. The Earth and the Moon might one day traverse the relatively large space between them and become one, but visible object and audible object will never cross the space between them. Eye consciousness will never experience sound. Ken H #128725 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ------ > KO: Until you can show me some text why ritualise meditation is not in the path, then I discuss with you further. ------ KH: Thank you, Ken, I will be glad to. :-) The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or is it to the Mahasatipathana Sutta?) clearly states that the manner of "going" that is known by the panna of satipatthana is not the manner of going known by dogs and jackals. Therefore, mindfulness of a body with feet and legs, going from A to B, is not satipatthana. Nor will that kind of mindfulness ever lead to satipatthana. The quotes are endless; the entire Tipitaka points to a reality that is hard to see, not easy to see. The Visuddhimagga says that deeds exist, but the doer of deeds does not. That must mean that only paramattha-dhamma deeds exist, mustn't it? Cetana exists, but conventionally known deeds do not. The conventionally known act of sitting in meditation (or of playing tennis), for example, does not exist. Or do you interpret the Visuddhimagga as saying conventional actions do exist even though the person who engages in them does not? That would lead to absurd situations. A tennis racket would be seen to hit a ball over a net without a tennis player being present. A meditation cushion would be seen to have indentations in it as if sat on by an invisible meditator . . . The idea is absurd so I am sure you are not telling me conventional meditation really can exist. I am tempted to add that the only real meditation is the one that exists in single a moment of vipassana citta. But I am not sure if that is strictly correct. Jon has cautioned me against a "snapshot" view of ultimate reality, so I won't say it. :-) Anyway, Ken, now that I have fulfilled my side of the bargain, welcome back to the endless controversy of meditation versus not meditation. :-) Ken H #128726 From: "rjkjp1" > Hi Robert K, > > ------ > > RK: I am not sure why lukas thought that space around kalapas ( i think that is what you mean) was bigger than the sky.Do you have the post where he stated that? > ------ > > KH: I hope I was not misquoting Lucas. In post # 128677 he recalls a conversation in which A Sujin was asked about the space separating rupas – was it air and sky? A.S replied it was bigger than that. > > As I said, my understanding of this was that the space between rupas was absolute. The Earth and the Moon might one day traverse the relatively large space between them and become one, but visible object and audible object will never cross the space between them. Eye consciousness will never experience sound. > > Ken H Dear ken This is the post you mention, thanks for suplying the number. The entire post is about akasa and nothing to with the separation between nama and rupa. Robert Posted By: sarahprocter... Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:40 pm | Options Dear Lukas (& Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Jon, I could see you in front of your laptop when I just came back from a meal. ... S: Was it Jon or visible object? :) ... > L: I remember Acharn Sujin talk on akasa rupa, a space, that functions as a pariccheda rupa, that seperates rupas and also as that is a space. She said bigger than that while she is asked by someone if this is air and sky. But I assume she refers more to the space as a concept in that aspect. Also I recall the previous discusions on dsg as the another unconditioned dhamma is space. ... S: In brief, two kinds of akasa rupa, both realities: 1) the pariccheda rupa you mention 2) the open space, as in a cave, the ear cavity or the sky. See the following which Han recently quoted from the Rahulavada Sutta, MN61: 12. "What, Raahula, is the space element? [Note 644] The space element may be either internal or external. What is the internal space element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to, that is, the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the door of the mouth, and that [aperture] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to: this is called the internal space element. Now both the internal space element and the external space element are simply space element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the space element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the space element. [Note 644] Space (aakaasa) is not a primary material element but is classified under derivative material form (upaadaa ruupa). .... S: Both the inner and outer space referred to are the 2nd kind of akasa rupa I referred to above. If it was not a reality, there would be no reference to seeing it with "proper wisdom" and it would not be a rupa. Metta Sarah ====== #128727 From: Chan Kin Sung wrote: > ** > > > Hi Kin Sung > > Welcome you to DSG. > > I do hope that you find various knowledges of dhamma on this board. > > There are different purposes of studying dhammas among our friends. > > One purpose which is the main objective of learning dhamma from the > teaching of the Lord Buddha is to understand reality at this moment. > > As you may follow or join some discussions, you shall find that many > friends explain and discuss about ultimate realities or Paaramattha Dhammas > which is crucial and interesting to understand because realities appear to > us all the time and most of the time without awareness and understanding. > Until understanding these realities more and more, one may start to realise > more and more about 4 noble truths which is the hearth of the Lord Buddha's > teaching. > > Once, I myself obsessed with meditation. Because in Thailand, we have a > lot of reputed meditation centers. I've tried various methods of meditating > since I was a kid until I grown up and also ordained as a monk of some > period of years. I meditated with hope to raise wisdom from the moment of > calmness during the process. Believe in or not, the wisdom never comes. And > I found out later that I was missing one important factor during those > meditation practices: it is a real understanding about meditation practice > or Samaatha Bavanaa. I meditated just as the master told me to do without > really understand anything (I'm not sure if this is part of the learning > process. I used to do what the teachers said, without knowing the reasons > for the instructions given like slowing down the actions and labeling the > actions) . I was played by lobha (attachment) all along with pleasure of > calmness (At different time, the PROMINENT meditation object can be > different. If the mind has a strong desire and wanting something to happen, > an experience meditator needs to understand you need to switch from your > primary object let's say breathing to the observation of the mind. The fact > that meditator doesn't recognize that a mind that has desire is a > meditation object and should be recognized and understood will actually > brings more sufferings to himself. So, it's important to check FROM TIME TO > TIME what is happening, what is more prominent, checking the mind. > I used to spend at Wat Rampoeng in Chiang Mai for 1 and half months for my meditation retreat. At that time, I had a strong desire to push the wandering thoughts away. The strong desire was what I should recognize and it's ok to have wandering thoughts. Wandering thoughts are also meditation object. The fact I couldn't accept the mind has wandering thoughts led me to have a lot of mental sufferings. But, the teacher was quite skillful and guided me, until I realized that actually, it's ok to have wandering thoughts. Wandering thoughts are meditation object. Then, the attachment decreased much more. ) Every time I meditated I was looking and hoping for calmness and more deeper calmness and more. The calmness I faced was not the real calmness because a lot of subtle lobha and ignorance arised without any notices. Real calmness shall be freed from any unwholesomeness or kilesas at all. (Then, one should check he mind from time to time, understand what is this lobha. As Sayadaw U Tejaniya always says, do you want to desire to disappear? Is it important for it to disappear or to understand? When the wisdom arises, the wisdom will let go of the desire. it's not the meditator's job to eliminate the desire, but the wisdom. Meditators job is to cultivate the causes and conditions for the wisdom to arise. ) Therefore, now I incline toward learning and understanding realities right now more than meditation practice which I still have no clue to understanding the right way to practice it. I will not lose my precious time during this life to do something I don't know but rather learn something which is real at the moment. (Please be noted that, meditation for health of body and mind is the other thing.) (Meditation is for the mind, the result of having a trained mind is good health. ) Do hope that you enjoy dhamma and learn more about realities which all are dhamma around us at the moment and these realities may reflect to us even while studying any Suttas if we accumulate enough curtain understanding of them. Anumodhana Jagkrit > #128728 From: Chan Kin Sung wrote: > ** > > > Dear Kin Sung > > There is nothing wrong to meditate because Visud is full of them under the > concentration segment. If you feel you like meditation, continue it. > Different people have varied interpretation of the dhamma. Nothing wrong to > purposely act as long as the motivation and intention is to develop > understanding of dhamma. Even ancient disciples have to purposely go to see > Buddha to listen to dhamma. Even coming to this forum is already a purposed > act. > > What is important in learning dhamma, is to understand its nature. that > you can learn plenty of them in the Abhidhmma and commentaries. > > Kc > > ps. Welcome to SG > > > On 14 Jan, 2013, at 10:57 PM, "jagkrit2012" jagkrit2012@...> wrote: > > > Hi Kin Sung > > > > Welcome you to DSG. > > > > I do hope that you find various knowledges of dhamma on this board. > > > > There are different purposes of studying dhammas among our friends. > > > > One purpose which is the main objective of learning dhamma from the > teaching of the Lord Buddha is to understand reality at this moment. > > > > As you may follow or join some discussions, you shall find that many > friends explain and discuss about ultimate realities or Paaramattha Dhammas > which is crucial and interesting to understand because realities appear to > us all the time and most of the time without awareness and understanding. > Until understanding these realities more and more, one may start to realise > more and more about 4 noble truths which is the hearth of the Lord Buddha's > teaching. > > > > Once, I myself obsessed with meditation. Because in Thailand, we have a > lot of reputed meditation centers. I've tried various methods of meditating > since I was a kid until I grown up and also ordained as a monk of some > period of years. I meditated with hope to raise wisdom from the moment of > calmness during the process. Believe in or not, the wisdom never comes. And > I found out later that I was missing one important factor during those > meditation practices: it is a real understanding about meditation practice > or Samaatha Bavanaa. I meditated just as the master told me to do without > really understand anything. I was played by lobha (attachment) all along > with pleasure of calmness. Every time I meditated I was looking and hoping > for calmness and more deeper calmness and more. The calmness I faced was > not the real calmness because a lot of subtle lobha and ignorance arised > without any notices. Real calmness shall be freed from any unwholesomeness > or kilesas at all. > > > > Therefore, now I incline toward learning and understanding realities > right now more than meditation practice which I still have no clue to > understanding the right way to practice it. I will not lose my precious > time during this life to do something I don't know but rather learn > something which is real at the moment. > > > > (Please be noted that, meditation for health of body and mind is the > other thing.) > > > > Do hope that you enjoy dhamma and learn more about realities which all > are dhamma around us at the moment and these realities may reflect to us > even while studying any Suttas if we accumulate enough curtain > understanding of them. > > > > Anumodhana > > > > Jagkrit > > > > > > > > > #128729 From: "jagkrit2012" > JJ: I meditated just as the master told me to do without > > really understand anything. >> KS: (I'm not sure if this is part of the learning > > process. I used to do what the teachers said, without knowing the reasons > > for the instructions given like slowing down the actions and labeling the > > actions). JJ: Is this a problem? Doing without real understanding. This is what I think it is far different from the one in the past who developed Samaatha Bavanaa with actual understanding of what it really is. >>JJ: I was played by lobha (attachment) all along with pleasure of > > calmness >> KS: (At different time, the PROMINENT meditation object can be > > different. If the mind has a strong desire and wanting something to happen, > > an experience meditator needs to understand you need to switch from your > > primary object let's say breathing to the observation of the mind. The fact > > that meditator doesn't recognize that a mind that has desire is a > > meditation object and should be recognized and understood will actually > > brings more sufferings to himself. So, it's important to check FROM TIME TO > > TIME what is happening, what is more prominent, checking the mind. JJ: I am still curious that can we notice Lobha in this type of calmness. How? In really deep calmness, switch or checking the mind is irrelevant. > KS : I used to spend at Wat Rampoeng in Chiang Mai for 1 and half months for my > meditation retreat. At that time, I had a strong desire to push the > wandering thoughts away. The strong desire was what I should recognize and > it's ok to have wandering thoughts. Wandering thoughts are also meditation > object. The fact I couldn't accept the mind has wandering thoughts led me > to have a lot of mental sufferings. JJ: I can not find this instruction in Tipitika and commentary or visudhimaak or others. > KS : But, the teacher was quite skillful and guided me, until I realized that > actually, it's ok to have wandering thoughts. Wandering thoughts are > meditation object. Then, the attachment decreased much more. ) JJ: You really think so? May be need more precise explanation. > Every time I meditated I was looking and hoping for calmness and more > deeper calmness and more. The calmness I faced was not the real calmness > because a lot of subtle lobha and ignorance arised without any notices. > Real calmness shall be freed from any unwholesomeness or kilesas at all. > KS: (Then, > one should check he mind from time to time, understand what is this lobha. > As Sayadaw U Tejaniya always says, do you want to desire to disappear? Is > it important for it to disappear or to understand? When the wisdom arises, > the wisdom will let go of the desire. it's not the meditator's job to > eliminate the desire, but the wisdom. Meditators job is to cultivate the > causes and conditions for the wisdom to arise. ) JJ: I totally agree to Sayadaw that it is more important to understand than desire for Lobha to disappear. Wisdom or panna will eliminate the desire. And I'm not so sure that he relate this wisdom to meditation. Because in the commentary, there is a clear explanation that Samaatha Bavanaa can momentary stop kilesas to arise not like panna. It is a pleasure to discuss and exchange thoughts with you. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128730 From: Ken O > Without any prejudice, the starting of section, The Buddha after dealing with .............. respiration mediation. Now the text shows clearly, there is a respiration mediation component in the practise of satipatthana. To deal with the subject matter more exhaustively, this "I am going part" is about clear comprehension of dhamma, which is another cornerstone of developing the understanding of satipatthana on the contemplation of the body. As I said before, until you have proven to me that there is textual support of conventional action of meditation is wrong, then I will continue to discuss with you. Buddha taught both ways conventional and ultimate, and this is clearly stated in the Debates Commentary to suit different beings capacity to learn dhamma. Until then, please excuse me from discussing with you Thanks KC #128731 From: Ken O ________________________________ > From: Ken O >To: "dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.comdhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com> >Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2013, 0:57 >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object > > > >Dear Ken H > >KH:  The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or is it to the Mahasatipathana Sutta?) clearly states that the manner of "going" that is known by the panna of satipatthana is not the manner of going known by dogs and jackals. > >KC:  The extract from Commentary to Satipatthana on what you have mentioned >< > > > > > > > > > >> >Without any prejudice, the starting of section, The Buddha after dealing with .............. respiration mediation.  Now the text shows clearly, there is a respiration mediation component in the practise of satipatthana.  To deal with the subject matter more exhaustively,  this "I am going part" is about clear comprehension of dhamma, which is another cornerstone of developing the understanding of satipatthana on the contemplation of the body.  > >As I said before, until you have proven to me that there is textual support of conventional action of meditation is wrong, then I will continue to discuss with you.  Buddha taught both ways conventional and ultimate, and this is clearly stated in the Debates Commentary to suit different beings capacity to learn dhamma.  > >Until then, please excuse me from discussing with you > >Thanks >KC > >> > > > > #128732 From: Ken O > KC >________________________________ > From: Ken O >To: "dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.comdhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com> >Sent: Wednesday, 16 January 2013, 0:57 >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object > > > >Dear Ken H > >KH:  The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or is it to the Mahasatipathana Sutta?) clearly states that the manner of "going" that is known by the panna of satipatthana is not the manner of going known by dogs and jackals. > >KC:  The extract from Commentary to Satipatthana on what you have mentioned >< > > > > > > > > > >> >Without any prejudice, the starting of section, The Buddha after dealing with .............. respiration mediation.  Now the text shows clearly, there is a respiration mediation component in the practise of satipatthana.  To deal with the subject matter more exhaustively,  this "I am going part" is about clear comprehension of dhamma, which is another cornerstone of developing the understanding of satipatthana on the contemplation of the body.  > >As I said before, until you have proven to me that there is textual support of conventional action of meditation is wrong, then I will continue to discuss with you.  Buddha taught both ways conventional and ultimate, and this is clearly stated in the Debates Commentary to suit different beings capacity to learn dhamma.  > >Until then, please excuse me from discussing with you > >Thanks >KC > >> > > > > #128733 From: "connie" > Dear Ken H > > KH: The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or is it to the Mahasatipathana Sutta?) clearly states that the manner of "going" that is known by the panna of satipatthana is not the manner of going known by dogs and jackals. > > KC: The extract from Commentary to Satipatthana on what you have mentioned > < body-contemplation in the form of respiration-meditation, in detail, said: > "And further," in order to deal exhaustively with body-contemplation, > here, according to the meditation on the modes of deportment [iriyapatha] > Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going > (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily > do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But > this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar > awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed > the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and > neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of > Mindfulness.>> > Without any prejudice, the starting of section, The Buddha after dealing with .............. respiration mediation. Now the text shows clearly, there is a respiration mediation component in the practise of satipatthana. To deal with the subject matter more exhaustively, this "I am going part" is about clear comprehension of dhamma, which is another cornerstone of developing the understanding of satipatthana on the contemplation of the body. > > As I said before, until you have proven to me that there is textual support of conventional action of meditation is wrong, then I will continue to discuss with you. Buddha taught both ways conventional and ultimate, and this is clearly stated in the Debates Commentary to suit different beings capacity to learn dhamma. > > Until then, please excuse me from discussing with you > > > Thanks > KC > > > #128734 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:57 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ------- > RK: This is the post you mention, thanks for suplying the number. The entire post is about akasa and nothing to with the separation between nama and rupa. ------- KH: OK, thanks, but we all agree namas and rupas are separate phenomena, don't we? I mean all except the Mahayanists, who believe phenomena are just ripples on the Great Ocean of Being. As I have said before, I don't mind getting mixed up in my interpretations of suttas and Abhidhamma terminologies. As long as my overall understanding is sound I can't do much harm. Always good to have the correct interpretations too, of course! :-) Ken H #128735 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Connie (and Ken O), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > here, Ken. > i think it, the quote dropping out, has to do with how many <<'s there are or whether there is a space between < and letters. > If you, on-line, "reply", the drop-out re-appears. > connie > > KC: The extract from Commentary to Satipatthana on what you have mentioned > > < > body-contemplation in the form of respiration-meditation, in detail, said: > > "And further," in order to deal exhaustively with body-contemplation, > > here, according to the meditation on the modes of deportment [iriyapatha] > > Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going > > (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily > > do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But > > this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar > > awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed > > the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and > > neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of > > Mindfulness.>> ----- KH: Hey, how did you do that? Magic! Ken H #128736 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:29 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Ken O, ----- <. . .> > KO: Without any prejudice, the starting of section, The Buddha after dealing with .............. respiration mediation. Now the text shows clearly, there is a respiration mediation component in the practise of satipatthana. ----- KH: Firstly, the texts show nothing of the sort. There is no more a respiration element in satipatthana than there is a walking element – or an eating element, or an element of any of the other daily-life activities mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta. Secondly, mindfulness of respiration, when it is referred to in the texts, is *not* a conventional meditation technique. It is a natural part of daily life for the people who actually practice it. The other (conventional) form of respiration mindfulness, that ignorant people practise, is entirely bogus and not directly mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka. It is mentioned indirectly under the name of "superstitious rite or ritual." --------------- > KO: As I said before, until you have proven to me that there is textual support of conventional action of meditation is wrong, then I will continue to discuss with you. Buddha taught both ways conventional and ultimate, and this is clearly stated in the Debates Commentary to suit different beings capacity to learn dhamma. ---------------- KH: As has been explained to you many times, "conventional" and "ultimate" in this context refer to ways of expression. Ways of teaching. They do not refer to two different ways leading to enlightenment. There is only one such way. The conventional-language discourses and the ultimate-language discourses both teach exactly the same thing. ---------------------- > KO: Until then, please excuse me from discussing with you ---------------------- KH: I understand that you would rather not talk about it. No hard feelings! Please excuse me, however, if I continue a one-sided conversation with you. This topic is more important that any other. Ken H #128737 From: "connie" > > "And further," in order to deal exhaustively with body-contemplation, here, according to the meditation on the modes of deportment [iriyapatha] > > Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" > In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. >> > ----- > > KH: Hey, how did you do that? Magic! > "who let the dogs out?" 'No one' but the phenominal magic of the grand(ma haa!)bhuta and supporting conditions, some of which might be -conventionally speaking- the magic of mark-up languages, yahoo! maybe the question is: thru which unguarded doors might dogs appear? pretty sure the eye's not a dog door. but i think i'll go space out a while, connie #128738 From: "Robert E" > RE: In trying to sort out the types of conditions involved, is the aperture of the ear considered a rupa, or a concept/construct? And if the latter, can a concept serve as a condition for the arising of a reality? > > =============== > > J: I take the aperture to refer to the rupa of space (Pali: akasa rupa). That makes sense I think - except that "space" is a much more general rupa than "aperture" which refers directly to the ear and hearing. I guess that if "space" arises in a kalapa with other rupas of hearing, it would probably all fit together. Any passage on how the rupas of hearing configure together to create contact and processing of the sound? > As far as I know, concepts cannot be a condition for the arising of a reality (except to the extent that a concept may be the object of citta and thus object condition for that dhamma). Well, if we're talking about concepts like the ear, the aperture of the ear, sound - outside of using that word to signify a single rupa, and others, which seem to be necessary - or at least included in the description in the commentaries - in order to describe how sound is "heard," then the issue becomes a little more uncertain. Perhaps there is in reality no "ear," but it is hard to describe the moment of hearing without it. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128739 From: Kenneth Elder > > Hi Rob, > > > one moment at a time - eight rupas at a time, > > In theory & pure octads only! The kamma stork drops the likes of us off as a triad of 10-rupa kalapas - sense bases rupas not included. This is one being born blind. Kamma, citta, nutritive essence and temperature each go on feeding/producing the body... pretty much right up until kamma says it's time to move on & according to their own strength, etc - kamma can produce rupas at each minor moment but citta doesn't, stuff like that. To feed curiosity: www.zolag.co.uk/downloads/physical_phenomena.pdf > > PPn vii 27 [202] ...: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; This is a good link - thank you! I will check it out. I like the "kamma stork." I foolishly taught my daughter that she came from some activity of ours. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128742 From: "Robert E" > Hi Howard, Ken O and all, > > ---- > <. . .> > > Howard: P. S. Jon, you do know by now that this is my understanding, do you not? > ----- > > KH: The beauty of a Dhamma discussion group is that members can ascertain whether any given understanding is (or is not) consistent with the Dhamma. > > I don't know what we would do if discussion was not permitted. Ken O, for example, likes to assert that ritualised meditation forms part of the Path (what a wonderful topic!) but he refuses to be drawn on it. > > Ken's alternative, it would seem, is to post tracts of Buddhist text, apropos of nothing. What is the point of that? I have a library of Buddhist texts; I come to DSG for discussion, not for communal reading. > > Comments welcome! :-) My goodness - Ken H. versus Ken O. I hope I don't get confused. Did you suddenly wake up and decide to start arguing again? I have to admit that I felt a familiar sense of relief when I saw you mildly attacking Ken O.'s posting technique. It was pleasant vedana for me before proliferations took over and made me anxious again. Does that make me a sadist or a masochist I wonder? In any case, I think you are being a little unfair to Ken O., who I consider a Dhamma friend - you too of course, Ken H.! Ken O. has often given me helpful comments and information, not just quotes at all - but maybe you just have to get on his good side to get more helpful comments. Personally I am not so enthusiastic about going back to the bad old days of debating the path efficacy of meditation - formal or otherwise, mainly because it just seemed to go back and forth, making people madder and madder, without ever going anywhere. It may be one of those topics that the Buddha would have told us not to inquire into, if he were ever to have seen the activity on dsg. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128743 From: Kenneth Elder > Dear Ken H > > Until you can show me some text why ritualise meditation is not in the path, then I discuss with you further. > > I can show you plenty of text why ritualised meditation is part of the path. > > If not, no point discussing because what you have said are just basing on interpretation where in the Abhidhamma and commentaries have plenty of textual support for meditation. > > From KC I have to agree with you, Ken O., that meditation is often cited as part of the practice in texts from sutta to Visudhimagga to commentaries. Sometimes it can be confusing when the use of terms like bhavana is uncertain - whether it refers to meditation or natural development. But I think there are many passages where it is very clear that the texts are talking about formal meditation. For instance, in the Visuddhimagga there is a passage that advises getting a meditation teacher when one is ready to learn the techniques of following and counting breaths, etc. Those who disagree with this interpretation find some other way to say that it is a description rather than a proscription, but I personally feel that is really stretching it, when the text is explicit and the interpretation tries to take it in a different direction. If this were accepted it could be very interesting to discuss the ways in which meditation can take advantage of the understanding of the uncontrolled arising of whatever takes place in the moment, and how meditation can be led astray by the illusion of control, but I don't think we will get to the point when we can discuss such issues within an acceptance of meditation as part of the path that the Buddha taught. Not on dsg in any case. Best, Rob E. > > KH: The beauty of a Dhamma discussion group is that members can ascertain whether any given understanding is (or is not) consistent with the Dhamma. > > > > I don't know what we would do if discussion was not permitted. Ken O, for example, likes to assert that ritualised meditation forms part of the Path (what a wonderful topic!) but he refuses to be drawn on it. > > > > Ken's alternative, it would seem, is to post tracts of Buddhist text, apropos of nothing. What is the point of that? I have a library of Buddhist texts; I come to DSG for discussion, not for communal reading. #128745 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:26 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Connie, Ken O and all, -- > C: "who let the dogs out?" 'No one' but the phenominal magic of the grand(ma haa!)bhuta and supporting conditions, some of which might be -conventionally speaking- the magic of mark-up languages, yahoo! -- KH: I am suitably impressed. Now could you manifest Ken O's further explanation? Did Ken explain why the dog quote was not the proof he was asking for? (Why did it not prove ritualised meditation was a wrong path?) I would like to see that, please Grandma. --------- > C: maybe the question is: thru which unguarded doors might dogs appear? pretty sure the eye's not a dog door. ------------ KH: I think I see what you are telling me. I should be discussing Dhamma instead of arguing and provoking anger. So astute! And to think I doubted psychic powers! ---------------------- > C: but i think i'll go space out a while, ----------------------- That reminds me: I must apologise to all members who post texts (rather than discussions). I fully appreciate what they are doing, and I see that those posts are meant as invitations for discussion. Take no notice of my remarks, they were intended to coax Ken O, and other meditators, out of their corners. Ken H #128746 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:02 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- > RE: My goodness - Ken H. versus Ken O. I hope I don't get confused. Did you suddenly wake up and decide to start arguing again? I have to admit that I felt a familiar sense of relief when I saw you mildly attacking Ken O.'s posting technique. It was pleasant vedana for me before proliferations took over and made me anxious again. Does that make me a sadist or a masochist I wonder? ---- KH: It makes you just like the rest of us – so a bit of both, I suppose. :-) Yes, I did wake up and decide to start arguing again. But that is what I do every day at DSG. I really can't see the point in discussing Dhamma until we have settled the essential first step: Anatta (no self – no control) is deep and difficult to see; it is not shallow and easy to see. People think they can understand anatta and then continue on as usual – thinking there is ultimately something to be done by someone (something to be controlled). That sort of thinking only means they have not understood anatta at all. In my ignorance (and I am prepared to accept I wrong here) I can't see the point in discussing any other points of Dhamma until this major first step has been taken. Ken H #128747 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Kenneth, ----- > KE: I have done more Sutta study than Abhidhamma since my first Dhamma teacher was from Sri Lanka, Bhante Gunaratana starting in 1974. Our Burmese Monks here in Austin Texas are visiting Burma now so they aren't here to ask. I would assume the Abhidhamma would list psychic powers under concentration. That's how its usually discussed in the Sutta. ------ KH: Thanks Kenneth, I know so little about psychic powers, my question about them was probably too vague anyway. As you might have guessed, I like to have Abhidhamma explanations first, and a conventionally worded explanations second. That's the way the Dhamma was taught in the old days, or so I believe. Ken H #128748 From: "Robert E" > Hi Ken O, > > ------ > > KO: Until you can show me some text why ritualise meditation is not in the path, then I discuss with you further. > ------ > > KH: Thank you, Ken, I will be glad to. :-) > > The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (or is it to the Mahasatipathana Sutta?) clearly states that the manner of "going" that is known by the panna of satipatthana is not the manner of going known by dogs and jackals. > > Therefore, mindfulness of a body with feet and legs, going from A to B, is not satipatthana. Nor will that kind of mindfulness ever lead to satipatthana. Well, now that we are getting into this, at your request I guess, we may as well make some distinctions that have some understanding of the common-sense level of understanding. In order to understand that which is more subtle and hard to perceive, one must at least be able to see what is easy to perceive and not mistake it for something else. If you think that mindfulness of the body, of walking and other activities, is easy to achieve, you don't know anything at all about mindfulness. Mindfulness is not being generally aware of the fact that the body exists or is doing x, y or z - it is a specific present awareness of the actuality of the physical reality of the moment. However, that is also not different than "mindfulness of the body," it *is* mindfulness of the body. It's just not as simple as you strangely seem to think it is, since mindfulness of breathing, body, etc., are clearly said to be the objects of mindfulness by the Buddha himself. In addition, your idea that this mindfulness which is prescribed by the Buddha is what is meant by the "manner of going and coming known by dogs and jackals" is an insult to the Buddha, since mindfulness of going and coming, activities, breathing, body and the four foundations, etc., are what the Buddha directly advocated. Dogs and jackals are not capable of any form of mindfulness, in the Buddhist sense. They are not aware of having a body, or of the body, or of what the body is doing. They do not have reflective awareness at all, so they are unaware of any global understanding or perception. They are merely aware of the object of attention at the moment. If a cat is licking her leg, she is aware of licking sensations and the view of the leg, but that is not mindfulness. That is simple pragmatic awareness of the task at hand. Mindfulness involves understanding of what is arising. Animals are incapable of any such understanding, and so that is what the distinction means between mindfulness and the "going and coming of dogs and jackals," not what you think it means. > The quotes are endless; the entire Tipitaka points to a reality that is hard to see, not easy to see. The difficulty of Buddhist perception and of the development of mindfulness is not that the object of mindfulness is difficult to see, but that the awareness of that object is difficult to develop. It is supremely difficult, but not because it has an obscure object but because the capacity to really see and understanding the reality of the moment is an extremely focused and refined form of attention. So the difficulty of developing mindfulness does not say anything against its object being very simple, despite the difficulty. > The Visuddhimagga says that deeds exist, but the doer of deeds does not. That must mean that only paramattha-dhamma deeds exist, mustn't it? Cetana exists, but conventionally known deeds do not. The conventionally known act of sitting in meditation (or of playing tennis), for example, does not exist. You make a giant leap from saying that the doer - an identity behind action - does not exist, to the idea that certain activities do not exist. That is because you make the false assumption that any activity that you consider to be inherently conventional must be self-based, and this is just not true. The way in which meditation is defined may be conventional, using conventional language, but the act of meditation is not. This is an eternal argument which will not go very far, because you can never provide a quote from the "tipitaka that is full of such references," - not one - that will say that meditation is a conceptual activity and thereby disqualified from developing mindfulness. In fact all relevant quotes from all scriptures say the opposite, that meditation is the way in which mindfulness is most directly developed, and yes, the references to such are endless, from sutta to the Visudhimagga to the commentaries, but they say the opposite of what you are saying. Again - you assume that any activity that can be undertaken must be self-based; that is not true and is not said anywhere in scripture. And you ignore the many direct references extolling meditation from the Buddha himself to the Visudhimagga to the commentaries that you say are the source of your understanding. Never a single quote that will support what you claim. It is merely your own interpretation, along with others who happen to believe the same thing, with no scripture as a basis, except indirect ones that you interpret according to your own predisposed prejudiced views. > Or do you interpret the Visuddhimagga as saying conventional actions do exist even though the person who engages in them does not? Yes. There is no one behind the doing of deeds, but the deeds, as it states, do exist. Actions and perceptions that take place at any given moment do actually take place. > That would lead to absurd situations. A tennis racket would be seen to hit a ball over a net without a tennis player being present. No, you are creating a red herring by removing the body from the tennis racket. What you see is a body directed by mental arisings that respond to conditions that cause the body to do x, y or z, without any doer *within* the body. The body does do actions - the body is not a self, it is just an organism. The self is what is missing, obviously there is a body, but it is no more a doer than the tennis racket. It's just another instrument run by arising conditions. > A meditation cushion would be seen to have indentations in it as if sat on by an invisible meditator . . . > > The idea is absurd so I am sure you are not telling me conventional meditation really can exist. Your idea is ridiculously absurd because you weirdly confuse the body with the self. Buddha never said the body doesn't exist - that is truly ridiculous. He said that there is no *self* within the body or associated with what it does. The body itself is composed of the five kandhas, there is no self within. Your idea would lead to the ridiculous notion that to get rid of the self you have to get rid of your body. Not necessary. All that is necessary is to see that there is no self associated with the body, which is just an impersonal mechanism, as is the mind. > I am tempted to add that the only real meditation is the one that exists in single a moment of vipassana citta. But I am not sure if that is strictly correct. Jon has cautioned me against a "snapshot" view of ultimate reality, so I won't say it. :-) > > Anyway, Ken, now that I have fulfilled my side of the bargain, welcome back to the endless controversy of meditation versus not meditation. :-) Thanks a lot - NOT! :-( I would distinguish between "meditation" and "moments of vipassana." Meditation is the action of developing mindfulness. Vipassana is the moment when that development is fulfilled - moments of insight. What you are implying is that only the "good notes" are practice. Practice is a process of hit and miss, with the right intention gradually aiming towards its goal. The moments of akusala and kusala that arise are all potential objects for the development of sati, as you know. The trick is being present for both types of moments so that sati can develop naturally, not trying to pick and chose the "good ones," as you seem to be doing above, and saying only they are real. Akusala is just as real, and that means one can really proceed without controlling what arises. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128749 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:04 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------ <. . .> > RE:I have to agree with you, Ken O., that meditation is often cited as part of the practice in texts from sutta to Visudhimagga to commentaries. ------ KH: I agree also, although I have a different understand of what we are talking about. I agree all kinds of kusala development are cited in the texts. And that includes jhana, which is developed whenever the conditions for jhana are present. -------------- > RE: Sometimes it can be confusing when the use of terms like bhavana is uncertain - whether it refers to meditation or natural development. -------------- KH: Take my word for it :-) The Tipitaka always teaches development that occurs naturally through right understanding. It does not teach the path of an ignorant person who desires to become a wise person. --------------------- > RE: But I think there are many passages where it is very clear that the texts are talking about formal meditation. For instance, in the Visuddhimagga there is a passage that advises getting a meditation teacher when one is ready to learn the techniques of following and counting breaths, etc. Those who disagree with this interpretation find some other way to say that it is a description rather than a proscription, but I personally feel that is really stretching it, when the text is explicit and the interpretation tries to take it in a different direction. --------------------- KH: Thanks for your honesty. You see the Visuddhimagga as explicitly teaching a conventional practice. As we know (from the texts) the 8fold Path is a unique practice (There is a path, but no traveller on it), not a conventional one. Therefore, you see the Visuddhimagga as teaching something other than the 8fold Path. With a little flexibility you *might* be able to see the matter otherwise. Others can, why not you? ---------------------------- > RE: If this were accepted it could be very interesting to discuss the ways in which meditation can take advantage of the understanding of the uncontrolled arising of whatever takes place in the moment, and how meditation can be led astray by the illusion of control, but I don't think we will get to the point when we can discuss such issues within an acceptance of meditation as part of the path that the Buddha taught. Not on dsg in any case. ---------------------------- KH: Sorry, I couldn't follow that last part, but not to worry. Your overall argument is, I think, that meditators can develop right understanding of anatta by believing in a little bit of atta. Just enough atta to make right understanding happen. It doesn't work that way! Ken H PS: Now aren't you glad to be discussing meditation again? #128750 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128751 From: "Robert E" > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > > RE: My goodness - Ken H. versus Ken O. I hope I don't get confused. Did you > suddenly wake up and decide to start arguing again? I have to admit that I felt > a familiar sense of relief when I saw you mildly attacking Ken O.'s posting > technique. It was pleasant vedana for me before proliferations took over and > made me anxious again. Does that make me a sadist or a masochist I wonder? > ---- > > KH: It makes you just like the rest of us – so a bit of both, I suppose. :-) > > Yes, I did wake up and decide to start arguing again. But that is what I do every day at DSG. I really can't see the point in discussing Dhamma until we have settled the essential first step: > > Anatta (no self – no control) is deep and difficult to see; it is not shallow and easy to see. > > People think they can understand anatta and then continue on as usual – thinking there is ultimately something to be done by someone (something to be controlled). That sort of thinking only means they have not understood anatta at all. > > In my ignorance (and I am prepared to accept I wrong here) I can't see the point in discussing any other points of Dhamma until this major first step has been taken. It can't be settled without insight, therefore it can't be settled til there is some development on the path. Sometimes the first step can't be resolved until all the other steps have already been taken - annoying but true. The final insights are about the 4 Noble Truths as I recall - and that is where the path starts! I just don't think we can resolve things in a linear sequence, try as we might. It's kind of like your view of the path - you have to accept what arises rather than try to choose your subject. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128752 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Chuck, ----- > C: On what you wrote in part, "Take no notice of my remarks, they were intended to coax Ken O, and other meditators, out of their corners." > Well, as a "meditator(s)", from the sixties, this ole bag of bones am not in a corner... meditation is meditation as one finds it... no more; nor, no less... ------ KH: Yes, that is what I suggested to Kenneth Elder; the word `meditation' tends to mean anything any meditator wants it to mean. ------------- > C: No arguments, either... ------------- KH: Fair enough. -------------------- > C: peace... -------------------- KH: Peacefully keep turning on the wheel of samsara, Chuck. The trouble is the wheel turns down as well as up. Ken H #128753 From: "Tony H" I am currently investigating some of the point I took away from that morning, particularly Sujins' 'no formal practice' stance. l: or no particular rule. dhammas are too fast. panna and sati can have any object anytime. hugs lukas #128755 From: Tam Bach > Just a quick thanks for letting me sit in on your meeting in Hua Hin. It was a wonderful experience and although I did feel like I hogged the microphone I hope that others also got something from our dialogues. > > I am currently investigating some of the point I took away from that morning, particularly Sujins' 'no formal practice' stance. #128757 From: "Robert E" > Hi Kenneth, > > ----- > > KE: I have done more Sutta study than Abhidhamma since my first Dhamma teacher was > from Sri Lanka, Bhante Gunaratana starting in 1974. Our Burmese Monks here in > Austin Texas are visiting Burma now so they aren't here to ask. I would assume > the Abhidhamma would list psychic powers under concentration. > That's how its usually discussed in the Sutta. > ------ > > KH: Thanks Kenneth, I know so little about psychic powers, my question about them was probably too vague anyway. > > As you might have guessed, I like to have Abhidhamma explanations first, and a conventionally worded explanations second. That's the way the Dhamma was taught in the old days, or so I believe. We have a 'record of the way the Dhamma was taught in the old days,' known as the suttas - do you agree they are the record of the Buddha actually teaching? Do you feel the suttas show that the Abhidhamma explanation was given first, and then only followed by the conventionally worded explanation? Is there a sutta that you feel would serve as an example of that? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #128758 From: "Robert E" KH: Sorry, I couldn't follow that last part, but not to worry. Your overall argument is, I think, that meditators can develop right understanding of anatta by believing in a little bit of atta. Just enough atta to make right understanding happen. > > It doesn't work that way! > > Ken H > > PS: Now aren't you glad to be discussing meditation again? Well, as I predicted, it is impossible to discuss this, because your argument is not based on evidence, but on a presupposition about what things means for which there can be no evidence. Any conventional activities that are explicitly discussed in scriptures of any kind are seen as really referring to paramatha dhammas, therefore it is impossible to argue otherwise. You call an explicit acknowledgment of what the Buddha said and taught as "literalism," because it doesn't share the philosophical translation device that you have of automatically seeing it as other than what is being discussed. If the Buddha talks about "putting great effort" into meditation, to strive "like your hair is on fire," you will say that effort arises and striving arises but since there's no "someone" to do it, there is nothing that can be purposely done. Without an evidence-based philosophy that can allow the actual words to serve as proof of a or b, there is no way to resolve the argument. If I say 'whenever a dog is mentioned it really means cow,' there is no way to prove or disprove it, it's merely a decision on my part with nothing to stand on. If on the other hand you can find an explicit scriptural reference *anywhere* that says that suttas are all referring to the paramatha level using conventional language, I will certainly read and consider it. But there is none, because you are wrong. The Buddha taught both conventional and paramatha teachings, and they are both relevant, despite your objections. As for meditation, it is your own predisposition to assume that any purposeful act must involve atta, which again is a wrong view. That is because you do not see that even purposeful acts *have no atta.* It simply isn't there. Therefore, purposeful and non-purposeful do not divide atta from anatta. There is only anatta and meditating is no problem. You can't invent a self because there is none. Without realizing this, even non-meditation is ignorant, and whether one meditates or not doesn't really make any difference. There is either insight or not, whether meditating or washing the dishes. There is not a single scriptural reference meditation being a self-view-based activity. Therefore rather than being within the stream of Buddhism, your view is radical and outside of Buddhist teachings. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128759 From: "rjkjp1" > Hi Ken H. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > KH: Sorry, I couldn't follow that last part, but not to worry. Your overall argument is, I think, that meditators can develop right understanding of anatta by believing in a little bit of atta. Just enough atta to make right understanding happen. > > > > It doesn't work that way! > > > > Ken H > > > > PS: Now aren't you glad to be discussing meditation again? > > Well, as I predicted, it is impossible to discuss this, because your argument is not based on evidence, but on a presupposition about what things means for which there can be no evidence. Any conventional activities that are explicitly discussed in scriptures of any kind are seen as really referring to paramatha dhammas, therefore it is impossible to argue otherwise. You call an explicit acknowledgment of what the Buddha said and taught as "literalism," because it doesn't share the philosophical translation device that you have of automatically seeing it as other than what is being discussed. If the Buddha talks about "putting great effort" into meditation, to strive "like your hair is on fire," you will say that effort arises and striving arises but since there's no "someone" to do it, there is nothing that can be purposely done. > > Without an evidence-based philosophy that can allow the actual words to serve as proof of a or b, there is no way to resolve the argument. If I say 'whenever a dog is mentioned it really means cow,' there is no way to prove or disprove it, it's merely a decision on my part with nothing to stand on. If on the other hand you can find an explicit scriptural reference *anywhere* that says that suttas are all referring to the paramatha level using conventional language, I will certainly read and consider it. But there is none, because you are wrong. The Buddha taught both conventional and paramatha teachings, and they are both relevant, despite your objections. > > As for meditation, it is your own predisposition to assume that any purposeful act must involve atta, which again is a wrong view. That is because you do not see that even purposeful acts *have no atta.* It simply isn't there. Therefore, purposeful and non-purposeful do not divide atta from anatta. There is only anatta and meditating is no problem. You can't invent a self because there is none. Without realizing this, even non-meditation is ignorant, and whether one meditates or not doesn't really make any difference. There is either insight or not, whether meditating or washing the dishes. > > There is not a single scriptural reference meditation being a self-view-based activity. Therefore rather than being within the stream of Buddhism, your view is radical and outside of Buddhist teachings. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = > #128760 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:12 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- > RE: We have a 'record of the way the Dhamma was taught in the old days,' known as the suttas - do you agree they are the record of the Buddha actually teaching? Do you feel the suttas show that the Abhidhamma explanation was given first, and then only followed by the conventionally worded explanation? Is there a sutta that you feel would serve as an example of that? ---------- KH: I find suttas totally confusing on their own, and I doubt anyone could learn the Dhamma just by having the Sutta-pitaka recited to them. Fortunately, there are commentaries to the suttas, and there are commentaries to the commentaries. That's the way it has always been. Everything has to be explained in accordance with each student's capacity to understand. Consider how many misguided Buddhists there are in the world today. Most of them don't know the difference between jhana and vipassana. Most of them think the Path is followed by wanting to gain something. What we all need, more than a text book, is a friend who understands the basics. A friend who understands that anatta means no self - no control, no conventional reality. Then we can learn something from the suttas. Ken H #128761 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro KH: I find suttas totally confusing on their own, and I doubt anyone could learn the Dhamma just by having the Sutta-pitaka recited to them. > > Fortunately, there are commentaries to the suttas, and there are commentaries to the commentaries. That's the way it has always been. Everything has to be explained in accordance with each student's capacity to understand. > JJ: I totally agree with you. I've grown up in Thailand which is called the land of Buddhism. We teach children about Buddhism in almost every school around the country. We have more than hundred thousand Buddhism temples around Thailand. We have strong schools for monks to learn Tipitaka and Pali. People more than 80 % acquaint with Buddhism. This should imply that people here should know well about Buddhism and the essence of teaching. And they should know well about 4 noble truths and 8 fold paths in the way of right understanding and right practices. Unfortunately, from my experience of studying Buddhism through many monks and so-called Buddhist teachers for many years, what I learn are only reformed instructions. There are very fews precise instruction which conforms with ti-lakkahana: principle of anicca, dukkha and anatta. And I have to admit that I was taken away with this type of reformed instruction including meditation for many years with lobha and atta. A reformed instruction is the teaching that one applied his own thoughts to explain dhammas. Because of lacking careful studying Tipitika, commentaries and ancient texts and lacking to study in every detail of those books, he definitely can not really understand all or parts of the Lord Buddha's teaching which always bases upon ti-lakkhana. He, therefore, can explain according to his capacity of his own understanding which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. And it is difficult to see thoroughness, steadfastness and conformity to the 3 principles of characteristic in this kind of reformed instruction. ==================== > KH: Consider how many misguided Buddhists there are in the world today. Most of them don't know the difference between jhana and vipassana. Most of them think the Path is followed by wanting to gain something. JJ: Sometimes, even basic of teaching can be misunderstood, don't have to mention jhana and vipssana. There is for example a sutta pointing out that "using tanha (lobha) to eradicate tanha". This may mislead somebody to the think that the Path is followed by wanting to gain something. But in fact it should interpret that only understanding tanha will lead to eradicate tanha because it is odd to believe that wanting to practice which is full of lobha can be the way to handle lobha itself. ====================== > Ken H: What we all need, more than a text book, is a friend who understands the basics. A friend who understands that anatta means no self - no control, no conventional reality. Then we can learn something from the suttas. JJ: Yes, indeed, the noble friend will lead us to the right understanding and steadfast to ti-lakkhana from the very beginning. The Lord Buddha then mentioned quite often that associating with the noble friend is one of the 38 greatest things. Thank you and anumodhana for your standing firm on ti-lakkhana. Jagkrit #128763 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Chuck, ------- > Chuck: Just wondering... Is it a problem that the "wheel" turns down as well as up? To dis ole bag of bones; such as this existence for all sentient beings and, perhaps, non-sentient beings... positives/negatives; ying/yang... down as well up... A friendly discussion? --------------- KH: Yes, definitely a friendly discussion. I like to think, however, that one can sometimes speak one's mind without destroying the friendly atmosphere. With regard to the wheel of samsara turning up and down, that was just my version of the metaphor. If the metaphor is of a Ferris wheel then, it seems to me, the people nearing the top have a rosy view of the world. Usually they don't feel a burning need to get off the wheel. The people going down (towards hell) realise how silly they were to have wasted their opportunity: instead of delighting in the ride they could have been developing the 8fold path. Sometimes people are so fond of their meditation practices they don't want to consider the possibility that those practices might be wrong - and *not* what the Buddha taught. They are blithely on the upward side of the wheel. :-) Ken H #128765 From: "connie" > RE: We have a 'record of the way the Dhamma was taught in the old days,' known as the suttas - do you agree they are the record of the Buddha actually teaching? ------------- connie: dhamma is unconventional wisdom; usually considered incorrectly - conventionally and ultimately speaking; pegs for a puppet to beat it's own drum. there was no teaching before the ultimate truth was realized. we don't need to make any effort to suppress this; already it is in decline. > > KH: I find suttas totally confusing on their own, and I doubt anyone could learn the Dhamma just by having the Sutta-pitaka recited to them. > c: maybe the same blinders that keep us from understanding dhamma words keep us deaf to the rest of the dhamma on their own turf. i believe in listening with detached ears or typing with properly detached hands but not by myself. lock and load one 18 round magazine. > > What we all need, more than a text book, is a friend who understands the basics. A friend who understands that anatta means no self - no control, no conventional reality. Then we can learn something from the suttas. > c: there is conventional reality. it is just misunderstood. the three-fold world is not attractive. there is no call for laughter. ever. is that frightening enough? it makes the devas act hysterical, too. but i am, as usual, off-topic. the greatest miracle is the teaching of the dhamma. the twin miracle is no exception, connie #128766 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro KH: Yes, definitely a friendly discussion. I like to think, however, that one can sometimes speak one's mind without destroying the friendly atmosphere. [Rest deleted by Chuck] <...> #128767 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128768 From: "Robert E" KH: Yes, that is what I suggested to Kenneth Elder; the word `meditation' tends to mean anything any meditator wants it to mean. Ken, this is a nonsense statement. Meditators do not have their own crazy definitions of meditation that all vary from each other. There are very definite systems of instructions for each meditative tradition. Of course anyone can come along and create their own meditation regimen if they want to, just as you can run forward and backward, do jumping jacks and call it an exercise program if you feel like it. But there are very definite traditions that have gone on for thousands of years in Buddhism, Hinduism and many other traditions. In Hinduism, the yogic practice of meditation is spelled out in great, systematic detail in The Yoga Sutas of Patanjali. In Buddhism, there is a basic system of practice which has become popularly known as Vipassana meditation, and is a world-wide known tradition that is taught by an organized group of teachers. In Vipassana meditation, there is a balance between development of sati and practice of satipatthana with samatha meditation leading to jhana, and the ways in which those are practiced is well-known, mainly based in the simple practice of following the breath with focused awareness. The Thai Forest tradition, which has a long tradition of unbroken meditation, there is an emphasis on jhana, but with the same basic regimen of practice, following the breath with focused awareness. It is not a confusing issue. Those who have emphasized certain aspects of Buddhist practice, or created their own corollary systems, have specific names for their systems or variations and those are also well-organized and well-known, not subject to anyone "making up anything they feel like" as you falsely claim. The Goenka version of Buddhist meditation is named after him, so you know what you're getting; the Mahasi technique of following the breath in the belly instead of a the tip of the nose/nostrils is named after him, and is explained in his writings. Everything is clearly spelled out and all of it is organized and regimented. And all of the above systems - every one - is based almost 100% on the Anapanasati and Satipatthana suttas, the prime source of Buddhist meditation, given by the Buddha, and practiced both at that time and ever since, in an unbroken tradition. It is only a few people like yourself who stubbornly insist that there is no organized, well-known tradition of Buddhist meditation, and that it does not stem from the clear and obvious words of the Buddha himself, the undisputed source of the tradition. You might be well-served to once again drop a subject about which you are totally misinformed. I think you have claimed to have practiced yourself in the past, if I recall correctly. If you were in fact doing 'whatever you felt like' and not following any instruction that comes from the Buddhist tradition, that might explain why your meditative experience was so unsatifying. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128769 From: "Robert E" > Dear robert > Do you know the term silabataparamasa. What sort of activities does that cover would you say? > Robert Well it's a pretty complicated topic isn't it? I don't claim to have any kind of expertise about the full range of "clinging to rites and rituals," which is why I keep asking for some sort of definitive quote to the effect that meditation *in and of itself* or any *definite practice* is by definition an example of clinging to rituals. That is what I dispute. I think the admonition against clinging to rituals is a very important one. Obvviously if we *cling* to even a kusala path -- something that you pointed out a few years ago -- the clinging can create akusala in relation to that which is otherwise kusala. So it is really that complicated. One can't just list this or that activity and say "these are the clinging activities." In the main, I think the most important point is that the *clinging* is what is at fault, not even the rites and rituals. If one, for instance, were to follow a ritual out of respect, such as a particular way of greeing a Bikkhu that is considered the proper form of respect, one is just being respectful - that is not *clinging.* It is only if one thinks that "this ritual is creating kusala - that is why I am doing it" and one clings to the idea that they will get some kusala out of the deal or some merit, that one is clinging. One has to be attached, not just do the ritual. The question of whether *any idea that a certain activity will bring a positive result* is in and of itself *clinging to a ritual* is I think a very difficult and unresolved question. It is the view of many in dsg that one cannot meditation in any way, shape or form without it automatically being a form of clinging to control and thinking they can dictate the arising of kusala. I very much dispute this view, and I think it's the main argument to be resolved -- if it ever can be. Those who believe this believe it *on principle.* They cannot imagine a person meditating because they believe it's a proper path activity, equal to studying sutta or commentary or any other activity that is related to development of the path, and so they believe that there is no example of a meditator who is not creating self-view and believing in personal control. I of course think it is possible to meditate with attachment to results and a view of a controlling self, and that would undercut the meditation, but I also think it's possible to meditate with a sense of long-term benefit, without any sense of a controlling entity or any specific result that will be gotten at any particular time. This view is that the Buddha said "If you develop mindfulness of breathing, etc." that will lead to the development of the enlightenment factors," and based on one's faith in both the Buddha's word and the logic of what he taught, one engages with this practice as a part of Buddhist practice. That simple. If one thinks that is a ritual because it's an activity, then I think they ignore a large, large portion of the Buddhist teaching in which he clearly teaches a number of worldly choices to be made that can be kusala if chosen correctly, or akusla if chosen incorrectly. The Buddha clearly says that one should not eat meat that is killed on one's behalf, if you are a monk, but that meat can otherwise be eaten if it is given to the monk. Is that not a rule or ritual? If one follows this rule is one attached to ritual? Does following worldly views given by the Buddha that are clearly about everyday living and not about paramatha dhammas mean that one is attached to self-view and believes in control? If one does not want to follow the conventional teachings of the Buddha because one does not want to do anything at all but attend to paramatha dhammas, one winds up in the absurd position of violating the Buddha's prohibitions and saying that they are not real Buddhism because they are about "meat" which is only a concept. So Buddha, it turns out, was not a real Buddhist - they know better. Then the person who says they are a *real* Buddhist can do all the things the Buddha said *not* to do, such as drinking, adultery, getting a job as a professional killer, killing and eating animals and say "I am a real Buddhist as opposed to those who follow the Buddha's teachings, because I'm not attached to all these stupid rituals that the Buddha mistakenly talked about." If that is not absurd, I don't know what is, but it is exactly the view of those who are so attached to their interpretation of the Abhidhamma as a set of rules, rather than an analysis of what is always taking place, even in ordinary activities, that they can't bring themselves to follow the full scope of the Buddha's teachings. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Ken H. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > KH: Sorry, I couldn't follow that last part, but not to worry. Your overall argument is, I think, that meditators can develop right understanding of anatta by believing in a little bit of atta. Just enough atta to make right understanding happen. > > > > > > It doesn't work that way! > > > > > > Ken H > > > > > > PS: Now aren't you glad to be discussing meditation again? > > > > Well, as I predicted, it is impossible to discuss this, because your argument is not based on evidence, but on a presupposition about what things means for which there can be no evidence. Any conventional activities that are explicitly discussed in scriptures of any kind are seen as really referring to paramatha dhammas, therefore it is impossible to argue otherwise. You call an explicit acknowledgment of what the Buddha said and taught as "literalism," because it doesn't share the philosophical translation device that you have of automatically seeing it as other than what is being discussed. If the Buddha talks about "putting great effort" into meditation, to strive "like your hair is on fire," you will say that effort arises and striving arises but since there's no "someone" to do it, there is nothing that can be purposely done. > > > > Without an evidence-based philosophy that can allow the actual words to serve as proof of a or b, there is no way to resolve the argument. If I say 'whenever a dog is mentioned it really means cow,' there is no way to prove or disprove it, it's merely a decision on my part with nothing to stand on. If on the other hand you can find an explicit scriptural reference *anywhere* that says that suttas are all referring to the paramatha level using conventional language, I will certainly read and consider it. But there is none, because you are wrong. The Buddha taught both conventional and paramatha teachings, and they are both relevant, despite your objections. > > > > As for meditation, it is your own predisposition to assume that any purposeful act must involve atta, which again is a wrong view. That is because you do not see that even purposeful acts *have no atta.* It simply isn't there. Therefore, purposeful and non-purposeful do not divide atta from anatta. There is only anatta and meditating is no problem. You can't invent a self because there is none. Without realizing this, even non-meditation is ignorant, and whether one meditates or not doesn't really make any difference. There is either insight or not, whether meditating or washing the dishes. > > > > There is not a single scriptural reference meditation being a self-view-based activity. Therefore rather than being within the stream of Buddhism, your view is radical and outside of Buddhist teachings. > > > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > #128770 From: "Robert E" KH: I find suttas totally confusing on their own, and I doubt anyone could learn the Dhamma just by having the Sutta-pitaka recited to them. But you also have a very restricted view of what constitutes the Dhamma. It doesn't occur to you that the Dhamma might be multi-level and multi-purpose. It handles everything from 'the right way to live' to 'the nature of ultimate reality,' 'the path of understanding,' and everything in between, from a wise perspective that unifies all of the above. > Fortunately, there are commentaries to the suttas, and there are commentaries to the commentaries. That's the way it has always been. Everything has to be explained in accordance with each student's capacity to understand. That is a particular view that the interpretations of the commentaries, which are generally a very scholastic view and not a view that is especially based in the practices of the monks, is the true and correct view, as opposed to one end of the spectrum of understanding. You may be right, but I prefer to think that everything the Buddha said was said for a purpose and that it can be understood both in context to the rest of the teachings and in its own right. The words of most suttas and their implications are not as obscure as some of the more difficult ones. The difficult ones can be studied at greater length and in conjunction with more commentaries and explanations, but the basic ones about how to live, how to work, even how to meditate are not so obscure. Why pick and choose, rather than accept the whole? > Consider how many misguided Buddhists there are in the world today. In your view. > Most of them don't know the difference between jhana and vipassana. Those who are committed Buddhists and especially committed meditators do most certainly understand the difference. Why should the ordinary person understand the difference, unless they study it more specifically? > Most of them think the Path is followed by wanting to gain something. I don't think that's a correct statement. Most people, I would say, think that meditation is a positive practice that will lead to greater mindfulness and peacefulness. That does not mean they think that the "wanting to gain anything" is part of the path or part of the practice. Everyone understands that clinging, even to the path, is an impediment, but that has no bearing on whether a practice is a good practice or not. It either is or it isn't. > What we all need, more than a text book, is a friend who understands the basics. A friend who understands that anatta means no self - no control, no conventional reality. Then we can learn something from the suttas. If you were to take what you just said in and of itself, I would agree to a good extent, that what is to be understood is that anatta means no self, no control - I would not say there is no conventional reality. I would say that conventional reality is the conventional understanding of what is real, seen only in a general way, instead of in its specific actuality. But the conventional is the doorway to the ultimate, if one looks into it deeply. On that we disagree. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #128771 From: "sukinderpal narula" But you also have a very restricted view of what constitutes the Dhamma. It doesn't occur to you that the Dhamma might be multi-level and multi-purpose. It handles everything from 'the right way to live' to 'the nature of ultimate reality,' 'the path of understanding,' and everything in between, from a wise perspective that unifies all of the above. Are you implying here that there are times when understanding the present moment reality is not called for, but that something else needs to be done instead? Sukin #128772 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:27 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: to Rob E; Hi Rob E, Are you implying here that there are times when understanding the present moment reality is not called for, but that something else needs to be done instead? > Sukin -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Just coming in thinking series successions of consciousness. When understand the present moment is - right on the successions of running through consciousness or javana cittas - when at the time of understanding there is no more the things that are realized. At any time speaking understand right now there is not the original object that was cognized. A single moment is hard to cognize. When something is known through the senses, that knowledge just exists for a 7 or 9 successions of moments. Life starts with birth-consciousness or pa.tisandhi citta. This consciousness is there before real birth for almost all lives on this earth. This consciousness is followed by a succession of consciousness known as life-continuum or bhava'nga citta. No one can directly cognize this consciousness. Among 17 possible consciousness 14 are ones who take the present moment object. Again among 14 consciousness 7 javana cittas are easily cognized by next coming consciousness through mind-door-adverting consciousness and javana cittas. Saying understanding the present moment is talking on very-recent-past only and not the real present. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128773 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:44 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) htoonaing... Rob E wrote: If you were to take what you just said in and of itself, I would agree to a good extent, that what is to be understood is that anatta means no self, no control - I would not say there is no conventional reality. I would say that conventional reality is the conventional understanding of what is real, seen only in a general way, instead of in its specific actuality. But the conventional is the doorway to the ultimate, if one looks into it deeply. On that we disagree. > Best, > Rob E. ------------------------------- Htoo: I agree that 'the conventional is the doorway to the ultimate'. There is no direct way to get on the ultimate path. Without conventional understanding is totally impossible. This is something like that 'a collection of naama and ruupa' is speaking to another collection of naama and ruupa'. Ariyaa know ultimate realities while still being on conventional way. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128774 From: "sukinderpal narula" Are you implying here that there are times when understanding the present moment reality is not called for, but that something else needs to be done instead? > > > Sukin > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Just coming in thinking series successions of consciousness. When understand the present moment is - right on the successions of running through consciousness or javana cittas - when at the time of understanding there is no more the things that are realized. So you are saying that, instead of reminding people to understand the present moment, it is better to say, "understand that which has already fallen away"? Sukin #128775 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E, > > > > But you also have a very restricted view of what constitutes the Dhamma. It doesn't occur to you that the Dhamma might be multi-level and multi-purpose. It handles everything from 'the right way to live' to 'the nature of ultimate reality,' 'the path of understanding,' and everything in between, from a wise perspective that unifies all of the above. > > > Are you implying here that there are times when understanding the present moment reality is not called for, but that something else needs to be done instead? I just think that kusala of various kinds are promoted in a variety of ways and that at the least they are supporting conditions for further development. The Buddha specified many aspects of the development of the path, not just direct understanding of paramatha dhammas. There are 8 branches to the path, not just one, and I believe that he taught on all eight, not just as arising dhammas but as parts of how one lives their life, cultivates understanding, etc. Of course the best thing is if the present reality is fully engaged with, understood and its nature realized, but that is not the only thing that is kusala or that leads to development. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128776 From: "azita" > Phil! > a tender young nymph descended from the heavens, i'm sure! run and don't look back, Lotty! take me with a grain of salt, but your honey's good with her stilletto. OH! and remember when she plucked out her eye? Gross! > as opposed to subtle, the gross are the 12 rupa/s that seem more 'substantial' or 'more materialized': 5 "sensus takers" & their 7 "sensus data" start knocking about & we're off! chasing "perceptions of resistance", > connie > > And the first truth is vile because it is the haunt of many dangers, and it is empty because it is devoid of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self, conceived by rash people. -vsm > Azita: love yr description Connie, and also appreciate the exert from vsm. Even the things we really love are dukkha. Patience, courage and good cheer azita #128777 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:14 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) htoonaing... Sukin wrote: Hi Htoo, Are you implying here that there are times when understanding the present moment reality is not called for, but that something else needs to be done instead? Sukin ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: >Just coming in thinking series successions of consciousness. When understand the present moment is - right on the successions of running through consciousness or javana cittas - when at the time of understanding there is no more the things that are realized. ----------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: So you are saying that, instead of reminding people to understand the present moment, it is better to say, "understand that which has already fallen away"? > Sukin ------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: From perspective of abhidhamma it is yes. But one has to attend the very present moment continuously. This attention is part of sammaa-sati. This also involves sammaa-samaadhi. These two parts arise along with sammaa-vaayama. Again these three are led by sammaa-sa'nkappa and sammaa-di.t.thi. When these 5 parts are working together they are called pa~nca'ngika magga or 5-fold path. This track is also known as working or labourer path or kaaraka magga'nga. Also called as pubbabhaaga magga'nga or pre-path-consciousness. At any time when not yet at the very moment of path-consciousness there are these 5 parts only as magga'nga. Also called vipassanaa magga. You would say 'doing something'. But without this doing pa~n~naa of own will not arise. Reading or listening or understanding is only just pre-requisite and not the main constituents. For true pa~n~naa to arise the conditions can be conditioned whether there is self or non-self. The first thing to do for vipassanaa is to crack on the shell of conventional truth. Inside is ultimate truth. Again that inner shell has to be break in to experience anatta. Anatta is there all along with ultimate realities whether they are labelled as conventional truth. Examples: Citta is a name. So it is conventional. Beyond the name there is reality. To experience this is to do something. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128778 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, I think the topic in Paa.li has to be Yamaka Paa.tihaariya. Actually not twin. Not identical in nature. Pairing the opposite two nature. One is fire and another is water. So I do not think it is 'twin miracle'. It should be paired miracle. Fire from right eye happen along with water shedding from left eye. Fire flame arising from left ear while water fountaining from the right ear. Water shedding from above-body while fire flaming from the below-body. This is what to be seen as miracle. In actuate base, the Buddha was entering and exiting the water jhaana and fire jhaana only 2 moments spacing of life continuums. Who can see these 2 moments. Bhaddanta Mahaamoggallaana or Bhaddanta Saariputta? I think neighther. Neither of us excepts sammaa-sambuddhaas. Those who saw these paired miracle pray to become sammaa-sambuddhaas. But not all who pray become bodhisattaas. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128779 From: "sukinderpal narula" I just think that kusala of various kinds are promoted in a variety of ways and that at the least they are supporting conditions for further development. The Buddha specified many aspects of the development of the path, not just direct understanding of paramatha dhammas. There are 8 branches to the path, not just one, and I believe that he taught on all eight, not just as arising dhammas but as parts of how one lives their life, cultivates understanding, etc. > > Of course the best thing is if the present reality is fully engaged with, understood and its nature realized, but that is not the only thing that is kusala or that leads to development. The development of right understanding does not discount other levels of kusala, but in fact encourages them. After all at moments of kusala, no matter how weak, there is no ignorance, attachment or aversion. However, dana, sila and such, are with the two roots of non-attachment and non-aversion only. And while samatha bhavana is with panna, this is not the kind which knows paramattha dhammas. Only kusala of the kind rooted in panna (satipatthana), leads out of ignorance and constitutes the Path. The reason some kusala dhammas are considered parami and indispensable to the development of the Path is because there is this kind of panna involved. When Ken H says to the effect that the Buddha taught only satipatthana, I think that he is saying the same thing I do here. You on the other hand, appear to be saying, not only that kusala without panna constitutes the Path, but in fact that at times, these are preferable to right understanding / satipatthana. Otherwise why would you argue with Ken on this? Have I misunderstood you? Sukin #128780 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: Aasiivisopama sutta.m (Example Poisonous Snakes) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, In 1966 in the third week of May, late Mahasi Sayadaw Bhaddanta Sobhana preached 'aasiivisopama sutta.m' or ''example poisonous snakes' in the compound of 'Mahaasii saasanaa place'. It is in tipitaka. Samyutta nikaaya, sa.laayatana vagga, aasiivisa vagga and appears as 'aasiivisopama sutta.m'. The discourse begins with the example first and later the examples are compared with dhamma in the-6-foot-corpse of us. 4 poisonous snakes are 4 elements. This is catu-dhaatu-kamma.t.thaana. This is followed by 5 murderers. They are 5 clinging aggregates or 5 upaadaanakkhandhaas. The 3rd one is intrinsic enemy and it is nandii-raaga or attachment. The accused man to be prinsoned is followed by these 3 enemies. He runs away and gets to an empty village. This is 6 doors or sa.laayatana or 6 inner sense-bases. When in this village the man is being followed by 6 robber-killers. They are 6 objects. While running he approaches to a sea. The shore is on the side of sakkaaya di.t.thi or wrong view. Then has has to cross with a hand-made raft. The raft is NEP or noble eight-fold path or a.t.tha'ngika magga. The sea is sa.msaraa. Other shore is nibbaana. 4 poisonous snake means 4 elements. When one is out of order one has to die. So vipassanaa or satipa.t.thaana on 4 elements of the body has to be practised. Next is 5 aggregates. Dhammmaanupassanaa or contemplation on the dhamma has to be practised. 3rd enemy is ta.nhaa and catusaccaa-kamma.t.thaana has to be practised. Next is sense-base meditation. Making raft is trying to reinforce path-walking. The goal is to experience nibbaana. The goal is vimutti-rasa. The taste of liberation. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128781 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Alex - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, all, > > > > It seems that distinguishing is merely in name. There isn't "knowing" without something "being known". There is no such thing as blank awareness or knowledge without something that one is aware of, of something that is known. > ---------------------------- > HCW: > I seem to be aware of both knowing and of known, and I find quite different qualities in them. My experience is that they are inseparable but not identical. > =============== J: Just wondering what you mean by 'inseparable' here. The fact that visible object (for example) only appears when seeing consciousness is experiencing it means that (a) seeing consciousness can only arise when there are the conditions for visible object to be experienced and (b) visible object can only be experienced when seeing consciousness arises to experience it. So both dhammas must be arisen at the same time. Is there anything more to their 'inseparableness' than that? Jon #128782 From: "sarah" My concentration ability is weak now. I must ration my time > reading books, ration computer time and limit my sitting meditation time due to > the danger of strokes. I had a TIA small stroke on Saturday January 6 this month. > I had two last year. I will be 65 late this month but know that my lifespan is > drawing to a close. .... S: We never know when cuti citta (death consciousness) will arise. The most precious thing in this life is the development of understanding of dhammas (realities). Most of the concentration in a day is miccha samadhi, wrong concentration or akusala concentration. When there is no dana (giving), no sila (good deeds or speech or abstention from bad deeds or speech) or understanding, then it's bound to be miccha samadhi. Sometimes we forget there is a wrong path as well as a right path and that by magga paccaya (path condition), not only do the samma (right) eightfold path factors condition the cittas (consciousness) and other mental states, the citta, vipaka (result) cittas and rupas conditioned by them, but also wrong factors also condition cittas, mental states and rupas. In other words, if there is no understanding of realities is being developed now whilst sitting, reading or during any other activity, then there's not much of value in life - just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching followed by ignorance and attachment most of the day. ... I was dropped on my head on a rock when I was 1 ½ years old > and had brain swelling. That is a big indicator of neurological deterioration earlier > in old age, especially since various things have happened to damage my brain > further. I have started doing daily tai chi as well as my lifetime hatha yoga > practice as a way to help me maintain daily moment to moment mindfulness. I am > usually taking this change with equanimity and otherwise trying to be mindful > of the changes. I do not fear my approaching death or the future. Keep on > practicing folks, ... S: And the main purpose of the Teachings is the understanding that all such realities at any of these times or now are anatta, not self for an instant. So there's never anyone to be mindful, equanimous, to live or die - just fleeting elements arising and falling away by conditions. Please let me know if there's anything I've written which you disagree with or wish to discuss further. Thank you again for all your comments and for sharing your background. Metta Sarah ===== AdChoices #128784 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Kin Sung > > There is nothing wrong to meditate because Visud is full of them under the concentration segment. If you feel you like meditation, continue it. Different people have varied interpretation of the dhamma. Nothing wrong to purposely act as long as the motivation and intention is to develop understanding of dhamma. Even ancient disciples have to purposely go to see Buddha to listen to dhamma. Even coming to this forum is already a purposed act. > =============== J: Just to correct a mis-attribution by KC here. It is not being suggested by anyone on this forum (to my knowledge) that deliberate or purposeful acts are necessarily wrong in themselves. What I think has been said is that the path as taught by the Buddha does not require any specific deliberate or purposeful acts. To my understanding, reference in the suttas to 'practice' -- as for example in the expression 'practice in accordance with the Dhamma' -- is a reference to the actual arising of awareness/insight and not to the undertaking of specific acts that are designed to make awareness/insight arise. > =============== > KC: What is important in learning dhamma, is to understand its nature. that you can learn plenty of them in the Abhidhmma and commentaries. > =============== J: I agree that what is important is understanding the nature and characteristic of dhammas, and I would only add that this means understanding dhammas as they appear at the present moment (that is to say, as one is reading or writing this message). If there is the idea either that this is not possible because certain things (acts) need to be done first, or that dhammas are more easily understood in a certain environment such as a meditative state (also involving doing acts), then that would obviously be an obstacle to understanding arising now. Just to clarify in case KS were to get the wrong idea about what is being said by posters such as KenH. Jon #128785 From: "jonoabb" > Dear all > > Dispeller of Delusion > > 1379. (3) "Avoiding persons who treasure beings and formations": > (a) a "treasurer of beings" is a name for the person who is pos- > sessively fond, as a householder, of his own sons, daughters etc., > or as one gone forth, of his own pupils, equals,' preceptor,' etc' ... > (b) a treasurer of formations" is a name for one who is possessively > fond of robes, bowls, vessels, sticks, staffs and so on. ... > But he who is central, neutral towards these > two bases is called "one who maintains the middle state towards > beings and formations". ... > 1383. The rest is clear. Also, in these two sections [i.e. Hindrances > and Enlightenment Factors] pure insight only is expounded > > Kc #128786 From: "jonoabb" > so, Rob -- > > > > > PPn vii 27 [202] ...: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; > > > > to back up a step, for the sake of clear comprehension ;) this is in Recollection of the Buddha: > > PPn xvii 27. [202] Besides, he has discovered all things rightly by himself step by step thus: The eye is the Truth of Suffering; the prior craving that originates it by being its root-cause is the Truth of Origin; the non-occurrence of both is the Truth of Cessation; the way that is the act of understanding cessation is the Truth of the Path. And so too in the case of the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. > =============== J: Thanks for giving the context to Rob E's quote. So the eye is the Truth of Suffering because we cling to it (whereas in truth and reality the rupas that we take for the eye are conditioned and not a source of refuge). And the understanding (by direct experience) that craving is the originator of the eye, and that only the eradication of that craving and of the further occurrence of the eye can bring that suffering to an end, is the Truth of the Path. And a lot more else besides (snipped for trimming ...) Jon > =============== > 28. And the following things should be construed in the same way: ... > The five aggregates beginning with the aggregate of matter, > The ten kasinas, > The ten recollections, > The ten perceptions beginning with perception of the bloated, > The thirty-two aspects [of the body] beginning with head hairs, > The twelve bases, > The eighteen elements, > The nine kinds of becoming beginning with sensual becoming {6}, > The four jhanas beginning with the first, > The four measureless states beginning with the development of lovingkindness, > The four immaterial attainments, > The factors of the dependent origination in reverse order beginning with ageing-and-death and in forward order beginning with ignorance (cf. Ch.XX,§9). #128787 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Ken H > > Until you can show me some text why ritualise meditation is not in the path, then I discuss with you further. > > I can show you plenty of text why ritualised meditation is part of the path. > > If not, no point discussing because what you have said are just basing on interpretation where in the Abhidhamma and commentaries have plenty of textual support for meditation. > =============== J: Well of course the term 'ritualised meditation', or even 'meditation', does not appear in the Pali Canon, so we could hardly expect to find specific mention either way :-)) I'm wondering if your discussion with Ken H would be more fruitful if instead you talked about particular passages from the texts. Are the passages you have in mind actual words of teaching spoken by the Buddha to his listeners, or are they descriptions of behaviour by monks, or perhaps a combination of both (or none of the above)? Jon #128788 From: sarah abbott > Hi Ken O, > ... > I am tempted to add that the only real meditation is the one that exists in single a moment of vipassana citta. But I am not sure if that is strictly correct. Jon has cautioned me against a "snapshot" view of ultimate reality, so I won't say it. :-) > =============== J: I have no problem with the proposition that the development of the path is the insight that arises in a moment of citta. And there is nothing wrong with talking about dhammas as they occur on a moment-to-moment basis. However, references in the texts to conventional acts or deeds, or to people and things (such as the act of giving or the act of taking the life of another) are often references to a series of cittas, cetasikas and rupas occurring over a period of time, and obviously these may not easily be reducible to a single citta that encapsulates the whole of the period. (So you may go ahead and say what you were going to :-)) Jon #128790 From: sarah abbott > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: I take the aperture to refer to the rupa of space (Pali: akasa rupa). > > RE: That makes sense I think - except that "space" is a much more general rupa than "aperture" which refers directly to the ear and hearing. I guess that if "space" arises in a kalapa with other rupas of hearing, it would probably all fit together. Any passage on how the rupas of hearing configure together to create contact and processing of the sound? > =============== J: Regarding "except that "space" is a much more general rupa than "aperture" which refers directly to the ear and hearing", yes, but I meant the rupa of space that is taken to be the aperture of the ear. Apologies for not making that clear in my reply. Regarding "if "space" arises in a kalapa with other rupas of hearing, it would probably all fit together", space is not one of the rupas that arises in a kalapa, so we are not in the kalapas context here. [The rupa of sound (note: not, "rupas of hearing") does, however, arise in a kalapa of rupas.] > =============== > > J: As far as I know, concepts cannot be a condition for the arising of a reality (except to the extent that a concept may be the object of citta and thus object condition for that dhamma). > > RE: Well, if we're talking about concepts like the ear, the aperture of the ear, sound - outside of using that word to signify a single rupa, and others, which seem to be necessary - or at least included in the description in the commentaries - in order to describe how sound is "heard," then the issue becomes a little more uncertain. Perhaps there is in reality no "ear," but it is hard to describe the moment of hearing without it. > =============== J: Yes, in reality no "ear" that hears, just the rupa that is ear-sense (one of the 5 so-called pasaada rupas) that is the base for the arising of hearing consciousness; and no aperture, just the rupa of space. Conditioned elements all :-)) Jon #128792 From: sarah abbott > Dear friends Ken O. and Ken H. > ... > I have to agree with you, Ken O., that meditation is often cited as part of the practice in texts from sutta to Visudhimagga to commentaries. Sometimes it can be confusing when the use of terms like bhavana is uncertain - whether it refers to meditation or natural development. But I think there are many passages where it is very clear that the texts are talking about formal meditation. For instance, in the Visuddhimagga there is a passage that advises getting a meditation teacher when one is ready to learn the techniques of following and counting breaths, etc. > =============== J: Now that we have the benefit of the full translation of the Visuddhimagga in searcheable (and copyable) pdf, I wonder if you could be persuaded to cite from that rather than giving an interpretation relying on your recollection which, as I've mentioned before, sometimes differs from my own :-)) Here's the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf Thanks in advance. Jon PS Apart from this instance in the Visuddhimagga, would be interested to hear about instances in the suttas where you find it clear that formal meditation is being referred to. Only if you feel like discussing further, of course (let's keep it matter-of-fact and text-specific). #128794 From: sarah abbott > Hi Howard (and Alex) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Alex - > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Howard, all, > > > > > > It seems that distinguishing is merely in name. There isn't "knowing" without something "being known". There is no such thing as blank awareness or knowledge without something that one is aware of, of something that is known. > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > I seem to be aware of both knowing and of known, and I find quite different qualities in them. My experience is that they are inseparable but not identical. > > =============== > > J: Just wondering what you mean by 'inseparable' here. > > The fact that visible object (for example) only appears when seeing consciousness is experiencing it means that (a) seeing consciousness can only arise when there are the conditions for visible object to be experienced and (b) visible object can only be experienced when seeing consciousness arises to experience it. > > So both dhammas must be arisen at the same time. > > Is there anything more to their 'inseparableness' than that? --------------------------------- HCW: That is basically all that I mean *except* that I do not presume the existence of unseen sights. I don't believe in visible objects existing on their own, though I do not KNOW there are none. There could be, but even if there were such, they would never be known but only hypothesized. -------------------------------- > > Jon > ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128798 From: sarah abbott >Here's the link: >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf > >Thanks in advance. > >Jon > >PS Apart from this instance in the Visuddhimagga, would be interested to hear about instances in the suttas where you find it clear that formal meditation is being referred to. Only if you feel like discussing further, of course (let's keep it matter-of-fact and text-specific). > > > >