#128800 From: Ken O ________________________________ > From: jonoabb >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013, 17:51 >Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object > > > >Hi Ken H > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > > #128801 From: Ken O Dear Han and Tep > >you can download the pdf and use a free tool in the internet to convert pdf to text. But do not distribute it, you could only extract the text needed discussion due to copyright issues > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf > >thanks >kc > >>__ #128802 From: "connie" > 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. > connie: Especially the things we love! All around the village: empty, "smiling faces, pretend..." Seduction is a many splen-door-ed thing! pardon the spelling. ppn xi 98-100 talks about rupa/s Likeness to great creatures & how the "entity" become "manifest". is it the adorable (piya) or the peti who sprinkles the dust? c #128803 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:36 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Jagkrit, Thanks for your reply. I take your point about the so-called benefits of being born in a Buddhist country; if one only hears reformed Dhamma there is no benefit. ---------- > JJ: Sometimes, even basic of teaching can be misunderstood, don't have to mention jhana and vipssana. ---------- KH: Without wanting to ridicule meditators, I like to point out that many of them don't know which type of meditation they are practising. In other words they don't know the meaning of samatha and vipassana. One meditator once said on DSG that it didn't matter what you understood meditation to be," just so long as you meditate." Or, as another said. "Just do it!" ------------ > JJ: 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. ----------- KH: That is an excellent example of what we were talking about, and thank you for your explanation of "using tanha to eradicate tanha," I will remember that. Ken H #128804 From: "connie" > 1. Cittas can be classified as pa.thimaa, dutiyaa and pacchimaa cittas. In this classification, pa.thimaa cittas refer to bhavanga cittas - those cittas which don't experience an object through sense or mind door-ways. Dutiyaa cittas refer to all other cittas which experience objects through these doorways. Pachimaa citta refers to the last citta of the arahat only. This is the citta which is not succeeded by another citta. > i was trying to remember that Last word yesterday, thanks. like the setting sun are those messengers; the other "second's messengers" are not so friendly without understanding - just leading on; > Ans: What appears now? "the answer to every question"! MN28, Greater Footprint: when space is enclosed ... it comes to be termed 'material form.' ... And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates *affected by clinging is the origin* ... n342: The four terms - chanda, aalaya, anunaya, ajjhosaana - are synonyms for craving (ta.nhaa). mooo, connie ps. we sent hugs to the wrong NE ;) if they catch up, i guess there was enough to go around after all. c/mom - reading Rupas #128805 From: "Robert E" > 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. I am interested in your point about the Ariyan knowing ultimate realities while still engaging in conventional life. Can you say a little more about that? Does the Abhidhamma acknowledge such a dual idea of the reality that is lived by the Arahant? My own sense of how it works is that when one can have a moment of seeing through the concept to the momentary reality. There is not really a separation between conventional object and the namas and rupas that exist at the moments that conventional reality is experienced conceptually. Instead, it is like seeing what is really going on at such a moment. I would think that one who was enlightened could see and talk about the reality that is present in either way, depending on what was needed in the situation. It doesn't make a lot of sense when people are making dinner plans to say "There is no dinner, there are only dhammas." On the other hand if one is talking about what is really happening at a moment of eating in ultimate terms, it wouldn't make sense to say "salad." Each description has its place. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128806 From: "Robert E" Hi Rob E and Ken H, > > > > 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. Well I don't know if I agree or not that only moments of direct panna lead to development of enlightenment. It's a position that only appears in commentary as far as I know, and I am not wise enough to assess it. But the Buddha did speak on many levels and urged all kinds of kusala. If he taught "only satipatthana" and nothing else, then he would not have bothered to talk about not using alcohol, not killing and all these other conventional things. In addition he reallly didn't need to talk about anything at all except for the direct descriptions that might lead to a moment of awakening and bring up a moment of satipatthana in the listener. If all conventional teachings are beside the point and would never lead to development of satipatthana, then it would be a waste of time to talk about them at all. So I don't think the position that only direct moments of panna lead to development of the path is a position that reconciles very well with the enormous body of the Buddha's conventional teaching. This position which is repeated as fact over and over again on dsg comes from a very narrow interpretation of what kinds of conditions lead to the development of the enlightenment factors. I would like to see a place where the suttas talk in this very narrow way. It's not representative of what the Buddha said, when he instructed monks to strive, to put forward great effort, or when the Visudhimagga advised meditators to seek a teacher when they want to learn the techniques that lead to the development of sati and concentration. So one can only reconcile your view of this by using Ken H.'s formula, which I think is an enormous stretch, that any conventional reference the Buddha makes is really a paramatha reference in disguise. Certainly the people that the Buddha spoke to at that time would not see it that way, they would take the Buddha at his word if he said to inspect the nature of the body parts or observe a corpse in corpse meditation. He was actually telling people to do those actual things, not something else in a coded language that only the wise would understand, or he would not mislead people by telling them to do all kinds of nonsense that would not lead to bhavana. So I do disagree that the description of the three roots that must be present for the right kind of panna to arise is really the way in which all kusala must be judged. Where is that written anyway? Is it in Abhidhamma or only in certain specific commentaries? I would like to know where this comes from. In addition it would be good to know where it is said that only moments that have all three roots lead to development that is pertinent to the path. Specific references? In addition it would be good to see a specific reference to the idea that no moments of kusala that are seen in conventional terms, such as refraining from literal killing of beings, can have the three roots, and only a moment of technique panna as defined by the commentaries in question, can have the three roots, and that only this can lead to enlightenment. > 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? Well you are making it an either/or proposition. Either one must prefer kusala with only two roots, or one must prefer only pann with three roots. Of course at any moment, the highest form of panna is most desirable, but since as you always point out we don't pick and choose when to have panna or what kind, or any other experience, then we should be oriented towards whatever kusala arises, and whatever conditions allow for greater development of kusala and understanding. They are not mutually contradictory. I do not see evidence that conventionally-based kusala, such as literal 'right speech,' do *not* lead to development of wisdom, and the formula that it does not because it has the wrong roots seems extremely technical to me, not necessarily based in the fact of real experience. When someone does something for someone else for instance, has a moment of metta and it arises for that moment without attachment, one may also possibly experience that this is a moment of non-self. If that takes place there may be a moment of bhavana. If one is meditating and has a moment of realizing that there is no one who meditates, a moment of anatta, then that moment may lead to development. No activity precludes a moment of panna, or a moment of lesser sati leading to panna. So I don't see the conventional activities and the moments that may arise and develop and lead to wisdom as being mutually exclusive. I do see that the Buddha extolled forms of meditation that both suppress defilements and lead to development of mindfulness, and so I think those are both kusala. If done with attachment that spoils the broth, but they may also have moments of non-attachment, so I don't see those as self-based or a problem in doing. I do disagree that no conventional activity can promote kusala and I think that the Buddha's teachings in sutta makes this clear, including meditation and other kusala activities, such as right forms of work, speech, etc. I gave the example that someone who says "I only need to have correct understanding, so if I butcher a cow, or kill a person or scream obscenities at someone, that is fine, - it has nothing to do with the path" is someone who is deeply deluded. And I do think that's true. The paramatha understanding may be ultimate, but conventional akusala is harmful to the path, and conventional kusala is good for the path - not better than panna, but not unnecessary either. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128807 From: "Robert E" 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. How does one experience directly that craving is the originator of the eye, etc. Does one realize this in one moment or in a succession of moments? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128808 From: "connie" > 15. Always keep in mind that the Buddha said all dhammas are anatta and will never be lost by our own thinking and wrong understanding. > **** and arise the Sambandha's! Objects 'raised with' all those things seen/di.t.tha, heard/suta or "thunk"/vi~n~naata. and here we sit, at the cross-roads. connie #128809 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:46 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Connie, -------- >> KH: anatta means no self - no control, no conventional reality. <. . .> >> > c: there is conventional reality. it is just misunderstood. the three-fold world is not attractive. -------- KH: What is conventional reality? Perhaps if I remembered my Abhidhamma, and knew what the three-fold world was, I would have some idea. But as it is I am confused. Ken H #128810 From: "connie" > 16. Khanti ~naana (lit: patience insight) > > Enduring to understand whatever appears as no self and impermanent. Ps i.106, but no text to hand. > > > 21. names and labels are not important, it's the reality now that should be known. If 'bothered' now by some detail, the 'bothered' is the reality which can be known! > thanks for bothering, connie #128811 From: "connie" 25. khandha - void of self, essence. Just arise and fall away. What is got from what has gone? When death comes, what has been attained in life if no understanding? > just another life sentence. who remembers the last resort? <-- ;) pacchima - No One will do. No One does. No One did. Only khandhas. take heed! we are all The Dying; the angels sing, not a soul to hear. connie > > 29. Past life - a moment ago. #128812 From: "jagkrit2012" > 25. khandha - void of self, essence. Just arise and fall away. What is got from what has gone? When death comes, what has been attained in life if no understanding? > > > > just another life sentence. > who remembers the last resort? <-- ;) pacchima - No One will do. No One does. No One did. Only khandhas. > > take heed! we are all The Dying; the angels sing, not a soul to hear. > connie JJ: This reminds me the Dhammapada translated by Sathienpong Wannapok. 21: Heedfulness is the way to the Deathless; Heedlessness is the way to death. The heedful do not die; The heedless are like unto the dead. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128813 From: "connie" > That which is not burning is that which does not arise - nibbana. All conditioned dhammas are aflame. > there is no safety in the 3fold world & one spark is all it takes to destroy the 7storied mansion. hope it's a spark of wisdom. > Arammanadhipatti - strong predominance object condition. An object that is predominant and so conditions the citta to experience it at that moment, such as a particular flavour. > has to be an (especially?) attractive object?? shrug, connie AdChoices #128814 From: "connie" >> KH: anatta means no self - no control, no > conventional reality. <. . .> > >> > > > c: there is conventional reality. it is just misunderstood. the three-fold world is not attractive. > -------- > > KH: What is conventional reality? > > Perhaps if I remembered my Abhidhamma, and knew what the three-fold world was, I would have some idea. But as it is I am confused. > ti-loka: kama, rupa, arupa. 31 planes of ordinary mundane round the clock existence. 24 paccaya. 12 spokes. the ferris wheel! conventional understanding is what keeps us entertained or thinking there's anything of substance, etc, going on. "believe"... we agree to call something reality and so it is. mob rule. mostly, sea of concepts - shuffling around the old deck furniture or the house of cards... to each our own story, haha. crumbs. nothing of substance, the stuff dreams are made of. life is not just a dream, clinging to what has already past, we cling to what can never be... we need wake up calls. and then to rise above the call of our animal natures & pack mentality. connie #128815 From: "Robert E" > Hi KC > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, KC wrote: > > > > 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 :-)) Bhavana is mentioned quite a bit... From Bhavana Society: "The Pali word "Bhavana" means mental cultivation..." From Buddhism.About.com: "All Buddhist meditation practices are forms of bhavana. Here is a basic explanation of bhavana and how it is practiced in Theravada..." From Wikipedia: "In the Pali Canon bhavana is often found in a compound phrase indicating personal, intentional effort over time with respect to the development of that particular faculty." "The word bhavana is sometimes translated into English as 'meditation' so that, for example, metta-bhavana may be translated as 'the meditation on loving-kindness'." From wildmind.org: "The Metta Bhavana is a meditation for developing lovingkindness." "Bhavana" means "cultivation" or "development," and "Metta" is a word that means "love," "friendliness," or "lovingkindness." So this is a meditation practice where we actively cultivate some very positive emotional states towards others, as well as to ourselves." Buddha to Ananda: From: the Indriya-bhavana Sutta: The Development of the Faculties "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." Practice jhana - don't be heedless - this is our message to you all. Hmmmn - did the Buddha say that to Ananda? Uh, yes. > I'm wondering if your discussion with Ken H would be more fruitful if instead you talked about particular passages from the texts. Sure - I think meditation has been mentioned quite a lot in the texts, and nowhere has it been said *not* to practice meditation. Rather the Buddha said: "Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." And he said many other things to the same effect! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128816 From: "Robert E" J: I have no problem with the proposition that the development of the path is the insight that arises in a moment of citta. ... > 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. In that case, why don't we discuss such series more and how the conventional references are composed of a number of such occurrences in a series? I think that would be extremely useful, and would make the bridge between our conceptual view of events and the paramatha dhammas that actually occur. Yet there seems to be only passing references to such series, and the emphasis goes back to the single citta - even though so many things take place, as you say, over the course of many such moments. Are there more extensive descriptions of this kind in any commentaries? I would find it valuable to see them. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #128817 From: "Robert E" 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. Thanks, that is more clear to me. > 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. How does space, which does not arise in a kalapa, coordinate with the rupa of sound, which does arise in a kalapa, to create the "hearing that occurs in what is taken for the aperture of the ear?" > > =============== > > > 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: ...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...that is the base for the arising of hearing consciousness; and no aperture, just the rupa of space. > > Conditioned elements all :-)) I can follow that description of how sound is "heard" and gives rise to hearing consciousness, without reference to the "ear" or "aperture," etc. That is surprising, but thanks for the very able description. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128818 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:08 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Connie, Jon and Sarah, Thanks, Connie, for clarifying your belief in conventional reality as just belief in conventional understanding. I suppose that would mean belief in the reality of thinking dhammas, and also belief in the reality of micha-dhitti.(?) And thanks, Jon, for giving me the all-clear to take snapshots again. :-) I still don't understand why you no-control dinosaurs – including Ajhan Sujin – sometimes speak in a disturbingly concept-friendly manner. That's a mystery I will probably take to the grave. There are, however, a couple of questions that could shed some light on the mystery. They are in relation to streams of cittas. Jon recently said something that gave me the impression one stream of cittas could cause the death of another stream of cittas.(Or, to put it another way, one stream of cittas could cause a death (cuti) citta to occur in another stream of cittas.) Is that correct? Or was that just a conventional way of speaking? The second question is similar, and it was prompted by something Sarah recently said to me. Can one stream of cittas cause a sense rupa (visible rupa in Sarah's example) to become visible to another stream of cittas? I have always been told at DSG that none of us (except a Buddha) could directly know the citta of another. I have assumed, by analogy, that we can't interact in *any* ultimately real way. Do we put sense rupas out in space where they can be detected by the cittas of other streams of cittas (depending, of course, on their kamma)? It sounds disturbingly conventional to me. This takes me back to 2007 when I asked A. Sujin what dana ultimately meant. In a reality where there is only one citta, strong kamma is of no special significance, is it? A conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma. Anyway, those are my questions for what they are worth. I suspect the mystery will remain, but thanks for any help you might try to get through to me. :-) Ken H #128819 From: "Robert E" > 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. ... 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 :-)) Thanks for the link! > 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). Sure, I am happy to give it a try! From Vism. pps. 92-93: CHAPTER III Taking a Meditation Subject 92 54. The inhabitants of the village had a large pavilion built at the door of his dwelling, and they came daily to hear the Dhamma. Explaining by day what had been repeated by night, [97] the Elder [Dhammarakkhita] eventually completed the instruction. Then he sat down on a mat on the ground before the Elder Abhaya and said, "Friend, explain a meditation subject to me."—"What are you saying, venerable sir, have I not heard it all from you? What can I explain to you that you do not already know?" The senior elder said, "This path is different for one who has actually travelled by." 55. The Elder Abhaya was then, it seems, a stream-enterer. When the Elder Abhaya had given his teacher a meditation subject, he returned to Anurádhapura. Later, while he was expounding the Dhamma in the Brazen Palace, he heard that the elder had attained Nibbána. On hearing this, he said, "Bring me [my] robe, friends." Then he put on the robe and said, "The Arahant path befits our teacher, friends. Our teacher was a true thoroughbred. He sat down on a mat before his own Dhamma pupil and said, `Explain a meditation subject to me.' The Arahant path befits our teacher, friends." For such as these, books are no impediment. Vism, p.92-104: 57. Approach the good friend, the giver of a meditation subject (§28): meditation subjects are of two kinds, that is, generally useful meditation subjects and special meditation subjects. Herein, loving-kindness towards the Community of Bhikkhus, etc., and also mindfulness of death are what are called generally useful meditation subjects. Some say perception of foulness, too. 58. When a bhikkhu takes up a meditation subject, he should first develop loving-kindness towards the Community of Bhikkhus within the boundary,16 limiting it at first [to "all bhikkhus in this monastery"], in this way: "May they be happy and free from affliction." Then he should develop it towards all deities...Then towards all the principal people in the village, then to [all human beings there and to] all living beings dependent on the human beings... [etc.]...With loving-kindness to all living beings he can wander unhindered everywhere. With mindfulness of death, thinking, "I have got to die," ..., when his mind is familiar with the perception of foulness, then even divine objects do not tempt his mind to greed. So these are called "generally useful" and they are "called meditation subjects" since they are needed17 generally and desirable owing to their great helpfulness and since they are subjects for the meditation work intended. 60. What is called a "special meditation subject" is that one from among the forty meditation subjects that is suitable to a man's own temperament. It is "special" (páriháriya) because he must carry it (pariharitabbattá) constantly about with him, and because it is the proximate cause for each higher stage of development. So it is the one who gives this twofold meditation subject that is called the giver of a meditation subject. ...one who wants to take a particular meditation subject should take it from someone with cankers destroyed, who has, by means of that particular meditation subject, produced the fourfold and fivefold jhána, and has reached the destruction of cankers by augmenting insight that had that jhána as its proximate cause. 64. So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If not, then one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a stream-enterer, an ordinary man who has obtained jhána, one who knows three Pitakas, one who knows two Pitakas, one who knows one Pitaka, in descending order [according as available]. If not even one who knows one Pitaka is available, then it should be taken from one who is familiar with one Collection together with its commentary and one who is himself conscientious. ...So a meditation subject should be taken by approaching the good friend such as this, the giver of a meditation subject, and by doing all the duties to him. 66. If he is available in the same monastery, it is good. If not, one should go to where he lives. ... 70. He should not say, "Explain a meditation subject to me, venerable sir" on the very day he arrives. But starting from the next day, he can, if the teacher has a habitual attendant, ask his permission to do the duties. ...All should be done as prescribed by the Blessed One in the Khandhakas as the right duties in the passage beginning: "Bhikkhus, a pupil should perform the duties to the teacher [101] rightly. ...if a meditation subject is expounded at an inconvenient time, one cannot give attention. This is the detailed explanation of the words "approach the good friend, the giver of a meditation subject." 74. Now, as to the words, one that suits his temperament (§28): there are six kinds of temperament, that is, greedy temperament, hating temperament, deluded temperament, faithful temperament, intelligent temperament, and speculative temperament... These are the details, with definition of the kind, source, recognition, and what is suitable, as regards the various temperaments handed down here with the words "that suits his own temperament" (§60). 103. However, the meditation subject that is suitable to the temperament has not been cleared up in all its aspects yet. This will become clear automatically when those in the following list are treated in detail. Now, it was said above, "and he should apprehend from among the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament" (§60). Here the exposition of the meditation subject should be first understood in these ten ways: (1) as to enumeration, (2) as to which bring only access and which absorption, (3) at to the kinds of jhána, (4) as to surmounting, (5) as to extension and non-extension, (6) as to object, (7) as to plane, (8) as to apprehending, (9) as to condition, (10) as to suitability to temperament. 104. 1. Herein, as to enumeration: it was said above, "from among the forty meditation subjects" (§28). Herein, the forty meditation subjects are these: ten kasióas (totalities), ten kinds of foulness, ten recollections, four divine abidings, four immaterial states, one perception, one defining. -- And it continues to specify various other aspects of choosing the correct meditation subject for particular temperaments, etc. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128820 From: "Robert E" This takes me back to 2007 when I asked A. Sujin what dana ultimately meant. In a reality where there is only one citta, strong kamma is of no special significance, is it? A conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma. I am sure, Ken H., that hearing me answer a serious Dhamma question posed to the advanced folks around here is the last thing you are looking for - but though I am an ignorant sod in these areas, your questions are sometimes too intriguing for me to resist. My two cents on this one are: A conditioned dhamma is only *known* as "just a conditioned dhamma" at a moment of insight. And when insight is not present, then the level of akusala is unfortunately significant because it causes more suffering. Since the Buddha only taught for the purpose of eliminating suffering, one can look at how suffering is reduced along the way to finally getting rid of it altogether. I think this is why Buddha praised the jhanas as 'a pleasant abiding in the here-and-now' because even though it is not the end of defilements and delusion, it does temporarily suppress defilements enough to give deep relief to the suffering cittas. A vacation from defilements can ultimately become a drug, but if not, it can be a useful break from the constant barrage of akusala, and provide a space for insight to arise. That is how I look at it anyway. Ultimately you are right, that a conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma, and they are all equally accessible [or not] to insight and understanding. But one cannot always skip the interminably long stage at which we cannot know directly that this is the case. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128821 From: "philip" Tony:how can intellectualising about how >phenomena exist or don't be >a substitute for the non-conceptual >experiences arrived at through >meditation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't. At best intellectual understanding is to set one on the path to be followed. Word "sweetness" and experience of sugar on the tongue are different. Saying "water! water!" will not quench your thirst... Not Self could be a practice rather than a doctrinal statement. Whatever arises, don't consider it to belong to you as homunculus. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #128824 From: "philip" > > Dear Tony > > Simplify your question. How can dhammas rooted in lobha with ditthi be a substitute for dhammas involving panna at the level of correct intellectual understanding? If you want to accumulate more akusala in the name of "meditation", join the club. It it hasn't yet clicked with you that "meditation" as taught in this day and age is rooted in greed for results, join the club. Until it clicks you will keep posting here for ages, demonstrating incorrct understanding a la Alex, Rob E and others. Join the club. > > phil > > p.s Personally, I am a keen "meditator", the neurological benefits are well documented, and the sense of well being can't be beat. The same could be said for masturbation, which I am also quite good at. No way on earth I would give medturbation up. Too much attachment and moha. > #128826 From: "truth_aerator" P: >Simplify your question. How can dhammas rooted in lobha with ditthi >be a substitute for dhammas involving panna at the level of correct >intellectual understanding? >>>>>>>>>>>>> And how to get panna in the first place? Mere theoretical knowledge is not enough. It is good only to point the way. Just as you can't satisfy hunger by saying "food! food!" or by reading the ingridient list, same is here. >P:If you want to accumulate more akusala in the name of >"meditation", >join the club. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that it isn't akusala to merely read and think? With best wishes, Alex #128827 From: "connie" So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? > rhetorical connie: why not substitute the non-conceptual experiences arrived at thru the five physical senses? that meditation. intellectually, nama-rupa :: time-space. physical space is the ruupa where other ruupa take place. citta-cetasika mark time in conceptual space. practically, nama and ruupa are the warp and weft of the suit of whole cloth stories, and (psuedos!) who isn't taken in by the mirrors? realistically, 1 puggala = 5 heap/s where = stands as a bit of a mirrored lens between the conventional and ultimate 'sides'. conceptually, 5 heap/s covered with something equal to a cloth & puggala might sit/lie there; another time, this = mark might stand for puggala's feet on the 5 other heap/s of talk: khandha, ayatana, dhatu, sacca, indriya. grounding = lens material and polish/ing. development practice Was, Avijjaa sa"nkhaaraa Is, vi~n~naa.na.m naamaruupa.m sa.laayatana.m phasso vedanaa ta.nhaa upaadaana.m bhavo Would be jaati jaraamara.nanti = daily life/death. momentous. connie There are two kinds of light -- the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures. -James Thurber #128828 From: "sukinderpal narula" 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. S: You are saying that in theory, the present moment is the reality which has just fallen away, but in practice, the object is always what appears "now". So you were simply reminding me about the theory then? === > > 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. S: I don't understand. If you were reminding me that the present moment has in fact already fallen away, and it is understood that what arises next can't be predicted, why do you still believe in "doing something" as a form of practice? === > 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. S: Reading and listening are conventional activities whereas understanding is panna cetasika performing its function. The former can be done with wholesome or unwholesome roots. The latter depend on causes and conditions which do not include a belief in self and control over dhammas. === > > The first thing to do for vipassanaa is to crack on the shell of conventional truth. S: Conventional reality is concept. Therefore the only way that you can crack on the shell of conventional truth is by referring to more and more concepts. Vipassana is insight into the nature of reality. It is pativedha which comes as a result of much patipatti and long development of pariyatti. The thread connecting these three levels of understanding is in that they all refer to the function of panna cetasika. This panna cetasika is aimed at the present moment, which must from the very outset, distinguish reality from concept. === > 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. S: "Ultimate reality being inside conventional reality" is only an idea. Understanding at that very moment the thinking as a conditioned reality, this would be a real basis for further development of understanding. === > > Examples: Citta is a name. So it is conventional. S: The word citta is a concept which points to an ultimate reality. It is therefore *not* conventional. All conventional referents are concept, but not all concepts are conventional. === > Beyond the name there is reality. S: Although some concepts are based on the rising and falling away of realities, they cannot however be studied with the aim of understanding those realities without the perception of permanence and self at some level. === > To experience this is to do something. S: Patipatti and pativedha are the result of the development of panna, a sankhara dhamma. To do something as a form of practice must be due to the influence of miccha-ditthi, and not samma-ditthi. Sukin #128829 From: "connie" > Arammanadhipatti - strong predominance object condition. An object that is predominant and so conditions the citta to experience it at that moment, such as a particular flavour. > > > > has to be an (especially?) attractive object?? adhi - ittha - object from it's own side: sabhaava, objective <--not that but parikappita: subjectively 'happy feeling' (inducing) object; so the object has to be experienced and can not be dosa, moha or bodily consc. assoc w/pain, but can be lokiya (kama, rupa, arupa) or lokuttaraa avacara. connie #128830 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:53 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- >> KH: In a reality where there is only one citta, strong kamma is of no special significance, is it? A conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma. >> > RE: I am sure, Ken H., that hearing me answer a serious Dhamma question posed to the advanced folks around here is the last thing you are looking for – but though I am an ignorant sod in these areas, your questions are sometimes too intriguing for me to resist. ----- KH: The only advanced status I need from you, Rob, is a willingness to talk about the universe as if it were just one moment of consciousness. That would do nicely, thank you. :-) -------------- > RE: My two cents on this one are: A conditioned dhamma is only *known* as "just a conditioned dhamma" at a moment of insight. And when insight is not present, then the level of akusala is unfortunately significant because it causes more suffering. -------------- KH: Yes, it can cause aeons of suffering. But aeons are composed of countless consecutive cittas. There is nothing that survives from one citta to the next, and so a long period of suffering is only a concept. -------------------- > RE: Since the Buddha only taught for the purpose of eliminating suffering, one can look at how suffering is reduced along the way to finally getting rid of it altogether. I think this is why Buddha praised the jhanas as 'a pleasant abiding in the here-and-now' because even though it is not the end of defilements and delusion, it does temporarily suppress defilements enough to give deep relief to the suffering cittas. A vacation from defilements can ultimately become a drug, but if not, it can be a useful break from the constant barrage of akusala, and provide a space for insight to arise. > That is how I look at it anyway. ------------------- KH: I can't see any constant barrage. Unless of course, if you are talking about a mere concept. ------------------------ > RE: Ultimately you are right, that a conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma, and they are all equally accessible [or not] to insight and understanding. But one cannot always skip the interminably long stage at which we cannot know directly that this is the case. ------------------------ KH: Again, an "interminably long stage" is just a concept. We can't factor concepts into our understanding of dhammas. When there is right understanding of dhammas there is no preference for one dhamma over another. Whether the known object is a pleasant rupa or an unpleasant rupa, or a kusala dana-citta or an akusala thieving citta, there will be no continuing on and so it doesn't matter. Panna sees every conditioned dhamma with equal dispassion, disenchantment and relinquishment. Ken H #128831 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:45 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Tony, ------- > T: According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. ------- KH: Or, to put it another way, conceptually and directly. -------------- > T: Conceptual understanding is a little like an intellectually formed understanding, -------------- KH: I think we can use either term; conceptual right understanding and intellectual right understanding (of a conditioned dhamma) are the same thing. They are a function of panna cetasika. ------------------------ > T: but has little or no effect on our lives as such. ------------------------ KH: I am not sure what you mean by that. My theoretical understanding of the Dhamma is the best thing that's ever happened to me. --------------------------- > T: A Non-Conceptual understanding is one that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience the emptiness of phenomena. --------------------------- KH: What you call non-conceptual understanding, and what I call direct right understanding of a conditioned dhamma, is a function of panna cetasika, just as much conceptual right understanding is. ---------------------------- > T: Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but its not experiential. ---------------------------- KH: It is an experience of a conditioned dhamma, but not a direct experience. The indirect (theoretical) right understanding brought about by study and discussion needs to be directly applied to a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. When theoretical right understanding is strong enough, direct right understanding will follow. There will be no need for a special ceremony or ritual to make it happen; it will happen purely as a result of the conditions that have been put in place. ------------------------------ > T: Analytical meditation can however, bring about the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. ------------------------------ KH: Analytical meditation goes against theoretical right understanding, which knows that dhammas arise by conditions not by being made to arise (not by a special ceremony). Therefore, analytical meditation does not a progress from right theoretical understanding. Right theoretical understanding will never lead to meditation. If we have the idea that meditation is the Path then we need to go back and check our theoretical understanding. It has gone wrong somewhere. ------------------ > T: Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. ------------------- KH: Conditioned dhammas and nibanna are paramattha dhammas. That is, they are absolute realities. I wouldn't use the term "mere appearances to the mind" to describe absolute realities. ------------------------- > T: So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? -------------------------- KH: First, panna knows the theory of conditioned reality. Then, panna confirms that theory by applying it directly to a presently arisen conditioned reality. There cannot possibly be any control, or ceremony, that will help panna to make this progression. Right theoretical understanding tells us that. Ken H #128832 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:59 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok, A.Sujin - brief notes 4 sprlrt Hi Sarah, Thanks for your notes, very useful! ... > 24. Uppati dhammas (seeing etc, conditioned by kamma paccaya). Nippati dhammas - > all others > The moments of seeing etc are so quick and then followed by other cittas.... ... I think that she introduced these two terms to distinguish between the arising (uppatti) of citta and cetasikas without vitakka cetasika (seeing ... touching) from those arising (nibbatti) with vitakka (all others cittas). Alberto #128833 From: "Tony H" > Hi Tony, > > ------- > > T: According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. > ------- > > KH: Or, to put it another way, conceptually and directly. > > -------------- > > T: Conceptual understanding is a little like an intellectually formed understanding, > -------------- > > KH: I think we can use either term; conceptual right understanding and intellectual right understanding (of a conditioned dhamma) are the same thing. They are a function of panna cetasika. > > ------------------------ > > T: but has little or no effect on our lives as such. > ------------------------ > > KH: I am not sure what you mean by that. My theoretical understanding of the Dhamma is the best thing that's ever happened to me. > > --------------------------- > > T: A Non-Conceptual understanding is one that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience the emptiness of phenomena. > --------------------------- > > KH: What you call non-conceptual understanding, and what I call direct right understanding of a conditioned dhamma, is a function of panna cetasika, just as much conceptual right understanding is. > > ---------------------------- > > T: Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but its not experiential. > ---------------------------- > > KH: It is an experience of a conditioned dhamma, but not a direct experience. The indirect (theoretical) right understanding brought about by study and discussion needs to be directly applied to a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. > > When theoretical right understanding is strong enough, direct right understanding will follow. There will be no need for a special ceremony or ritual to make it happen; it will happen purely as a result of the conditions that have been put in place. > > ------------------------------ > > T: Analytical meditation can however, bring about the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. > ------------------------------ > > KH: Analytical meditation goes against theoretical right understanding, which knows that dhammas arise by conditions not by being made to arise (not by a special ceremony). > > Therefore, analytical meditation does not a progress from right theoretical understanding. Right theoretical understanding will never lead to meditation. > > If we have the idea that meditation is the Path then we need to go back and check our theoretical understanding. It has gone wrong somewhere. > > ------------------ > > T: Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > ------------------- > > KH: Conditioned dhammas and nibanna are paramattha dhammas. That is, they are absolute realities. I wouldn't use the term "mere appearances to the mind" to describe absolute realities. > > ------------------------- > > T: So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? > > -------------------------- > > KH: First, panna knows the theory of conditioned reality. Then, panna confirms that theory by applying it directly to a presently arisen conditioned reality. > > There cannot possibly be any control, or ceremony, that will help panna to make this progression. Right theoretical understanding tells us that. > > Ken H > #128834 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:25 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice sprlrt Hi Tony, Nice to 'talk' to you again, Basically right direct understanding (patipatti) of realities can only follow right intellectual understanding (pariyatti) of the same, while wrong (or no) intellectual understanding can't lead to that. Pariyatti explains that all realities are non self, that they are elements arising by conditions only, not under anyone control, and for a very short instant, that they are impermanent. Seeing, for instance, can you see? Or thinking, can you think (a.k.a. meditate)? Conditioned by aeons of avijja the answer to these questions would be yes, of course I can see and think/meditate. But aren't all realities anatta, non-self, not under anyone control, i.e. it is only seeing that can see, only thinking can think/meditate, and this can only happen by conditions. Hearing the right Dhamma is a necessary condition for developing right understanding of realities, step by step, naturally, in one's everyday environment. Now, can you meditate? :-) Alberto > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; > conceptually and non-conceptually. Conceptual understanding is a > little like an intellectually formed understanding, but has little or > no effect on our lives as such. A Non-Conceptual understanding is one > that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience > the emptiness of phenomena. > > Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual > understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but > its not experiential. Analytical meditation can however, bring about > the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. > > Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the > mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how > things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as > dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > > So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how > phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual > experiences arrived at through meditation? #128835 From: "jonoabb" > Dear Jon > > Sure, it always depend on one's interpretation on what is formal meditation. Sure, I could quote you many passages in Visud, commentaries, Abhidhamma texts and suttas but I refrain because I do not like endless discussion that does not lead to beneficial result. Please excuse me for my weaknesses on this. > =============== J: No problem. And just to point out that my remarks were actually addressed to Rob E rather than yourself. > =============== > kc: Let each one of us interpret as what they think as beneficial :-). > =============== J: Sorry, but I can't let this comment pass by :-)). The Dhamma is not something to be interpreted according to personal inclination, which I think is the effect of what you're saying. The Dhamma is for helping wrong views to be replaced with right ones, not for confirming existing wrong views :-)) Jon #128836 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon - > > > J: 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. > =============== J: Regarding "I don't believe in visible objects existing on their own, though I do not KNOW there are none", if the knowledge is not there, then the belief has no firm basis; it is nothing more than as assumption. It seems to me that if we lack knowledge as to whether A or not-A pertains, it would be prudent to keep an open mind as to which of the 2 does in fact pertain :-)) In any event when it comes to the question of the arising of the presently experienced visible object, we are talking about an experienced rupa, so your concerns about visible object that is not the object of experience ("unseen sights") are not an issue. Jon #128837 From: "Tony H" KenH: When theoretical right understanding is strong enough, direct right understanding will follow. pt: What if the supposed right theoretical understanding is in fact attachment to certain ideas and then just repeated parroting of such ideas? Further, how would parroting of certain ideas ever lead to right theoretical understanding, not to mention right direct uderstanding? It seems a bit like something I read regarding a supposed Mahayana view that even if the aspiration to become a Buddha is made as a joke or a lie even, such aspiration would still lead to Buddhahood. > > Tony: So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? pt: Why presume that meditation experiences are non-conceptual? Afaik, concepts form an integral part of the process of cognition. Even though "deep" meditation might appear as "still, calm, clear, sharp, etc" and there is no apparent verbal thinking at the time, that still doesn't mean that there isn't any thinking, perceiving and interpreting happening, albeit non-verbal. And why presume that such experiences are anymore "right" than intellectual/verbal thinking for example? Or moments of "stillness" outside meditation? Best wishes pt #128839 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:41 am Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice - Ken kenhowardau Hi Tony, I think you have cut to the heart of the matter: -------- > T: Thanks Ken, > > Moving on.... > >> K: I wouldn't use the term "mere appearances to the mind" to describe absolute realities. >> > TH: Can you explain why? My understanding is that there are absolutely no absolute phenomena anywhere. All things are utterly irreducible to any sort of essence. See Heart Sutra. Emptiness is empty. even in the event of a particle of matter being identified as the 'god particle' for example, it would still be a dependent related phenomena relying upon a mind to apprehend it in order for it to exist. --------- KH: Therevadha Buddhism is all about what is real, as distinct from what is a mere concept. Having found what is real in our conditioned world we then examine its inherent characteristics. We discover it is inherently anicca, dukkha and anatta, and therefore not suitable for clinging to, or for identifying with, or for regarding as a permanent soul. Regarding all conditioned reality in this manner we are then ready to see the unconditioned reality, nibbana. So that is why absolute reality is the key to the whole process. If there were no absolutely real phenomena then nothing definite could be said about anything. Nothing would have inherent characteristics, and so anything said about the world would be just a matter of opinion. It doesn't bear thinking about! :-) Ken H #128841 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:06 am Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Pt, ---- >> KenH: When theoretical right understanding is strong enough, direct right understanding will follow. >> > pt: What if the supposed right theoretical understanding is in fact attachment to certain ideas and then just repeated parroting of such ideas? Further, how would parroting of certain ideas ever lead to right theoretical understanding, not to mention right direct uderstanding? It seems a bit like something I read regarding a supposed Mahayana view that even if the aspiration to become a Buddha is made as a joke or a lie even, such aspiration would still lead to Buddhahood. ----------- KH: I assume those were rhetorical questions, and I agree with the points you have made. Ken H #128842 From: "ptaus1" pt: What if the supposed right theoretical understanding is in fact attachment to certain ideas and then just repeated parroting of such ideas? Further, how would parroting of certain ideas ever lead to right theoretical understanding, not to mention right direct uderstanding? It seems a bit like something I read regarding a supposed Mahayana view that even if the aspiration to become a Buddha is made as a joke or a lie even, such aspiration would still lead to Buddhahood. > ----------- > > KH: I assume those were rhetorical questions, and I agree with the points you have made. pt: I am wondering on what basis can it be presumed that intellectual comprehension of certain "right" ideas (when it "clicks", when it makes sense, etc) is in fact with panna (of right intellectual/theoretical kind) and not with attachment? I mean, the same ideas can be thought about with panna or with attachment (or with aversion when there's no affinity with the particular ideas). So, it seems it's not the particular ideas that make the difference. Further, if it's not the ideas, then how is it that hearing of certain "right" ideas in fact conditions arising of panna? I still don't get the connection. Furthermore, what of stories of Theris and Theras when the liberating understanding arose in moments of perceiving (an idea of a) pot breaking or something like that. It seems panna can accompany any sort of intellectual idea, not necessarily just the "right" ones. So then, why not Mahayana ideas, "wrong" ideas, etc? Best wishes pt #128843 From: Sukinder > 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. > > Well I don't know if I agree or not that only moments of direct panna > lead to development of enlightenment. It's a position that only > appears in commentary as far as I know, and I am not wise enough to > assess it. But the Buddha did speak on many levels and urged all kinds > of kusala. If he taught "only satipatthana" and nothing else, then he > would not have bothered to talk about not using alcohol, not killing > and all these other conventional things. > Let me put it this way. It would be expected that anyone developing right understanding must also experience little by little, more kusala of other levels along the way. Or one might say that if one has as much akusala as before, this may be because there is no real development of right understanding. Regarding the precepts, you know that these are training rules and not like commandments. The reason for this is that right understanding / satipatthana is primary and overrides everything else. Other religions also teach against the use of alcohol, killing, lying, stealing and sexual misconduct. But because theirs is not the Middle Way, any kusala must invariably become object of attachment and self-view, therefore rather than increase, they begin to decline. So we have a situation where with right understanding, other levels of kusala must also grow, and another, namely without right understanding, they will decline while self-view increases. Does it not make sense then that right understanding should be encouraged at all times, and this must include during instances when kusala of other levels are referred to and encouraged? > > 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? > > Well you are making it an either/or proposition. Either one must > prefer kusala with only two roots, or one must prefer only pann with > three roots. Of course at any moment, the highest form of panna is > most desirable, but since as you always point out we don't pick and > choose when to have panna or what kind, or any other experience, then > we should be oriented towards whatever kusala arises, and whatever > conditions allow for greater development of kusala and understanding. > You can't pick and choose means you can't pick and choose. This discussion is about whether the Path is with right understanding always, or also when only non-attachment and non-aversion are present. I say that the reason there can be development of wisdom is because wisdom is a sankhara khandha, therefore grows in strength by virtue of its own arising. I don't see how it can be that dana or sila for example, can lead to panna. Otherwise we should believe that followers of other religions are also on their way to developing the Path. > I gave the example that someone who says "I only need to have correct > understanding, so if I butcher a cow, or kill a person or scream > obscenities at someone, that is fine, - it has nothing to do with the > path" is someone who is deeply deluded. And I do think that's true. > Note that it is you who is imagining all this. It is being done in order to give validity to your own view. No one with any right understanding would think the way you describe. Akusala is *not* fine. > The paramatha understanding may be ultimate, but conventional akusala > is harmful to the path, and conventional kusala is good for the path - > not better than panna, but not unnecessary either. > Not necessary means that they do not constitute the Path. This does not however mean that they are not encouraged as per any given situation. When dana, sila, metta, karuna etc. are called for, no one is going to think that these are unnecessary. Only that right understanding does not think them to be the Path. I'm trying to not make it into another marathon post, hence skipping over much of your comments. Metta, Sukin AdChoices #128844 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Pt, ---- > pt: I am wondering on what basis can it be presumed that intellectual comprehension of certain "right" ideas (when it "clicks", when it makes sense, etc) is in fact with panna (of right intellectual/theoretical kind) and not with attachment? ---- KH: I don't think it *can* be presumed. But perhaps I am not following you properly. -------------------- > Pt: I mean, the same ideas can be thought about with panna or with attachment (or with aversion when there's no affinity with the particular ideas). So, it seems it's not the particular ideas that make the difference. Further, if it's not the ideas, then how is it that hearing of certain "right" ideas in fact conditions arising of panna? I still don't get the connection. -------------------- KH: I assume 'hearing the true Dhamma' refers to the vipakka-citta, hearing. Panna does not occur in vipakka cittas, so there is no `wise hearing.' `Wise consideration of what has been heard' would have to refer to the javana cittas in hearing, and other, citta processes. Having heard audible objects, or seen visible objects, we form concepts of what has been heard or seen. But there are no actual concepts [out there] in ultimate reality. The concepts created and experienced by cittas with *panna* could be called right concepts, I suppose, for the sake of convenience. But how can we know what they are? until we have experienced them with panna? The main point here is we never hear ideas, right or wrong. We hear audible objects, desirable, moderately desirable and undesirable. ------------------- > Pt: Furthermore, what of stories of Theris and Theras when the liberating understanding arose in moments of perceiving (an idea of a) pot breaking or something like that. It seems panna can accompany any sort of intellectual idea, not necessarily just the "right" ones. So then, why not Mahayana ideas, "wrong" ideas, etc? ------------------- KH: They saw (conceptualized) the pots break and the curries burn etc., after having heard and considered the Dhamma many times over many lifetimes. In those circumstances the concept of a breaking pot could easily prompt panna to arise and experience anicca. But that would occur in a subsequent citta with a dhamma as its object. Ken H #128845 From: "Tony H" > Hello Tony, all, > > We need to take Buddha's teaching in context. He taught Anatta (An-Atta). He didn't teach no person (natthi puggalo or apuggalo) > > Atta = Atman, a Hindu concept that could be NOT related to what we in 21st century western world call "self". > > If you notice, often arguments against Atta goes like: > > Is X permanent or impermanent? > Is what is impermanent sukha or dukkha? > > As I understand it, almost all if not all people today, do NOT believe in permanent and unchanging self that is always blissful. So this line of argument goes after something else. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #128846 From: "Tony H" > Hi Tony, > > Nice to 'talk' to you again, > Basically right direct understanding (patipatti) of realities can only follow right intellectual understanding (pariyatti) of the same, while wrong (or no) intellectual understanding can't lead to that. > Pariyatti explains that all realities are non self, that they are elements arising by conditions only, not under anyone control, and for a very short instant, that they are impermanent. > Seeing, for instance, can you see? > Or thinking, can you think (a.k.a. meditate)? > Conditioned by aeons of avijja the answer to these questions would be yes, of course I can see and think/meditate. > But aren't all realities anatta, non-self, not under anyone control, i.e. it is only seeing that can see, only thinking can think/meditate, and this can only happen by conditions. > Hearing the right Dhamma is a necessary condition for developing right understanding of realities, step by step, naturally, in one's everyday environment. > Now, can you meditate? :-) > > Alberto > > > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; > > conceptually and non-conceptually. Conceptual understanding is a > > little like an intellectually formed understanding, but has little or > > no effect on our lives as such. A Non-Conceptual understanding is one > > that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience > > the emptiness of phenomena. > > > > Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual > > understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but > > its not experiential. Analytical meditation can however, bring about > > the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. > > > > Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the > > mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how > > things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as > > dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > > > > So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how > > phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual > > experiences arrived at through meditation? > #128847 From: "Tony H" > Hi KenH and Tony, > > > KenH: When theoretical right understanding is strong enough, direct right understanding will follow. > > pt: What if the supposed right theoretical understanding is in fact attachment to certain ideas and then just repeated parroting of such ideas? Further, how would parroting of certain ideas ever lead to right theoretical understanding, not to mention right direct uderstanding? It seems a bit like something I read regarding a supposed Mahayana view that even if the aspiration to become a Buddha is made as a joke or a lie even, such aspiration would still lead to Buddhahood. > > > > > Tony: So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? > > pt: Why presume that meditation experiences are non-conceptual? Afaik, concepts form an integral part of the process of cognition. Even though "deep" meditation might appear as "still, calm, clear, sharp, etc" and there is no apparent verbal thinking at the time, that still doesn't mean that there isn't any thinking, perceiving and interpreting happening, albeit non-verbal. And why presume that such experiences are anymore "right" than intellectual/verbal thinking for example? Or moments of "stillness" outside meditation? > > Best wishes > pt > #128848 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro > 24. Uppati dhammas (seeing etc, conditioned by kamma paccaya). Nippati dhammas - > > all others > > The moments of seeing etc are so quick and then followed by other cittas.... > ... > > I think that she introduced these two terms to distinguish between the arising (uppatti) of citta and cetasikas without vitakka cetasika (seeing ... touching) from those arising (nibbatti) with vitakka (all others cittas). L: Yes, that was the point. Is there now uppati or nibbatti? Take care of yourself Alberto. Best wishes Lukas #128850 From: "truth_aerator" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > thanks Alex, > >I am finding it difficult to establish where Khun Sujin >Boriharnwanakets stance is on this - is she with the Prasnangika >Madhyamikas'? Or does she posit there is rupa separate from mind? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes she sounds more like Zen than Prasangika-Madhymaka. I don't know why you think she is P.M. If rupa is separate from the mind, then we can't know it :) I think that it is better: a) talk about the actual experience, and without adding any metaphysical speculations b) Things can be not-directly controlled by the mind. I think this is better than "separate" from the mind. IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #128851 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:41 am Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice sprlrt Hi Tony, Another question then, what do you/'you' meditate about? Alberto > A: Now, can you meditate? :-) > TH: Yes...is the simple answer. 'I' 'think' 'I' can meditate....therefore there IS an 'I' - albeit dependent related and illusory. #128852 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:41 am Subject: Re: Bangkok, A.Sujin - brief notes 4 sprlrt Dear Lukas, > Is there now uppati or nibbatti? Take care of yourself Alberto. Excellent! and a good reminder too. Take good care of yournonself too. Alberto #128853 From: "truth_aerator" Another question then, what do you/'you' meditate about? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anicca, dukkha, anatta, asubha, paticcasamuppada... IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #128854 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:08 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes... kenhowardau Hi Tony, ---------- > T: I think its easy to fall into one of the two extremes - ie that there is No Self to be found anywhere and that the self does exist as an idependent entity. ----------- KH: The two extremes are the continued existence of a self and the annihilation of a self. Both assume the initial existence of a self that can meet one of those two fates. Therefore, the suttas describe extreme wrong views as "I exist" "I do not exist" "I both exist and do not exist" "I neither exist nor do not exist." Or "I will be reborn" "I will not be reborn" "I will both . . ." and so on. The middle way assumes no such initial existence of a self. It describes the world purely in terms of conditioned dhammas, and it describes anatta as 'there is no self.' Ken H #128856 From: "ptaus1" > pt: I am wondering on what basis can it be presumed that intellectual comprehension of certain "right" ideas (when it "clicks", when it makes sense, etc) is in fact with panna (of right intellectual/theoretical kind) and not with attachment? > ---- > > KH: I don't think it *can* be presumed. But perhaps I am not following you properly. pt: I guess I'm wondering where does the certainty come from that it's panna that's accompanying particular ideas and not attachment? I mean it seems it has no importance what ideas are being thought about, so just the fact that I'm thinking about anatta and other dhamma issues in a certain way certainly doesn't guarantee that there is any panna (of the intellectual kind) at the time. I'm also further confused on the following - on one hand we say there are no concepts really: > KH: Having heard audible objects, or seen visible objects, we form concepts of what has been heard or seen. But there are no actual concepts [out there] in ultimate reality. > ... > The main point here is we never hear ideas, right or wrong. We hear audible objects, desirable, moderately desirable and undesirable. pt: But then on the other hand we also say: > KH: They saw (conceptualized) the pots break and the curries burn etc., after having heard and considered the Dhamma many times over many lifetimes. In those circumstances the concept of a breaking pot could easily prompt panna to arise and experience anicca. But that would occur in a subsequent citta with a dhamma as its object. pt: So how does a non-existent concept prompt panna? Because it is the object of a citta? I.e. by object-condition or something like that? I might have asked that before, but promptly forgot the answer. Either way, is it the concept that is doing the conditioning, or is it the dhammas that take the object that are actually conditioning each other dhammas? If it's the concept that's doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are right and wrong concepts and that it certainly matters whether one is thinking this or that concept. But if it's dhammas that are doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are no concepts, and certainly no right or wrong concepts, and hence it makes no difference to the arising of panna whether you are thinking about dhammas and anatta, or elephants and pots, or one God and resurrection. Or is that inaccurate? Best wishes pt #128857 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Pt, ---- <. . .> > pt: I guess I'm wondering where does the certainty come from that it's panna that's accompanying particular ideas and not attachment? ---- KH: I feel as if I have come into this conversation late, and have missed an important part. Which certainty are you referring to? According to the texts, panna can have a concept as its object, but no one at DSG, that I know of, has claimed to be certain of any particular occasions when that has happened. (Most likely I am still misunderstanding you.) ------------------ > Pt: I mean it seems it has no importance what ideas are being thought about, ------------------ KH: The thoughts that precede panna might not be of any particular kind, but the thoughts experienced directly by panna are thoughts about dhammas. ------------------ > Pt: so just the fact that I'm thinking about anatta and other dhamma issues in a certain way certainly doesn't guarantee that there is any panna (of the intellectual kind) at the time. ------------------- KH: That's how I understand it too. I think the general consensus at DSG is that most of the kamma in our daily activities – including Dhamma discussions – is of the mildly akusala variety. ------------------------ <. . .> > pt: So how does a non-existent concept prompt panna? Because it is the object of a citta? I.e. by object-condition or something like that? I might have asked that before, but promptly forgot the answer. ------------------------ KH: I vaguely remember discussions that have explained how vipassana was more likely to occur during wise consideration than at other times. Not that we would try to make it happen that way, of course! :-) Personally, however, I am suspicious of any theory that hints at a conventional element to the Path. I think any Tipitaka quote that seems to refer to concepts (e.g., times when wise consideration is taking place) should actually be understood as referring to paramattha dhammas. ----------- > PT: Either way, is it the concept that is doing the conditioning, or is it the dhammas that take the object that are actually conditioning each other dhammas? ----------- KH: Concepts do get a mention in the Patthana, and not only as object condition, but obviously they can't condition anything directly. I think the sanna cetasika (for example) that recognises a concept would be a main cause of NDS conditioning by concepts. ---------------- > Pt: If it's the concept that's doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are right and wrong concepts and that it certainly matters whether one is thinking this or that concept. But if it's dhammas that are doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are no concepts, and certainly no right or wrong concepts, and hence it makes no difference to the arising of panna whether you are thinking about dhammas and anatta, or elephants and pots, or one God and resurrection. Or is that inaccurate? ---------------- KH: In moments when you are thinking about dhammas and anatta (as they were described by the Buddha) you are indirectly experiencing realities and their characteristics. Panna might arise at some of those moments, mightn't it? If you are thinking about broken pots and burnt curries, and you see them as metaphors for anicca and dukkha then the same principle would seem to apply. I don't know about gods and resurrection though. :-) Ken H #128858 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:37 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice sprlrt Hi Alex, Tony, all, >> Another question then, what do you/'you' meditate about? > Anicca, dukkha, anatta, asubha, paticcasamuppada... All words applying to realities arising right now, like seeing, visible object, and thinking which follows. Alberto #128859 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro The Buddha teaches Raahula MN 61. Ambala.t.thikaa-raahulovaada Sutta: Advice to Raahula at Ambala.t.thikaa, when Raahula was only seven years old, soon after his ordination as a novice. Now, at the age of eighteen, Raahula became aware of the physical perfection of the Buddha and his own body. The Buddha reads Raahula's thoughts, and to prevent harbouring any vain thoughts, the Buddha teaches him MN 62. Mahaa-raahulovaada Sutta. In this sutta, the Buddha teaches Raahula the meditation on the elements; meditation on loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy, equanimity, foulness, and impermanence; and the meditation on mindfulness of breathing. (Rest deleted by Chuck) #128860 From: han tun To: DGG ; Thongchai VORASINGHA Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:14 PM Subject: RE: [dsg] Raahula (4)  Good friend Han, et al 1. This ole bag of bones pray your health has improved. 2. Sincere warm thanks for reminding us of this very important sutta. One is never too young to learn the Dhamma-vinaya. I well remember observing Thai mothers showing their very young daughter/son how to wai, to not step on the floor high board at the wat entrance, and to prostrate. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com From: mailto:hantun1%40yahoo.com <...> The Buddha teaches Raahula MN 61. Ambala.t.thikaa-raahulovaada Sutta: Advice to Raahula at Ambala.t.thikaa, when Raahula was only seven years old, soon after his ordination as a novice. Now, at the age of eighteen, Raahula became aware of the physical perfection of the Buddha and his own body. The Buddha reads Raahula's thoughts, and to prevent harbouring any vain thoughts, the Buddha teaches him MN 62. Mahaa-raahulovaada Sutta. In this sutta, the Buddha teaches Raahula the meditation on the elements; meditation on loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy, equanimity, foulness, and impermanence; and the meditation on mindfulness of breathing. (Rest deleted by Chuck) #128861 From: "jonoabb" > Thought I might clarify my Hua Hin musings... > > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. Conceptual understanding is a little like an intellectually formed understanding, but has little or no effect on our lives as such. A Non-Conceptual understanding is one that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience the emptiness of phenomena. > > Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but its not experiential. Analytical meditation can however, bring about the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. > > Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > > So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? > =============== J: Your question goes to the very heart of the teachings: what is the development of the path to enlightenment as taught by the Buddha? No short answer to that one, of course, but a good toopic to discuss. Wondering if we can find some common ground to begin with. For instance, that: (a) the path to enlightenment (aka 'practice') is to be found explained in the teachings of the Buddha; (b) those teachings are comprised of the suttas, vinaya and abhidhamma (the 3 Pitakas); (c) the ancient commentaries to the 3 Pitakas also form part of the Pali Canon and are to be considered the Buddha vacana (word of the Buddha); (d) for there to be practice in accordance with the teachings there must first be a correct theoretical/intellectual understanding of the teachings; and by the same token, any claimed 'practice' is to be evaluated by reference to the teachings. Any sticking points there? Looking forward to further discussion. Jon #128862 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon, and Ken O. > ... > > 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 :-)) > > RE: Bhavana is mentioned quite a bit... > > From Bhavana Society: > "The Pali word "Bhavana" means mental cultivation..." > > From Buddhism.About.com: > "All Buddhist meditation practices are forms of bhavana. Here is a basic explanation of bhavana and how it is practiced in Theravada..." > > From Wikipedia: > "In the Pali Canon bhavana is often found in a compound phrase indicating personal, intentional effort over time with respect to the development of that particular faculty." > > "The word bhavana is sometimes translated into English as 'meditation' so that, for example, metta-bhavana may be translated as 'the meditation on loving-kindness'." > > From wildmind.org: > "The Metta Bhavana is a meditation for developing lovingkindness." > > "Bhavana" means "cultivation" or "development," and "Metta" is a word that means "love," "friendliness," or "lovingkindness." So this is a meditation practice where we actively cultivate some very positive emotional states towards others, as well as to ourselves." > =============== J: Thanks for the above quotes. As we can see, some people use meditation for the Pali `bhavana', while for others it connotes intentional practice or something similar. As far as I know, none of the recognised translators (including Bhikkhu Bodhi) use meditation as a synonym for bhavana for all purposes. However, what's important is that when someone (such as yourself) uses the term they indicate clearly what they mean by it, otherwise meaningful discussion is not possible :-)) In an earlier message you gave this as a possible definition: "meditation is a positive practice that will lead to greater mindfulness and peacefulness" In the introduction to his translation of the AN, Bh. Bodhi gives the following definition: "The heart of the monastic life is the practice of what we call meditation, the methodical effort to tame and master the mind and to develop its capacity for calm and insight." I would presume the emphasis in these definitions to be on the words "positive practice" and "methodical effort". As I say, it doesn't much matter how it's defined, as long as we're clear on how it's being used for present purposes. So grateful if you could select/give your own meaning. > =============== > RE: Buddha to Ananda: > From: the Indriya-bhavana Sutta: The Development of the Faculties > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." > > Practice jhana - don't be heedless - this is our message to you all. Hmmmn - did the Buddha say that to Ananda? Uh, yes. > > > J: I'm wondering if your discussion with Ken H would be more fruitful if instead you talked about particular passages from the texts. > > RE: Sure - I think meditation has been mentioned quite a lot in the texts, and nowhere has it been said *not* to practice meditation. > =============== J: When you say that meditation has been mentioned quite a lot in the texts, are you referring to the Pali term bhavana? If so, fine, we can discuss bhavana as found in the texts (i.e., samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana). However, since nobody here is saying *not* to develop samatha or insight, I would assume you are not using the term as a synonym for bhavana :-)) > =============== > RE: Rather the Buddha said: "Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." And he said many other things to the same effect! > =============== J: The expression `practice jhana', or rather it's Pali original, needs to be understood. How do you read it, and how do you relate it to meditation as you use the term? I get the impression you see the term jhana as implying whatever it is you consider meditation to be; this does not count as a *mention* of meditation :-)) Jon #128863 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon, and Ken H. > ... > > J: 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. > > RE: In that case, why don't we discuss such series more and how the conventional references are composed of a number of such occurrences in a series? I think that would be extremely useful, and would make the bridge between our conceptual view of events and the paramatha dhammas that actually occur. > =============== J: It is the understanding of the dhammas of the present moment that will "make the bridge between our conceptual view of events and the paramattha dhammas that actually occur". There is no support in the texts for the approach you seem to refer to here: analysing conventional events in terms of paramattha dhammas. > =============== > RE: Yet there seems to be only passing references to such series, and the emphasis goes back to the single citta - even though so many things take place, as you say, over the course of many such moments. > > Are there more extensive descriptions of this kind in any commentaries? I would find it valuable to see them. > =============== J: The reason such references are not generally found is that the path concerns the understanding of presently arisen dhammas, not the analysing (i.e., thinking bout) a given conventional situation in order to ascertain which dhammas are or might be involved. Jon #128864 From: Tam Bach Pt: I mean it seems it has no importance what ideas are being thought about, ------------------ KH: The thoughts that precede panna might not be of any particular kind, but the thoughts experienced directly by panna are thoughts about dhammas. ------------------ > Pt: so just the fact that I'm thinking about anatta and other dhamma issues in a certain way certainly doesn't guarantee that there is any panna (of the intellectual kind) at the time. ------------------- KH: That's how I understand it too. I think the general consensus at DSG is that most of the kamma in our daily activities – including Dhamma discussions – is of the mildly akusala variety. ------------------------ <. . .> > pt: So how does a non-existent concept prompt panna? Because it is the object of a citta? I.e. by object-condition or something like that? I might have asked that before, but promptly forgot the answer. ------------------------ KH: I vaguely remember discussions that have explained how vipassana was more likely to occur during wise consideration than at other times. Not that we would try to make it happen that way, of course! :-) Personally, however, I am suspicious of any theory that hints at a conventional element to the Path. I think any Tipitaka quote that seems to refer to concepts (e.g., times when wise consideration is taking place) should actually be understood as referring to paramattha dhammas. ----------- > PT: Either way, is it the concept that is doing the conditioning, or is it the dhammas that take the object that are actually conditioning each other dhammas? ----------- KH: Concepts do get a mention in the Patthana, and not only as object condition, but obviously they can't condition anything directly. I think the sanna cetasika (for example) that recognises a concept would be a main cause of NDS conditioning by concepts. ---------------- > Pt: If it's the concept that's doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are right and wrong concepts and that it certainly matters whether one is thinking this or that concept. But if it's dhammas that are doing the conditioning, then it seems right to conclude that there are no concepts, and certainly no right or wrong concepts, and hence it makes no difference to the arising of panna whether you are thinking about dhammas and anatta, or elephants and pots, or one God and resurrection. Or is that inaccurate? ---------------- Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (18) Recent Activity: * New Members 2 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . #128865 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: 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. > > RE: How does space, which does not arise in a kalapa, coordinate with the rupa of sound, which does arise in a kalapa, to create the "hearing that occurs in what is taken for the aperture of the ear?" > =============== J: There is no need for any coordination between the rupas; it is simply the case that if both are present then hearing can occur (assuming other conditions are also met) and if either is absent then it cannot. > =============== > RE: I can follow that description of how sound is "heard" and gives rise to hearing consciousness, without reference to the "ear" or "aperture," etc. That is surprising, but thanks for the very able description. > =============== J: Glad you are able to appreciate the conceptual description. There's a lot more like that in the teachings :-)) Jon #128866 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Connie, Jon and Sarah, > > Thanks, Connie, for clarifying your belief in conventional reality as just belief in conventional understanding. I suppose that would mean belief in the reality of thinking dhammas, and also belief in the reality of micha-dhitti.(?) And thanks, Jon, for giving me the all-clear to take snapshots again. :-) > =============== J: Just don't get too trigger-happy with the shutter finger :-)) > =============== > KH: Jon recently said something that gave me the impression one stream of cittas could cause the death of another stream of cittas.(Or, to put it another way, one stream of cittas could cause a death (cuti) citta to occur in another stream of cittas.) Is that correct? Or was that just a conventional way of speaking? > =============== J: In the conventional situation of A causing the death of B, the dhammas that are taken for A and B are mere namas and rupas and, in particular, cittas. However, that is not to say that one stream of cittas *causes* the arising of the cuti citta in another stream. As you know, there are multiple conditions for the arising of cuti citta, the principal one being kamma (cuti citta being a vipaka citta). Jon #128867 From: "sarah" > > 25. khandha - void of self, essence. Just arise and fall away. What is got from what has gone? When death comes, what has been attained in life if no understanding? > > > > > > > just another life sentence. > > who remembers the last resort? <-- ;) pacchima - No One will do. No One does. No One did. Only khandhas. .... S: Yes, only khandas and only the arahata cuti citta is the last resort, pacchima citta. Meanwhile, one life sentence after another.... ... > > take heed! we are all The Dying; the angels sing, not a soul to hear. > > connie > > JJ: This reminds me the Dhammapada translated by Sathienpong Wannapok. > > 21: Heedfulness is the way to the Deathless; > Heedlessness is the way to death. > The heedful do not die; > The heedless are like unto the dead. ... S: Dhp21 "Appamaado amatapada'm pamaado maccuno pada'm" "Heedfulness is the path to the deathless heedlessness is the path to death." not(a)-all around (pa)-madness (maado) The last words of the Buddha were - appamaadena sampaadetha - strive on with diligence." From the commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "'Ananda, among these': among these 'five hundred monks' sitting in the pavilion. 'The one who is the most backward': the one who is last in terms of virtue. It was referring to Aananda Thera that he said this. 'Achieve with vigilance': You should successfully perform all your duties with no absence of mindfulness. Thus ['As a landlord of great wealth lying on his deathbed would explain to his sons the value of his property']did the Blessed One, while lying on his deathbed, give all the advice he had given for forty-five years by putting it into the single word 'vigilance' (appamaada)."< Metta Sarah ==== #128868 From: "sarah" > Arammanadhipatti - strong predominance object condition. An object that is predominant and so conditions the citta to experience it at that moment, such as a particular flavour. > > > > has to be an (especially?) attractive object?? shrug, ... S: As you later elaborate on, must be a highly desirable object that is given "preponderance" for lobha. Could also be the lobha itself. Or can an object of right understanding or some other kusala, such as dana or sila recalled with kusala. As you say later, cannot be an object of dosa. Metta Sarah ==== #128869 From: "rjkjp1" > Good friends all, especially Howard > > > 1. Howard, trust all has returned to normal? ------------------------------- HCW: Thanks, Chuck. :-) Mostly normal. (Still some expected bleeding.) -------------------------------- ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128871 From: "sarah" Rather the Buddha said: "Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." And he said many other things to the same effect! ... S: We've discussed the phrase jhaayathaa before. The commentary explains that it means: "Develop samatha and vipassanaa". The emphasis is on sati sampaja~n~na, the development of sati and panna. As quoted before, there are two kinds of jhana - one is "closely examining the object" of samatha and the other is closely examining the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In this way at moments of enlightenment, the path and fruition consciousness are called "characteristic examining jhana" as elaborated on in the Atthasalini (Expositor, V, ch 1, 167). Lots more in U.P under "jhana - two kinds" and "jhana and nibbana". Metta Sarah ==== #128872 From: "sarah" There are, however, a couple of questions that could shed some light on the mystery. They are in relation to streams of cittas. Jon recently said something that gave me the impression one stream of cittas could cause the death of another stream of cittas.(Or, to put it another way, one stream of cittas could cause a death (cuti) citta to occur in another stream of cittas.) Is that correct? Or was that just a conventional way of speaking? .... S: As I see Jon has just stressed, the cause of death is past kamma. However, there are supporting conditions, such as temperature. ... > > The second question is similar, and it was prompted by something Sarah recently said to me. Can one stream of cittas cause a sense rupa (visible rupa in Sarah's example) to become visible to another stream of cittas? ... S: This isn't ringing a bell. The causes for rupa to arise are kamma, citta, temperature or nutriment. The condition for seeing a visible object that has arisen is kamma. ... > > I have always been told at DSG that none of us (except a Buddha) could directly know the citta of another. I have assumed, by analogy, that we can't interact in *any* ultimately real way. ... S: Always living alone with the citta that has arisen now. What can be known is only the reality which appears. There can be thinking about another, but the reality is thinking then. The more understanding, the less idea of another and oneself interacting or not interacting. ... > > Do we put sense rupas out in space where they can be detected by the cittas of other streams of cittas (depending, of course, on their kamma)? It sounds disturbingly conventional to me. ... S: Sounds like nonsense to me:-0 ... > > This takes me back to 2007 when I asked A. Sujin what dana ultimately meant. In a reality where there is only one citta, strong kamma is of no special significance, is it? A conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma. ... S: Yes, but there are 'good' conditioned dhammas, 'very good' conditioned dhammas, 'bad' and 'very bad' conditioned dhammas. Killing is bad and not killing is good! ... Back to see how Jon's responded! Metta Sarah ===== #128873 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon, and Ken O and Ken H. > ... > > J: 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). > > Sure, I am happy to give it a try! > =============== J: I notice that the passages that follow are all from the Visuddhimagga. What I was asking for here were passages in the suttas where the Buddha is giving a teaching that you take to be a teaching of formal meditation practice. Thanks. > =============== > RE: From Vism. pps. 92-93: > CHAPTER III Taking a Meditation Subject 92 > =============== J: In the Vism., "meditation subject" is a translation of the Pali term "kammatthaana" (see Pali – English glossary at p. 777). The literal meaning of kammatthaana is something like "field of work", so "meditation subject" is a free rendering i.e., it cannot be taken as a mention of meditation as such. Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of references to meditation, all except a very few are as part of the expression "meditation subject" (the main exceptions I could find being at III, 59 and VIII, 143). As a matter of interest, the term `bhaavanaa' is given in the glossary as having the following meanings: "(1) development (lit. making be'), (2) term for the 3 higher paths." > =============== > RE: 54. The inhabitants of the village had a large pavilion built at the door of his dwelling, and they came daily to hear the Dhamma. Explaining by day what had been repeated by night, [97] the Elder [Dhammarakkhita] eventually completed the instruction. Then he sat down on a mat on the ground before the Elder Abhaya and said, "Friend, explain a meditation subject to me." ... > ... > 104. 1. Herein, as to enumeration: it was said above, "from among the forty meditation subjects" (§28). Herein, the forty meditation subjects are these: ten kasióas (totalities), ten kinds of foulness, ten recollections, four divine abidings, four immaterial states, one perception, one defining. > > RE: -- And it continues to specify various other aspects of choosing the correct meditation subject for particular temperaments, etc. > =============== J: Yes, but as explained above, there is no use of the term meditation to describe the development that takes place with the so-called meditation subject as object. So again, none of these references count as a mention of meditation as a 'practice' :-)) Jon AdChoices #128874 From: "sarah" > Thought I might clarify my Hua Hin musings... > > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. ... S: On your very first comment here - let's be very clear that it is only a reality which is to be understood as not self. In other words, we cannot just talk about understanding "not self" without reference to seeing, visible object, thinking and other realities. Now there can be the beginning of understanding of visible object as just that which is seen now - no person, no computer, no words, just that which is experienced by seeing. By understanding visible object as it is, it is understood as anatta. The same applies to other realities. Seeing is just the reality which experiences visible object, no person that sees. This is what is meant by seeing as not self. Metta Sarah p.s Pls would everyone kindly make it clear who is being addressed at the start of each message, even if "All" and sign off each time. Thx in advance. ========= #128875 From: "Tony H" > Hi Tony, > > ---------- > > T: I think its easy to fall into one of the two extremes - ie that there is No Self to be found anywhere and that the self does exist as an idependent entity. > ----------- > > KH: The two extremes are the continued existence of a self and the annihilation of a self. Both assume the initial existence of a self that can meet one of those two fates. > > Therefore, the suttas describe extreme wrong views as "I exist" "I do not exist" "I both exist and do not exist" "I neither exist nor do not exist." Or "I will be reborn" "I will not be reborn" "I will both . . ." and so on. > > The middle way assumes no such initial existence of a self. It describes the world purely in terms of conditioned dhammas, and it describes anatta as 'there is no self.' > > Ken H > #128876 From: "sarah" Thanks for your notes, very useful! ... S: Thx for your additional elaboration and correction of the Pali below. I think I'm slipping into Thai pronunciation... ... > > 24. Uppati dhammas (seeing etc, conditioned by kamma paccaya). Nippati dhammas - > > all others > > The moments of seeing etc are so quick and then followed by other cittas.... > ... > > I think that she introduced these two terms to distinguish between the arising (uppatti) of citta and cetasikas without vitakka cetasika (seeing ... touching) from those arising (nibbatti) with vitakka (all others cittas). ... S: Yes, good to stress this. It was emphasised so much during the first trip. We missed you in Kaeng Krachan, exp. Lukas! I'm sure you're back to Italian pasta as your arammanupanissaya paccaya. Hope you had good flights back. More cryptic notes to come..... Ann, Betty & Azita also said they might share some extracts from their notes.... Metta Sarah ===== #128877 From: "sarah" TH: ,,, My understanding is that thee are absolutely no absolute phenomena anywhere. .... S: Is there seeing now? Is there a reality, a dhamma, which is seen? Is thinking real? Metta Sarah ==== #128878 From: "sarah" > I think its easy to fall into one of the two extremes - ie that there is No Self to be found anywhere and that the self does exist as an idependent entity. ... No Self to be found anywhere sounds exactly what the Buddha taught. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html "Form is not self.....feeling....." etc. Sabbe dhamma anatta.... ... > Ultimately there is no self that can meditate. But there is a 'conventionally' existent self that can and that appears to my mind in dependence upon causes and conditions...this self does exist but not in an ultimate sense. ... S: Just a figment of the perverted imagination. It doesn't exist, so it is not conditioned. Thinking is conditioned, but not the ideas thought about. ... > > Like the analogy of the two sticks needed to light a fire...ultimately they too are consumed. Do we not need the vehicle of the self in order to experience suffering and also to experience the absence of suffering. > > > Agree? ... S: Absolutely not! The idea of using self to get rid of self would mean using (who?) wrong view to reach right view. Makes no sense at all, I'm afraid. Right view of dhammas, realities is needed from the outset in order for right view to develop as Alberto pointed out very clearly in #128834. Please persist! Disagreements are very welcome here. Metta Sarah ==== #128879 From: "truth_aerator" S:No Self to be found anywhere sounds exactly what the Buddha >taught. >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html > "Form is not self.....feeling....." etc. Sabbe dhamma anatta.... 1) The sutta says that 5 aggregates is anatta. Strange thing is that the Buddha doesn't finish with saying "There is no Atta" anywhere. I think the Buddha had a practical teaching of considering every appearing phenomenon as not-Atta. 2) Atta DOES NOT MEAN SELF. 3)"An" as in (an-atta) does not mean "no", it means "not". Big difference. Buddha could have said natthatta (natthi-atta). 4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html With best wishes, Alex #128880 From: "Robert E" > RE: Rather the Buddha said: "Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." And he said many other things to the same effect! > > =============== > > J: The expression `practice jhana', or rather it's Pali original, needs to be understood. How do you read it, and how do you relate it to meditation as you use the term? I get the impression you see the term jhana as implying whatever it is you consider meditation to be; this does not count as a *mention* of meditation :-)) You have asked for scriptural passages and I have given you one that is a very direct statement of the Buddha promulgating jhana practice. The mention of 'the roots of trees' being nearby makes it clear he is talking about sitting down and doing meditation practice, and not some other form of 'natural' or 'accidental' cultivation. Unlike some other suttas that could be stretched to mean that the Buddha is merely describing what monks are already doing, this one clearly shows the Buddha telling Ananda to 'go practice jhana.' Jon, what you have said in response to this straightforward passage - surely a directive to practice a specific form of meditation - seems extremely convoluted. You say: "I get the impression you see the term jhana as implying whatever it is you consider meditation to be." It's not an impression, and it's not implied, and it's not what I 'consider meditation to be.' It's what the Buddha considers a form of meditation that he is clearly saying here that he wants his followers to practice. Jhana means jhana. I consider meditation to be the cultivation of jhana and sati, those are the two forms of meditation that the Buddha promoted in his lifetime and that have been practiced from that time to the present in an unbroken tradition. Why did he want his followers to practice jhana and say that they would otherwise *fall into regret* if he didn't consider it a vital part of the path and an important part of their meditation practice? Obviously he did. How do you interpret him saying that? Jhana is a specific meditative state which the Buddha is directly telling Ananda to practice, so he won't regret *not* practicing it. He is telling Ananda to go the root of a tree, sit down and practice meditation directed towards cultivating jhana. There is no other way to understand this very clear directive passage. However, it seems that you are working hard to make its meaning uncertain. What do you think it means? There are traditionally two aspects of meditation, and the meditation tradition is continuous since the time of the Buddha, it has never stopped, so it is clearly traditional - insight meditation to cultivate sati leading to vipassana; and samatha meditation leading towards greater samatha, access concentration and then successively deeper, more subtle states of jhana. Sometimes they are cultivated in turn, sometimes in tandem. The Buddha is clearly telling Ananda to go do that very thing, to culivate jhana, as described in parts of the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, as well as other suttas, and as described in the Visudhimagga and other scriptures. If you disagree with the above, please give some evidentiary reason why it is not as I describe, and please give me a positive idea of what you think that passage is saying. I would love to discuss this further and get to the bottom of this. This seems to be one of those instances when a very clear statement from the Buddha's own lips is twisted around to mean something else relying on philosophical principles instead of what is obvious and actual. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128881 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E (and Ken H) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, and Ken H. > > ... > > > J: 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. > > > > RE: In that case, why don't we discuss such series more and how the conventional references are composed of a number of such occurrences in a series? I think that would be extremely useful, and would make the bridge between our conceptual view of events and the paramatha dhammas that actually occur. > > =============== > > J: It is the understanding of the dhammas of the present moment that will "make the bridge between our conceptual view of events and the paramattha dhammas that actually occur". How can we understand the dhammas of the present moment and how they actually occur if we do not follow the actual reality of how they occur when they do occur in a series that creates a larger string of dhammas, and when in fact such a string is necessary in order to actually understand the 'multi-citta events' that actually occur? if we restrict our view to one isolated dhamma at a time we will never understand the realities that are created by such series, and will remain ignorant of the way these things take place. Do we need to understand dhammas in such a way that promotes ignorance of multi-citta realities? Is that a useful or helpful restriction in any way, shape or form? It is good of course to understand the structure of a single dhamma, but then we should also understand what happens when dhammas occur in series and understand those things that arise that cannot possibly be properly understood unless we understand how they are created by series of dhammas. > There is no support in the texts for the approach you seem to refer to here: analysing conventional events in terms of paramattha dhammas. Well if we look at it the other way, what sorts of things are created when those things occur which occur via a longer series of dhammas? How should we talk about them? Do they too deserve to be called realities? And what sorts of realities are such multi-dhamma realities? > > =============== > > RE: Yet there seems to be only passing references to such series, and the emphasis goes back to the single citta - even though so many things take place, as you say, over the course of many such moments. > > > > Are there more extensive descriptions of this kind in any commentaries? I would find it valuable to see them. > > =============== > > J: The reason such references are not generally found is that the path concerns the understanding of presently arisen dhammas, not the analysing (i.e., thinking bout) a given conventional situation in order to ascertain which dhammas are or might be involved. Well I would think it was a shame if we cannot account for such realities at all that occur over a series of dhammas and actually exist by being created by a multiple series of dhammas. Surely we cannot restrict our knowledge only to those tiny pieces of such realities that are created by a single dhamma and be stuck in the illusion that those single dhammas exist all by themselves when they are in fact both individual dhammas and at the same time parts of a series. Those series are also expressions of dependent arising due to conditions - shouldn't they also be properly understood? Especially since many types of events fall into the multi-dhamma category and without such understanding cannot be understood at all. The 'killing of a being' which is a necessary part of kamma patha murder cannot be understood without reference to a series of cittas with cetana and a series of related rupas. But whenever we try to talk about such an important occurrence we get tied up in knots trying to reconcile this multi-dhamma event in single-citta language, just to satisfy the false philosophical position that it never makes sense to talk about more than one isolated citta or dhamma at a time. So I do think this is an important issue and it is important to find some appropriate language to distinguish between false concepts which create the impression of things that do not actually exist and that are dangerous illusions, and events that do actually take place over multiple dhammas and need to be accounted for. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128882 From: "Robert E" > RE: I can follow that description of how sound is "heard" and gives rise to hearing consciousness, without reference to the "ear" or "aperture," etc. That is surprising, but thanks for the very able description. > > =============== > > J: Glad you are able to appreciate the conceptual description. There's a lot more like that in the teachings :-)) Well sometimes it clicks. I guess that's the way it is. Thanks for facilitating a moment of some sort of understanding for me... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #128883 From: "Robert E" "Develop samatha and vipassanaa". The emphasis is on sati sampaja~n~na, the development of sati and panna. > > As quoted before, there are two kinds of jhana - one is "closely examining the object" of samatha and the other is closely examining the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In this way at moments of enlightenment, the path and fruition consciousness are called "characteristic examining jhana" as elaborated on in the Atthasalini (Expositor, V, ch 1, 167). This is very interesting, and I am happy to look further into the use of jhana as the object of developing sati and panna. However, my emphasis in this context was on the fact that the Buddha clearly enjoined Ananda to go sit near the root of a tree and practice whichever form of jhana it was. This is a clear command to go practice meditation, and I'd like to establish this point before going on to what kind of meditation it might be. If one were to go to the root of a tree and practice in order to develop samatha and vipassana, with emphasis on sampajanna, in order to develop sati and panna, that would of course be a very good description of meditation as described by the Buddha in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, so I would be happy to acknowledge this. But this is certainly an example that cannot be understood in any other way other than a directive by the Buddha to practice sitting meditation to develop these factors. The 'root of the tree' reference makes this absolutely clear. And he further makes it clear that this is a most important part of the path when he adds that this is our message to everyone. Could it be any more clear that he is demanding sitting meditation practice from all who follow him? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #128884 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, and Ken O and Ken H. > > ... > > > J: 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). > > > > Sure, I am happy to give it a try! > > =============== > > J: I notice that the passages that follow are all from the Visuddhimagga. What I was asking for here were passages in the suttas where the Buddha is giving a teaching that you take to be a teaching of formal meditation practice. Thanks. a/ I gave such a quote about the Buddha instructing Ananda to go practice jhana at the root of a tree and saying that everyone should do this. But here I am quoting the Vism. Is there something wrong with the Visuddhimagga? I thought you accepted Buddhaghosa as an authority on Buddhist practice? > > > =============== > > RE: From Vism. pps. 92-93: > > CHAPTER III Taking a Meditation Subject 92 > > =============== > > J: In the Vism., "meditation subject" is a translation of the Pali term "kammatthaana" (see Pali – English glossary at p. 777). The literal meaning of kammatthaana is something like "field of work", so "meditation subject" is a free rendering i.e., it cannot be taken as a mention of meditation as such. Well, if you are going to a teacher to get a field of work or anything else, what else can it be? It talks about matching the kammatthana to the temperament, conditions, etc. and it is a purposeful assignment to the student from the teacher. So it is a "formal assignment" of a way of practice, not a naturally arising dhamma as such that is being promoted. If not meditation, what in your view is the kammatthana, once assigned, meant to be used for? What kind of work is it a field for? > Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of references to meditation, all except a very few are as part of the expression "meditation subject" (the main exceptions I could find being at III, 59 and VIII, 143). Well that's because that is what this particular set of passages is about. I'm sure I will find other references to meditation elsewhere in the Visudhimagga. > As a matter of interest, the term `bhaavanaa' is given in the glossary as having the following meanings: > "(1) development (lit. making be'), (2) term for the 3 higher paths." > > > =============== > > RE: 54. The inhabitants of the village had a large pavilion built at the door of his > dwelling, and they came daily to hear the Dhamma. Explaining by day what had > been repeated by night, [97] the Elder [Dhammarakkhita] eventually completed the > instruction. Then he sat down on a mat on the ground before the Elder Abhaya and > said, "Friend, explain a meditation subject to me." ... > > ... > > 104. 1. Herein, as to enumeration: it was said above, "from among the forty > meditation subjects" (§28). Herein, the forty meditation subjects are these: > ten kasióas (totalities), > ten kinds of foulness, > ten recollections, > four divine abidings, > four immaterial states, > one perception, > one defining. > > > > RE: -- And it continues to specify various other aspects of choosing the correct meditation subject for particular temperaments, etc. > > =============== > > J: Yes, but as explained above, there is no use of the term meditation to describe the development that takes place with the so-called meditation subject as object. > > So again, none of these references count as a mention of meditation as a 'practice' :-)) Really - then what kind of practice is this purposeful, detailed assignment being applied to in your view? If not meditation, you must have an idea of what alternate use this amazingly complex "field of work" is going to be utilized for, from teacher to student. What kind of teacher is this anyway - a teacher of robe-weaving? Perhaps the "field of work" refers to a corn field and this is a manual for farmers. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #128885 From: "Robert E" > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > >> KH: In a reality where there is only one citta, strong kamma is of no special significance, is it? A conditioned dhamma is just a conditioned dhamma. ...though I am an ignorant sod in these areas, your questions are sometimes too intriguing for me to resist. > ----- > > KH: The only advanced status I need from you, Rob, is a willingness to talk about the universe as if it were just one moment of consciousness. That would do nicely, thank you. :-) I have a different way of looking at that, which does not deny the momentary nature of dhammas, but I guess it's like vegetarian +. If you add something other than vegetables, you're a meat-eater. I believe in single-moment-citta-universe +. In other words, rather than saying "the universe is only a single moment of consciousness," I would say say that "the universe is only created one single moment of consciousness at a time." To deny that this action of citta arising takes place over and over again, and that at each point the next citta builds on/develops that which was built on/developed before, is to purposely make oneself more ignorant. There are many aspects of citta-to-citta tendency and accumulation that simply can't be understood if one *only* looks at a single moment of consciousness. We can agree that the single moment of consciousness is *the unit* of reality, and that nothing exits but that unit and that which is conditioned by and for that unit, but it is not true that only one moment of consciousness arises, nor that they don't affect each other, because they do, through the passing on of accumulations and conditioning. We talk constantly about how a conditions b, and so it is senseless to say that only a exists and has no relation to b, or that b never arises at all, because of course it does. If only a single moment of consciousness were to arise and fall away, parinibbana would be all that exists at this very moment - cessation. It is only because citta continues to arise over and over again that cessation does not take place. It is important to ask: what causes citta to arise again, after it has fallen away? And the answer is kamma and conditions, so they do have an affect on the arising of citta. > -------------- > > RE: My two cents on this one are: A conditioned dhamma is only *known* as "just a conditioned dhamma" at a moment of insight. And when insight is not present, then the level of akusala is unfortunately significant because it causes more suffering. > -------------- > > KH: Yes, it can cause aeons of suffering. But aeons are composed of countless consecutive cittas. That is correct - we agree that they are composed of countless consecutive cittas, which is why samsara continues along. So why pretend there is only one citta, when there are countless arising after each other? Only one at a time - that is true! > There is nothing that survives from one citta to the next, Really? In that case how does one citta condition the accumulations and other aspects of the next citta, over and over again? We know this takes place, so how can one say that nothing survives? > and so a long period of suffering is only a concept. From the point of view of the current citta there is no "long period of suffering," but insight must also be able to understand that there are conditions for continued suffering, otherwise there would be no understanding of the 4 Noble truths. The truth that "there is a way out of suffering" would not make any sense if suffering were not established and continuing. The path itself is meaningless unless we recognize suffering and that there is a way out of suffering. ... > When there is right understanding of dhammas there is no preference for one dhamma over another. Whether the known object is a pleasant rupa or an unpleasant rupa, or a kusala dana-citta or an akusala thieving citta, there will be no continuing on and so it doesn't matter. Panna sees every conditioned dhamma with equal dispassion, disenchantment and relinquishment. You are assuming the standpoint of panna when it is not present. At the moment it is better to acknowledge the presence of dukkha in each arising moment. That is in fact citta not running away from the present reality, but understanding it for what it is. Thinking about future panna does not deal with what Buddha called his most important insight - the reality of dukkha in every moment of conditioned existence. Seeing the interminable nature of dukkha in incessant arising deluded cittas is the only thing that inspires dispassion. Of course when a direct moment of insight happens to arise, there is detachment at that moment, but it is the accumulation of many moments of such insight that raises the quality of citta to higher understanding, establishes insight and other enlightenment factors to the level of powers and moves consciousness towards enlightenment. A single citta without taking into account what is happening in the series of cittas leaves out an important process in the movement of arising cittas towards enlightenment - that they are accumulating panna, gaining more and more moments of understanding, and eradicating gradually the moments of defilement and delusion. A single moment of panna is not enough to cause any of this to take place, though it does happen one moment at a time. In my view you are stuck back on the "only one citta" track, and it is a restriction from full understanding of what goes into the path. I could be wrong, but maybe not. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128886 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Sarah ---- <. . .> >> KH: The second question <. . .> was prompted by something Sarah recently said to me. Can one stream of cittas cause a sense rupa (visible rupa in Sarah's example) to become visible to another stream of cittas? >> > S: This isn't ringing a bell. The causes for rupa to arise are kamma, citta, temperature or nutriment. The condition for seeing a visible object that has arisen is kamma. ---- KH: When I read that I thought, "Oh no, maybe I dreamed it!" :-) (I do dream about Dhamma discussions sometimes.) But I found this in message 128872: ----------- >> KH: We see dana described as the giving of a suitable gift to a person who accepts that gift. But, since there is ultimately no person to give to, and no gift (no article of a permanent, non-momentary, nature), why isn't there ultimately no dana? >> > S: Like now when we share our reflections on the Dhamma, there is Dhamma dana. In the ultimate sense, there are the intentions to give and there are the bodily intimations and other rupas conditioned by those thoughts and intentions. Whether or not there is any understanding of paramattha dhammas, there is the good thought about the other's welfare, the presentation of visible objects that there may or may not be conditons for the vipaka cittas (of the 'other') to experience. ------------ KH: The second half of that last sentence was what did the damage. But that was, no doubt, due to my misinterpreting it. Sorry about that; if I had taken more notice of the rest of your message I would have been able to overlook the apparent contradiction. Returning now to your latest message: --------- >> KH: I have always been told at DSG that none of us (except a Buddha) could directly know the citta of another. I have assumed, by analogy, that we can't interact in *any* ultimately real way. >> > S: Always living alone with the citta that has arisen now. What can be known is only the reality which appears. There can be thinking about another, but the reality is thinking then. > The more understanding, the less idea of another and oneself interacting or not interacting. ---------- KH: I think there is a tendency -- even amongst some Abhidhamma students -- to think there *is* a conventional reality (including human beings). But, they say, that reality can't be directly experienced -- only paramattha dhammas can be directly experienced. I can't agree with that (the first part), and neither can you, of course. Nor can any other no-control stalwart. So it is my own fault if I sometimes get confused by your conventional-language explanations. ---------- >> KH: Do we put sense rupas out in space where they can be detected by the cittas of other streams of cittas (depending, of course, on their kamma)? It sounds disturbingly conventional to me. >> > S: Sounds like nonsense to me:-0 ---------- KH: I am an idiot! :-) Ken H #128887 From: "sarah" But I found this in message 128872: > > ----------- > >> KH: We see dana described as the giving of a suitable gift to a person who accepts > that gift. But, since there is ultimately no person to give to, and no gift (no > article of a permanent, non-momentary, nature), why isn't there ultimately no > dana? > >> > > > S: Like now when we share our reflections on the Dhamma, there is Dhamma dana. > In the ultimate sense, there are the intentions to give and there are the bodily > intimations and other rupas conditioned by those thoughts and intentions. > Whether or not there is any understanding of paramattha dhammas, there is the > good thought about the other's welfare, the presentation of visible objects that > there may or may not be conditons for the vipaka cittas (of the 'other') to > experience. > ------------ > > KH: The second half of that last sentence was what did the damage. .... S: For example, see the following extract from the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka, transl by B. Bodhi: "(1) The perfection of giving, firstly, is to be practised by benefiting beings in many ways-by relinquishing one's own happiness, belongings, body, and life to others, by dispelling their fear, and by instructing them in the Dhamma. Herein, giving is threefold by way of the object to be given: the giving of material things (amisaddna), the giving of fearlessness (abhayadana), and the giving of the Dhamma (dhammadana). Among these, the object to be given can be twofold: internal and external. The external gift is tenfold: food, drink, garments, vehicles, garlands, scents, unguents, bedding, dwellings, and lamps. These gifts, again, become manifold by analyzing each into its constituents, e.g. food into hard food, soft food, etc. ***The external gift can also become sixfold when analyzed by way of sense object (aramanato): visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and non-sensory objects.*** The sense objects, such as visible forms, become manifold when analyzed into blue, etc. So too, the external gift is manifold by way of the divers valuables and belongings such as gems, gold, silver, pearls, coral, etc.; fields, lands, parks, etc.; slaves, cows, buffaloes, etc." ... S: "The external gift can also become sixfold when analyzed by way of sense object (aramanato): visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and non-sensory objects." We know that whatever is mentioned in the texts or anywhere, there are in fact only paramattha dhammas. The Buddha offered the Teachings by way of speech - in reality, just paramattha dhammas - but it depended on kamma (as now) as to what was heard or seen and depended on accumulations (as now) as to what kind of considering and understanding followed. .... **** > --------- > >> KH: I have always been told at DSG that none of us (except a Buddha) could > directly know the citta of another. I have assumed, by analogy, that we can't > interact in *any* ultimately real way. > >> > > > S: Always living alone with the citta that has arisen now. What can be known is > only the reality which appears. There can be thinking about another, but the > reality is thinking then. > > > The more understanding, the less idea of another and oneself interacting or not > interacting. > ---------- > > KH: I think there is a tendency -- even amongst some Abhidhamma students -- to think there *is* a conventional reality (including human beings). But, they say, that reality can't be directly experienced -- only paramattha dhammas can be directly experienced. > > I can't agree with that (the first part), and neither can you, of course. Nor can any other no-control stalwart. So it is my own fault if I sometimes get confused by your conventional-language explanations. .... S: It always comes back to the citta now..... if it's "fussed" now about someone suggesting there is actually a human being, the "fussed" now is the reality to be known. In truth, no conventional reality or human beings existing or arising by conditions, no matter what anyone says. ... > > ---------- > >> KH: Do we put sense rupas out in space where they can be detected by the cittas of > other streams of cittas (depending, of course, on their kamma)? It sounds > disturbingly conventional to me. > >> > > > S: Sounds like nonsense to me:-0 > ---------- > > KH: I am an idiot! :-) ... S: No "we" to do anything and no "you" or anyone else to be an illusory idiot:) What is offered as a "dhamma message" consists of namas and rupas - kusala (and akusala) cittas and cetasikas conditioning rupas at such a time. What is experienced when reading the message consists of namas and rupas - vipaka cittas experiencing rupas followed by wise or unwise attention. Each kalapa of rupas arises and falls away instantly. Any experience, any dhamma arises by its own conditions only. Good points for discussion and clarification, thanks. Metta Sarah ==== #128888 From: Kenneth Elder KH: I feel as if I have come into this conversation late, and have missed an important part. Which certainty are you referring to? According to the texts, panna can have a concept as its object, but no one at DSG, that I know of, has claimed to be certain of any particular occasions when that has happened. > > (Most likely I am still misunderstanding you.) pt: Apologies for not being clear. The questions are not directed at anyone specific nor their claims. It's basically about cheating dhammas, but specifically relating to right intellectual understanding and the associated thinking. As you say, most here aren't certain about when the right intellectual understanding arises, me even less, so I must be confusing very often some sort of akusala with right intellectual understanding. So, the idea is to explore some of the most common akusala traps when it comes to mistaking them for right intellectual understanding. > KH: The thoughts that precede panna might not be of any particular kind, but the thoughts experienced directly by panna are thoughts about dhammas. pt: Ok, I believe Tam was saying something similar. > KH: Personally, however, I am suspicious of any theory that hints at a conventional element to the Path. I think any Tipitaka quote that seems to refer to concepts (e.g., times when wise consideration is taking place) should actually be understood as referring to paramattha dhammas. pt: I am of the same mind, but I gather it might be oversimplifying the complex processes that take place. > KH: Concepts do get a mention in the Patthana, and not only as object condition, but obviously they can't condition anything directly. I think the sanna cetasika (for example) that recognises a concept would be a main cause of NDS conditioning by concepts. pt: That sound reasonable. > KH: In moments when you are thinking about dhammas and anatta (as they were described by the Buddha) you are indirectly experiencing realities and their characteristics. Panna might arise at some of those moments, mightn't it? pt: It might, but I'd say the probability is astronomical - most likely it's usually just attachment to ideas about dhammas that I consider better than some other ideas about how the world works, though I'm not sure if that would also constitute wrong view. For example: 1. Often I end up thinking (and believing with conviction) that kamma, conditionality and anatta explain life and death much better than science or Christianity. But, that conviction is no different than believing that 2+2=4 constitutes a better explanation than 2+2=5. So, in reality, this is probably just attachment to the ideas of kamma, anatta, etc, but there is no wrong view. 2. Often I think about kamma, anatta, etc and how they influence my life and death. In reality this is probably attachment, but also wrong view since there's a lot of me, me, me, going on there. 3. Sometimes I'm lazy, and I think, well laziness is dosa, and dosa is akusala, and it is anatta and conditioned. In reality this is probably aversion, as well as attachment to ideas about dhammas plus wrong view since it's all about my laziness. 4. Sometimes I'm lazy, and I think, well, I'm lazy and laziness is dosa, and dosa is anatta and there's nothing i can do about it (so I might as well keep being lazy). In reality this is attachment and wrong view since it's again about my laziness. Etc. The point then turns out to be that even though it seems all this is "considering Dhamma", it's actually all akusala, and akusala will never produce kusala. As a matter of fact, at this point I see no difference anymore between considering Dhamma and meditating. I mean, akusala will never produce kusala. I study and think about dhamma primarily because of attachment to all those ideas about the world that it offers and there's plenty of wrong view since it all boils down to how it affects me, me, me. Thank god I'm back to work tomorrow - there will be no time to meditate, no time to study dhamma, and now I just need to look into lobotomizing my brains out so as not to think about all this stuff anymore. Best wishes pt #128894 From: "sarah" >S: "Develop samatha and vipassanaa". The emphasis is on sati sampaja~n~na, the development of sati and panna. > > > >S: As quoted before, there are two kinds of jhana - one is "closely examining the object" of samatha and the other is closely examining the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In this way at moments of enlightenment, the path and fruition consciousness are called "characteristic examining jhana" as elaborated on in the Atthasalini (Expositor, V, ch 1, 167). ... >R: This is very interesting, and I am happy to look further into the use of jhana as the object of developing sati and panna. However, my emphasis in this context was on the fact that the Buddha clearly enjoined Ananda to go sit near the root of a tree and practice whichever form of jhana it was. This is a clear command to go practice meditation, and I'd like to establish this point before going on to what kind of meditation it might be. > > If one were to go to the root of a tree and practice in order to develop samatha and vipassana, with emphasis on sampajanna, in order to develop sati and panna, that would of course be a very good description of meditation as described by the Buddha in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, so I would be happy to acknowledge this. .... S: Where did the monks at Savatthi or other places of residence go? Even now at Savatthi, where one goes to for rest are the roots of trees, not an arm-chair by the fireplace! Develop samatha and vipassana! Understand realities now. Calm is there at such moments. Develop insight until the Path has been attained, the path and fruit of arahatship by thoroughly understanding the ti-lakkhana of all conditioned realities. ... >R: But this is certainly an example that cannot be understood in any other way other than a directive by the Buddha to practice sitting meditation to develop these factors. The 'root of the tree' reference makes this absolutely clear. And he further makes it clear that this is a most important part of the path when he adds that this is our message to everyone. Could it be any more clear that he is demanding sitting meditation practice from all who follow him? ... S: The monks were amongst those trees, sitting by their roots already. The Buddha made it very clear that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone's control. Also, he made it very clear that understanding of realities, satipatthana, can develop anytime, any place if the right conditions are in place, including hearing and wisely considering the teachings about dhammas as anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #128896 From: "sarah" 1) The sutta says that 5 aggregates is anatta. Strange thing is that the Buddha doesn't finish with saying "There is no Atta" anywhere. > > I think the Buddha had a practical teaching of considering every appearing phenomenon as not-Atta. ... S: Yes, each khandha is anatta, not atta ... > 4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". ... S: sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas, even nibbana, are not atta. Just dhammas. Here, 12 ayatanas, as in Sabba Sutta, inc nibbana. ... > > "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html ... S: 12 ayatanas - all realities, all dhammas. metta Sarah ==== #128897 From: "sarah" ps. we sent hugs to the wrong NE ;) if they catch up, i guess there was enough to go around after all. ... S: I just write NE when I can't remember how to say or spell Wang Nam Kiew (like now!). It's a place in the hills NE of Bangkok, anywhere between 2 and 12 hrs away, depending on the van driver and those in charge of map-reading. Only one way, one path, but lots of diversions along the way, following lobha at every twist and turn:) .... > c/mom - reading Rupas ... S: I take this to mean Mom is reading them with you. Good to hear. Why not share any passages/comments? Metta Sarah ====== #128898 From: "sarah" > 21. names and labels are not important, it's the reality now that should be known. If 'bothered' now by some detail, the 'bothered' is the reality which can be known! > > > > thanks for bothering, ... S: And likewise, thanks for bothering to highlight the bothering. Metta Sarah ===== #128899 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > You have asked for scriptural passages and I have given you one that is a very direct statement of the Buddha promulgating jhana practice. The mention of 'the roots of trees' being nearby makes it clear he is talking about sitting down and doing meditation practice, and not some other form of 'natural' or 'accidental' cultivation. Unlike some other suttas that could be stretched to mean that the Buddha is merely describing what monks are already doing, this one clearly shows the Buddha telling Ananda to 'go practice jhana.' > =============== J: I appreciate that to your way of thinking reference to jhana and quiet places necessarily implies a formal practice of some kind. But the question we're considering is whether there's any record of the Buddha actually saying that. As Bhikkhu Bodhi points out in the introduction to his translation of AN: "Like the other Nikaayas, AN does not give detailed instructions on the technology of meditation, …" The references in suttas such as the Anapanasati Sutta and the Anattalakkhana Sutta to the development of jhana are, in my view, references to the further development of jhana by those who have already attained it. > =============== > RE: Jhana means jhana. I consider meditation to be the cultivation of jhana and sati, those are the two forms of meditation that the Buddha promoted in his lifetime and that have been practiced from that time to the present in an unbroken tradition. Why did he want his followers to practice jhana and say that they would otherwise *fall into regret* if he didn't consider it a vital part of the path and an important part of their meditation practice? Obviously he did. How do you interpret him saying that? > > =============== J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). These are referred to in the texts as "bhavana" (developments). The question of whether or not the Buddha specified a formal practice for either of those is a separate matter. As to whether jhana is to be regarded as a "vital part of the path", I see it like this: Where a person had the potential to attain jhana, and also to attain enlightenment with jhana as basis, then the Buddha encouraged that person to strive for the higher level of attainment; but he did not declare jhana to be a prerequisite to enlightenment, much less to the development of awareness or insight at mundane levels. In the passage you've quoted, the Buddha's admonition was directed to those present at the time; he was not declaring jhana to be necessary, or appropriate, for all. > =============== > RE: Jhana is a specific meditative state which the Buddha is directly telling Ananda to practice, so he won't regret *not* practicing it. He is telling Ananda to go the root of a tree, sit down and practice meditation directed towards cultivating jhana. There is no other way to understand this very clear directive passage. However, it seems that you are working hard to make its meaning uncertain. What do you think it means? > =============== J: Regarding, "Jhana is a specific meditative state", I agree that jhana is a special kind of consciousness, but to call it *meditative* begs the question we are now discussing :-)) Regarding "He is telling Ananda to go the root of a tree, sit down and practice meditation directed towards cultivating jhana", there is no mention by the Buddha of practising meditation; he is urging Ananda to go to the root of a tree, etc., and cultivate, or continue cultivating, jhana (whether or not that involves practising meditation is one of the points we are considering :-)). > =============== > RE: The Buddha is clearly telling Ananda to go do that very thing, to culivate jhana, as described in parts of the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, as well as other suttas, and as described in the Visudhimagga and other scriptures. > > If you disagree with the above, please give some evidentiary reason why it is not as I describe, and please give me a positive idea of what you think that passage is saying. I would love to discuss this further and get to the bottom of this. > =============== J: I hope my comments above indicate what I think the passage is saying. In short, it admonishes the cultivation of jhana but does not make reference to formal practice as part of that cultivation. Regarding, "I would love to discuss this further and get to the bottom of this", very happy to keep discussing (but doubtful of our joint or collective ability to get to the bottom of the matter :-)). Jon #128900 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > How can we understand the dhammas of the present moment and how they actually occur if we do not follow the actual reality of how they occur when they do occur in a series that creates a larger string of dhammas, and when in fact such a string is necessary in order to actually understand the 'multi-citta events' that actually occur? > =============== J: Afraid I'm not following you here, Rob. I don't see how an understanding of any one of the presently arisen dhammas requires "following the actual reality of how they occur when they do occur in a series that creates a larger string of dhammas". As to the question of how dhammas "actually occur", I'd have thought the whole idea was for dhammas to be seen as just separate elements which are conditioned to arise and to fall away. > =============== > RE: if we restrict our view to one isolated dhamma at a time we will never understand the realities that are created by such series, and will remain ignorant of the way these things take place. Do we need to understand dhammas in such a way that promotes ignorance of multi-citta realities? Is that a useful or helpful restriction in any way, shape or form? It is good of course to understand the structure of a single dhamma, but then we should also understand what happens when dhammas occur in series and understand those things that arise that cannot possibly be properly understood unless we understand how they are created by series of dhammas. > =============== J: Perhaps I would understand your pov better if you could quote a passage from the texts which illustrates the notion of dhammas as part of "multi-citta realties" and states its significance. On my reading of the texts, the Buddha enjoined the understanding of dhammas as (individual) dhammas. Conditioned by other dhammas, but not necessarily part of a set. See the 2 sutta extracts at the end of this message. > =============== > RE: The 'killing of a being' which is a necessary part of kamma patha murder cannot be understood without reference to a series of cittas with cetana and a series of related rupas. But whenever we try to talk about such an important occurrence we get tied up in knots trying to reconcile this multi-dhamma event in single-citta language, just to satisfy the false philosophical position that it never makes sense to talk about more than one isolated citta or dhamma at a time. So I do think this is an important issue and it is important to find some appropriate language to distinguish between false concepts which create the impression of things that do not actually exist and that are dangerous illusions, and events that do actually take place over multiple dhammas and need to be accounted for. > =============== J: If I were Ken H I could understand why you might speak to me about a "philosophical position that it never makes sense to talk about more than one isolated citta or dhamma at a time" :-)). But I don't think that description fits me at all (and I don't think it correctly describes Ken H either, but I'm not buying into that one …) Jon SN 35:27 'Full Understanding' (Bodhi transl): "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering. "And what Bhikkhus, is the all? "The eye, forms and eye consciousness and things to be cognised by eye consciousness. "The ear, sounds, ear consciousness and things to be cognised by ear consciousness..." Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon: "Monks, the All is aflame. "What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. "Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html #128901 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > a/ I gave such a quote about the Buddha instructing Ananda to go practice jhana at the root of a tree and saying that everyone should do this. But here I am quoting the Vism. Is there something wrong with the Visuddhimagga? I thought you accepted Buddhaghosa as an authority on Buddhist practice? > =============== J: I'm fine with the Vism., which I understand to be a compilation in the Pali language of various commentarial texts that existed in the Sinhala language at Buddhaghosa's time. Yes, I regard it as authoritative. > =============== > RE: Well, if you are going to a teacher to get a field of work or anything else, what else can it be? It talks about matching the kammatthana to the temperament, conditions, etc. and it is a purposeful assignment to the student from the teacher. So it is a "formal assignment" of a way of practice, not a naturally arising dhamma as such that is being promoted. If not meditation, what in your view is the kammatthana, once assigned, meant to be used for? What kind of work is it a field for? > =============== J: These are all good questions which I'm happy to discuss. But I was just pointing out that although the Vism talks about *meditation subjects* it does not use the term meditation in the sense of a *meditation practice*. So if it does mention practices that you regard as meditation practices, it will use some other name, or simply describe individual instances without giving them a collective label. > =============== > RE: I'm sure I will find other references to meditation elsewhere in the Visudhimagga. > =============== J: Well if you mean references to the term meditation, it's a simple matter of doing a search of the pdf file using Ctrl-F and "meditation". Perhaps your computer will find some references that mine couldn't :-)) If OTOH you mean descriptions of formal practice, then by all means bring a few examples up for discussion. > =============== > > J: So again, none of these references count as a mention of meditation as a 'practice' :-)) > > RE: Really - then what kind of practice is this purposeful, detailed assignment being applied to in your view? If not meditation, you must have an idea of what alternate use this amazingly complex "field of work" is going to be utilized for, from teacher to student. What kind of teacher is this anyway - a teacher of robe-weaving? Perhaps the "field of work" refers to a corn field and this is a manual for farmers. > =============== J: Regarding, "what kind of practice is this purposeful, detailed assignment being applied to in your view?", the textual term is development (bhavana). So, teacher of development of samatha/jhana. And I would say that teacher here means someone who is a good friend in Dhamma to the student. Without wishing to sound trite, meaning always depends on context. The recommendation of a kammatthaana by a teacher does not necessarily imply a formal practice. The development of samatha involves, as I understand it, contemplating aspects of the kammatthaana that are a condition for kusala citta. It's not as though the student is instructed to concentrate or focus on the kammatthaana. Jon #128902 From: "truth_aerator" A:4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In >another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". > ... >S: sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas, even nibbana, are not >atta. Just dhammas. > > Here, 12 ayatanas, as in Sabba Sutta, inc nibbana. > ... It is controversial whether Nibbana is a dhamma. In AN 10.58 it says 1)"All phenomena are rooted in desire." 2)"All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html 1) Since nibbana is not rooted in desire, "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) excludes it. 2) Nibbana is the end of sabbe dhamma. With best wishes, Alex #128903 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:40 am Subject: Re: Bangkok, A.Sujin - brief notes 4 sprlrt Hi Sarah, > More cryptic notes to come..... Great, thanks (I would describe them as challengingly deep, though :-) Alberto #128904 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Robert) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > Caution: This post contains material that you may find highly provocative. ---------------------------------- > > (Just kidding, of course) > J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). ---------------------------------- HCW: Jo, what exactly do you understand the Buddha to be doing when he "urges" these developments? ---------------------------------- > Jon > ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) AdChoices #128905 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Er, make that 'Jon', not 'Jo'! LOL! With metta, Herd,... er Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E > > > > Caution: This post contains material that you may find highly provocative. > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > (Just kidding, of course) > > J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > Jo, what exactly do you understand the Buddha to be doing when he "urges" these developments? > ---------------------------------- > > > > Jon > > > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > #128906 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:13 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Pt, ----- <. . .> > Pt: 1. Often I end up thinking (and believing with conviction) that kamma, conditionality and anatta explain life and death much better than science or Christianity. But, that conviction is no different than believing that 2+2=4 constitutes a better explanation than 2+2=5. So, in reality, this is probably just attachment to the ideas of kamma, anatta, etc, but there is no wrong view. ----- KH: That sounds to me like a good attitude. It is consistent with there being only dhammas – no controlling self. ------- > Pt: 2. Often I think about kamma, anatta, etc and how they influence my life and death. In reality this is probably attachment, but also wrong view since there's a lot of me, me, me, going on there. -------- KH: There is no harm in thinking about your own life in terms of dhammas. Provided your thoughts are consistent with detachment and no-control, you are on the right track. -------------- > Pt: 3. Sometimes I'm lazy, and I think, well laziness is dosa, and dosa is akusala, and it is anatta and conditioned. In reality this is probably aversion, as well as attachment to ideas about dhammas plus wrong view since it's all about my laziness. -------------- KH: I don't think it *is* all about your laziness. As soon as you remember laziness is dosa you remember it is just a fleeting dhamma – it is not the conventionally known laziness that belongs to a controlling self. ---------------------- > Pt: 4. Sometimes I'm lazy, and I think, well, I'm lazy and laziness is dosa, and dosa is anatta and there's nothing i can do about it (so I might as well keep being lazy). In reality this is attachment and wrong view since it's again about my laziness. ----------------------- KH: Yes, I can see that you are straying into dangerous territory there. There is no one who can do anything about reality, but that doesn't mean there is *a self* (Pt) who can't do anything. -------------- > Pt: Etc. The point then turns out to be that even though it seems all this is "considering Dhamma", it's actually all akusala, and akusala will never produce kusala. --------------- KH: But isn't that your right understanding? You know that when you are considering Dhamma there is really no you that is doing the considering, and no control – there are only dhammas. Who cares if those dhammas include a lot of akusala? You still understand those akusala dhammas to be just conditioned, soulless phenomena: and that's your right understanding. ------------------------ > Pt: As a matter of fact, at this point I see no difference anymore between considering Dhamma and meditating. I mean, akusala will never produce kusala. ------------------------ KH: The former case (considering Dhamma) is something that happens after the Dhamma has been heard. The second case is something that commonly happens before the Dhamma has been heard: or, if it has been heard, after it has been met with ignorance and/or with an absence of right understanding. Ken H #128907 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:55 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) htoonaing... Talks between Sukin & Htoo: 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. S: You are saying that in theory, the present moment is the reality which has just fallen away, but in practice, the object is always what appears "now". So you were simply reminding me about the theory then? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Is abhidhamma theory? In a time for a blink there happen more than million of million cittas (trillion). When an object is seen and when it is realized there happen many trillions cittas. -------------------------------------------------- > 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. S: I don't understand. --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: When not at the time of path-consciousness arises there arise meditating mind (vipassanaa naana). This naana is accompanied by 5 parts of 8 NEP. --------------------------------------------------- Sukin: If you were reminding me that the present moment has in fact already fallen away, and it is understood that what arises next can't be predicted, why do you still believe in "doing something" as a form of practice? --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Vipassanaa does not predict anything. But just to follow and see and realise and understand. Without sammakammanta no one will attain anything. So doing, practising does need. --------------------------------------------------- > 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. S: Reading and listening are conventional activities whereas understanding is panna cetasika performing its function. The former can be done with wholesome or unwholesome roots. The latter depend on causes and conditions which do not include a belief in self and control over dhammas. ----------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Total and absolute clearance of self only happen after 1st path-consciousness. Control or not is not a problem. But sammaakammanta has to be practised. ------------------------------------------------------- > The first thing to do for vipassanaa is to crack on the shell of conventional truth. S: Conventional reality is concept. Therefore the only way that you can crack on the shell of conventional truth is by referring to more and more concepts. Vipassana is insight into the nature of reality. It is pativedha which comes as a result of much patipatti and long development of pariyatti. ------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Patipatti involves doing. Without 'doing' nothing will arise as pativeda. -------------------------------------------------------- The thread connecting these three levels of understanding is in that they all refer to the function of panna cetasika. This panna cetasika is aimed at the present moment, which must from the very outset, distinguish reality from concept. -------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Speaking easy but doing difficult. With Metta, Htoo Naing #128908 From: Ken O I think its easy to fall into one of the two extremes - ie that there is No Self to be found anywhere and that the self does exist as an idependent entity. > >Ultimately there is no self that can meditate. But there is a 'conventionally' existent self that can and that appears to my mind in dependence upon causes and conditions...this self does exist but not in an ultimate sense. > >Like the analogy of the two sticks needed to light a fire...ultimately they too are consumed. Do we not need the vehicle of the self in order to experience suffering and also to experience the absence of suffering. > >Agree? > >Tony... > > > > > #128909 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > ... > > J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > Jo, what exactly do you understand the Buddha to be doing when he "urges" these developments? > =============== J: When the Buddha admonishes anyone to develop samatha and vipassana, he is (a) pointing out the importance of those developments and (b) creating conditions for the listener to continue with those developments to the best of his/her ability. Is this how you would see it? Jon #128910 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:03 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 (and Robert) - > > ... > > > J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). > > ---------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Jo, what exactly do you understand the Buddha to be doing when he "urges" these developments? > > =============== > > J: When the Buddha admonishes anyone to develop samatha and vipassana, he is (a) pointing out the importance of those developments and (b) creating conditions for the listener to continue with those developments to the best of his/her ability. > > Is this how you would see it? ----------------------------- HCW: Yes, I have no problem at all with that description. (So, maybe you wish to reformulate? LOLOL!) ---------------------------- > > Jon > =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128911 From: Nina van Gorkom Dear Selamat and Bogor friends, > How are you doing, what does your group study now? > Op 13-jan-2013, om 3:54 heeft selamat het volgende geschreven: >> >> We would be grateful if you could explain pannatti whether >> sankhata or asankhata dhamma? Because according to some scholar >> (Ledi Sayadaw), it is categorized as asankhata dhamma.. > ------ > N: I did not reply because I just came back from Thailand. > Let us first discuss what a concept is: it is a conceptual idea, > atta-pa~n~natti, and it is a name or term that makes known a reality. > A concept is not a paramattha dhamma, a reality. It does not arise > and fall away. The commentary to the abhidhammatta Sangaha explains > that is is free of time: it is not past, present and future. > What arises by conditions falls away, but a concept is not like a > reality that arises by conditions. > Seeing is a reality, it arises and experiences just what is > visible, and then it falls away. It arises because of conditions: > eyesense and visible object are conditions for seeing, and it is a > citta that is the result of kamma, vipaakacitta. It only sees > visible object, but we believe that we see a person or thing. That > is thinking already, arising on account of what is seen. The > thinking is a citta that can think of what is not a reality, but a > concept. The thinking is a reality, but the concept is not. There > is no one in the visible object, no person or thing. We are > dreaming all day of what is not real. > When we understand what a conditioned reality is, we shall better > understand what a concept is. We have an idea of , but there > is no self who sees, only seeing sees. Ignorance cannot understand > anything, but pa~n~naa can begin to understand realities. What we > take for a person is only citta, cetasika and ruupa. > Hearing and sound are realities, but the voice of a person who > speaks is only a concept. > To return to the beginning question: is a concept unconditioned? > Yes, it does not arise because of conditions, it is only an object > of thinking. Thinking can think of what is real and what is not > real but only a concept. > > ------ > Nina. > #128912 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro > Hi Rob E, > > > > > 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. > > > > Well I don't know if I agree or not that only moments of direct panna > > lead to development of enlightenment. It's a position that only > > appears in commentary as far as I know, and I am not wise enough to > > assess it. But the Buddha did speak on many levels and urged all kinds > > of kusala. If he taught "only satipatthana" and nothing else, then he > > would not have bothered to talk about not using alcohol, not killing > > and all these other conventional things. > > > > > Let me put it this way. > > It would be expected that anyone developing right understanding must > also experience little by little, more kusala of other levels along the > way. Why? If other forms of kusala are inconsequential to the path, why would they have a positive relationship to the development of satipatthana and panna? If panna is unrelated to whether other kusala is being developed and they do not lead to panna, why would panna lead to more kusala of other kinds? Can you explain? > Or one might say that if one has as much akusala as before, this > may be because there is no real development of right understanding. Why should there be such a relationship, if other kusala has no relation to the path? > Regarding the precepts, you know that these are training rules and not > like commandments. No I am sorry to say I do not know this, and would like to see some evidence to that effect, no disrespect intended. I can't think of ever seeing a statement made by the Buddha in anything I've read that says that these are not firm dictates. In fact there are many references to these rules being broken will lead to akusala kamma and lead to unpleasant vipaka in future lives. I would also be happily enlightened to see a quote from the Buddha to the effect that sila and dana have no relation to the path and that only direct right understanding matters. I am pretty sure he never said this. There is one sutta at least where he says that right understanding leads the other path factors, but that is not to say that they are not necessary or important to the path. > The reason for this is that right understanding / > satipatthana is primary and overrides everything else. Did the Buddha ever say this? Please let me see a quote if one is available that you know of. I don't think that right understanding is so complete unto itself that it makes all other kusala superfluous, and I don't know of any scriptures that say this. But happy to see something that is convincing if you can point me to it. Other religions > also teach against the use of alcohol, killing, lying, stealing and > sexual misconduct. But because theirs is not the Middle Way, any kusala > must invariably become object of attachment and self-view, therefore > rather than increase, they begin to decline. Personally I think this is a false type of argument - at least in part - that since other religions have a,b or c, therefore a, b or c has no role at all in Buddhism - as if *every single element* of Buddhism was created from scratch with no regard for any existing structures that could be incorporated and still have value in the new context of the Buddha's doctrine. I think this is a very mistaken way of thinking. A similar argument would be that since the airplane was invented, cars are totally meaningless and have no value, and walking is so ridiculously inept that one should never go anywhere, even to the bathroom, except in a plane. There is no doubt that Buddhism takes all former attempts to transcend samsara, and goes way above them in its understanding and techniques, as well as the clarity of the path. The clarity of anatta which is not clearly present in any other tradition makes a giant leap beyond other traditions. But that does mean that all other structures that existed prior to the Buddha are totally abandoned. This argument for instance is made about jhana, because in the former traditions jhana was thought of as the highest state, and samadhi was seen as an end in itself - the repository of peace. While the Buddha made clear that jhana without insight was a trap in terms of complete liberation, he never abandoned jhana or denounced it as a tool of the path, and those who say it was unnecessary or even an obstacle to insight do not have the Buddha's words or teachings to back them up. While anatta is unique to Buddhism and is the final weapon for detachment, other traditions understood dukkha and anicca, though not with the Buddha's clarity and not fitting it together with anatta for a complete picture. So Buddhism can be seen as a giant evolution from former traditions, akin to a monkey evolving into a human, but still not a complete clean break from everything. > So we have a situation where with right understanding, other levels of > kusala must also grow, Why? > and another, namely without right understanding, > they will decline while self-view increases. Do sila and dana as practiced in Buddhism lead to self-view? > Does it not make sense then > that right understanding should be encouraged at all times, and this > must include during instances when kusala of other levels are referred > to and encouraged? Of course right understanding should be encouraged at all times - never said it shouldn't. The question is not whether it should be encouraged, but whether it is the *only* form of kusala that constitutes the path. I still contend that there are eight limbs to the Noble 8fold path, not 1, and the idea that the other 7 path factors exist only as moments in right understanding is not supported by the suttas. I also don't see it supported by scripture in any direct way, but I am happy to be pointed towards a quote from Abhidhamma or commentary that makes this case clearly. > > > 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? > > > > Well you are making it an either/or proposition. Either one must > > prefer kusala with only two roots, or one must prefer only pann with > > three roots. Of course at any moment, the highest form of panna is > > most desirable, but since as you always point out we don't pick and > > choose when to have panna or what kind, or any other experience, then > > we should be oriented towards whatever kusala arises, and whatever > > conditions allow for greater development of kusala and understanding. > > > > > You can't pick and choose means you can't pick and choose. This > discussion is about whether the Path is with right understanding always, > or also when only non-attachment and non-aversion are present. I say > that the reason there can be development of wisdom is because wisdom is > a sankhara khandha, therefore grows in strength by virtue of its own > arising. I don't see how it can be that dana or sila for example, can > lead to panna. Otherwise we should believe that followers of other > religions are also on their way to developing the Path. I don't know who is on the way to what, and I also don't know all the technical distinctions that you base your understanding on, that only a sankhara khanda can cause bhavana. I do think that the Buddha taught that developing all three forms of kusala are necessary and that suppressing the defilements, developing mindfulness and understanding supported by right livelihood, action and speech, etc., was the way in which the path naturally was developed. There is an Abhidhamma view of course that there is nothing but pariyatti leading to right understanding, and all the other parts of the path outlined by the Buddha in plain language are meaningless, but I don't agree with this and I don't see it in the scriptures I have seen, esp. the suttas. If you want to make the case to someone like me, who is rooted in some suttas and some exposure to commentary, but who has a sense of the living tradition of Buddhism being one of how one lives and works, thinks and practices,not just of moments of pariyatti falling out of the sky, with no preconditions in anything in daily life, then you have to show me a clear scriptural record of why this is so which accounts for the Buddha's teachings, which the basic theory of this does not. The Buddha was very clear in his teachings for 40 years what was required for the path to develop, and part of it was replacing the defilements with higher impulses, such as metta, and higher practices, such as satipatthana. The later scriptural idea that all of this is "training traditions" and isn't part of the path seems very suspect to me. If I saw a sutta where Buddha said directly, "Don't worry too much about sila because it will develop naturally when you develop right understanding," I would find that very interesting, but as far as I know, no such passage exists! Yet such absurdities are asserted on dsg every day. > > I gave the example that someone who says "I only need to have correct > > understanding, so if I butcher a cow, or kill a person or scream > > obscenities at someone, that is fine, - it has nothing to do with the > > path" is someone who is deeply deluded. And I do think that's true. > Note that it is you who is imagining all this. I am not imagining anything - statements to this effect have been made on dsg any number of times by certain adherents to the "right understanding only" group. > It is being done in order > to give validity to your own view. That is an unfounded opinion and is pure speculation on your part. If you think you know my motives are to simply support my own view and not made on principle please provide some evidence for this, or else assert the development of psychic powers, which I will find very humbling. I'm glad you can read my mind! > No one with any right understanding > would think the way you describe. Akusala is *not* fine. And yet you say it has no relation to the development of right understanding, so while it may not be *fine,* you don't see it as an obstacle to the path. Bye bye suttas and vinaya! > > The paramatha understanding may be ultimate, but conventional akusala > > is harmful to the path, and conventional kusala is good for the path - > > not better than panna, but not unnecessary either. > > > > > Not necessary means that they do not constitute the Path. Either they are necessary or not. Either they are conditions or supporting conditions for the development of understanding and wisdom or they are not. Either they are part of the path or they have nothing to do with the path. It isn't an obscure question. > This does not > however mean that they are not encouraged as per any given situation. Why encourage something that has nothing to do with the path? Seriously, if all that the Buddha taught was right understanding, why direct people to put so much attention on meaningless, impotent forms of kusala, just because they happen to be good, nice and pleasant. Do you think the Buddha was so distracted that he would teach repeatedly on unnecessary nice things that had nothing to do with bhavana? > When dana, sila, metta, karuna etc. are called for, no one is going to > think that these are unnecessary. Only that right understanding does not > think them to be the Path. Then you are trying to have it both ways. Everyone should say they are "necessary" but not to the path. So you are saying they are *not* necessary to *the path* and that is the question, not if they are necessary to something else. If they are not the path, then they have the same status as Hinduism and worship of a Deity - they are dangerous distractions from the real path. We should therefore discourage metta and sila and focus on right understanding only. And if someone is a murderer we shouldn't worry about that at all, because it has no effect on their prospects for enlightenment. > I'm trying to not make it into another marathon post, hence skipping > over much of your comments. Don't worry, you got all the good stuff. And your point is clear. The path is not one of right living, good works or positive thoughts and feelings - those are all Brahmanic nonsense. All that matters is pariyatti, so let's eat, drink and be merry. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128914 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: "Develop samatha and vipassanaa". The emphasis is on sati sampaja~n~na, the development of sati and panna. > > > > > >S: As quoted before, there are two kinds of jhana - one is "closely examining the object" of samatha and the other is closely examining the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In this way at moments of enlightenment, the path and fruition consciousness are called "characteristic examining jhana" as elaborated on in the Atthasalini (Expositor, V, ch 1, 167). > ... > >R: This is very interesting, and I am happy to look further into the use of jhana as the object of developing sati and panna. However, my emphasis in this context was on the fact that the Buddha clearly enjoined Ananda to go sit near the root of a tree and practice whichever form of jhana it was. This is a clear command to go practice meditation, and I'd like to establish this point before going on to what kind of meditation it might be. > > > > If one were to go to the root of a tree and practice in order to develop samatha and vipassana, with emphasis on sampajanna, in order to develop sati and panna, that would of course be a very good description of meditation as described by the Buddha in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, so I would be happy to acknowledge this. > .... > S: Where did the monks at Savatthi or other places of residence go? Even now at Savatthi, where one goes to for rest are the roots of trees, not an arm-chair by the fireplace! > > Develop samatha and vipassana! Understand realities now. Calm is there at such moments. Develop insight until the Path has been attained, the path and fruit of arahatship by thoroughly understanding the ti-lakkhana of all conditioned realities. > ... I certainly would not object to anything in your second paragraph, but I have some question about the first. The Buddha's statement to Ananda in this particular passage was not 'go develop insight in general' and 'while you're at it have a nice rest near a tree,' it was much more direct than that. He said: "there are the roots of trees - go practice jhana so you don't later regret not having done so." Regret implying that he was to take a positive action to work towards development. The enjoining of Ananda to go practice jhana at the root of a tree is similar to the practice of jhana in other passages where they describe the monk going to the root of a tree, and going into deep concentration through anapanasati, so it is not a general or unusual combination, and the meaning is clear. He is telling Ananda to practice jhana, otherwise he will regret it, with or without the roots of trees being in the statement. And he then says "this is our message to everyone" which makes it crystal clear that he is saying this is what he wants everyone to do - practice jhana. There is no other way to understand this passage. Even if there are two types of jhana and the Buddha meant the "good" kind which is used as the object of insight, the message to go practice such jhana is still the same. It is a direct message urging formal practice at the root of a tree - ie, sitting meditation, as described repeatedly throughout the suttas. > >R: But this is certainly an example that cannot be understood in any other way other than a directive by the Buddha to practice sitting meditation to develop these factors. The 'root of the tree' reference makes this absolutely clear. And he further makes it clear that this is a most important part of the path when he adds that this is our message to everyone. Could it be any more clear that he is demanding sitting meditation practice from all who follow him? > ... > S: The monks were amongst those trees, sitting by their roots already. The Buddha made it very clear that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone's control. Also, he made it very clear that understanding of realities, satipatthana, can develop anytime, any place if the right conditions are in place, including hearing and wisely considering the teachings about dhammas as anatta. He may have made this clear in other contexts at other times, and it is certainly a valid message, but that is not the message of this particular passage, in which he makes abundantly clear that in addition to whatever else he may have said elsewhere about dhammas arising at other times of life, that he also was telling everyone who followed him directly to go sit at the root of a tree and practice jhana, otherwise they will regret it. That is a simple clear, unbroken statement that cannot be denied or mitigated by the fact that at other times he let followers know that there were other ways that kusala dhammas and moments of understanding could arise, which no one would deny. But this settles the question of whether the Buddha supported and promoted sitting meditation directed towards jhana as a most important component of the path for all his followers - he did, and in this passage he made this clear to none other but Ananda, so it was not a casual aside. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128915 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon - > ... > > J: When the Buddha admonishes anyone to develop samatha and vipassana, he is (a) pointing out the importance of those developments and (b) creating conditions for the listener to continue with those developments to the best of his/her ability. > > > > Is this how you would see it? > ----------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, I have no problem at all with that description. (So, maybe you wish to reformulate? LOLOL!) > =============== J: :-)), :-)) Admittedly real agreement between us happens rarely. But when it does, I'm only too pleased to see it! Jon #128916 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E > > Caution: This post contains material that you may find highly provocative. Oh good! > (Just kidding, of course.) Oh, too bad... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > You have asked for scriptural passages and I have given you one that is a very direct statement of the Buddha promulgating jhana practice. The mention of 'the roots of trees' being nearby makes it clear he is talking about sitting down and doing meditation practice, and not some other form of 'natural' or 'accidental' cultivation. Unlike some other suttas that could be stretched to mean that the Buddha is merely describing what monks are already doing, this one clearly shows the Buddha telling Ananda to 'go practice jhana.' > > =============== > > J: I appreciate that to your way of thinking reference to jhana and quiet places necessarily implies a formal practice of some kind. Only because the Buddha said "go practice jhana so you don't fall into regret later." That's a pretty clear directive - hard to twist it around and turn it into something else... > But the question we're considering is whether there's any record of the Buddha actually saying that. Oh really? This is from a sutta - are you uncertain whether this is the word of the Buddha? I'm a little confused. > As Bhikkhu Bodhi points out in the introduction to his translation of AN: > "Like the other Nikaayas, AN does not give detailed instructions on the technology of meditation, …" > > The references in suttas such as the Anapanasati Sutta and the Anattalakkhana Sutta to the development of jhana are, in my view, references to the further development of jhana by those who have already attained it. I know that's your view, but it's not supported by this passage which is very direct and an enjoinment to do something, not a description. So if you still deny that it is a directive please explain to me how that is possible, other than by ignoring it. Above you seem to be saying that the sutta in question may not be the word of the Buddha...? > > =============== > > RE: Jhana means jhana. I consider meditation to be the cultivation of jhana and sati, those are the two forms of meditation that the Buddha promoted in his lifetime and that have been practiced from that time to the present in an unbroken tradition. Why did he want his followers to practice jhana and say that they would otherwise *fall into regret* if he didn't consider it a vital part of the path and an important part of their meditation practice? Obviously he did. How do you interpret him saying that? > > > =============== > > J: There is no argument from me on the point that the Buddha urged the development of both samatha (to level of jhana, where possible) and insight (to level of enlightenment, where possible). > > These are referred to in the texts as "bhavana" (developments). > > The question of whether or not the Buddha specified a formal practice for either of those is a separate matter. Well here he does. He says go to the root of a tree and *practice jhana.* Then he says if you don't you will later fall into regret, so it's clearly a practice that must be decided upon and undertaken, otherwise there would be no cause for regret or otherwise. In addition he says "this is our messaqe to everyone" so he is clearly saying that everyone who follows him should do this. Kind of hard to get out of it, but I see you are determined. > As to whether jhana is to be regarded as a "vital part of the path", I see it like this: Where a person had the potential to attain jhana, and also to attain enlightenment with jhana as basis, then the Buddha encouraged that person to strive for the higher level of attainment; but he did not declare jhana to be a prerequisite to enlightenment, much less to the development of awareness or insight at mundane levels. Then why have regret whether you do it or not? If you achieved enlightenment by some other means, surely you would not have cuase for regret, would you? Would the Buddha be saying, "please have the highest attainment possible, otherwise even though completely enlightened you will regret not having gotten there through jhana." Do you think that is a sensible possibility? In addition if this was the case, he would not have said "This is our message to *everyone,*" which, inconveniently enough, he did say in the same passage. So he is making it clear that he wants *everyone* to practice jhana, not just those who are in some special position in relation to jhana. The passage is airtight. > In the passage you've quoted, the Buddha's admonition was directed to those present at the time; he was not declaring jhana to be necessary, or appropriate, for all. That is simply not possible, Jon, even though you might wish it to be so. The Buddha made a direct statement that "this is our message to *everyone,* making it purposely clear, in case there was any misunderstanding, that he was saying the opposite of what you just said, that he was directing this commment to others *not* present - that is what *everyone* means - all followers, not just those present. > > =============== > > RE: Jhana is a specific meditative state which the Buddha is directly telling Ananda to practice, so he won't regret *not* practicing it. He is telling Ananda to go the root of a tree, sit down and practice meditation directed towards cultivating jhana. There is no other way to understand this very clear directive passage. However, it seems that you are working hard to make its meaning uncertain. What do you think it means? > > =============== > > J: Regarding, "Jhana is a specific meditative state", I agree that jhana is a special kind of consciousness, but to call it *meditative* begs the question we are now discussing :-)) In what sense? In what sense is jhana not meditation? I mean, basically there are only two major types of meditation in Buddhism - jhana/samadhi meditation, or concentration leading to deep trance at its furthest point, or mindfulness-based meditation cultivating awareness and insight. The Buddha teaches both of those in different suttas and often in combination. So I just am not really sure what you are saying, or what you are doubting. If you don't like meditation, we can call it "concentration practice," or "jhana practice." Same difference. > Regarding "He is telling Ananda to go the root of a tree, sit down and practice meditation directed towards cultivating jhana", there is no mention by the Buddha of practicing meditation; he is urging Ananda to go to the root of a tree, etc., and cultivate, or continue cultivating, jhana (whether or not that involves practising meditation is one of the points we are considering :-)). Well then we agree he is telling him to cultivate jhana, that is good enough for me. I'm not attached to the word "meditation." It is direct practice undertaken to develop "Right Concentration," good enough! And he says everyone should do this. > > =============== > > RE: The Buddha is clearly telling Ananda to go do that very thing, to culivate jhana, as described in parts of the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, as well as other suttas, and as described in the Visudhimagga and other scriptures. > > > > If you disagree with the above, please give some evidentiary reason why it is not as I describe, and please give me a positive idea of what you think that passage is saying. I would love to discuss this further and get to the bottom of this. > > =============== > > J: I hope my comments above indicate what I think the passage is saying. In short, it admonishes the cultivation of jhana but does not make reference to formal practice as part of that cultivation. Going to a root of a tree and cultivating jhana while sitting there, clearly the Buddha's message, and telling everyone to do it, is as formal a practice as anyone can imagine. > Regarding, "I would love to discuss this further and get to the bottom of this", very happy to keep discussing (but doubtful of our joint or collective ability to get to the bottom of the matter :-)). Well we agree that the Buddha is directing Ananda to cultivate jhana at the root of a tree. That is a good start. It's not exactly the same as waiting for a jhana moment to arise out of thin air while drinking a cocktail. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #128917 From: "jonoabb" > Hi KenH (and Tam), > > Thank god I'm back to work tomorrow - there will be no time to meditate, no time to study dhamma, and now I just need to look into lobotomizing my brains out so as not to think about all this stuff anymore. > =============== J: :-)) Here's something to help you out of your meditator's twizzle. In the post sent a short time ago by Nina (#128911), part of the text shows in italics when viewed on the website. On investigation, I find that when I get the 'Reply' screen up for that message there is some html code ("") before and after the italicised passage. Does this mean that messages can now be sent in html language and will show formatted as such? If so, an interesting development. Jon #128918 From: "Robert E" J: Perhaps I would understand your pov better if you could quote a passage from the texts which illustrates the notion of dhammas as part of "multi-citta realties" and states its significance. Uh....gee, I feel a bit 'baited and switched' herek as you were the one who brought up this idea that a reality like murder that is made up of many arising dhammas in a series could not be understood by only understanding a single dhamma. Did you change your mind when I brought it back up to explore it further? I think you made this point to Ken H. because he tends to fixate on a single dhamma. > On my reading of the texts, the Buddha enjoined the understanding of dhammas as (individual) dhammas. Conditioned by other dhammas, but not necessarily part of a set. Anyway, the example is murder of a being, and you are the one who raised it. It can't be understood by reference to a single dhamma. > J: If I were Ken H I could understand why you might speak to me about a "philosophical position that it never makes sense to talk about more than one isolated citta or dhamma at a time" :-)). But I don't think that description fits me at all (and I don't think it correctly describes Ken H either, but I'm not buying into that one …) That's fine, except that above and below this you are indeed saying that only the understanding of a single dhamma is necessary or desirable. So I guess that means that understanding kamma patha is not necessary or desirable, since it occurs over more than one dhamma. And I guess understanding kalapas is not necessary or desirable, since it is a group of rupas - oh but that is one of the stages of insight, so I guess it does matter. Now I'm confused. > SN 35:27 'Full Understanding' (Bodhi transl): > > "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering. > > "And what Bhikkhus, is the all? > > "The eye, forms and eye consciousness and things to be cognised by eye consciousness. > > "The ear, sounds, ear consciousness and things to be cognised by ear consciousness..." > > > Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon: > > "Monks, the All is aflame. > > "What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. > > "Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. > > "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html > These are great and wonderful passages, but they speak of disenchantment in plurals, not in singular dhammas at all, but in multiple sets of plurals. It does not say that one penetration of one dhamma is what creates such disenchantment, but by seeing that the eye, the ear, all the sensory experiences are aflame with passion, aversion and delusion. In fact it sounds like multiple experiences in multiple areas, so that the All is thoroughly understood. I don't see that these passages supports in any way the idea of the sufficiency of understanding a single dhamma alone in isolation, but many such experiences over a period of time so that one is thoroughly convinced that they are all unsatisfactory. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128919 From: "Robert E" J: Regarding, "what kind of practice is this purposeful, detailed assignment being applied to in your view?", the textual term is development (bhavana). So, teacher of development of samatha/jhana. And I would say that teacher here means someone who is a good friend in Dhamma to the student. > > Without wishing to sound trite, meaning always depends on context. The recommendation of a kammatthaana by a teacher does not necessarily imply a formal practice. The development of samatha involves, as I understand it, contemplating aspects of the kammatthaana that are a condition for kusala citta. It's not as though the student is instructed to concentrate or focus on the kammatthaana. You do not sound trite at all, but while meaning may depend on its context, the context here is a formal assignment of a kammathana from a teacher - good friend as you said - to a student of Dhamma. As such, if the practice involves as you say "contemplating aspects of the kammatthaana that are a condition for kusala citta" that is indeed in my view a formal practice if nothing else. If you were to say to me, "Robert, I suggest you contemplate some aspects of metta as it would develop more kusala for you" that would be a formal practice assignment, even if there were no further specification. Whether or not it is a form of meditation, depending on how you define such, it is certainly a kind of formal practice, not merely an undirected arising of whatever dhamma happens to come up. If you give any sort of assignment, you are asserting, as you concur, that the assigned subject will in some way lead to the arising of more kusala. That is no different than what I often assert about meditation [anapanasati] that without exercising any particular control the practice will lead to the gradual development of those kusala qualities that are related to that form of meditation. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = == #128920 From: "maimechep" Does this mean that messages can now be sent in html language and will show formatted as such? Yes, html can be used inside a message for text formatting, without having to declare the html type in the beginning of the document, nor head, body and other document tags. I think yahoo assembles the message as html anyway, so it recognises the extra html you put in, though I'm not sure how it would behave with non-formatting tags. However, for text-formatting, it's probably simpler to use the Rich-Text Editor option which is just above the "To:" address bar - where it says "New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor." Aside from making the formatting easy, it also has the option to show full html. Best wishes pt #128922 From: "sarah" > Hello, I'm Mai - From Vietnam. It's the first time I am posting but I have known this forum for some time and it's really great here. ... S: Great to read your intro, thanks for sharing it. It was lovely to spend time with you, both Tams, Hang and Hai in Thailand recently and to share your enthusiasm and keen interest in the Dhamma. .. > I have learned Dhamma for more than one year. It's seem to me that I got lucky at the beginning, since I have seen wise people and listened their incisive explanation of Buddha's teachings. I have honor of joining two courses of dhamma discussion with Achaan Khun Sujin, one was held in Vietnam and another in Thailand for the past three weeks. I also have opportunities to associate with dhamma friends - the worthy Vietnames friends and honourable DSG friends... Thanks to all for guiding and reminding me of dhamma in daily life. ... S: Thank you for your help and support too. As for the 'promises', what you told me you were going to do, as I understood, was to post the English discussion on conditions by Lan & Lukas here on DSG in extracts, so that we can read it here and add any of our comments. Alternatively, perhaps Lan or Lukas can summarise for us. I think you and Tam were also going to share some of your pics, such as the one of Tam with her new Significant Other:-) Back in Hong Kong - laundry and messes everywhere..... Nina, do hope you had a good trip home and are getting some rest. Lukas & Tam, best wishes for your trips home tomorrow. Metta Sarah ==== #128923 From: "ptaus1" KH: There is no harm in thinking about your own life in terms of dhammas. Provided your thoughts are consistent with detachment and no-control, you are on the right track. ... > KH: I don't think it *is* all about your laziness. As soon as you remember laziness is dosa you remember it is just a fleeting dhamma – it is not the conventionally known laziness that belongs to a controlling self. ... > KH: But isn't that your right understanding? You know that when you are considering Dhamma there is really no you that is doing the considering, and no control – there are only dhammas. Who cares if those dhammas include a lot of akusala? You still understand those akusala dhammas to be just conditioned, soulless phenomena: and that's your right understanding. pt: Thanks for putting a positive spin on my experiences. I don't really know. I still feel it is all much worst than just useless. I mean, it's all just thinking, a filter of sorts for rationalising my life. Kind of like 10 years ago I rationalised everything through my theoretical knowledge of science, now I do the same through the new filter of theoretical knowledge of Dhamma. It's still all just thinking, akusala, often with wrong view. No panna anywhere in site, and none of it will lead to more panna. If any panna happens, it's in spite of all the thinking and considering, just like in meditation if any panna happens, it is in spite of the meditation effort. Anyway, I'll leave this now for another vacation, hopefully not any time soon. Thanks again for your participation. Best wishes pt #128924 From: "sarah" pt: ... I still feel it is all much worst than just useless. I mean, it's all just thinking, a filter of sorts for rationalising my life. Kind of like 10 years ago I rationalised everything through my theoretical knowledge of science, now I do the same through the new filter of theoretical knowledge of Dhamma. It's still all just thinking, akusala, often with wrong view. No panna anywhere in site, and none of it will lead to more panna. .... S: OK, all that thinking's gone, never to return. What about now? What is real now? What appears now? There can be right understanding (even if just right intellectual understanding) even now. Visible object is seen now, there's thinking about it.....all just dhammas. Understanding now that there are just dhammas, such as seeing and visible object (no Pt to feel sorry for to be found) is kusala. It's the right path. If such understanding is followed by doubt, self-pity, ideas of "my" useless thinking, these are also dhammas that can be known. Even when it's clinging to realities as self, the ditthi can be known. In fact it can only be known when it arises. Right understanding has to begin again, begin again.... It's only ignorance which makes it seem useless. Perhaps Alberto, Tam or Lukas can add more. ... just like in meditation if any panna happens, it is in spite of the meditation effort. ... S: The wrong effort to try and get results or be aware just leads further down the wrong path. This is why there are right path factors and wrong path factors. ... >Anyway, I'll leave this now for another vacation, hopefully not any time soon. .... S: Well, it does prove the point that having free time is not the key to the development of understanding:-) j/k! The path is not about 'me' or 'you', but about understanding realities and that means now. It's a real blessing to hear the Dhamma and to have the opportunity to understand realities as not self - the greatest blessing in life. Nothing else matters. Will be in Manly next weekend with my mother. Look forward to seeing you sometime! Hope you had a good trip too. Metta Sarah p.s For all Bangkok notes de-coders, I made a complete mess of one note which made no sense at the time or as I wrote it. So I clarified the point with A.Sujin yesterday. I had mistakenly heard and written "dhutanga" when in fact the word spoken was " tadanga". More tomorrow. ===== #128925 From: Nina van Gorkom > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > > J: When the Buddha admonishes anyone to develop samatha and vipassana, he is (a) pointing out the importance of those developments and (b) creating conditions for the listener to continue with those developments to the best of his/her ability. > > > > > > Is this how you would see it? > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > Yes, I have no problem at all with that description. (So, maybe you wish to reformulate? LOLOL!) > > =============== > > J: :-)), :-)) > > Admittedly real agreement between us happens rarely. But when it does, I'm only too pleased to see it! I also have no problem with Jon's description! However I note that it neatly skirts the issue upon which we might all disagree as to whether the Buddha is telling the listener to *do* something to develop samatha and vipassana, ie, meditation practice, or whether it is merely the admonishment itself which creates the conditions for increased development. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128927 From: "jagkrit2012" > Hi Mai, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "maimechep" wrote: > > > > Hello, I'm Mai - From Vietnam. It's the first time I am posting but I have known this forum for some time and it's really great here. > ... > S: Great to read your intro, thanks for sharing it. It was lovely to spend time with you, both Tams, Hang and Hai in Thailand recently and to share your enthusiasm and keen interest in the Dhamma. > .. > > I have learned Dhamma for more than one year. It's seem to me that I got lucky at the beginning, since I have seen wise people and listened their incisive explanation of Buddha's teachings. I have honor of joining two courses of dhamma discussion with Achaan Khun Sujin, one was held in Vietnam and another in Thailand for the past three weeks. I also have opportunities to associate with dhamma friends - the worthy Vietnames friends and honourable DSG friends... Thanks to all for guiding and reminding me of dhamma in daily life. > ... > S: Thank you for your help and support too. > > As for the 'promises', what you told me you were going to do, as I understood, was to post the English discussion on conditions by Lan & Lukas here on DSG in extracts, so that we can read it here and add any of our comments. Alternatively, perhaps Lan or Lukas can summarise for us. > > I think you and Tam were also going to share some of your pics, such as the one of Tam with her new Significant Other:-) > > Back in Hong Kong - laundry and messes everywhere..... > > Nina, do hope you had a good trip home and are getting some rest. > > Lukas & Tam, best wishes for your trips home tomorrow. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > #128929 From: "sarah" Even I couldnt attend the trip but I'm quite familiar with names, photos of some DSGers and also discussions updated by you almost everyday or some funny stories, events during the trip :) ... S: I'd like to hear about those funny stories and events too:) Hope Tam, Mai and others will share them here with us! Just seen the great pic of Tam & Mai with their new Significant Other!! Mai, remember the pic of your little girl too and your Son/Sun - your little girl's Dad:-)) ... > > I didnt think that our discussion will be read by many professional member of DSG. Not confident enough. I'm still almost new to Paccay, have to look for documents and read while answering questions :P .. S: No professionals here - we're all just beginners on the Path, so no excuses not to share your reflections and study more with us: P Now we're reflecting on Dhamma. What conditions? Any self that's reflecting? .. > I'll need to ask you and others from DSG to support me in some hard cases for answers and better understanding :) .. S: We'd like to help with the easy answers too! What is the arammana (object) now which conditions citta? Looking forward to more discussions in Vietnam with you in Sept. For others: in early Sept, we'll be visiting S.Vietnam for Dhamma discussions with A.Sujin and our Vietnamese friends. If you're interested to join us, pls let us know. Also, next Jan there will be two weeks of discussions in Thailand again with lots of friends, including many Vietnamese, Nina, ourselves and others. Metta Sarah ===== #128930 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Thank you again to all DSG friends for kusala we had shared. ... S: Thank you also to all our Thai friends, including yourself, for all the assistance and generosity during our stay. We also value your participation a lot in all the discussions both 'live' and here, Jagkrit. Hope you can encourage Vice-Admiral, your wife and daughter and many other friends to join us here as well. Metta Sarah p.s Best wishes to your daughter, Dream for her wedding next week. ==== #128932 From: Ken O > Dear Tony, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > I think its easy to fall into one of the two extremes - ie that there is No Self to be found anywhere and that the self does exist as an idependent entity. > ... > No Self to be found anywhere sounds exactly what the Buddha taught. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html > > "Form is not self.....feeling....." etc. Sabbe dhamma anatta.... > ... > > Ultimately there is no self that can meditate. But there is a 'conventionally' existent self that can and that appears to my mind in dependence upon causes and conditions...this self does exist but not in an ultimate sense. > ... > S: Just a figment of the perverted imagination. It doesn't exist, so it is not conditioned. Thinking is conditioned, but not the ideas thought about. > ... > > > > Like the analogy of the two sticks needed to light a fire...ultimately they too are consumed. Do we not need the vehicle of the self in order to experience suffering and also to experience the absence of suffering. > > > > > > Agree? > ... > S: Absolutely not! > > The idea of using self to get rid of self would mean using (who?) wrong view to reach right view. Makes no sense at all, I'm afraid. Right view of dhammas, realities is needed from the outset in order for right view to develop as Alberto pointed out very clearly in #128834. > > Please persist! Disagreements are very welcome here. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > AdChoices #128935 From: "Tony H" > Hi Tony > > Nice to see you again. Was impressed with how well you held your ground while in the hot seat at Hua Hin! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > Thought I might clarify my Hua Hin musings... > > > > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. Conceptual understanding is a little like an intellectually formed understanding, but has little or no effect on our lives as such. A Non-Conceptual understanding is one that becomes an inextricable part of our experience, we experience the emptiness of phenomena. > > > > Study, debate and discussion can bring about a conceptual understanding of emptiness, sometimes to a very very deep level - but its not experiential. Analytical meditation can however, bring about the experience of emptiness of self/phenomena. > > > > Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > > > > So, my question would be how can intellectualising about how phenomena exist or don't be a substitute for the non-conceptual experiences arrived at through meditation? > > =============== > > J: Your question goes to the very heart of the teachings: what is the development of the path to enlightenment as taught by the Buddha? > > No short answer to that one, of course, but a good toopic to discuss. Wondering if we can find some common ground to begin with. For instance, that: > > (a) the path to enlightenment (aka 'practice') is to be found explained in the teachings of the Buddha; > (b) those teachings are comprised of the suttas, vinaya and abhidhamma (the 3 Pitakas); > (c) the ancient commentaries to the 3 Pitakas also form part of the Pali Canon and are to be considered the Buddha vacana (word of the Buddha); > (d) for there to be practice in accordance with the teachings there must first be a correct theoretical/intellectual understanding of the teachings; and by the same token, any claimed 'practice' is to be evaluated by reference to the teachings. > > Any sticking points there? Looking forward to further discussion. > > Jon > #128936 From: Tam Bach Even I couldnt attend the trip but I'm quite familiar with names, photos of some DSGers and also discussions updated by you almost everyday or some funny stories, events during the trip :) ... S: I'd like to hear about those funny stories and events too:) Hope Tam, Mai and others will share them here with us! Just seen the great pic of Tam & Mai with their new Significant Other!! Mai, remember the pic of your little girl too and your Son/Sun - your little girl's Dad:-)) ... > > I didnt think that our discussion will be read by many professional member of DSG. Not confident enough. I'm still almost new to Paccay, have to look for documents and read while answering questions :P .. S: No professionals here - we're all just beginners on the Path, so no excuses not to share your reflections and study more with us: P Now we're reflecting on Dhamma. What conditions? Any self that's reflecting? .. > I'll need to ask you and others from DSG to support me in some hard cases for answers and better understanding :) .. S: We'd like to help with the easy answers too! What is the arammana (object) now which conditions citta? Looking forward to more discussions in Vietnam with you in Sept. For others: in early Sept, we'll be visiting S.Vietnam for Dhamma discussions with A.Sujin and our Vietnamese friends. If you're interested to join us, pls let us know. Also, next Jan there will be two weeks of discussions in Thailand again with lots of friends, including many Vietnamese, Nina, ourselves and others. Metta Sarah ===== #128937 From: Tam Bach > Dear Sarah, Tony, all, > > >S:No Self to be found anywhere sounds exactly what the Buddha >taught. > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html > > "Form is not self.....feeling....." etc. Sabbe dhamma anatta.... > > > 1) The sutta says that 5 aggregates is anatta. Strange thing is that the Buddha doesn't finish with saying "There is no Atta" anywhere. > > I think the Buddha had a practical teaching of considering every appearing phenomenon as not-Atta. > > > 2) Atta DOES NOT MEAN SELF. > > 3)"An" as in (an-atta) does not mean "no", it means "not". Big difference. Buddha could have said natthatta (natthi-atta). > > 4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". > > "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #128940 From: "Tony H" > Hi Tony, > > Good to read your discussions and hope the rest of your stay in Thailand was as interesting as you morning with us! (Ajahn Sujin asked after the sun-burn when I told her we'd heard from you, btw). > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > Thought I might clarify my Hua Hin musings... > > > > According to my understanding Not Self can be understood in two ways; conceptually and non-conceptually. > ... > S: On your very first comment here - let's be very clear that it is only a reality which is to be understood as not self. > > In other words, we cannot just talk about understanding "not self" without reference to seeing, visible object, thinking and other realities. > > Now there can be the beginning of understanding of visible object as just that which is seen now - no person, no computer, no words, just that which is experienced by seeing. > > By understanding visible object as it is, it is understood as anatta. The same applies to other realities. Seeing is just the reality which experiences visible object, no person that sees. This is what is meant by seeing as not self. > > Metta > > Sarah > > p.s Pls would everyone kindly make it clear who is being addressed at the start of each message, even if "All" and sign off each time. Thx in advance. > ========= > #128941 From: Nina van Gorkom On our last day in Thailand, we went to Ayutthaya (the ancient > capital of Thailand) for discussions in a hotel. #128942 From: "sarah" > I'm persisting! :) .... S: Good! :) ... > > The self is not a result of a perverted imagination - Bilbo Baggins is, as is a Magicians illusion... These are invalid cognitions based upon illusions. .... S: When there is the idea of a self actually existing, (as opposed to mere conventional usage, such as "This is Tony, this is Sarah", then I'd say it is "perverted imagination." This is because there is no self in reality. Here is an extract (I've quoted before) from thefirst sutta in Majjhima Nikaya, the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentary, MN1 (Bodhi transl). The text is talking about the ignorant worldling: "He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) from beings; he conceives `beings are mine'; he delights in beings. What is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I declare." *** The commentary gives lots of detail about the 3 ways of mis-perception of beings by way of attachment, conceit and wrong views about people (sakkaaya-di.t.thi). The summing up of the entire commentary section on the misperceptions of the worldling is given: *** "Because he does not understand The person (sakkaaya) as it really is The worldling only generates Conceivings in the person-group (sakkaaya). Though in truth foul and perishable, Painful, void of an inner lord (aparinaayaka), The fool takes it in the opposite way, Grasps hold of it through his conceivings. He contemplates the person-group As beautiful and pleasurable, Plunging in through conceivings of craving Like a moth into a candle flame. Standing on ideas of permanence, Extolling himself for his excellence, Like filth being poured into filth Conceivings of conceit arise. Like a madman his image in a glass, The fool takes the self of this self- These are his conceivings in terms of views. This that we have called `conceiving' Is the very subtle bondage of Mara, Flexible and difficult to break, By this the worldling is held in thrall. Through struggling and striving with all his might, He does not escape the person-group, But circles on like a leash-bound dog Tied to a firmly planted post. This worldling attached to the person-group Is constantly slain with vehement force By the pains of birth, disease, and age, By all the sufferings of the round. Therefore I say to you, good sir, Discern the person with sharp insight As bound to pain, an impure mass, Subject to break up, void of self. The sage perceiving as it is This, the true nature of our being, Abandons all conceiving's modes And from all suffering finds release." ..... >T: A Horse for example (although Empty) nonetheless exists as a valid appearance to our mind upon which we impute the label 'horse'...and it works. Upon investigation the 'horse' is utterly unfindable yet conventionally it appears to our mind and functions as such. .... S: So here you are talking about the two kinds of truth - conventional truth (sammuti sacca) and absolute truth (paramatha sacca). The Buddha would refer to a horse or a monk by name. However, for him and the ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that what was seen was anything other than the visible object, that what was heard was anything other than sound, that what was touched was anything other than tangible object (that is heat/cold, hardness/softness or motion). ... >T: Again, a valid cognition. As opposed to an invalid cognition (like the Indian tale of the coiled rope mistaken for a snake). A rope cannot bite you (invalid imputation for snake) a real snake (although empty) can (valid imputation/cognition for snake). ... S: So we think about concepts based on conventional truths or "valid cognitions" as you'd call them and concepts not base on realities. Either way, what is thought about is only a concept. At anytime, if there is the taking of the concept of horse or rope for being reality, for being what is seen or touched in actuality, then there is the perversion of thinking taking place. From the same text I quoted above under the section on earth, it says: "..it is said: 'he perceives as a segment of earth.' 'Seizing upon the conventional expression': in this way the commentator shows that the perception of characteristic earth also occurs through the medium of the conventional expression. "Objection: If the conventional expression is applied, what is the fault? Don't ariyans also make use of the conventional expression, as when they say: 'This, venerable sir, is the great earth.' etc? "Reply: It is not the mere employment of the expression that is intended here, but the wrong adherence which occurs through the conventional expression. Thus he says: 'he perceives through a perversion of perception.' This is the meaning: He perceives it as beautiful, etc., through a perverted perception springing from unwise reflection. By this, weak conceiving through craving, conceit and views is shown. .... >T: If you utterly refuse to acknolodge the existence of a conventional self then by proxy you have to deny the existence of Not Self - "Form is EMptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form". The Yin/Yang symbol woks in this respect. Can't have your cake and eat it ;-) .... S: When we refer to earth, cup, person or plate, these are conventional usages. In truth, there are only dhammas, realities, such as hardness/softness and so on. Hardness can be experienced now at the moment of touching what we take for a keyboard or cup. It's real, it's a dhamma that is experienced by touching. There is no self, no thing in it. Likewise, the touching, the body consciousness which experiences the hardness is real. It's a nother reality, another dhamma - no self to be found. Persist with the objections! Helpful for all. You'll have seen the commentators welcomed them as well:-) Ajahn Sujin was also stressing how important the questioning is of what we hear. Metta Sarah ===== #128943 From: "Tony H" > Alex: "An" as in (an-atta) does not mean "no", it means "not". Big difference. Buddha could have said natthatta (natthi-atta)" > > MASSIVELY Important distinction...thanks. My Pali is not as good as my Tibetan :-) > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah, Tony, all, > > > > >S:No Self to be found anywhere sounds exactly what the Buddha >taught. > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html > > > "Form is not self.....feeling....." etc. Sabbe dhamma anatta.... > > > > > > 1) The sutta says that 5 aggregates is anatta. Strange thing is that the Buddha doesn't finish with saying "There is no Atta" anywhere. > > > > I think the Buddha had a practical teaching of considering every appearing phenomenon as not-Atta. > > > > > > 2) Atta DOES NOT MEAN SELF. > > > > 3)"An" as in (an-atta) does not mean "no", it means "not". Big difference. Buddha could have said natthatta (natthi-atta). > > > > 4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". > > > > "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Alex > > > #128944 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: I appreciate that to your way of thinking reference to jhana and quiet places necessarily implies a formal practice of some kind. > > RE: Only because the Buddha said "go practice jhana so you don't fall into regret later." That's a pretty clear directive - hard to twist it around and turn it into something else... > =============== J: I think you are putting a lot of emphasis on the term "practice". The original Pali is "jhaayatha" which the commentary explains as meaning "increase samatha and vipassanaa". (See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3149) So, yes, the Buddha is urging the development of both samatha and vipassana, but there is no mention of formal practice and no need to imply it. > =============== > > J: The question of whether or not the Buddha specified a formal practice for either of those is a separate matter. > > RE: Well here he does. He says go to the root of a tree and *practice jhana.* Then he says if you don't you will later fall into regret, so it's clearly a practice that must be decided upon and undertaken, otherwise there would be no cause for regret or otherwise. In addition he says "this is our messaqe to everyone" so he is clearly saying that everyone who follows him should do this. Kind of hard to get out of it, but I see you are determined. > =============== J: Regarding: "he says "this is our message to everyone" so he is clearly saying that everyone who follows him should do this", the words of the sutta translation are "this is our message to you all". I take "you all" to mean the then present audience. > =============== > RE: Well we agree that the Buddha is directing Ananda to cultivate jhana at the root of a tree. That is a good start. It's not exactly the same as waiting for a jhana moment to arise out of thin air while drinking a cocktail. > =============== J: Right, because the teachings are quite explicit in stating that noisy places are a hindrance to the development of samatha. (The same, however, is not said for vipassana.) Jon #128945 From: "sarah" > Dear Sarah, > thank you for the report on discussions, I understand that it was > very useful. Was the traveling and sightseeing not too tiring? #128946 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > Uh....gee, I feel a bit 'baited and switched' herek as you were the one who brought up this idea that a reality like murder that is made up of many arising dhammas in a series could not be understood by only understanding a single dhamma. Did you change your mind when I brought it back up to explore it further? > > I think you made this point to Ken H. because he tends to fixate on a single dhamma. > =============== J: OK, I think I see where you're coming from now. I believe you've misunderstood the point I was making to Ken H. I did not mean that the conventional act of, say, murder could or should be directly understood. I meant that, in paramattha dhamma terms, the akusala kamma patha of taking life can be regarded as the mental factor of cetana that accompanies the relevant part of the conventional act; however, the conventional act itself cannot be reduced to a single moment of consciousness or a single dhamma, since it can happen over a long period of time and in any number of ways. As regards what can or should be understood, that is always just a presently arisen dhamma. We do not need to think in terms of direct understanding of (or insight into) this or that conventional act, even when it's a conventional act mentioned by the Buddha. > =============== > > J: If I were Ken H I could understand why you might speak to me about a "philosophical position that it never makes sense to talk about more than one isolated citta or dhamma at a time" :-)). But I don't think that description fits me at all (and I don't think it correctly describes Ken H either, but I'm not buying into that one …) > > RE: That's fine, except that above and below this you are indeed saying that only the understanding of a single dhamma is necessary or desirable. So I guess that means that understanding kamma patha is not necessary or desirable, since it occurs over more than one dhamma. And I guess understanding kalapas is not necessary or desirable, since it is a group of rupas - oh but that is one of the stages of insight, so I guess it does matter. Now I'm confused. > =============== J: Regarding kalapas (which I don't think we've discussed so far), there can be awareness of only a single rupa at a time; the other rupas in the same kalaapa cannot be the object of awareness. To my understanding, the knowledge of rupas occurring in kalapas comes with the higher development of insight into the true nature of individual dhammas; it is not given anywhere in the teachings as a subject of awareness/insight in itself. > =============== > > SN 35:27 'Full Understanding' (Bodhi transl): > > > > "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering. > > > > "And what Bhikkhus, is the all? > > ... > > RE: These are great and wonderful passages, but they speak of disenchantment in plurals, not in singular dhammas at all, but in multiple sets of plurals. ... I don't see that these passages supports in any way the idea of the sufficiency of understanding a single dhamma alone in isolation, but many such experiences over a period of time so that one is thoroughly convinced that they are all unsatisfactory. > =============== J: Yes, all (or at least many) dhammas are to be understood. I have never proposed "the sufficiency of understanding a single dhamma alone in isolation"! But it's always awareness of just one dhamma at a time. Jon #128947 From: "Tony H" > Dear Tony, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > I'm persisting! :) > .... > S: Good! :) > ... > > > > The self is not a result of a perverted imagination - Bilbo Baggins is, as is a Magicians illusion... These are invalid cognitions based upon illusions. > .... > S: When there is the idea of a self actually existing, (as opposed to mere conventional usage, such as "This is Tony, this is Sarah", then I'd say it is "perverted imagination." This is because there is no self in reality. > > Here is an extract (I've quoted before) from thefirst sutta in Majjhima Nikaya, the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentary, MN1 (Bodhi transl). > > The text is talking about the ignorant worldling: > > "He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings > as beings, he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) > from beings; he conceives `beings are mine'; he delights in beings. What > is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I > declare." > *** > The commentary gives lots of detail about the 3 ways of mis-perception of > beings by way of attachment, conceit and wrong views about people > (sakkaaya-di.t.thi). > > The summing up of the entire commentary section on the misperceptions of > the worldling is given: > *** > > "Because he does not understand > The person (sakkaaya) as it really is > The worldling only generates > Conceivings in the person-group (sakkaaya). > > Though in truth foul and perishable, > Painful, void of an inner lord (aparinaayaka), > The fool takes it in the opposite way, > Grasps hold of it through his conceivings. > > He contemplates the person-group > As beautiful and pleasurable, > Plunging in through conceivings of craving > Like a moth into a candle flame. > > Standing on ideas of permanence, > Extolling himself for his excellence, > Like filth being poured into filth > Conceivings of conceit arise. > > Like a madman his image in a glass, > The fool takes the self of this self- > These are his conceivings in terms of views. > > This that we have called `conceiving' > Is the very subtle bondage of Mara, > Flexible and difficult to break, > By this the worldling is held in thrall. > > Through struggling and striving with all his might, > He does not escape the person-group, > But circles on like a leash-bound dog > Tied to a firmly planted post. > > This worldling attached to the person-group > Is constantly slain with vehement force > By the pains of birth, disease, and age, > By all the sufferings of the round. > > Therefore I say to you, good sir, > Discern the person with sharp insight > As bound to pain, an impure mass, > Subject to break up, void of self. > > The sage perceiving as it is > This, the true nature of our being, > Abandons all conceiving's modes > And from all suffering finds release." > > ..... > >T: A Horse for example (although Empty) nonetheless exists as a valid appearance to our mind upon which we impute the label 'horse'...and it works. Upon investigation the 'horse' is utterly unfindable yet conventionally it appears to our mind and functions as such. > .... > S: So here you are talking about the two kinds of truth - conventional truth (sammuti sacca) and absolute truth (paramatha sacca). The Buddha would refer to a horse or a monk by name. However, for him and the ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that what was seen was anything other than the visible object, that what was heard was anything other than sound, that what was touched was anything other than tangible object (that is heat/cold, hardness/softness or motion). > ... > > >T: Again, a valid cognition. As opposed to an invalid cognition (like the Indian tale of the coiled rope mistaken for a snake). A rope cannot bite you (invalid imputation for snake) a real snake (although empty) can (valid imputation/cognition for snake). > ... > S: So we think about concepts based on conventional truths or "valid cognitions" as you'd call them and concepts not base on realities. Either way, what is thought about is only a concept. At anytime, if there is the taking of the concept of horse or rope for being reality, for being what is seen or touched in actuality, then there is the perversion of thinking taking place. > > From the same text I quoted above under the section on earth, it says: > > "..it is said: 'he perceives as a segment of earth.' 'Seizing upon the > conventional expression': in this way the commentator shows that the perception > of characteristic earth also occurs through the medium of the conventional > expression. > > "Objection: If the conventional expression is applied, what is the fault? Don't > ariyans also make use of the conventional expression, as when they say: 'This, > venerable sir, is the great earth.' etc? > > "Reply: It is not the mere employment of the expression that is intended here, > but the wrong adherence which occurs through the conventional expression. Thus > he says: 'he perceives through a perversion of perception.' This is the meaning: > He perceives it as beautiful, etc., through a perverted perception springing > from unwise reflection. By this, weak conceiving through craving, conceit and > views is shown. > .... > >T: If you utterly refuse to acknolodge the existence of a conventional self then by proxy you have to deny the existence of Not Self - "Form is EMptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form". The Yin/Yang symbol woks in this respect. Can't have your cake and eat it ;-) > .... > > S: When we refer to earth, cup, person or plate, these are conventional usages. In truth, there are only dhammas, realities, such as hardness/softness and so on. > > Hardness can be experienced now at the moment of touching what we take for a keyboard or cup. It's real, it's a dhamma that is experienced by touching. There is no self, no thing in it. Likewise, the touching, the body consciousness which experiences the hardness is real. It's a nother reality, another dhamma - no self to be found. > > Persist with the objections! Helpful for all. You'll have seen the commentators welcomed them as well:-) Ajahn Sujin was also stressing how important the questioning is of what we hear. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #128948 From: "Robert E" J: I think you are putting a lot of emphasis on the term > "practice". > > The original Pali is "jhaayatha" which the commentary explains as > meaning "increase samatha and vipassanaa". > (See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3149) > > So, yes, the Buddha is urging the development of both samatha and > vipassana, but there is no mention of formal practice and no need to > imply it. > If I were to say to you, there is a chair - go sit in it and "increase samatha and vipassana" it would clearly imply sitting meditation practice to increase those factors, as described in detail in the anapanasati and other suttas. This is not a mystery or an obscure directive, subject to various interpretations. If the Buddha says, as he did here, "There are the roots of trees - go there and increase samatha and vipassana, otherwise you will later fall into regret," what else can it mean but go sit at the root of a tree and practice as described in the anapanasati to develop those qualities? If you deny that the 'sitting at the root of a tree' means practice, you are perhaps put in the absurd position of thinking that the root of the tree in and of itself will increase samatha and vipassana. It is just not sensible to think that there is no "practice" involved when sitting to develop concentration and awareness are clearly involved. One can't ignore the directive "there are the roots of trees" that is combined with the Buddha's statement. One also can't ignore "This is our message to everyone." If you put all the elements together you get: "Sitting at the root of a tree," the classical place to practice jhana meditation mentioned in many suttas, + developing samatha and vipassana + avoiding regret -- something which only happens if you don't do something you should do, which means there is a practice involved, not just accidental increase of these qualities, + saying everyone should do this, meaning that it is the essential practice of the Buddha's path. To summarize: "In order to follow the Buddha's essential practice towards enlightenment, everyone should sit at the root of a tree and increase samatha and vipassana, otherwise they will regret it later." Since the root of the tree will not increase samatha and vipassana, what one is doing while sitting at the root of the tree is the only suspect - ie, practice, as the Buddha describes so many times in anapanasati, satipatthana suttas, kayagasati sutta, etc. The practice to do at the root of a tree is not a secret. Here he is saying "everyone - everyone should do this." Many times you have said that the anapanasati sutta merely showed how a monk who was already advanced in anapanasati meditation could take advantage of this to understand how to develop satipatthana, but here it is crystal clear that the Buddha is not just describing this but telling all the monks positively to do this, to lead to greater samatha and vipassana, and that this is the path. > > =============== > > > J: The question of whether or not the Buddha specified a formal > practice for either of those is a separate matter. > > > > RE: Well here he does. He says go to the root of a tree and > *practice jhana.* Then he says if you don't you will later fall into > regret, so it's clearly a practice that must be decided upon and > undertaken, otherwise there would be no cause for regret or otherwise. > In addition he says "this is our messaqe to everyone" so he is clearly > saying that everyone who follows him should do this. Kind of hard to > get out of it, but I see you are determined. > > =============== > > > J: Regarding: > > "he says "this is our message to everyone" so he is clearly saying > that everyone who follows him should do this", > > the words of the sutta translation are "this is our message to you > all". I take "you all" to mean the then present audience. Whoever it was, it was whatever monks and others were then present at the very least, making it at least a relatively universal injunction, certainly well beyond a specific tailored injunction to Ananda. > > =============== > > RE: Well we agree that the Buddha is directing Ananda to cultivate > jhana at the root of a tree. That is a good start. It's not exactly > the same as waiting for a jhana moment to arise out of thin air while > drinking a cocktail. > > =============== > > J: Right, because the teachings are quite explicit in stating that > noisy places are a hindrance to the development of samatha. (The same, > however, is not said for vipassana.) Right, and it is also very clear that he is saying that 'everyone present' at the very least *should* develop jhana at the root of a tree. If he *only* wanted them to naturally develop vipassana and not samatha, he might have said "there is a cafe where you can enjoy the noisy surroundings and allow vipassana to naturally arise," but instead he said "go to the root of a tree and develop jhana or you will regret it!" Pretty amazingly clear! I hope we are willing to take the Buddha at his word and not change the message into something else! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128949 From: "Robert E" To my understanding, the knowledge of rupas occurring in kalapas comes with the higher development of insight into the true nature of individual dhammas; it is not given anywhere in the teachings as a subject of awareness/insight in itself. Thanks for that, makes sense. > > RE: These are great and wonderful passages, but they speak of disenchantment in plurals, not in singular dhammas at all, but in multiple sets of plurals. ... I don't see that these passages supports in any way the idea of the sufficiency of understanding a single dhamma alone in isolation, but many such experiences over a period of time so that one is thoroughly convinced that they are all unsatisfactory. > > =============== > > J: Yes, all (or at least many) dhammas are to be understood. I have never proposed "the sufficiency of understanding a single dhamma alone in isolation"! But it's always awareness of just one dhamma at a time. I have absolutely not problem with that. The question is how are things understood - yes, directly one dhamma at a time, but since sanna can retain understanding from one citta to the next, one can understand dhamma a, then dhamma b, then dhamma c, and see that over the course of these dhammas a larger action has taken place. Of course that would be incredibly advanced, but I assume that the reason the Buddhist sages know how kamma patha works at all is that they were able to do this very thing - accumulate the understanding of multiple dhammas -- one at a time -- and understand what they *add up to* in the course of the stream. If one tries to look at "murder" as a single event of course that is a concept and is merely an image of how murder takes place. But if one had the insight to be able to take account of the many instances of cetana and rupa that completed such an event, they would then know with great specificity, one dhamma at a time, with additional help from sanna keeping track at each of those moments, how the actual murder took place, from cetana reaching the strength and accumulation to cause those rupas to arise, to the cuti citta being brought forth for the "murder victim's cittas" when the accumulations of intent and other conditions had reached the point of viability for the murder to be completed. You have said many times that the understanding of dhammas is not meant to translate concepts into multiple paramatha dhammas in order to understand them better, since they are not realities, but it must be that there are some 'multiple-dhamma' realities, in the accumulation of single dhammas that relate to the same intention, or repeated similar intention or physical events, such as in kamma patha, which do actually take place and need to be understood by those with insight into them, otherwise the role of cetana, rupas and other dhammas in leading from various types of conditions to their outcomes would not be understood. And agreed - whatever is known in this way would have to be known one dhamma at a time. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #128950 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: vangorko@... > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:07:49 +0100 > Subject: [dsg] The Perfections developed in Daily Life, Ch 3, no 3. > > Dear friends, > .................. (As requested, the rest is deleted by Chuck) ........................................................... #128951 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I'm obviously not a > bhikkhu, so much of the vinaya is not applicable). And I figure if it > exists in there, it *could* be useful. The Theras seem to think so.As a former bhikkhu, I strongly suggest lay persons become familiar with the Vinaya-pitaka. Just the areas between the monk and the lay person... It will prevent many misunderstandings... Comments??? yours in Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck (formerly phra dhammasaro) ............................ Rest deleted as requested ................................................................................\ .................................... #128953 From: "Lukas" And Lucus, I have not have much chance to talk to you here. But I see you in Vietnam soon. L: Yes, not many opportunities to talk together, though we saw many times. I usually felt happy to see you, and to see you are doing so good in Dhamma, always listening Dhamma with kindness and deep investigation. Since now not many chances to converse together, Jagkrit. But this is perfect as it is. Sometimes no need to talk much. Maybe the time will come we will talk for a while, who knows? Yasmim samaye. Best wishes Lukas p.s Sarah and all, I come Poland. Very tired after planes. I just inform everything fine. #128955 From: "sarah" My only concern is the implication that there are 'things' (rupa?) out there to be experienced, am I right in assuming you're saying this? There is no 'keyboard' out there waiting to evoke a feeling of hard. There is simply no keyboard other than the one that appears to my (equally empty) mind. .... S: Touch the keyboard - what is experienced? What is experienced at the moment of touching is not nothing and it is not a keyboard. Metta Sarah p.s. All: pls remember to trim messages! ======= #128956 From: "sarah" > Maybe the time will come we will talk for a while, who knows? Yasmim samaye. ... S: Yes, as usual, all dhammas depending on conditions. Perhaps there will be conditions for you and Jagkrit to converse together more here. ... > p.s > Sarah and all, I come Poland. Very tired after planes. I just inform everything fine. ... S: Thanks for letting us know. It is a long trip to Poland. Hope you get a good rest and so glad all is fine. Keep us posted! Really appreciated your active participation in all the discussions. Metta Sarah ===== #128957 From: "truth_aerator" S:Touch the keyboard - what is experienced? Touching the keyboard is experienced. Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. This is why when we want to type, we type using the keyboard. We don't press fingers against the wall or some other non-typing area. With best wishes, Alex #128958 From: "jonoabb" Sarah and all, I come Poland. Very tired after planes. I just inform everything fine. > =============== J: Thanks for letting us know. Was great having you in Thailand for the talks. Looking forward to continuing the discussion here. Jon PS Good luck with re-entry to your life in Poland. No doubt there will be some sense of let-down after the excitement of the past few weeks. Just remember that it's only feeling (and thinking)!! #128959 From: "jonoabb" > > > Dear Sarah,Jon, Jagkrit, Alberto, Lukas, all > > We (Mai and me) reached home this morning, safe and sound. Son and "Dad" ;-) came to meet us at the aiport. "Dad" was cute in a pink jacket, greeted us with a big smile revealing a carious tooth and said : "it is because of too much candies"... > > Thanks all of you for being such wonderful Dhamma friends. We value very much the last three weeks together for all what we have learnt from Achaan and other Dhamma friends, as well as for moments of friendliness and fun. > =============== J: Thanks for the update. It was a delight having you all there, and sharing an understanding of the teachings. > =============== > Looking forward to see you in Vietnam on Sept! > =============== J: Already looking forward to it! Jon #128960 From: "jonoabb" > Hello, I'm Mai - From Vietnam. It's the first time I am posting but I have known this forum for some time and it's really great here. > > I have learned Dhamma for more than one year. It's seem to me that I got lucky at the beginning, since I have seen wise people and listened their incisive explanation of Buddha's teachings. I have honor of joining two courses of dhamma discussion with Achaan Khun Sujin, one was held in Vietnam and another in Thailand for the past three weeks. I also have opportunities to associate with dhamma friends - the worthy Vietnames friends and honourable DSG friends... Thanks to all for guiding and reminding me of dhamma in daily life. > ... #128961 From: "salaflowers" S: We'd like to help with the easy answers too! Lan: Actually every question is not easy for me, but how can I ask all :D > S: Looking forward to more discussions in Vietnam with you in Sept. Lan: The trip in Sep was decided too quickly, before I could inform that I already had the tickets to Myanmar and back on Sep 10...Are there any other trips of Achan this year, in Thai or any other countries? I can come to the foundation at the first (two) weeks of July. Lan./. #128962 From: "maimechep" > S: Looking forward to more discussions in Vietnam with you in Sept. > > Lan: The trip in Sep was decided too quickly, before I could inform that I already had the tickets to Myanmar and back on Sep 10... ... S: That's unfortunate. I think later in Sept would have also been OK for Ajahn, but there's a Vietnamese holiday in early Sept. Do hope you can adjust your plans as we'd really like to have you with us in particular for the discussions. We missed you this time! .. >Are there any other trips of Achan this year, in Thai or any other countries? ... S: There are other trips, but not in English that I know of. However, next month I think Tam B may be meeting Achan and some Thai friends in Hue for a couple of days, so you might like to join her. ... > I can come to the foundation at the first (two) weeks of July. ... S: If you arrange anything, let us know in case we can visit. At the moment, we're expecting to be in Aus at that time. Metta Sarah === #128965 From: "sarah" > Now I am posting some of the topics that are discussed on the DGT-Vietnam. All your comments are welcome and will be posted on DGT (if you do not agree to publish your comments, please let us know). ... S: Fine, but if you forward any comments, however brief, from DSG, pls be sure to ***include the name of the poster and the link to the DSG post***, so anyone can trace it back easily. ... > > The first topic is the purpose of studying 24 paccaya: > > - DGT: What is the purpose of studying the 24 paccaya? How it is related to our daily life? > > - Paccaya team (LL team): Because what we take for our life and Self we take wrongly. This wrong perception brings suffering and causes all kinds of troubles. The purpose of studying Dhamma is to have less and less wrong view and less ignorance. So that the Truth can be known. > In reality there is nowhere a Self or a doer, nor a self that can induce something. All what happens is conditioned by conditions, not by a Self. Realities never appears by our own wish. The point of Buddha teachings is to learn about them so the moments of awarness can appear gradually and see what our life really is. ... S: Very good comments! Especially so that understanding can grow! I would stress more on understanding than awareness. ... > > - Lan: Can you share some experience or tips when study on Paccaya? It's really not easy! > > - LL team: One paccaya at a time, not all at once ... S: And stress on *now*. What paccaya is now? What paccayupana is now? For example, seeing now, what is the cause of seeing? .... > > - Tam Bach: Today, Lukas Szmidt read the patthana to Achaan for her comments. She kept saying: go slowly, just word by word, to really understand what it means. For example, when Lukas mentioned "hetu", she said:"what are they? Why are they called hetu? If you really consider each word, you can understand your-self" This applies to all studies of the Dhamma, not only the Patthana. ... S: Very good. Hetu now - lobha now or alobha? Is there any undersanding of lobha when it arises? Metta Sarah p.s pls remember to sign off with your name, Mai and everyone, so everyone knows how to address you - even if just forwarding some notes. Also, if you put "All" or "Friends" or a name at the top of the message, it makes it easy for everyone to see at a glance who it's addressed to. Thanks for your help! ======= AdChoices #128966 From: sarah abbott >A:4) "Sabbe Dhamma anatta" depends on what "Sabbe dhamma" means. In >another sutta sabba dhamma means 12 ayatanas. So it is not totally "all all all". > > ... > >S: sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas, even nibbana, are not >atta. Just dhammas. > > > > Here, 12 ayatanas, as in Sabba Sutta, inc nibbana. > > ... > > It is controversial whether Nibbana is a dhamma. In AN 10.58 it says > > 1)"All phenomena are rooted in desire." > 2)"All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html > > 1) Since nibbana is not rooted in desire, "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) excludes it. > > 2) Nibbana is the end of sabbe dhamma. ... S: I'm surprised you didn't refer to TB's note to the first line here. As he says: Note1. "According to the Commentary to AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions given here), "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) here means the five aggregates." *** S: More commentary detail given in the link above. In this context and many others, sabbe dhamma does not refer to nibbana, but just to lokiya dhamma (worldly dhammas). If you read B.Bodhi's note to the Sabba Sutta which has been given many times (see "Sabba Sutta" in U.P.), it depends on the context as to what "sabbe dhamma" includes. Likewise, references to the ayatanas - sometimes nibbana is included, sometimes not. For example, in the Pahana Sutta on Abandoning, clearly nibbana is not included. Each word has to be considered carefully. Metta Sarah ===== #128968 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > while meaning may depend on its context, the context here is a formal assignment of a kammathana from a teacher - good friend as you said - to a student of Dhamma. As such, if the practice involves as you say "contemplating aspects of the kammatthaana that are a condition for kusala citta" that is indeed in my view a formal practice if nothing else. ... If you give any sort of assignment, you are asserting, as you concur, that the assigned subject will in some way lead to the arising of more kusala. That is no different than what I often assert about meditation [anapanasati] that without exercising any particular control the practice will lead to the gradual development of those kusala qualities that are related to that form of meditation. > =============== J: To my understanding, the Vism is speaking of students who are already well practised in samatha. So it's not a matter of those students approaching a teacher for a new technique (or other manner of formal practice) that they can follow. The role of the teacher is to impart information that will enable the student, already adept at samatha, to progress to even higher levels. The object given by the teacher may well be familiar to the student already. The teacher is highlighting that object as the one that will potentially allow the student to progress further or more easily than with any other object. Jon #128969 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Right, because the teachings are quite explicit in stating that > > noisy places are a hindrance to the development of samatha. (The same, > > however, is not said for vipassana.) > > RE: Right, and it is also very clear that he is saying that 'everyone present' at the very least *should* develop jhana at the root of a tree. If he *only* wanted them to naturally develop vipassana and not samatha, he might have said "there is a cafe where you can enjoy the noisy surroundings and allow vipassana to naturally arise," but instead he said "go to the root of a tree and develop jhana or you will regret it!" Pretty amazingly clear! I hope we are willing to take the Buddha at his word and not change the message into something else! > =============== J: Regarding, "he is saying that 'everyone present' at the very least *should* develop jhana at the root of a tree", yes agreed, but again context is important. The significance of that admonition will depend on matters such as, for example, whether his audience had already attained, or were seen by the Buddha as having the potential to soon attain, any stage of jhana and/or enlightenment. That would put a different light on the advice, wouldn't you say? Regarding, "If he *only* wanted them to naturally develop vipassana and not samatha, he might have said "there is a cafe where you can enjoy the noisy surroundings and allow vipassana to naturally arise"", the advice would naturally depend on the person's potential as known by the Buddha. If a person did not have the potential for jhana and for insight with jhana as basis, he/she may not be specifically encouraged to develop samatha/jhana. Jon #128970 From: "truth_aerator" S:In this context and many others, sabbe dhamma does not refer to >nibbana, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so we have to be careful and not be hasty with interpretations of what is said. Ex: Anatta. It means not-Atta, with Atta in the context of 5th BC India being probably something other than what modern westerners call "self". IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #128971 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > while meaning may depend on its context, the context here is a formal assignment of a kammathana from a teacher - good friend as you said - to a student of Dhamma. As such, if the practice involves as you say "contemplating aspects of the kammatthaana that are a condition for kusala citta" that is indeed in my view a formal practice if nothing else. ... If you give any sort of assignment, you are asserting, as you concur, that the assigned subject will in some way lead to the arising of more kusala. That is no different than what I often assert about meditation [anapanasati] that without exercising any particular control the practice will lead to the gradual development of those kusala qualities that are related to that form of meditation. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the Vism is speaking of students who are already well practised in samatha. Can you share the basis of your understandingin this area? Is it indicated anywhere that this is the case? It seems that this student is seeking out the teacher, introducing himself and then eventually at an appropriate time, asking for the kammathana. It doesn't mean he has not developed such capacity before, but I don't personally see an indication of any particular level of expertise. > So it's not a matter of those students approaching a teacher for a new technique (or other manner of formal practice) that they can follow. Of course the assignment of the kammathana, to be emphasized or focused upon to aid the development of samatha, is either a new technique or the equivalent of a new technique. In any case, it is an escalation of practice, whatever one may say that practice is. The purposeful assignment of an object of focus or emphasis, however you define the kammathana, represents a purposeful form of practice, meant to cause the greater development of samatha, so it is an exact example of what is often criticized here on dsg as being a "formal practice" that "controls" the arising of samatha, even if as a corollary device or through a subtle influence. I don't see any indication - do you? - that the kammathana is only to be thought of at random times when it happens to arise for citta during the course of the day. I imagine that it is being employed as a focus when the student is sitting and practicing the deepening of samatha. > The role of the teacher is to impart information that will enable the student, already adept at samatha, to progress to even higher levels. How is such information applied? Obviously the student is to focus on the kammathana, and this is a good example of a formal practice asignment. > The object given by the teacher may well be familiar to the student already. Is there any evidence for this idea? From what I saw in the long passage, the assignment of the kammathana necessitated great and complex analysis on the part of the teacher. Look at all the factors he has to take into account! I would think this is something that the student has *not* encountered before, except perhaps in a long list of possible objects, as is often given, and that the assignment of the kammathana is a very special moment in the student's career. > The teacher is highlighting that object as the one that will potentially allow the student to progress further or more easily than with any other object. Yes, we agree on that. That is a formal meditation assignment, no different in kind than saying "If you follow the breath with special attention to the sensation of the breath in the nostrils at this time, you will gradually develop a refined awareness of the movement of the breath which will lead to greater mindfulness" or any other meditation instruction. It certainly belies the idea that such formal meditation is not part of the path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128972 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: Right, because the teachings are quite explicit in stating that > > > noisy places are a hindrance to the development of samatha. (The same, > > > however, is not said for vipassana.) > > > > RE: Right, and it is also very clear that he is saying that 'everyone present' at the very least *should* develop jhana at the root of a tree. If he *only* wanted them to naturally develop vipassana and not samatha, he might have said "there is a cafe where you can enjoy the noisy surroundings and allow vipassana to naturally arise," but instead he said "go to the root of a tree and develop jhana or you will regret it!" Pretty amazingly clear! I hope we are willing to take the Buddha at his word and not change the message into something else! > > =============== > > J: Regarding, "he is saying that 'everyone present' at the very least *should* develop jhana at the root of a tree", yes agreed, but again context is important. The significance of that admonition will depend on matters such as, for example, whether his audience had already attained, or were seen by the Buddha as having the potential to soon attain, any stage of jhana and/or enlightenment. That would put a different light on the advice, wouldn't you say? It would certainly influence the full meaning of his admonition, but only by degree I would say, not decisively. At the very least, he is encouraging all those who have the potential to attain jhana to go attain it as purposively as possible, and not to let the opportunity go by, a direct invitation to "formal practice" which is so often objected to on dsg. If the only dispute is whether this admonition is only for those who have the potential to achieve it, I would say that makes sense, but does not settle the question of who has that potential. Certainly it would be a great coincidence if everyone at that particular gathering just coincidentally had the potential and were being encouraged to go practice jhana with some immediacy. Either they were all advanced disciples who were ready to practice jhana, or else the Buddha was giving this practice to a full group of disciples, assuming they were ready to practice jhana. His statement is somewhat universal, at least for the occasion. Either way it is an admonition to formal practice, and we should accept such formal practice - sitting meditation to achieve jhana - as a very imporant part of the path that Buddha enjoined his followers to engage - or else they would regret it - very strong language from the Buddha whose importance cannot be denied. > Regarding, "If he *only* wanted them to naturally develop vipassana and not samatha, he might have said "there is a cafe where you can enjoy the noisy surroundings and allow vipassana to naturally arise"", the advice would naturally depend on the person's potential as known by the Buddha. If a person did not have the potential for jhana and for insight with jhana as basis, he/she may not be specifically encouraged to develop samatha/jhana. I can agree that if a person did not have the capability to practice jhana, the Buddha might give them another practice - one directed more directly towards mindfulness and insight; or else preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability, as are also discussed in the Vism. There is a sutta which I can't recall [as usual] where the Buddha states that the order in which insight and jhana are developed can be arranged in several different ways - insight leading to jhana and deeper insight; jhana leading to deep concentration and then insight with jhana as object; or both in tandem. Maybe Howard knows which one that is. Do you recall this, Howard? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128973 From: "sarah" > Regarding the precepts, you know that these are training rules and not > > like commandments. > > No I am sorry to say I do not know this, and would like to see some evidence to that effect, no disrespect intended. .... (I quoted the following before from Sammohavinodani, Dispeller of Delusion): >Sarah: 14Classification of the Training Precepts, 1905 1905 "Now in the classification of the Training Preepts next to that, pa~nca (five) is the division by number. Sikkhaapadaani (training precepts): precepts to be trained in; `portions of training' is the meaning. Furthermore, all the profitable states handed down above [S: in earlier sections] are trainings (sikkhaa) because they should be trained in.. but any factor among the five factors of virtuous conduct is a basis (pada) for those trainings in the sense of foundation; thus because of being the bases for trainings (sikkhaana.m padattaa), they are precepts (bases) of training....... <....> 1908"But because not only just abstention is a training precept but volition also is a training precept, therefore there is a second method for pointing it out. And because a training precept is not only these two things but also the fifty and more things [S -I take this as the other cetasikas inc hiri and ottappa] associated with volition, because of being a `portion of what is to be trained', are training precepts too. Therefore a third method is taught too. Herein training precept is of two kinds, training precept in the figurative sense (pariyaaya) and training precept in the literal sense (nippariyaaya). Herein, abstention (virati) is the training precept in the literal sense......for it is the hostile volition at the time of transgression that is called misconduct (dussiilya), therefore that volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya) even at the time of abstention. Impression [phassa], etc are included because of being associated with it............... <...> 1931 " "As to breaking": for lay people only that which is transgressed is broken, spoilt; the rest are not spoilt. Why? Because lay people have transitory virtuous conduct; they keep whatever precepts they can." ***** Metta Sarah ===== #128974 From: "sarah" > S: Where did the monks at Savatthi or other places of residence go? Even now at Savatthi, where one goes to for rest are the roots of trees, not an arm-chair by the fireplace! > > > > Develop samatha and vipassana! Understand realities now. Calm is there at such moments. Develop insight until the Path has been attained, the path and fruit of arahatship by thoroughly understanding the ti-lakkhana of all conditioned realities. > > ... .... > I certainly would not object to anything in your second paragraph, but I have some question about the first. The Buddha's statement to Ananda in this particular passage was not 'go develop insight in general' and 'while you're at it have a nice rest near a tree,' it was much more direct than that. He said: "there are the roots of trees - go practice jhana so you don't later regret not having done so." .... S: As explained, "develop samatha and vipassana". As insight develops, they are conjoined. The monks lived amongst the roots of trees. Did the Buddha ever tell any lay people, like Anathapindaka or Visakkha, to go to roots of trees or to attain jhanas? ... > Regret implying that he was to take a positive action to work towards development. The enjoining of Ananda to go practice jhana at the root of a tree is similar to the practice of jhana in other passages where they describe the monk going to the root of a tree, and going into deep concentration through anapanasati, so it is not a general or unusual combination, and the meaning is clear. He is telling Ananda to practice jhana, otherwise he will regret it, with or without the roots of trees being in the statement. ... S: I read all the Teachings to be about dhammas as anatta. In reality, there was no Ananda to do anything. As soon as there's an idea of someone practicing, doing something specific, going somewhere for some purpose, concentrating on this or that object for this or that result, we forget all about the essence of the Teachings - that is the understanding of realities as anatta, no matter where or when ..... > And he then says "this is our message to everyone" which makes it crystal clear that he is saying this is what he wants everyone to do - practice jhana. ... S: The message to everyone is the development of satipatthana, the development of insight leading to arahatship. This is the same message regardless of particular accumulations for dana, sila or samatha bhavana. It was the same message for Sariputta and Moggallana, for Bahiya, Anathapindika and for Angullimala. ... >There is no other way to understand this passage. Even if there are two types of jhana and the Buddha meant the "good" kind which is used as the object of insight, the message to go practice such jhana is still the same. It is a direct message urging formal practice at the root of a tree - ie, sitting meditation, as described repeatedly throughout the suttas. ... S: It is a reminder to develop insight, to not waste time now, no matter where one dwells, no matter what the realities appearing now. No self to do such developing - just the development of understanding. ... > > S: The monks were amongst those trees, sitting by their roots already. The Buddha made it very clear that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone's control. Also, he made it very clear that understanding of realities, satipatthana, can develop anytime, any place if the right conditions are in place, including hearing and wisely considering the teachings about dhammas as anatta. > >R: He may have made this clear in other contexts at other times, and it is certainly a valid message, but that is not the message of this particular passage, in which he makes abundantly clear that in addition to whatever else he may have said elsewhere about dhammas arising at other times of life, that he also was telling everyone who followed him directly to go sit at the root of a tree and practice jhana, otherwise they will regret it. .... S: What does it mean to "practice jhana" as you suggest? What is jhana and how is it practiced? Can you go to the root of a tree and "practice jhana?" What is the purpose? Metta Sarah ===== #128975 From: "sarah" I subscribed to this group recently, so it's better to give an introduction. > > My name is Kin Sung, come from Melaka, Malaysia and is currently studying > in Singapore. Got in touch with Buddhism and meditation during my > university life in Singapore. ... S: Good to hear. You may bump into Ken O in Singapore too:-) ... > > I was more inclined towards meditation, but now I want to improve my > scriptural knowledges. ... S: Good to hear - what is most important is the growth of understanding and this has to begin with pariyatti, the correct theoretical understanding about dhammas (realities) as anatta. For this, there has to be a lot of careful consideration of what we hear and read. Metta Sarah ==== #128976 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"? > > 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. ... S: So far this sounds more like an understanding of dukkha dukkha - all kinds of mental and bodily suffering rather than the 1st NT, which pertains to all conditioned realities. ... >R: 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. ... S: As I understand the 1st NT, it refers to the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities, sabbe sankhara dukkha. It doesn't just refer to unpleasantness, but to all kinds of dhammas which are inevitably the objects of clinging. Even pleasant feeling, even awareness and understanding, even jhana cittas are impermanent and objects of clinging and thereby dukkha. Metta Sarah ==== #128977 From: "sarah" > 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. ... S: Sounds better - as you say, each (conditioned) reality is inherently dukkha. "It's baked in"! Attachment is the cause and the path is the only way to the exit. OK, we're on the same page now, more or less:-) Metta Sarah p.s. just came across a few posts I missed when travelling. ==== #128978 From: "sarah" >S:Touch the keyboard - what is experienced? > > Touching the keyboard is experienced. ... S: Really? Through which door-way? ... > > Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. This is why when we want to type, we type using the keyboard. We don't press fingers against the wall or some other non-typing area. ... S: Is "keyboard" a nama or a rupa? What are its "own characteristics"? Did the Buddha list it amongst the 28 rupas or is it a citta or cetasika? Is it conditioned? Does it arise and fall away? Metta Sarah ===== #128979 From: "philip" > There is a sutta which I can't recall [as usual] where the Buddha states that the order in which insight and jhana are developed can be arranged in several different ways - insight leading to jhana and deeper insight; jhana leading to deep concentration and then insight with jhana as object; or both in tandem. > > Maybe Howard knows which one that is. Do you recall this, Howard? > > Best, > Rob E. > =================================== Perhaps you're thinking of the Samadhi Sutta (AN 4.94). With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128981 From: "philip" > > Dear group > > Another good reminder from A. Sujin: > > > > Acharn: to have other accumulated habits, with Dhamma. Life is so short, > what is the best in every moment? A change cannot be in one day, but > it can be developed little by little. Understand first: what is > dhamma, before one can understand kusala and akusala dhammas. Each > word of the teachings is about understanding. Every word should be > understood clearly and deeply. > > No one can develop samatha and vipassanaa without understanding what > it is. No one can develop satipa.t.thaana if there is no understandig > of dhamma. > > (end of passage) > > Phil > #128982 From: "truth_aerator" S: Really? Through which door-way? The brain. >A:Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. This is why >when we want to type, we type using the keyboard. We don't press >fingers against the wall or some other non-typing area. > ... > S: Is "keyboard" a nama or a rupa? >>>>>>>>>>>> Keyboard itself is rupa, the name and concept of it is nama. >What are its "own characteristics"? I can type letters on it so that you see them in this message. I can't do the same with the table, or a spoon. >S:Did the Buddha list it amongst the 28 rupas Did Buddha teach the list of 28 rupas? >S:Is it conditioned? Does it arise and fall away? Yes, keyboard is conditioned and it arises and ceases. It didn't exist before its manufacture, and it will eventually break and fall apart into plastic and such other components at which point it will cease to be keyboard. With metta, Alex #128983 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > 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. > ... > S: Sounds better - as you say, each (conditioned) reality is inherently dukkha. "It's baked in"! > Attachment is the cause and the path is the only way to the exit. > > OK, we're on the same page now, more or less:-) Just to clarify a little more, I thought that dukkha dukkha was physical suffering, and that the suffering of the 1st NT is psychospiritual suffering caused by attachment. Would general psychological suffering also qualify as part of dukkha dukkha? I guess, just to underline the second point, it is clear that the understanding of the 1st NT must include the fact that it is inescapable within the "All," so that, as you imply, one then follows the other Noble Truths to the understanding that the Path is the only possible way out. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128984 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Regarding the precepts, you know that these are training rules and not > > > like commandments. > > > > No I am sorry to say I do not know this, and would like to see some evidence to that effect, no disrespect intended. > .... > > (I quoted the following before from Sammohavinodani, Dispeller of Delusion): > > >Sarah: 14Classification of the Training Precepts, 1905 > > 1905 "Now in the classification of the Training Preepts next to that, > pa~nca (five) is the division by number. Sikkhaapadaani (training > precepts): precepts to be trained in; `portions of training' is the > meaning. Furthermore, all the profitable states handed down above [S: in > earlier sections] are trainings (sikkhaa) because they should be trained > in.. but any factor among the five factors of virtuous conduct is a basis > (pada) for those trainings in the sense of foundation; thus because of > being the bases for trainings (sikkhaana.m padattaa), they are precepts > (bases) of training....... > > <....> > > 1908"But because not only just abstention is a training precept but > volition also is a training precept, therefore there is a second method > for pointing it out. And because a training precept is not only these two > things but also the fifty and more things [S -I take this as the other > cetasikas inc hiri and ottappa] associated with volition, because of being > a `portion of what is to be trained', are training precepts too. Therefore > a third method is taught too. > > Herein training precept is of two kinds, training precept in the > figurative sense (pariyaaya) and training precept in the literal sense > (nippariyaaya). Herein, abstention (virati) is the training precept in the > literal sense......for it is the hostile volition at the time of > transgression that is called misconduct (dussiilya), therefore that > volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya) even at the time of > abstention. Impression [phassa], etc are included because of being > associated with it............... > <...> > > 1931 " "As to breaking": for lay people only that which is transgressed is > broken, spoilt; the rest are not spoilt. Why? Because lay people have > transitory virtuous conduct; they keep whatever precepts they can." Thanks for this detailed material. I would say the following from what I can make of it, which may not be anything like it's full meaning: 1. Those things which are cited as training principles, including abstentions, appear to be in the context of true principles that if possible should be carried out by everyone, but that are required for monks. The statement that I objected to: "You know these are training precepts and not like commandments" I don't think is borne out by these excerpts. The implication in the statement was that they don't really need to be adhered to except as formalities of training for monks, and I don't think that's true. These principles would be adhered to by anyone who was at a certain stage of defeating the defilements, and it is not like once one gets to a decent level of wisdom, one can then take of the training wheels and ignore these precepts. They are part of the progression of the path. The fact that lay people are not expected to be consistent enough to follow all of them does not diminish their importance. 2. I especially like the following passage, which seems to illustrate a point that I have tried to explore several times, that kusala cetana should lead to wholesome actions. This is borne out by the material you have quoted: "...therefore that > volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya) even at the > time of abstention." This makes two important points which have been disputed at times on dsg: a. That kusala is not just expressed by abstention but by positive actions that reflect the kusala cetana. It has been argued that one cannot identify kusala cetana by the "conceptual" activity that is observed, such as good works, etc. b. That kusala cetana is expressed as "good conduct." This has also been disputed at times, as those conducts considered "concepts" are dismissed as wholly lacking in importance. I think the "Dispeller" makes clear that this is not the case, and should not be taken that way. Sometimes worldly actions considered conventional or "concepts" are dismissed with too broad a brush on dsg, and given no importance. But if "[kusala] volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya)" that is clearly not a correct way to look at such activity. I do take the proviso that sometimes conduct may *seem* wholesome but be deceptively caused by subtle akusala, such as charity that is the result of wanting to enhance one's reputation, an expression of self-view. Still, in general, positive conduct should be the outcome of kusala cetana. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128985 From: "Robert E" > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > S: As I understand the 1st NT, it refers to the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities, sabbe sankhara dukkha. It doesn't just refer to unpleasantness, but to all kinds of dhammas which are inevitably the objects of clinging. > > Even pleasant feeling, even awareness and understanding, even jhana cittas are impermanent and objects of clinging and thereby dukkha. I agree with your points, and your correction is aiming at a deeper understanding of the inherent nature of dukkha. However, the Buddha often cited the broad sweep of suffering, illness, old age and death to show the overwhelming reality of dukkha and to show that the "whole system" was "rigged." I think that being hit over the head with the inescapable reality of illness, old age and death is a good blunt tool for illustrating dukkha, and then one can go from there to see the more subtle encroachment of dukkha in every moment. For me, it was a big sort of revelation when I read the chapter, just realizing that the death moment is lurking out there and will come at any time. It may be dukkha dukkha but it creates some strong initial disenchantment with the whole thing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128986 From: "truth_aerator" S:Even pleasant feeling, even awareness and understanding, even jhana >cittas are impermanent and objects of clinging and thereby dukkha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If something becomes its opposite because it changes, then can we say that dukkha is actually sukkha because dukkha is impermanent? With best wishes, Alex #128987 From: "philip" > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: The question is how are things understood - yes, directly one dhamma at a time, but since sanna can retain understanding from one citta to the next, one can understand dhamma a, then dhamma b, then dhamma c, and see that over the course of these dhammas a larger action has taken place. Of course that would be incredibly advanced, but I assume that the reason the Buddhist sages know how kamma patha works at all is that they were able to do this very thing - accumulate the understanding of multiple dhammas -- one at a time -- and understand what they *add up to* in the course of the stream. > =============== J: Yes, I believe that advanced panna can understand much more about its object than simply its characteristic. > =============== > RE: You have said many times that the understanding of dhammas is not meant to translate concepts into multiple paramatha dhammas in order to understand them better, since they are not realities, but it must be that there are some 'multiple-dhamma' realities, in the accumulation of single dhammas that relate to the same intention, or repeated similar intention or physical events, such as in kamma patha, which do actually take place and need to be understood by those with insight into them, otherwise the role of cetana, rupas and other dhammas in leading from various types of conditions to their outcomes would not be understood. And agreed - whatever is known in this way would have to be known one dhamma at a time. > =============== J: Yes, always one dhamma at a time! No need to think about trying to understand things on a broader scale. However, it takes confidence in the teachings to hold this line and not be side-tracked into other areas of perceived significance :-)) Jon #128989 From: "jonoabb" > Nope...I am right with your there... > =============== J: Good of you to agree, especially as I suspect you are not very familiar with the Theravadin texts. > =============== TH: ... although I am not averse to the teachings in the Pali Cannon being embelished somewhat and elaborated upon. I think the Prasangika stance is extremely hard for some to understand, specifically the Two Truths, I suspect he might have left this for the likes of Nargajuna to deal with. > > As you were.... hehehe! > =============== J: OK, you've managed to get in your bit of Mahayana; now it's my turn to give the Theravadin take :-)) Regarding, "I am not averse to the teachings in the Pali Cannon being embelished somewhat and elaborated upon", that is not an advisable approach in my view (although it is certainly a common approach nowadays). Given who we are and where we're at, it's likely to be wrong view that motivates the inclination to embellish And if one is going to embellish, one should at least understand the Pali Canon position correctly before doing so. Most folks cannot be bothered with the careful study that this involves. Regarding the Two Truths, there is no such classification in the Pali Canon, so I can't comment on that. However, do feel free to briefly summarise their import if you'd like to discuss. Jon #128990 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:16 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok with A.Sujin. Brief notes 8 sprlrt Hi Sarah, (all), Thanks for the correction, on tadanga I've found this, from The Udaana commentary, Vol. 1, Enlightment chapter, p. 57, PTS. Alberto > 66. ... > Vipassana nanas are [tadanga] too. Not jhana, because it doesn't have reality as > object. *************** That which is abandoning [pahaana.m], being liberated [vimuccana.m], by way of being liberated, through this and that limb [tada"nga] of the good qualities [gu"nangehi], such as generosity where merit-offering [deyyadhammapariccaagaadiihi, relinquishing (the self) by giving] are concerned and so on, and through (this and that) limb of vipassanaa [vipassana"ngehi], such as the delimitation of name-and-form [naamaruupaparicchedaadiihi, first vipassanaa ~naana] and so forth, from those thing that are opposed to these, is, so long as there occurs no regression [aparihaanivasena] thereof, known as "liberation through the limb therefor" (tada"ngavimutti) - that is to say being liberated, through giving [daanena], from selfishness, greed and so on [macchariyalobhaadito]; through morality [siilena], from destroying living beings and so forth; [i.e. the first two paramis] [being liberated,] through investigating name-and-form [first vipassana stage], from (wrong) view of body reified [sakkayadi.t.thi, view of oneself as self]; through grasping conditions [paccayaparigghahena, second stage of vipassanaa] , from the (wrong) view of non-causality and random causality [hetuvisamahetudi.t.thiihi]; (and) at a later stage in same, through crossing over doubt [ka"nkhaavitara.nena], from the state of indulging in inquisitive talk [katha.mkathiibhaavato]; [being liberated,] through comprehending groups [kalaapasammasanena, third stage of vipassanaa], from the grip of "I" and "mine"; through investigating that which is the path and that which is not the path, from the perception of the path in that which is not the path; through vision of rise [udayadassanena], from the (wrong) view of annihilation [ucchedadi.t.thiyaa]; through vision of fall [vayadassanena], from the (wrong) view of ethernalism [sassatadi.t.thiyaa]; [being liberated,] through vision of fear [bhayadassanena], from the perception of safety [abhayasa~n~naaya] in that which is fearful; through vision of the peril [aadiinavadassanena] (therein), from the perception of sweet taste [assaadasa~n~naaya] (of sense-pleasures); through contemplation of aversion [nibbidaanupassana, disenchantment], from the perception of delight [abhiratisa~n~naaya]; [being liberated,] through knowledge of the desire to be delivered [muccitukamyataa~naa.nena], from the desire not to be delivered [amuccitukamyataaya]; through knowledge of equanimity [upekkhaa~naa.nena], from the absence of equanimity; through adaptation (anuloma), from the state of antipathy (pa.tiloma) where the relationship of dhammas [dhamma.t.thitiya.m] and nibbaana are concerned; [being liberated,] through change of lineage [gotrabhunaa, last (lokiya) vipassana ~naa.na before lokuttara magga], from the state in which there is sign of formations [sa"nkhaaranimittabhaavato]; ***************** #128991 From: "sarah" > Hi Sarah, (all), > > Thanks for the correction, on tadanga I've found this, from The Udaana commentary, Vol. 1, Enlightment chapter, p. 57, PTS. > > Alberto > > > 66. ... > > Vipassana nanas are [tadanga] too. Not jhana, because it doesn't have reality as > > object. > > > *************** > > That which is abandoning [pahaana.m], being liberated [vimuccana.m], <...> ====== #128992 From: "Tony H" >A:Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. There is no Keyboard that has characteristics. It cannot be found anywhere, ever. 'Keyboard' refers to a concept, an appearance to mind in dependance. 'Keyboard' is a mere name or label attributed to the appearance to our mind. 'Keyboard' can not be found in its parts, externally from its parts nor in the collection of its parts. The transitory collection is a collection of 'not keboard' therefore its illogical to say that a collection of not keyboards is a keyboard. Typing ois one of the functions of the keyboard that can never ever be found. :-) Tony... #128993 From: "Lukas" > >A:Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. > > There is no Keyboard that has characteristics. It cannot be found anywhere, ever. > > 'Keyboard' refers to a concept, an appearance to mind in dependance. > > 'Keyboard' is a mere name or label attributed to the appearance to our mind. > > 'Keyboard' can not be found in its parts, externally from its parts nor in the collection of its parts. > > The transitory collection is a collection of 'not keboard' therefore its illogical to say that a collection of not keyboards is a keyboard. > > Typing ois one of the functions of the keyboard that can never ever be found. :-) > > Tony... > #128994 From: Nina van Gorkom > Hi Tony > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > Nope...I am right with your there... > > =============== > > J: Good of you to agree, especially as I suspect you are not very familiar with the Theravadin texts. > > > =============== > TH: ... although I am not averse to the teachings in the Pali Cannon being embelished somewhat and elaborated upon. I think the Prasangika stance is extremely hard for some to understand, specifically the Two Truths, I suspect he might have left this for the likes of Nargajuna to deal with. > > > > As you were.... hehehe! > > =============== > > J: OK, you've managed to get in your bit of Mahayana; now it's my turn to give the Theravadin take :-)) > > Regarding, "I am not averse to the teachings in the Pali Cannon being embelished somewhat and elaborated upon", that is not an advisable approach in my view (although it is certainly a common approach nowadays). Given who we are and where we're at, it's likely to be wrong view that motivates the inclination to embellish > > And if one is going to embellish, one should at least understand the Pali Canon position correctly before doing so. Most folks cannot be bothered with the careful study that this involves. > > Regarding the Two Truths, there is no such classification in the Pali Canon, so I can't comment on that. However, do feel free to briefly summarise their import if you'd like to discuss. > > Jon > AdChoices #128996 From: "Robert E" > > > > > Rob E, > > Fear of old age, illness, death and separation from the loved one cannot be appreciated by people today without the arising of greed for escape to some other happy state. Modern Buddhism is built on that that's why it (centred on the "meditation" industry) has become a feelgood factory. I don't happen to think that is true. There are quite a few people I know, in addition to the many I hear about, who are not glib, new-agey, pleasure seekers, but are just following the path as best they can, as are we all. I just don't think it's as extreme as you do, though I take the point that *everyone* is going to try to pursue escape through clinging to objects of pleasure, and avoid pain. That's the human condition. > Even people who understand the subtlety of Dhamma (just how very very deep it is) are not immune to feelgood mental habits. Of course not. > Keep listening to A. Sujin ( if you ever actually have.) Yes, I have, and I enjoy her talks very much. I have commented on how direct [and sometimes 'zen' in her conciseness and directness] she is. > Something may click. Understanding of the present reality (e.g visible object) that develops really really really gradually without control by ( overtly or subtly) greedy and fearful self-rooted > interests is the only beginning to a way out, but is it is foregone by greedy cittas seeking feelgood results. I think it is probably a mistake to judge whether someone has any sense of this reality based on their expressed ideas that you think are off course. I guess it depends on what kind of ideas they are. Maybe that will click. Rob K seems to think you have understanding, so I assume there is a chance it might click with you. I appreciate the thought. It's probably good for both of us not to assume who or what the other person is in terms of the path. Maybe Rob K. is a little less invested in judging either of us and can take what is said at face value. > p.s consider this arrogant intercession over and done with. I don't consider it all that arrogant. I get the feeling that you were genuinely trying to be helpful. That is appreciated. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128997 From: "azita" > Tonny, but keys exist in real, they are real. They are dhammas. Each one performs its specific function has its own characteristic. > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > > >A:Keyboard exists and it has its own characteristics. > > > > There is no Keyboard that has characteristics. It cannot be found anywhere, ever. > > > > 'Keyboard' refers to a concept, an appearance to mind in dependance. > > > > 'Keyboard' is a mere name or label attributed to the appearance to our mind. > > > > 'Keyboard' can not be found in its parts, externally from its parts nor in the collection of its parts. > > > > The transitory collection is a collection of 'not keboard' therefore its illogical to say that a collection of not keyboards is a keyboard. > > > > Typing ois one of the functions of the keyboard that can never ever be found. :-) > > > > Tony... > > > #128999 From: "Lukas" mmmm! keys don't exist in reality. Can you explain what you mean here please? Sounds like you are making a joke!! L: In Computer Science Keybord is Input/Output device. This is very abstract device. If u ask kids keybord functionality is to input letters to the computer. Some kids tell u it's for writing a letter. If u ask the same question to an engineer, he will tell u that keybord is just input output device. It doesnt know anything about writing a letter. It simply uses a basic functionalities. It is made up of keys. When u press any than each key generates an electrical impulse or signal. Each key has diggerent genereted signal. Than the microprocesor can differentiate a, from b signal. Afterwards there is a software in Operating System that can translate this signals in a tabel called ASCII. Than it know a different letters and functional keys. We think of keybord, but from the level of opperating system it doent know anything of keybord, it just nows different electronic characteristics that appears to it, so it can interpret it as letters. For Operating system this is only that it knows. So if we think of dhammas and concepts. Dhammas are like this basic signals from pressing a key, and keybord is just conventional term a concept. Only because of different characteristic we talk of keybord, but keybord does not exist in reality, at least not for Operating System. Pressing a key, it has its characteristc of particular electric signal, it has its manifestatnion as particular letter on a screen, it's has its function as different signals. It has its proximate cause, and its pressing particular key. Because of this basic operations(dhammas), comes a concept of keybord that can write and perform different tasks. Concept is not real it doesnt exist in reality. Best wishes Lukas