#129000 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: reminder. szmicio Thank u Nina for reminder. >Even > when there is unpleasant feeling, it is just a moment. It has arisen, > and if it does not arise it cannot be here right now. L: I suffer a lot,while a thought to have a drink comes. I have this feeling in my chest and body that strucks me down. I go out for a walk and shaking, fighting against not to drink. This is not good, not good. It's like walking on the line in the air and being balanced by strong winds. I didnt fall yet and i dont know when it happens, but I am sure I will fall, sooner or later. Than I ask myself, why to prolong this suffering? Best wishes Lukas #129001 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 8:57 pm Subject: Re: reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Lukas > L: I suffer a lot,while a thought to have a drink comes. I have this feeling in my chest and body that strucks me down. I go out for a walk and shaking, fighting against not to drink. This is not good, not good. JJ: But refraining from it is good, this patience is good. Body suffering is body suffering: it is not mind suffering. Patience (Khanti) is burning craving to drinking. ================== > It's like walking on the line in the air and being balanced by strong winds. I didnt fall yet and i dont know when it happens, but I am sure I will fall, sooner or later. Then I ask myself, why to prolong this suffering? JJ: Very good imagination. I can get the picture. I remember Wojtech once said " Sorry!! your problem is not real". Why's that? What is real then? Vipaka, Kusala, Akusala, Kiriya. Plus accumulation +++++ Then you can answer yourself why to prolong this suffering? Than Acharn Sujin once said if there is no suffering how can one exercise khanti perfection? Little by little but never stop. I'm by your side in this test of khanti perfection. Anumodhana Jagkrit #129002 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: A chat with friend. szmicio Dear friends, Here is a chat with Lukas, my bestfriend who I grow up with. He went out prison after 3 years there. This was his 3rd stay in prison untill now. He is 23 years old now. We had quite interesting conversation. He dont speak english. I translate this. Lukas23: How are you feeling now, bro? Are you better now? me: yes, better. Lukas23: that's good...but it's something wrong with us..that we have like this..we wake up early morning...and we regret yesterday day, even if nothing would have happened that day. me: Yeap, I have like this for sure. Such kind of accumulations. Lukas23: Exactly! and the fear of tomorrow..not to drink and take anything and not to do anything bad and round and round the same kinds of thoughts. Fu.. How to get rid of this? How to get rid of this? Best wishes Lukas #129003 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:04 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards tony.humphreys There are no keys other than what appears to your mind. They are no more real than a rainbow that appears to have form, distance, colour etc...it appears to your mind but upon investigation is utterly unfindable. Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > 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... > > > #129004 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:07 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards szmicio Hi Tonny, > There are no keys other than what appears to your mind. They are no more real than a rainbow that appears to have form, distance, colour etc...it appears to your mind but upon investigation is utterly unfindable. L: The rainbow must have conditions to arise. Without little drops of water in the air, and light it could never appear. Best wishes Lukas #129005 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Phenomena (to recap) tony.humphreys To clarify keyboards and all other phenomena (the way I see it of course) :) First of all forgive my lack of Pali terms...I was as you know weaned in Tibetan Schools and will spare you any Sanskrit or Tibetan. There are no Dhammas that are not infinitely reduceable. There are no 'real' phenomena out there to be met with any sense conciousness. This implies a dichotomy between object and subject and by implication a duality. This is incorrect. All phenomena are utterly empty of any inherent existence other than what appears to the mind. They cannot ever be found to be anything other than mere names. This is also applicable to that which we call 'mind'. Whenther a happy mind or a sad mind, an active mind or a dull mind. Mind is a collection of thoughts that gives the impression of a singularity. We label this appearance 'mind'. Mind has no more existance than anything else. Conventionally Mind, Keyboard etc exist and function as such. Ultimately they have no real independent existence and are imputations of mind in dependence on a valid basis of imputation. All phenomena is illusory and mere name. This can be proven through investigation. Pick anything and try to identify it without speaking of its aggregates. Where is the 'object possessor'. A tree has, branches, leaves, shape....literally, the tress branches, the trees leaves the trees shape the trees name...... where is the thing 'tree' that has all of theses attributes? The answer is it does not exist. #129006 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:21 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) szmicio Hi Tonny, > This can be proven through investigation. L: What is that method of investigation? Best wishes Lukas #129007 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) tony.humphreys Hi, 1) Pick any object in your field of vision (for example) now. 2) Describe it. (you will be describing its 'parts'. 3) No identify the thing that hs these parts. The parts possessor if you like. 4) As this is unfindable you'll likely conclude that the 'thing' is a collection of its parts. This too is incorrect as the logic doesn't follow for many reasons, one of which being that a collection of parts is not what appears to our mind - a single thing appears to our mind. This is just what it says, merely an appearance to mind in dependence upon certain dependent related phenomena. 5) If we conclude that the thing cannot be found in its parts nor does it exist outside of its parts then logically it does not exist. It only appears to exist and is therefore illusory and merely an appearance to mind. Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Tonny, > > > This can be proven through investigation. > > L: What is that method of investigation? > > Best wishes > Lukas > #129008 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice ptaus1 Hi Alberto, Sarah and KC, > We may think a lot about dhammas, but what do we actually know about them? Thanks for your kind replies, I appreciate it. Best wishes pt #129009 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Feb 1, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) ptaus1 Hi Tony, > There are no Dhammas that are not infinitely reduceable. > > There are no 'real' phenomena out there to be met with any sense conciousness. This implies a dichotomy between object and subject and by implication a duality. This is incorrect. > > All phenomena are utterly empty of any inherent existence other than what appears to the mind. They cannot ever be found to be anything other than mere names. As far as I managed to gather so far, theravada explains all that somewhat differently (well, at least what's nowadays called classical theravada) - there is a difference between concepts and dhammas, where concepts are basically just names or illusory, whereas dhammas are actually really real, even though they are also anatta (empty). So dhammas would not be called just an illusion, or just a name, or reducible, etc. I suspect the difference of importance is that concepts (such as cars and keyboards) can only be thought about, whereas a dhamma can be an object of wisdom (pa~n~na) and such a moment would be, in fact, insight (vipassana). Anyway, sorry I don't have time to go into this further, but if you haven't discovered already, there is a file called "Useful Posts" here, which is a collection of links to posts on certain topics discussed over the years. For example, on the difference between concepts and dhammas, there's a topic called: "Concepts4 (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammas)". On dhammas being real and not abstractions, there is for example the topic: "Dhamma2 -realities, only dhammas", etc. The file itself is located in the Files section - when you sign in on dsg yahoo homepage, there will be a menu in the left corner, Files will be one of the links, and when you click on Files, the Useful Posts file will be one of the files in the list that you get. This is a direct link to the file, but you will have to be signed in Yahoo in order to access it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm Best wishes pt #129010 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: reminder. tambach  Dear Lukas, L: I suffer a lot,while a thought to have a drink comes. I have this feeling in my chest and body that strucks me down. I go out for a walk and shaking, fighting against not to drink. This is not good, not good. Tam B:  Good, Lukas, feeling is real, it can be understood. It is not you, no one. dhamma is your teacher now :-) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L: It's like walking on the line in the air and being balanced by strong winds. I didnt fall yet and i dont know when it happens, but I am sure I will fall, sooner or later. Tam B: Thinking a long story and taking it for real! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L: Than I ask myself, why to prolong this suffering? Tam B: Doesn't suffering arises and falls away? Who or what prolong it? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Best wishes Lukas With metta, Tam Ps: We love reading your posts  on paramatha dhammas and paccaya on DSG.  Aren't they not now ? :-) #129011 From: "Tony H" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 12:16 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) tony.humphreys Thanks, I'll look at the link. The view I hold, and I think its perfectly demonstrable is that there is no such thing as 'form' as such (that'll set the cat amongst the pigeons). As soon as we see/hear etc something we can then start to reduce the phenomena to its parts. Then the parts have parts...ad nauseam! Ultimately whatever appears to our minds is just that, an appearance dependent upon its parts for us to sucessfully impute 'name' upon what appears. Other than that there is nothing out there... No atoms, no protons. "...No Form, No Feeling..." and so on. Tony.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > As far as I managed to gather so far, theravada explains all that somewhat differently (well, at least what's nowadays called classical theravada) - there is a difference between concepts and dhammas, where concepts are basically just names or illusory, whereas dhammas are actually really real, even though they are also anatta (empty). So dhammas would not be called just an illusion, or just a name, or reducible, etc. > > I suspect the difference of importance is that concepts (such as cars and keyboards) can only be thought about, whereas a dhamma can be an object of wisdom (pa~n~na) and such a moment would be, in fact, insight (vipassana). > > Anyway, sorry I don't have time to go into this further, but if you haven't discovered already, there is a file called "Useful Posts" here, which is a collection of links to posts on certain topics discussed over the years. For example, on the difference between concepts and dhammas, there's a topic called: > "Concepts4 (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammas)". On dhammas being real and not abstractions, there is for example the topic: > "Dhamma2 -realities, only dhammas", etc. > > The file itself is located in the Files section - when you sign in on dsg yahoo homepage, there will be a menu in the left corner, Files will be one of the links, and when you click on Files, the Useful Posts file will be one of the files in the list that you get. This is a direct link to the file, but you will have to be signed in Yahoo in order to access it: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm > > > Best wishes > pt > #129012 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 12:32 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) ptaus1 Hi Tony > As soon as we see/hear etc something we can then start to reduce the phenomena to its parts. I think in theravada terms it could be said that the second bit "we can then start to reduce..." is just thinking, not insight, the difference being that insight liberates, while thinking doesn't, even though thinking can be an object of insight. So, then the interesting bit is the first one - what is "seeing/hearing something" - is it any different than just thinking? What part does thinking play in it? etc. Best wishes pt #129013 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 12:54 am Subject: Re: reminder. szmicio Thank you for reminder, Tam. Helpful. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > >  > > Dear Lukas, > > L: I suffer a lot,while a thought to have a drink comes. I have this feeling in my chest and body that strucks me down. I go out for a walk and shaking, fighting against not to drink. This is not good, not good. > Tam B:  Good, Lukas, feeling is real, it can be understood. It is not you, no one. dhamma is your teacher now :-) > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > L: It's like walking on the line in the air and being balanced by strong winds. I didnt fall yet and i dont know when it happens, but I am sure I will fall, sooner or later. > Tam B: Thinking a long story and taking it for real! > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > L: Than I ask myself, why to prolong this suffering? > Tam B: Doesn't suffering arises and falls away? Who or what prolong it? > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > Best wishes > Lukas > > > With metta, > Tam > Ps: We love reading your posts  on paramatha dhammas and paccaya on DSG.  Aren't they not now ? :-) > > > > #129014 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 1:00 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) truth_aerator Dear Tony, all, Few things: Whole/Parts is itself an arbitrary conceptual division. There is no such absolute thing as "whole" or "part". Example: We can say that a tree is a whole compared to its parts (leaves, branches, bark, roots, etc). But a tree can also be a part of an ecosystem. So what is it? Is it a part or is it whole? Same thing with many many things. >T:5)If we conclude that the thing cannot be found in its parts nor >does it exist outside of its parts then logically it does not exist. >It only appears to exist and is therefore illusory and merely an >appearance to mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water (liquid) is neither hydrogen (gas) nor oxygen (gas). Yet, the water molecule (H20) is made from them... There is such thing as "emergent property". With best wishes, Alex #129015 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 5:59 am Subject: Reminder. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn: When we listen more there will be more understanding of seeing.There is no other world, no one there. There must be that which sees and that which is seen, only that. Cittas arise just one at a time, there is no hearing, no sound, no idea of the object that is seen and no thinking. If nothing arises at all there is no world. Whatever arises, even just one reality, that is the world. It is the arising and falling away of different realities. The meaning of arising and falling away is: it never comes back. No one is there, only different cittas, different cetasikas, different realities. Understanding is not developed by anyone. It is developed by listening, considering; no one can do anything because there is no self. A moment of understanding is like a drop of water in the ocean of ignorance. ****** Nina. #129016 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 7:48 am Subject: Re: reminder. colette_aube Hi Nina, > Nina: Right understanding is so weak. colette: interesting concept and application. I've have not taken a PHYSICS course but I know that GRAVITY is extremely weak. For instance I or you, can pick up a pen or pencil, pick up an ice cube, pick up a blade of grass, etc, and this action is directly because of the WEAKNESS OF GRAVITY. And yet without GRAVITY the planets would not be able to stay in an orbit around the sun, we would not exist. Yea, in a sense of the concept, "Right understanding is so weak". If a practitioner did not and could not achieve a form of RIGHT UNDERSTANDING they could not rise to the lofty heights of rarified air, they'd really have trouble MEDITATING. IN FACT, there are a lot of "obscurations" interupting or blocking their ability to MEDITATE. An average person living a normal life in the "9 - 5 world" would be faced with a daunting task to DENY the REALITY that they are IMMERSED in because of the "routine" of having to conform to the edicts of society. For yeas I have a close friend who has a lot of "difficulties" in her and because of her "9 - 5 reality", where I recognized instantly that YOGA and MEDITATION are the perfect prescription to deal with and potentially solve these "difficulties". "People listening without hearing" Simon and Garfunkel, I repeated my suggestion of taking a YOGA class or even practicing on her own, at home yet I became so exasperated by her INABILITY to begin to attempt to practice that I just stopped reminding her of the benefits that YOGA and MEDITATION can bring to her life. After thinking about your "simple" truth I believe that even if she did attempt, at home, YOGA, I believe that she would become agitated at the dull practice where she would THEN build more reasons to NOT PRACTICE. Thank you for the talk. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Acharn:Think of yesterday. Where were you yesterday? And think of > this morning, where were you? There is no one at all, just this > moment. We have to be very courageous to know that this is true. Even > when there is unpleasant feeling, it is just a moment. It has arisen, > and if it does not arise it cannot be here right now. > Nina: Right understanding is so weak. > Acharn: Yes, because of the self, because of you. But when it is not > you it is only the nature of an element. So, we do not mind how many > lives will come because we cannot force the ending of the cycle > without conditions. It has to be like this. But pa~n~naa develops and > develops. That is why the Buddha taught us the Jatakas, his previous > lives as a Bodhisatta. Each reality has gone, sound, sight, nothing > is left. Is one attached to someone in one's thoughts? But actually > it is only seeing, thinking, visible object. > > ****** > Nina. > #129017 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 11:41 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) kenhowardau Hi Tony, As Jon has said, even though this is a Theravada group you are welcome to outline your understanding of the Mahayana teaching. I see you have done that, and I would just like to say I approve of this open, honest way of discussion. All too often people in Theravada groups put forward Mahayana (mainly Tibetan and Zen) ideas and claim they are consistent with the Theravada texts. They clearly are not consistent, and yet we must play silly games in which our texts are twisted and distorted in an effort to make them consistent with the Mahayana. ---- T: There are no Dhammas that are not infinitely reduceable. ---- KH: Thank you for telling us that. There are irreducible dhammas in the Theravada teaching, but not in the Mahayana. --------- T: There are no 'real' phenomena out there to be met with any sense conciousness. This implies a dichotomy between object and subject and by implication a duality. This is incorrect ------ KH: Clearly there is a denial of duality in the Mahayana, but in the Theravada teaching there is no such denial: instead, it is clearly stated that there are dhammas (namas) that experience objects, and other dhammas (rupas) that do not experience anything. ------------------- T: All phenomena are utterly empty of any inherent existence other than what appears to the mind. They cannot ever be found to be anything other than mere names. ------------------- KH: In Theravada all phenomena are utterly empty of self (atta). This emptiness is not just an observation or an idea, it is an inherent characteristic of absolutely real phenomena. -------------- T: This is also applicable to that which we call 'mind'. Whenther a happy mind or a sad mind, an active mind or a dull mind. Mind is a collection of thoughts that gives the impression of a singularity. We label this appearance 'mind'. Mind has no more existance than anything else. --------------- KH: Again, it is good to compare two utterly different teachings without having to pretend they are somehow the same. ---------------- > T: All phenomena is illusory and mere name. ---------------- KH: And so, by that reasoning, there is nothing that is anatta – by that reasoning anatta is just as illusory as anything else. In my opinion Nagarjuna and his followers have denied the entire point of the Buddha's teaching. Whereas the Buddha wanted to replace wrong view with right view, Nagarjuna wanted to replace right view with wrong view. To do this he had to deny the ultimate existence of nama and rupa (that bore the anatta characteristic) and thereby deny the inescapable reality of anatta. That was his privilege. I am just saying that his teaching and the ancient Theravada teaching are completely and utterly different. Ken H #129018 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: reminder. nilovg Dear Colette, No yoga but right understanding of the present reality. This is a good reminder you give: listening without hearing. actually, it can happen often that we just listen to recordings but not really consider thoroughly what we hear. We are passive listeners. Only listening and truly considering what we hear can condition right understanding. So often we hear: there is seeing now, but is there any understanding of the reality that just experiences visible object? It has a characteristic and it can be realized without having to think about it. It is very close, just now. Nina. Op 1-feb-2013, om 21:48 heeft colette_aube het volgende geschreven: > For yeas I have a close friend who has a lot of "difficulties" in > her and because of her "9 - 5 reality", where I recognized > instantly that YOGA and MEDITATION are the perfect prescription to > deal with and potentially solve these "difficulties". "People > listening without hearing" Simon and Garfunkel, I repeated my > suggestion of taking a YOGA class or even practicing on her own, #129019 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: A chat with friend. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & Lukas23, I'm sure it's very difficult for Lukas23 to come out of prison and not to drink or do anything bad. There are bound to be a lot of fears and worries too. As we know, only an anagami (the one who has no more attachment to sense objects) has no more fear or worries. It helps a lot to discuss and understand the Dhamma, to know that all the problems in life arise in the mind - they are just the kinds of thinking with ignorance, attachment and aversion. No one can get rid of these unwholesome ways of thinking because there is no One, no Person in reality. There are just moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, followed by useful or useless ways of thinings. What are useful ways of thinking, you may ask? When there is concern and care for other people's welfare instead of our own for a change, when there is some generosity or kind help, when there is avoiding drink, telling lies or stealing, when there is a little understanding of the present realities, these are all beneficial ways of thinking and acting. When we are so concerned with ourselves, our own problems and our own wishes, we forget all about what is beneficial in this very precious life. Life just exists for a moment - don't waste the opportunity to develop more understanding and goodness! Finally, you have many, many good Buddhist friends, like here! As you're both having a difficult time, you also need the assistance of a supportive community, such as the one that Lukas was staying at before his trip to Thailand. Both of you, get the help and support you need now before anything happens which you will regret. It shows courage to receive help. To think it's not necessary because one has some understanding of the Dhamma is an "I am anatta" approach. Pls don't delay! Metta and very best wishes to you both. Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear friends, > Here is a chat with Lukas, my bestfriend who I grow up with. He went out prison after 3 years there. This was his 3rd stay in prison untill now. He is 23 years old now. We had quite interesting conversation. He dont speak english. I translate this. > > > Lukas23: How are you feeling now, bro? Are you better now? > me: yes, better. > Lukas23: that's good...but it's something wrong with us..that we have like this..we wake up early morning...and we regret yesterday day, even if nothing would have happened that day. > me: Yeap, I have like this for sure. Such kind of accumulations. > Lukas23: Exactly! and the fear of tomorrow..not to drink and take anything and not to do anything bad and round and round the same kinds of thoughts. Fu.. How to get rid of this? > > How to get rid of this? ===== #129020 From: "azita" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 6:23 pm Subject: Re: A chat with friend. gazita2002 Hallo Lucas, You ask how to get rid of fear,how to get rid of anxiety about tomorrow, regret about yesterday? I think this is what you mean when you ask "how to get rid of this"? In between the fear and thinking about all these things, isnt there seeing and hearing and objects of sense doors? There is only this present reality appearing now and yet we all rush off somewhere else - remember Ajhan talking about thinking/vitakka always going away from the object that has arisen. Dont get lost in the objects of thinking, they are mostly all concepts. Easy to write like this but sooooo difficult to 'allow' the realities to present themselves to citta. Best wishes my young friend, may you be strong [depending on conditions :) ] patience, courage and good cheer azita > Dear friends, > Here is a chat with Lukas, my bestfriend who I grow up with. He went out prison after 3 years there. This was his 3rd stay in prison untill now. He is 23 years old now. We had quite interesting conversation. He dont speak english. I translate this. > > > Lukas23: How are you feeling now, bro? Are you better now? > me: yes, better. > Lukas23: that's good...but it's something wrong with us..that we have like this..we wake up early morning...and we regret yesterday day, even if nothing would have happened that day. > me: Yeap, I have like this for sure. Such kind of accumulations. > Lukas23: Exactly! and the fear of tomorrow..not to drink and take anything and not to do anything bad and round and round the same kinds of thoughts. Fu.. How to get rid of this? > > How to get rid of this? > > Best wishes > Lukas > #129021 From: "Christine" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 8:24 pm Subject: An unfiltered look at Burma christine_fo... Hello all, I thought this might be of interest: From Japan – an unfiltered look at Burma Yuzo Uda, a photojournalist from Japan, has spent more than two decades documenting the daily lives of people in Burma. (Photo: JPaing / The Irrawaddy) http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/24855#.UQzAd7DGPj4.facebook Photos http://www.uzo.net/photo_e/photo.htm with metta Chris #129022 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) jonoabb Hi Tony (and Lukas) (129007) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > Hi, > > 1) Pick any object in your field of vision (for example) now. > =============== J: By 'object' do you mean an object/item such as computer monitor or keyboard? I think the (Theravadin) texts do not support this kind of approach. When the Buddha spoke about the object of seeing consciousness (Pali: rupa, vanna, etc.; English: visible object), he was speaking about mere visible data and not the individual objects/items that are identified (by thinking, memory, etc.) out of that data; just as for the ear door 'sound' (sadda) refers to the audible data experienced by hearing consciousness and not individual words as seem to be heard. It is explained in the Pali Canon that for every moment of visible object that is experienced by seeing consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) there are multiple moments of (mind-door) consciousness that think about the visible object just experienced and, by giving attention to the 'shape and form' of the visible object, ascribe it meaning in terms of the conventional world of people and things. In the Pali Canon, it is the dhamma known as visible object that is to be understood, rather than conventional objects/items such as monitors and keyboards. To my understanding, that visible object is more like the 'field of vision' than a conventional object/item within that field. If my understanding is correct, then the reasoning behind your conclusion of visible object (and, I presume, all dhammas) as "illusory and merely an appearance to mind" does not hold. Jon > 2) Describe it. (you will be describing its 'parts'. > > 3) No identify the thing that hs these parts. The parts possessor if you like. > > 4) As this is unfindable ... > > 5) If we conclude that the thing cannot be found in its parts nor does it exist outside of its parts then logically it does not exist. It only appears to exist and is therefore illusory and merely an appearance to mind. > > Tony... #129023 From: "philip" Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Re: A chat with friend. philofillet Hi Lukas If your friend has understanding of Dhamma (thanks to your friendship) he will understand that accumukatiins of bad deeds are real, and un most circumstances nothing will change them. Armed with that valuable understabding, he can approach various coventional treatments, counsellings etc. That way there is a chance that he will get benefits from those conventional treatments while understanding that tgey probably won't eradicate the doing of those bad deeds. Only panna can eraducate them and nobody can gain panna quickly. But a little bit of panna is more valuable than a lot of striving to be a "good person" when accumulations are to do bad deeds. I think having panna about the anataness and yncontrollability of deeds is more valuable than being a "good person" without panna. And pribably there will be less doing of bad deds if there is patience to let panna gradually (very very gradually) work its way. Wishing the best to Lukas 123 and Lukas u 2. phil #129024 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 12:11 am Subject: Re: reminder. upasaka_howard Hi, Colette (and Nina) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > > Nina: Right understanding is so weak. > > > colette: interesting concept and application. > > I've have not taken a PHYSICS course but I know that GRAVITY is extremely weak. For instance I or you, can pick up a pen or pencil, pick up an ice cube, pick up a blade of grass, etc, and this action is directly because of the WEAKNESS OF GRAVITY. And yet without GRAVITY the planets would not be able to stay in an orbit around the sun, we would not exist. > > Yea, in a sense of the concept, "Right understanding is so weak". If a practitioner did not and could not achieve a form of RIGHT UNDERSTANDING they could not rise to the lofty heights of rarified air, they'd really have trouble MEDITATING. > > IN FACT, there are a lot of "obscurations" interupting or blocking their ability to MEDITATE. An average person living a normal life in the "9 - 5 world" would be faced with a daunting task to DENY the REALITY that they are IMMERSED in because of the "routine" of having to conform to the edicts of society. For yeas I have a close friend who has a lot of "difficulties" in her and because of her "9 - 5 reality", where I recognized instantly that YOGA and MEDITATION are the perfect prescription to deal with and potentially solve these "difficulties". "People listening without hearing" Simon and Garfunkel, I repeated my suggestion of taking a YOGA class or even practicing on her own, at home yet I became so exasperated by her INABILITY to begin to attempt to practice that I just stopped reminding her of the benefits that YOGA and MEDITATION can bring to her life. > > After thinking about your "simple" truth I believe that even if she did attempt, at home, YOGA, I believe that she would become agitated at the dull practice where she would THEN build more reasons to NOT PRACTICE. > > Thank you for the talk. > > toodles, > colette ================================= Colette, I'd just like to mention to you that I found this post to be the clearest, well layed out, and most interesting of any I've read of yours. Very well done, IMHO!! Thank you! :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129025 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 7:45 am Subject: Re: reminder. kenhowardau Hi Colette (and Howard), --- <. . .> > C: If a practitioner did not and could not achieve a form of RIGHT UNDERSTANDING they could not rise to the lofty heights of rarified air, they'd really have trouble MEDITATING. --- KH: Imagine if you understood the world to be composed entirely of dhammas (fleeting, conditioned, impersonal phenomena). With that kind of understanding you wouldn't try to do anything. And that includes meditation. Right understanding of conditioned reality removes any reason to meditate – or to try to do anything. There are only dhammas, over which there is no control. Get used to it! :-) Ken H #129026 From: "philip" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 9:14 am Subject: Re: reminder. philofillet Hi Nina Thank you for posting a reminder from Ajahn Sujin: > Acharn:Each reality has gone, sound, sight, nothing > is left. Is one attached to someone in one's thoughts? But actually > it is only seeing, thinking, visible object. And mostly thinking thinking thinking. I have some intetest in whether being have existence but it is a peripheral topic, irrelevant to the core of Dhamma, it's just a topuc for idle speculation. Because we know that there can only be experience of dhammas (e.g seeing and visible object, and thinking about concepts, whether concepts of realities (seeing and visible object understood intellectually) or concept of "people." We cannot possibly know people except by thinking. We are never truly with our loved ones. Naomi is in Europe now, on business. (Happy for the story of how well she is doing.) But when she is sitting in a room next to me, I can only think about her, as I think about her now. We always live in dreams of people, that is the only way they xan be known. (Whether beings exist or not, another thing we can only think about, never prove through experience.) Thanks again. I would be very grateful if occasionally you could post reminders from Ajahn Sujin. I will do so as well. Phil #129027 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 8:56 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] An unfiltered look at Burma dhammasaro Good friend Chris, et al Sincere warm thanks for the update as I have several applicable friends both in Thailand and USA... peace... yours in the DEhamma-vinaya, ChuckTo: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: cjforsyth1@... undocumented Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:24:52 +0000 <...> I thought this might be of interest: From Japan – an unfiltered look at Burma Yuzo Uda, a photojournalist from Japan, has spent more than two decades documenting the daily lives of people in Burma. (Photo: JPaing / The Irrawaddy) <...> #129028 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 9:21 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Phenomena (to recap) dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al On: "That was his privilege. I am just saying that his teaching and the ancient Theravada teaching are completely and utterly different. Ken H"..........................................................Comment by Chuck: FWIW, I fully agree... IMHO, unfortunately, too, too many Indian (India Country) PhD Thai monks have been influenced by their Hindu & Mahayana professors. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, ChuckTo: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: kenhowardau@... Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:41:06 +0000 <..> As Jon has said, even though this is a Theravada group you are welcome to outline your understanding of the Mahayana teaching. I see you have done that, and I would just like to say I approve of this open, honest way of discussion. All too often people in Theravada groups put forward Mahayana (mainly Tibetan and Zen) ideas and claim they are consistent with the Theravada texts. They clearly are not consistent, and yet we must play silly games in which our texts are twisted and distorted in an effort to make them consistent with the Mahayana. ........... Some deletions by Chuck ............ That was his privilege. I am just saying that his teaching and the ancient Theravada teaching are completely and utterly different. <..> #129029 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] dhamma is everywhere dhammasaro Good friend Azita, et al On: Live for understanding, live for kusala, know the present moment with patience, courage and good cheer, Azita........................................................... FWIW, fully agree... Chuck................... Rest deleted by Chuck ............................. 129030 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 1:48 am Subject: Re: reminder. colette_aube Good Morning Howard, " Colette, I'd just like to mention to you that I found this post to be the clearest, well layed out, and most interesting of any I've read of yours. Very well done, IMHO!! Thank you! :-) > " colette: Thank you, I think. Coming from a colleague, a fellow comedian like yourself, giving ME a positive statement causes me to wonder (sheepish grin included) whether I should use Yosemite Sam's line "sufferin' suckatash" or Snagglepuss's line "Heaven's to mergatroid" or even to just go with Gomer Pyles saying "Shazam" so that those robots enslaved to LINEAR THOUGHT can "get the picture" the way THEY SHOULD. I've never been able to write "papers" good enough for those "numbers crunchers" that only live as though LIFE and LIVING were exactly the way that THE DIVINE BALANCE SHEET appears with all the little numbers lined up in nice neat columes and rows so that their infantile mental illness of MEGALOMANIA can be properly worshiped and glorified (see masturbation, self glorification) I, myself, was amazed just before I pushed "send", thinking "damn, did I write that, wow". I think it's a RESULTANT PHENOMENA from my heavy focus in MEDITATION that I've been working on these past months. Thanx for the compliment! (lets hope it doesn't happen again, right? It could be signs of a serious illness that I have.) toodles colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: <...> > Colette, I'd just like to mention to you that I found this post to be the clearest, well layed out, and most interesting of any I've read of yours. Very well done, IMHO!! Thank you! :-) <..> #129031 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes... sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: >A: Sarah, you are right that each word has to be considered carefully. > > >S:In this context and many others, sabbe dhamma does not refer to >nibbana, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: Right, so we have to be careful and not be hasty with interpretations of what is said. ... S: I take it that means you agreed with my comments for a change on the ayatanas in different contexts:) ... A: 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". ... S: Yes, this is why attanuditthi, wrong view of atta is much broader than sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). For example, when the hardness experienced is taken to be a keyboard or computer in reality, "some thing", it is attanuditthi, wrong belief in atta. Metta Sarah ===== #129032 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 884 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, I just traced old thread which has not been unsolved. The post was created by me but sent by U Han Tun by my humble request. ------------------------------ Note by Han Tun: Under c) 19 general beautiful mental factors, > it was listed 20 items and words were mixed up. > I could not confirm this with U Htoo Naing. > I have printed below the 19 general beautiful mental > factors taken from an Abhidhamma book. > > 1. saddhaa, faith, confidence > 2. sati, mindfulness > 3. hiri, moral shame > 4. ottappa, moral fear > 5. alobha, non-attachment > 6. adosa, non-aversion > 7. tatramajjhattataa, equanimity, mental balance > 8 kaaya-passaddhi, tranquility of mental concomitants > 9. citta-passaddhi, tranquility of consciousness > 10. kaaya-lahutaa, agility or lightness of mental > concomitants > 11. citta-lahutaa, agility or lightness of > consciousness > 12. kaaya-mudutaa, elasticity of mental concomitants > 13. citta-mudutaa, elasticity of consciousness > 14. kaaya-kammannataa, adaptability of mental > concomitants > 15. citta-kammannataa, adaptability of consciousness > 16. kaaya-pagunnataa, proficiency of mental > concomitants > 17. citta-pagunnataa, proficiency of consciousness > 18. kaayujjukataa, uprightness of mental concomitants > 19. cittujjukataa, uprightness of consciousness > > Here, kaaya does not mean `body'. > It refers to the `group' of mental concomitants. > ===================== Htoo: Thanks U Han Tun. There are 19 beautiful mental factors. I just repeat saddhaa. So it became 20. Saddha among 19 factors is like a general. I just made pair for easy-memorability. Htoo Naing #129033 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 887 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, > After kamma.t.thaana on samatha there left vipassanaa > to be discussed. > > This is a wide subject and it takes time to digest so > that dhamma really permeate and arise on its own in > reader with their true understanding. > > Even though all 40 kammatthanas are discussed they in > their respect are not conduce to vipassanaa naana or > vipassanaa knowledge. Because there is difference > between samatha and vipassanaa. > > As there is not much time, I will not touch vipassanaa > here under Dhamma Thread. But when I am back to action > at Yahoo or if I have access to send messages to > groups I will be trying to continue Dhamma Thread. > > This is the last Dhamma Thread before I resume Dhamma > Thread activities. I will note that the last number is > 887. So when I start vipassanaa I will start with > Dhamma Thread (888) which is easy to remember for me. > > If there is anything to ask or discuss my mail is > htoo.naing@... When writing please include the > heading of the message with Htoo-private so that I can > search easily. > > May you all be free from suffering. > With Unlimited Metta, > Htoo Naing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is a message that Dhamma Thread will be continued soon under the title of 'Vipassanaa'. Htoo Naing PS: Thanks U Han Tun for posting on behalf of me of my last 4 messages of Dhamma Thread. #129034 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:42 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Alex, (Tony & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Really? Through which door-way? > >A: The brain. ... S: We are discussing the Buddha's teachings about realities. The Buddha described 6 doorways only - not 6 doorways and a brain door-way. When there is an idea of "key-board" or "brain", it is just an idea thought about through the mind-door. That means that after touching hardness or seeing visible object, there are various mind-door processes with sanna (memory) and vitakka (thinking) accompanying the cittas which think about such concepts. ... > > >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: It's a concept only as Tony explained to you as well. In reality there is no "we", no "typing" and no "keyboard". These are ideas about what is experienced through various sense doors. If there were no seeing of visible object, no touching of hardness, no hearing of sound, there'd be no idea about any of these concepts. ... > > ... > > S: Is "keyboard" a nama or a rupa? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >A: Keyboard itself is rupa, the name and concept of it is nama. ... S: There are 28 rupas. Which one is keyboard? Concepts are not namas. Only cittas, cetasikas (and nibbana) are namas. Only paramattha dhammas. See Abhidhamattha Sangaha ch 1. If you can find any text to support any of your ideas above, I'll be glad to discuss it. .... > >A: 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: It seems that you're more interested in discussing common ideas about concepts than the Buddha's Teachings about realities and ultimate truths. ... > > >S:Did the Buddha list it amongst the 28 rupas > > Did Buddha teach the list of 28 rupas? ... S: Yes, the Buddha taught about all kinds of realities, including all kinds of rupas. ... > >S:Is it conditioned? Does it arise and fall away? > >A: 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. ... S: ! No more comments. Metta Sarah ===== #129035 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:47 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E and Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Jon) - > > > > > 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). > =============== J: Thanks for the reference, Howard. That sutta can be found in the Anthology (at No. 72, for those who don't have the complete AN translation) Or it could be "In Conjunction" (AN 4.170, Anthology No. 83). Jon #129036 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > 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? ... S: Yes. Dukkha dukkha refers to all mental and physical unpleasantness - unpleasant bodily experience and feeling, aversion and unpleasant mental feeling. This is the kind of dukkha everyone understands. It does not need a Buddha to tell us about this. There is a second kind of dukkha, viparinama dukkha, the dukkha of change. This refers to pleasant feeling which never lasts. There's always the wish to have more and more. The 1st NT refers to sankhara dukkha, the third kind of dukkha. This is the inherent dukkha of all conditioned realities due to their arising and falling away - the 5 khandhas subject to clinging. ... >R: 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. ... S: Yes, the cause of such dukkha is tanha (attachment), the only end to such dukkha is the eradication of attachment and the cessation of formations. The eightfold path, is the only way leading out. Thx for the good discussion Metta Sarah ==== #129037 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 6:14 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > 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." ... S: Just to elaborate, there are 2 kinds of sila (good conduct) as elaborated on here in the commentary to the Cariya Pitaka, transl by B.Bodhi: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m S: First of all, however, I'd like to give a quote from the same source which stresses the importance of right understanding in the development of (higher) virtue: "Furthermore, without wisdom there is no achievement of vision, and without the achievement of vision there can be no accomplishment in virtue. One lacking virtue and vision cannot achieve concentration, and without concentration one cannot even secure one's own welfare, much less the lofty goal of providing for the welfare of others. Therefore a bodhisattva, practising for the welfare of others, should admonish himself: "Have you made a thorough effort to purify your wisdom?" For it is by the spiritual power of wisdom that the Great Beings, established in the four foundations, benefit the world with the four bases of beneficence, help beings enter the path to emancipation, and bring their faculties to maturity." S: Now the two kinds of sila (virtue): "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). Herein, this is the method by which virtue as avoidance should be practised. A bodhisattva should have such a heart of sympathy for all beings that he does not feel any resentment towards anyone, even in a dream. Because he is dedicated to helping others, he would no more misappropriate the belongings of others than he would take hold of a poisonous watersnake. If he is a monk, he should live remote from unchastity, abstaining from the seven bonds of sexuality (A.iv,54-56), not to speak of adultery. If he is a householder, he should never arouse even an evil thought of lust for the wives of others. When he speaks, his statements should be truthful, beneficial, and endearing, and his talk measured, timely, and concerned with the Dhamma. His mind should always be devoid of covetousness, ill-will, and perverted views. He should possess the knowledge of the ownership of kamma and have settled faith and affection for recluses and brahmins who are faring and practising rightly." **** "The practice of virtue as performance should be understood as follows: Herein, at the appropriate time, a bodhisattva practises salutation, rising up, respectful greetings, and courteous conduct towards good friends worthy of reverence. At the appropriate time he renders them service, and he waits upon them when they are sick. When he receives well-spoken advice he expresses his appreciation. He praises the noble qualities of the virtuous and patiently endures the abuse of antagonists. He remembers help rendered to him by others, rejoices in their merits, dedicates his own merits to the supreme enlightenment, and always abides diligently in the practice of wholesome states. When he commits a transgression he acknowledges it as such and confesses it to his co-religionists. Afterwards he perfectly fulfils the right practice. He is adroit and nimble in fulfilling his duties towards beings when these are conducive to their good. He serves as their companion. When beings are afflicted with the suffering of disease, etc., he prepares the appropriate remedy. He dispels the sorrow of those afflicted by the loss of wealth, etc.- Of a helpful disposition, he restrains with Dhamma those who need to be restrained, rehabilitates them from unwholesome ways, and establishes them in wholesome courses of conduct. He inspires with Dhamma those in need of inspiration...." ... S: Lots more good detail is given. Sorry, but not much time to enter into discussion on your other points about discussions with others. Hope Sukin, Ken H and others continue them. Metta Sarah ===== #129038 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: Re: reminder. colette_aube Alas, RIGHT UNDERSTANDING = DEPENDENT ORIGINATION, momentary, in flux, ever changing, ILLUSORY? Ken H. aren't you CLINGING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD YOUR TEMPLE (see ONE NIGHT IN BANGKOK by Murray Head, see also ultra-conservative Jews wanting to get rid of all Muslims from the alleged "temple mount")? Release this delusion of a PERMANANCE EXISTING. Lord Yama wouldn't have it any other way, after all, he has been created only holding the Wheel of Samsara (life, death, rebirth) all these living moments, no? It was a good attempt but I've seen bait dangling on the end of a rope, the way you've put forth, before and don't want to bother with that re-run again. Thanx, though. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Colette (and Howard), > > --- > <. . .> > > C: If a practitioner did not and could not achieve a form of RIGHT UNDERSTANDING they could not rise to the lofty heights of rarified air, they'd really have trouble MEDITATING. > --- > > KH: Imagine if you understood the world to be composed entirely of dhammas (fleeting, conditioned, impersonal phenomena). With that kind of understanding you wouldn't try to do anything. > > And that includes meditation. Right understanding of conditioned reality removes any reason to meditate – or to try to do anything. > > There are only dhammas, over which there is no control. Get used to it! :-) > > Ken H > #129039 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 887 ) hantun1 Dear U Htoo Naing,  Thank you very much for thanking me for Dhamma Threads 884 and 887. I am taking care of JTN on your behalf. At the moment I cannot post messages at JTN or DSG due to my physical condition. Tep and Yawares have been very kind in posting messages at JTN on a daily basis to keep it alive. You can take back the ownership of JTN anytime, please.  with metta and respect, Han From: "htoonaing@..." To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 887 ) PS: Thanks U Han Tun for posting on behalf of me of my last 4 messages of Dhamma Thread. #129040 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 10:16 pm Subject: Re: reminder. szmicio Dear Phil, >We cannot possibly know people except by thinking. We are never truly >with our loved ones. Naomi is in Europe now, on business. (Happy for >the story of how well she is doing.) But when she is sitting in a room next to me, I can only think about her, as I think about her now. We always live in dreams of people, that is the only way they xan be known. L: Who, the hell, is Noami? Is it your wife? I would really like to hear more about you. I am very happy to know my friends. Best wishes Lukas #129041 From: "philip" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 10:40 pm Subject: Re: reminder. philofillet Hi Lukas > L: Who, the hell, is Noami? Is it your wife? > I would really like to hear more about you. I am very happy to know my friends. Yeah, she's my wife, though "partner" is a more appropriate word. There is a ***great***story about Naomi, but I shouldn't really disclose it here - though I think I have in the past! It'll have to wait until we meet in Thailand or Vietnam someday... phil #129042 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 1:12 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Sarahh, Tony, all, >S: Really? Through which door-way? > > >A: The brain. > ... >S: We are discussing the Buddha's teachings about realities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >The Buddha described 6 doorways only - not 6 doorways and a brain >door-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does eye by itself sees? No, it is a tool to capture electromagnetic wave and bring it to the brain - the physical basis for consciousness. >S: When there is an idea of "key-board" or "brain", it is just an >idea >thought about through the mind-door... > S: It's a concept only as Tony explained to you as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to distinguish between english word "keyboard" (a concept) and the object itself. Keyboard was made in a factory, before which it didn't exist. Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant (hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. Right now I type on the keyboard. I do not hit the wall or the table. So objects have their own functions. >S: It's a concept only as Tony explained to you as well. In reality >there is no "we", no "typing" and no "keyboard". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally wrong as actual experience shows. I find it strange how one can deny reality, and still use it. Just because an object can be taken apart, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that it can be taken apart and its functions cannot occur when it is taken apart. Just because an object can be analyzed in its constituent parts it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. With best wishes, Alex #129043 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 1:20 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes... truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: Yes, this is why attanuditthi, wrong view of atta is much broader >than sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure? What are specific definitions of attanuditthi and sakkay-ditthi? >For example, when the hardness experienced is taken to be a keyboard >or computer in reality, "some thing", it is attanuditthi, wrong >belief in atta. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't follow. Belief in atta is belief in unchanging and sukha thing. Neither keyboard, nor even wrong Christian idea about a Soul fits Atta. Keyboards do exist, this is why we can type on them. It doesn't exist in a mode of totally unchanging and eternal thing that can bring eternal happiness, though. With best wishes, Alex #129044 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: reminder. nilovg Dear Phil, Very well said, thanks for the reminder. I am dreaming a lot. Nina. Op 2-feb-2013, om 23:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Naomi is in Europe now, on business. (Happy for the story of how > well she is doing.) But when she is sitting in a room next to me, I > can only think about her, as I think about her now. We always live > in dreams of people, that is the only way they xan be known. #129045 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:23 am Subject: Re: reminder. upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Good Morning Howard, > > " Colette, I'd just like to mention to you that I found this post to be the clearest, well layed out, and most interesting of any I've read of yours. Very well done, IMHO!! Thank you! :-) > > " > > colette: Thank you, I think. Coming from a colleague, a fellow comedian like yourself, giving ME a positive statement causes me to wonder (sheepish grin included) whether I should use Yosemite Sam's line "sufferin' suckatash" or Snagglepuss's line "Heaven's to mergatroid" or even to just go with Gomer Pyles saying "Shazam" so that those robots enslaved to LINEAR THOUGHT can "get the picture" the way THEY SHOULD. > > I've never been able to write "papers" good enough for those "numbers crunchers" that only live as though LIFE and LIVING were exactly the way that THE DIVINE BALANCE SHEET appears with all the little numbers lined up in nice neat columes and rows so that their infantile mental illness of MEGALOMANIA can be properly worshiped and glorified (see masturbation, self glorification) > > I, myself, was amazed just before I pushed "send", thinking "damn, did I write that, wow". I think it's a RESULTANT PHENOMENA from my heavy focus in MEDITATION that I've been working on these past months. > > Thanx for the compliment! (lets hope it doesn't happen again, right? It could be signs of a serious illness that I have.) ------------------------- HCW: LOL! Or maybe it's me! ;-)) ---------------------------- > > toodles > colette ============================= With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > <...> > > Colette, I'd just like to mention to you that I found this post to be the clearest, well layed out, and most interesting of any I've read of yours. Very well done, IMHO!! Thank you! :-) > <..> > #129046 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:51 am Subject: Reminder. nilovg Dear friends, Nina: When feeling lonely it is difficult to be aware of one reality at a time.But if we try to escape this situation there is lobha again. Kh Sujin: It does not work. We have to be courageous, brave enough to see that there is actually no one, not even you at that moment. This is the best cure. Sarah: Even when we are with people, we are seeing alone, hearing alone. Nina: Akusala cetasikas are the bad friends and they are gone. Sarah: When feeling sorry, there are bad friends. Nina: They come again and again and again. Kh S: There is only citta with such realities. It cannot stay, it will go away. Is it good to have it? N: It is not good to have it. Kh S: So better have understanding. N:This is not possible on command. Kh S: At the moment of understanding there is no regret. One is freed from being enslaved, and this was never realized before because one enjoyed being enslaved. When there is more understanding of Dhamma there is no wish for anything at all. This is the beginning of understanding. It has conditions for its arising and nobody can do anything at all. We can learn to see realities, one at a time. Like now, there is sseeing and at other moments there are hearing, thinking, unknown all the time. But if there is a moment of understanding of a reality, it goes on to other realities. ****** Nina. #129047 From: "philip" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 10:35 am Subject: Re: Reminder. philofillet Hi Nina, all > Sarah: Even when we are with people, we are seeing alone, hearing alone. > Nina: Akusala cetasikas are the bad friends and they are gone. > Sarah: When feeling sorry, there are bad friends. > Nina: They come again and again and again. This is so true. Other people can only be ideas/concepts for us and the thinking that forms the concepts is cittas, and almost invariably akusala, rooted in dosa at "worst" and lobha, witg very very rare minents of kusala, with alobha. Are real friends can only be kusala cittas, and our bad friends can only be akusala cittas. We are always alone with thoughts of other people, even when we our holding hands with our most belived companion. Dhamma goes against tge way of the world, which is the flood of lobha. It is much much deeper and subtler than we can communicate in words at DSG or in discussion with AS, fleeting moments of good friends that appear ever so briefly amoung all the bad friends. Thus the Buddha rhought nit to teacg. And thus the feelgood industry of contempirary Dhamma rooted in lobha ditthi, so attractive, goes wrong. It does take courage to accept how few good friends (kusala cittas) there can be in a day. But that is the only way to begin, again and again. Moments of beinning again and again are such valuable friends. Phil p.s sorry for not trimming the remainder, in a rush. > Kh S: There is only citta with such realities. It cannot stay, it > will go away. Is it good to have it? > N: It is not good to have it. > Kh S: So better have understanding. > N:This is not possible on command. > Kh S: At the moment of understanding there is no regret. One is freed > from being enslaved, and this was never realized before because one > enjoyed being enslaved. > When there is more understanding of Dhamma there is no wish for > anything at all. This is the beginning of understanding. It has > conditions for its arising and nobody can do anything at all. We can > learn to see realities, one at a time. Like now, there is sseeing and > at other moments there are hearing, thinking, unknown all the time. > But if there is a moment of understanding of a reality, it goes on to > other realities. > > ****** > Nina. > #129048 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Nina and friends Thank you very much for your reminder. I like this part: > Kh S: At the moment of understanding there is no regret. One is freed > from being enslaved, and this was never realized before because one > enjoyed being enslaved. JJ: This is great reminder from Than Archarn Sujin. We are enslaved almost all the time with out any awareness. And most of the time we enjoy this. During the discussion in Wong Nam Keaw, Alberto asked Sant : Are you happy with your life? Sant said yes. But I think about Lukas now he probably say no. But without understanding, we enjoy or regret our life. What is the use? If there were no teaching of the Lord Buddha, all would be enslaved in samsara forever. But now there is the teaching. If one can not get the point and the real understanding of the teaching, how can one be freed from being enslaved? If Than Acharn was here, she would say " Are you enslaved now?" Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129049 From: "colette_aube" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 12:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: reminder. colette_aube Hi Nina, " > No yoga but right understanding of the present reality. > This is a good reminder you give: listening without hearing. > actually, it can happen often that we just listen to recordings but " colette: MISINTERPRETATION OF MY MEANING. My INTENTION was to show the VALUE, through EXPERIENCE, of the MEDITATION because, I have to admit, I am an ADVOCATE OF YOGA and now MEDITATION. I intended on SHOWING that the practices of YOGA and MEDITATION are both extemly difficult practices. THEY BOTH REQUIRE WORK where we find the meaning of YOGA: "to Yoke". WORK requires CONCENTRATION. In a sense, her life is in turmoil, like billions of other people enslaved to the concept of a "9 - 5 work a day" REALITY. She HAS acknowledged my advise to her yet she does not have the time nor the financing to afford a professional yoga class (shit, she lives a few blocks away from "Chi-Town Shakti" which is a YOGA center). The point of bringing YOGA into it, as a VEHICLE, was to show that this is a NORM and should be cognized and accepted as valid. You raise the point of "hearing" which is an action. Like all physical movements, it takes effort. The individual has to physically work at LISTENING and thus HEARING (Ear Consciousness). "TALK IS CHEAP", talk is as cheap as though a bird imprisoned in a cage saying "cheap cheap cheap". A cage can be a MORTGAGE and the prison cell can be a 30 yr. Mortgage in the prison system of a SUBURB, et al. This "became" REALITY due to action, due to effort. THE FIRST STEP TO RECOVERY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND YOU, even though I've never bothered with those 12 Step Western programs manifested to show addicts what addiction is. Before a person can attempt to scale the heights of YOGA NIDRA they have to establish NORMS, an acceptance of certain things that they were created in and are experiencing, a "Platue" (see A. Maslow: "Religions Values and the Peak Experience), a base camp where you know, you are certain, of REALITY. YOGA in concert with MEDITATION is an expert avenue to apply in the practice. It's a broad venue that offers the person a chance to realize what it is they are actually doing. I have no problems with your advise, in fact I am confounded CONSTANTLY and am confounded at this very moment by your confidence in expertise with the concept of CITTA, but once you made that distinction of my application you severely took the WRONG off-ramp and went off on your own leading herds of sheep to be fleeced, or cattle to slaughter. No Sir, this MISINTERPRETATION needed, required, IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. (where did I put that yardstick for a good spanking, lol) au revoire toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Colette, > > No yoga but right understanding of the present reality. > This is a good reminder you give: listening without hearing. > actually, it can happen often that we just listen to recordings but > not really consider thoroughly what we hear. We are passive > listeners. Only listening and truly considering what we hear can > condition right understanding. > So often we hear: there is seeing now, but is there any understanding > of the reality that just experiences visible object? It has a > characteristic and it can be realized without having to think about > it. It is verclose, just now. <...> #129050 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:25 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >J: 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. ... S: I think you are thinking of the Yuganadha Sutta in AN. Lots in Useful Posts under "Yuganadha". Here is the first link to an old post of Jon's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/7821 Metta Sarah ==== #129051 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... 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. ... S: Yes, good points. When one begins to appreciate that in the deeper sense, there is death at each moment, at each falling away of citta, such understanding will lead to greater disenchantment and understanding of the inherent unsatisfactoriness of conditioned realities. .... > 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. ... S: Yes, it can be helpful to reflect (wisely) that death can come now, anytime at all. The only opportunity for developing more understanding is now. Moments of wise reflection are calm. No need to go looking for calm or trying to have it - that will be just more enchantment or attachment. Always good talking to you, Rob. Metta Sarah ==== #129052 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:Even pleasant feeling, even awareness and understanding, even jhana >cittas are impermanent and objects of clinging and thereby dukkha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A: If something becomes its opposite because it changes, ... S: Impossible. Pleasant feeling doesn't become unpleasant feeling, awareness doesn't become ignorance. Realities arise, perform their functions and then fall away. Pleasant feeling is dukkha from the moment it arises to the moment it falls away. Same with all other conditioned realities. ... >A: then can we say that dukkha is actually sukkha because dukkha is impermanent? ... S: Pleasant feeling is always dukkha, but in ignorance, it is taken for being sukkha. The reason it is always dukkha is because it is always impermanent. Pls ask if this is not clear. A good point to discuss. Metta Sarah ====== #129053 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reminder. nilovg Dear Jagkrit, Op 4-feb-2013, om 2:45 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > If Than Acharn was here, she would say " Are you enslaved now?" ------- N: Yes, she always emphasized now, otherwise we think that the teachings are theoretical. How was the wedding of your daughter? Birth, weddings, death, that is life. But when we are so young and going to marry our beloved one we do not think that there must be an ending too. That seems so far away. We keep on thinking of stories, beautiful ones and sad ones. It is so good to constantly hear about paramattha dhammas, seeing, visible object, hearing, thinking. Otherwise we forget that only paramattha dhammas are real. A great lesson I learnt while in Thailand. These constant reminders did me a lot of good. Nina. #129054 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: reminder. nilovg Dear Colette, Op 4-feb-2013, om 2:07 heeft colette_aube het volgende geschreven: > You raise the point of "hearing" which is an action. Like all > physical movements, it takes effort. The individual has to > physically work at LISTENING and thus HEARING (Ear Consciousness). ------ N: First there is hearing of sound and then afterwards thinking follows. Wrong thinking or right thinking? We may rightly consider the Dhamma we heard, and as you say, it takes an effort. Effort is not self, it is a cetasika that performs its function. Hearing arises because of conditions, effort arises because of conditions. Understanding can grow and it works its way, all because of conditions. Eventually there can be detachment from the idea of self. Now we are enslaved to the wrong notion of self and this causes a lot of sorrow in our life. Nina. #129055 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: dhamma is everywhere sarahprocter... Dear Azita, Glad to read your reflections... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > Hard to leave Dhamma friends in T'land but as i have learnt there is only dhamma everywhere - seeing, hearing, touching, feeling and objects of sense doors etc. ... S: yes, just visible object that's seen wherever we are. Good and bad friends visiting all the time through different door-ways. .... >A: To know that the purpose of studying the dhamma is to understand realities as they arise, not to avoid difficulties and discomforts, is in some way a great relief because one does not have to "control" whatever has arisen. ... S: And these so-called difficulties and discomforts are so very fleeting, never lasting longer than a moment. What seems so problematic now will be forgotten in an instant at a moment of seeing or hearing or attachment or occasionally kusala of one kind or other. ... >A: However, this does not mean "anything goes" because as understanding of Buddha's words grows thro listening, contemplating what is learnt, there can be more conditions for kusala and less conditions for akusala actions. ... S: Good points. The "anything goes" because "it's conditioned" is "I am anatta" again - an excuse for not developing kusala now. ... >A: More conditions for thinking of others rather than oneself. To remember, occasionally, that every object which is experienced falls away and never comes back is a condition for less attachment at that moment. > > Live for understanding, live for kusala, know the present moment with patience, courage and good cheer, ... S: Good reminders. So very many opportunities in a day to consider the needs of others, for wise reflections and for understanding of the present reality. Metta Sarah p.s having lots of fun being back in Manly, swimming with friends, taking care of my mother, editing recordings and reading/writing posts here:) So may opportunities for kusala in a day and so many opportunities for attachment too!! ====== #129056 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 6:04 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > 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. > =============== J: The mention of "roots of trees, … empty dwellings" by the Buddha was not to indicate a good place for sitting in order to pursue a formal practice, but a place suitable for the development of jhana by virtue of its remoteness (i.e., quietness) and other supporting factors. Of course, monks who frequented such places did in fact spend much of their time there seated, but then they could hardly stand or lie all afternoon and night could they :-)) Jon #129057 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 8:11 pm Subject: Vism on 'meditation subject' jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: To my understanding, the Vism is speaking of students who are already well practised in samatha. > > RE: 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. > =============== J: Regarding the level of development of the person being described/addressed in Part II of the Vism ('Concentration'), the Vism sets out in brief, at Ch III, 28, the means by which jhana is to be developed. These brief outlines are then described in greater detail in the paragraphs and chapters that follow. The brief descriptions, and reference to the detailed descriptions, are as follows: a/ The person should be someone who has taken his/her stand on virtue that has been purified by means of the special qualities of fewness of wishes, etc., and perfected by observance of the ascetic practices -- Ch I, Ch II b/ He should sever any of the ten impediments that he may have -- Ch III, 29 - 56 c/ He should then approach the good friend, the giver of a meditation subject; and he should apprehend from among the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament -- Ch III, 57 - 73; Ch III, 74 - 133 d/ After that he should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and go to live in one that is favourable -- Ch IV, 1-19 e/ Then he should sever the lesser impediments; and not overlook any of the directions for development -- Ch IV, 20; Ch IV, 21 - 138 (1st jhaana, kasina) You will note that the actual development of concentration begins with the directions mentioned in the last item. So if you can 'tick' everything in Vism up to Ch IV, 21, you are ready to go :-)) Jon #129058 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) tony.humphreys Hi Ken, T: There are no Dhammas that are not infinitely reduceable. KH: Thank you for telling us that. There are irreducible dhammas in the Theravada teaching, but not in the Mahayana. You're more than welcome! I suspect you have misunderstood Nargajunas intention in your comments - but maybe we can tackle that another day. However, in terms of the Theravada having an irreduceable phenomena can you tell me what this is? As to date this has never been identified. Also, I detect a real sense of wanting to stick to the word of Theravada. There are always ways of making round pegs fit into square wholes. What I speak of was introduced to me via the vehicle of the Mahayana schools. But I am sufficiently content with the logic to never speak of Manahayana or Theravada. If something can be proven to be a fact then it has to be believed otherwise debate is futile. So, in the light of this what phenomena are irreduceable? Metta, Tony... Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > As Jon has said, even though this is a Theravada group you are welcome to outline your understanding of the Mahayana teaching. I see you have done that, and I would just like to say I approve of this open, honest way of discussion. > > All too often people in Theravada groups put forward Mahayana (mainly Tibetan and Zen) ideas and claim they are consistent with the Theravada texts. They clearly are not consistent, and yet we must play silly games in which our texts are twisted and distorted in an effort to make them consistent with the Mahayana. > > ---- > T: There are no Dhammas that are not infinitely reduceable. > ---- > > KH: Thank you for telling us that. There are irreducible dhammas in the Theravada teaching, but not in the Mahayana. > #129059 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 9:58 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (jonoabb) tony.humphreys Hi J, But I hear from others that there are forms that exist outside the mind, waiting to be met with one of the sense conciousness. I am getting confused here as to whether the Theravada says that form is a separate phenomena from mind/conciousness or whether they're synonomous. If the latter we can all go the pub as we agree. :-) The process of apprehending an 'object' is the same either way I think and consquently the logic still works. Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "" wrote: > > Hi Tony (and Lukas) > > (129007) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > 1) Pick any object in your field of vision (for example) now. > > =============== > > J: By 'object' do you mean an object/item such as computer monitor or keyboard? I think the (Theravadin) texts do not support this kind of approach. > > When the Buddha spoke about the object of seeing consciousness (Pali: rupa, vanna, etc.; English: visible object), he was speaking about mere visible data and not the individual objects/items that are identified (by thinking, memory, etc.) out of that data; just as for the ear door 'sound' (sadda) refers to the audible data experienced by hearing consciousness and not individual words as seem to be heard. > > It is explained in the Pali Canon that for every moment of visible object that is experienced by seeing consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) there are multiple moments of (mind-door) consciousness that think about the visible object just experienced and, by giving attention to the 'shape and form' of the visible object, ascribe it meaning in terms of the conventional world of people and things. > > In the Pali Canon, it is the dhamma known as visible object that is to be understood, rather than conventional objects/items such as monitors and keyboards. To my understanding, that visible object is more like the 'field of vision' than a conventional object/item within that field. > > If my understanding is correct, then the reasoning behind your conclusion of visible object (and, I presume, all dhammas) as "illusory and merely an appearance to mind" does not hold. > > Jon #129060 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah tony.humphreys Agreed! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > 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! > ======= > #129061 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 1:10 am Subject: Good Reminders 3 (living in the world of right understanding) philofillet Dear Group Another useful reminder from A.Sujin. Acharn: Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 1:11 am Subject: Re: Good Reminders 3 (living in the world of right understanding) philofillet Hi again. The reminder follows... phil > Acharn: concepts and living in the world of absolute realities? What is the > difference? It is actually: living in the world of ignorance and > living in the world of right understanding. The world of concepts > consists of cup, table, person, things. But in the absolute sense can > whatever appears be someone or something permanent? They seem to be > permanent because realities arise and fall away so rapidly. It seems > as if there is no arising and falling away of anything at all. Even > the arising of seeing does not appear and, thus, the falling away of > it cannot appear. In reality seeing arises by conditions and it > passes away instantly. Whatever is experienced is gone as soon as it > is experienced. This is the beginning, the intellectual understanding > which will lead to sacca ~naa.na, kicca ~naa.na and kata ~naa.na. > > (end of passage) > > phil > #129063 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 2:28 am Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) epsteinrob Hi Jon and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E and Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Robert (and Jon) - > > > > > > > > > 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). > > =============== I think that may be it, Howard - I will check that out, thanks. > J: Thanks for the reference, Howard. That sutta can be found in the Anthology (at No. 72, for those who don't have the complete AN translation) > > Or it could be "In Conjunction" (AN 4.170, Anthology No. 83). I will take a look at that as well - thanks. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #129064 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 2:32 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > There is a second kind of dukkha, viparinama dukkha, the dukkha of change. This refers to pleasant feeling which never lasts. There's always the wish to have more and more. > > The 1st NT refers to sankhara dukkha, the third kind of dukkha. This is the inherent dukkha of all conditioned realities due to their arising and falling away - the 5 khandhas subject to clinging. ...the cause of such dukkha is tanha (attachment), the only end to such dukkha is the eradication of attachment and the cessation of formations. The eightfold path, is the only way leading out. > > Thx for the good discussion Thank you - those are good distinctions to have and to identify the inherent dukkha of arising and falling away. I am wondering though why the viparinama dukkha is not also part of the story as well. It seems that it is the dukkha that would be associated with anicca and should be part of arising and falling as well...? Or is it a more gross level of change that it indicates...? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #129065 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 8:03 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) kenhowardau Hi Tony, ---- > T: <. . .> in terms of the Theravada having an irreduceable phenomena can you tell me what this is? As to date this has never been identified. ---- KH: They have been identified; they are the mental phenomena called namas and the physical phenomena called rupas. I think the problem might be that you have different definitions of nama and rupa, and so you don't realise that people here are talking about absolutely real (irreducible) things, as distinct from conventionally real (reducible) things. ----- > T: Also, I detect a real sense of wanting to stick to the word of Theravada. There are always ways of making round pegs fit into square wholes. What I speak of was introduced to me via the vehicle of the Mahayana schools. But I am sufficiently content with the logic to never speak of Manahayana or Theravada. ----- KH: Mahayana and Theravada are different teachings. We need to distinguish their definitions and we need to know which of them we are using. Otherwise, discussions will be chaotic. --------- >T: If something can be proven to be a fact then it has to be believed otherwise debate is futile. --------- KH: Yes, I am not sure what you mean by that exactly, but I do agree we need to be talking about things that can be proved. To start with, we need to agree that there is reality – as distinct from illusion. Now, in the present moment, there must be things that are absolutely real, mustn't there? There must be! Otherwise there couldn't be anything at all. So, what are the realities that exist in the present moment? That's all I want to know. ------ > T: I suspect you have misunderstood Nargajunas intention in your comments – but maybe we can tackle that another day. ------ KH: Yes, if you don't mind, I would like to talk about it some time. The point I would like to make is that Dhamma means `the way things are in absolute reality.' Therefore, by definition, there is only one Dhamma. And so, of the Mahayana Dhamma and the Theravada Dhamma, only one can be right, and the other must be wrong. Ken H #129066 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 10:36 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) philofillet Dear all Personally I find Mahayana interesting, though living in Japan I have reason to deplore how far it has drifted away from the original teaching of the Buddha. I also find Hinduism and medieval Christian mysticism interesting. But this is a Theravada group with focus on Abhidhamma and commentaries. See description on the home page. Accepting principles of Theravadan Abhidhamma should be starting point for discussion here in my opinion, otherwise please change description of group. Thanks. Phil #129067 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: On Siila szmicio Hi all, I am looking for anything concerning siila in the Text: Suttas, commentaries...,etc. I would be greatful for any material. Best wishes Lukas #129068 From: "Tony H" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:14 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (Phil) tony.humphreys Hi, If this is a closed group that ONLY wishes to discuss Theravadin interpretations of the Dhamma then there is little opportunity to discuss 'reality' if it is to be enclosed within a specific world view. I suspect that isn't the case in here and the truth is what is being sought :) Tony... > Dear all > > Personally I find Mahayana interesting, though living in Japan I have reason to deplore how far it has drifted away from the original teaching of the Buddha. I also find Hinduism and medieval Christian mysticism interesting. But this is a Theravada group with focus on Abhidhamma and commentaries. See description on the home page. Accepting principles of Theravadan Abhidhamma should be starting point for discussion here in my opinion, otherwise please change description of group. > > Thanks. > > Phil > #129069 From: "Tony H" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:26 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) tony.humphreys Hi Ken, As I said in a reply to Phil - If we're looking for ways to confirm or validate what is spoken about in Classical Abhidhamma and Theravada then I think this would be an academic forum only. I think however, that its a forum looking to debate and discuss reality in the light of Buddhism. If it is the former then I agree, any Prasangika angles I bring are inappropriate and I'll gently bow out of the discussions :) ...in the mean time.... I disagree in terms of separating illusion and reality. Particularly the existence of 'form' as a separate entity to the mind. How can this be? The logic collapses on a fundamental level. So far as I can see everything is an imputation of mind. This experience is given a label and we then subscribe to its true (real) existence. This is pure delusion and can be demonstrated to be so with a logical analysis. So long as there is a sense of an external world that is out there somehow waiting to be interpreted by our senses there will be Dukkha. Maybe you can explain to me how "mental phenomena called namas and the physical phenomena called rupas" exist as irreducible? An example maybe? If a 'thing' can exist as an independent phenomena that is born of itself (i.e.. not dependently originated) and exists without being experienced by a mind (dependent) and it has not aggregates (is a singularity utterly irreducible) then you will have established a permanent and inherently existent phenomena......I am really interested to know what this is? :-) Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > ---- > > T: <. . .> in terms of the Theravada having an irreduceable phenomena can you tell me what this is? As to date this has never been identified. > ---- > > KH: They have been identified; they are the mental phenomena called namas and the physical phenomena called rupas. I think the problem might be that you have different definitions of nama and rupa, and so you don't realise that people here are talking about absolutely real (irreducible) things, as distinct from conventionally real (reducible) things. > > ----- > > T: Also, I detect a real sense of wanting to stick to the word of Theravada. There > are always ways of making round pegs fit into square wholes. What I speak of was > introduced to me via the vehicle of the Mahayana schools. But I am sufficiently > content with the logic to never speak of Manahayana or Theravada. > > ----- > > KH: Mahayana and Theravada are different teachings. We need to distinguish their definitions and we need to know which of them we are using. Otherwise, discussions will be chaotic. > > --------- > >T: If something can be proven to be a fact then it has to be believed otherwise debate is futile. > --------- > > KH: Yes, I am not sure what you mean by that exactly, but I do agree we need to be talking about things that can be proved. > > To start with, we need to agree that there is reality – as distinct from illusion. > > Now, in the present moment, there must be things that are absolutely real, mustn't there? There must be! Otherwise there couldn't be anything at all. > > So, what are the realities that exist in the present moment? > > That's all I want to know. > > ------ > > T: I suspect you have misunderstood Nargajunas intention in your comments – but maybe we can tackle that another day. > ------ > > KH: Yes, if you don't mind, I would like to talk about it some time. The point I would like to make is that Dhamma means `the way things are in absolute reality.' Therefore, by definition, there is only one Dhamma. And so, of the Mahayana Dhamma and the Theravada Dhamma, only one can be right, and the other must be wrong. > > Ken H > #129070 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E (128972) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > [Note to Howard at end.] > ... > > 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? > > RE: 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. > =============== J: Regarding, "At the very least, he is encouraging all those who have the potential to attain jhana to go attain it *as purposively as possible*", the purposive aspect is not express. You seem to think it is implied. However, as I've said in earlier posts, reference to quiet places does not necessarily imply a purposive aspect to the development of jhana. It is said somewhere (Vism, perhaps) that sound is the enemy of jhana. > =============== > RE: 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. > =============== J: Regarding "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability [i.e., jhana], as are also discussed in the Vism", would you mind giving some specific instances of such exercises from the Vism, so that we may discuss. Thanks. Jon #129071 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Feb 5, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) kenhowardau Hi Tony, --------- > T: As I said in a reply to Phil - If we're looking for ways to confirm or validate what is spoken about in Classical Abhidhamma and Theravada then I think this would be an academic forum only. I think however, that its a forum looking to debate and discuss reality in the light of Buddhism. If it is the former then I agree, any Prasangika angles I bring are inappropriate and I'll gently bow out of the discussions :) --------- KH: Personally, I am only interested in discussing Theravada. However, I don't mind who I discuss it with. (For example, I don't mind discussing it with Mahayana students.) I run out of patience, however, when people use DSG as a forum for other teachings, especially their own. :-) --------------- > T: ...in the meantime.... I disagree in terms of separating illusion and reality. -------------- KH: OK, but you should understand that is a major disagreement. I doubt there is anything more central to Dhamma study than knowing the difference between concepts and realities. The Buddha's teaching is *exclusively* about realities. -------------------- > T: Particularly the existence of 'form' as a separate entity to the mind. How can this be? The logic collapses on a fundamental level. ------------------- KH: Are you sure it would be illogical to distinguish between mind and matter? I would have thought the opposite. ------------------------------------ > T: So far as I can see everything is an imputation of mind. This experience is given a label and we then subscribe to its true (real) existence. This is pure delusion and can be demonstrated to be so with a logical analysis. ------------------------------------ KH: Logic depends on its starting parameters. If you start with Nagarjuna's declaration that everything lacks "own being" then I suppose there is logically no difference between mind and matter, or between reality and illusion. I prefer to start with the Buddha's declaration that nama (mental phenomena) and rupa (material phenomena) exist in ultimate reality. I find the rest of his teaching flows logically from there. ---------------------------------------------------------- > T: So long as there is a sense of an external world that is out there somehow waiting to be interpreted by our senses there will be Dukkha. ---------------------------------------------------------- KH: The world of conditioned namas and rupas is inherently dukkha, and the extinction of dukkha occurs only at parinibana – the death of an arahant (when there are no more conditions for nama and rupa to arise). ------------------- > T: Maybe you can explain to me how "mental phenomena called namas and the physical phenomena called rupas" exist as irreducible? An example maybe? ------------------ KH: I have been using the word `irreducible' to refute your contention that everything was 'infinitely reducible.' Conditioned dhammas exist for one moment during which they arise, perform their functions, and then cease. So they are ultimately real – they have "own being" (if you like that expression). They cannot be found to consist of something else. That is what I have been referring to as `irreducible'. I am sorry if I have been using the wrong terminology. -------------------------- > T: If a 'thing' can exist as an independent phenomena that is born of itself (i.e.. not dependently originated) and exists without being experienced by a mind (dependent) and it has not aggregates (is a singularity utterly irreducible) then you will have established a permanent and inherently existent phenomena......I am really interested to know what this is? :-) ---------------------------- KH: You seem to be saying that `existence' and `dependence on conditions' are mutually exclusive. That is not the case. Conditioned dhammas exist whenever conditions cause them to exist. Ken H #129072 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 12:53 am Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Robert)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (128972) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > [Note to Howard at end.] > > J: Regarding "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability [i.e., jhana], as are also discussed in the Vism", would you mind giving some specific instances of such exercises from the Vism, so that we may discuss. Thanks. ------------------------------------ HCW: I would sooner not "give specific instances". :-) You might look at the following: _____________________________________ CH. III TAKING A MEDITATION SUBJECT .................................................................... 81 [A. Development in Brief] ......................................................................... 86 [B. Development in Detail] ....................................................................... 87 [The Ten Impediments] ............................................................................ 87 CH. IV THE EARTH KASIÓA ................................................................................\ ..... 113 [The Eighteen Faults of a Monastery] ................................................. 113 [The Five Factors of the Resting Place] ................................................ 116 [The Lesser Impediments] ..................................................................... 116 [Detailed Instructions for Development] ............................................ 117 [The Earth Kasióa].........................................................................\ .......... 117 [Making an Earth Kasióa] ..................................................................... 118 [Starting Contemplation] ....................................................................... 119 [The Counterpart Sign] .......................................................................... 120 [The Two Kinds of Concentration] ....................................................... 121 [Guarding the Sign] ................................................................................ 122 [The Ten Kinds of Skill in Absorption] ............................................... 124 [The Five Similes] ................................................................................\ ..... 130 [Absorption in the Cognitive Series] ................................................... 131 ________________________________________ And you might also look at the following: [(9) Mindfulness of Breathing] ............................................................. 259 ---------------------------------------------- > Jon > ====================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129073 From: "Tony H" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 1:10 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) tony.humphreys Hi Ken,this is a good debate! > KH: Personally, I am only interested in discussing Theravada. However, I don't mind who I discuss it with. (For example, I don't mind discussing it with Mahayana students.) I run out of patience, however, when people use DSG as a forum for other teachings, especially their own. :-) T: Agreed, but to use your logic below if we are ONLY discussing Theravada then this rules out any possibility of bringing answrs from other sources. Thats a massive limitation. > KH: OK, but you should understand that is a major disagreement. I doubt there is anything more central to Dhamma study than knowing the difference between concepts and realities. I don't contend the difference between concept and reality. My issue is with the assumption that realities are ultimately real. I disagree here as they're only relativley real and ultimately illusory. KH: Are you sure it would be illogical to distinguish between mind and matter? I would have thought the opposite. What matter? There is only an imputed experience, not any fundamental particle that is the source of form. Even if there was this too would be imputed by mind, labeled and a conglomoration of its parts and agregates. KH: Logic depends on its starting parameters. If you start with Nagarjuna's declaration that everything lacks "own being" then I suppose there is logically no difference between mind and matter, or between reality and illusion. T: I am suggesting the contrary actually. All I am saying is what my experience, using the logic I have been taught there are certain facts that when followed through reveal specific truths. If these truths contradict what the Pali Cannon purport then I am afraid thats out of my hands. Sticking to the Theravada at the expense of these facts is not (IMHO) in line with what He taught. I am not concerned whether they're called Mahayana or Hahayana :) only concerned if they're valid and irrefutable. KH: The world of conditioned namas and rupas is inherently dukkha, and the extinction of dukkha occurs only at parinibana – the death of an arahant (when there are no more conditions for nama and rupa to arise). T: So no opportunity to experience liberation or enlightenment other than at death? KH: Conditioned dhammas exist for one moment during which they arise, perform their functions, and then cease. So they are ultimately real – they have "own being" (if you like that expression). They cannot be found to consist of something else. That is what I have been referring to as `irreducible'. I am sorry if I have been using the wrong terminology. T: You stated "They cannot be found to consist of something else". this is the absolute crux of our debate. I would again ask for one example of such a phenomena? One example of a phenomena that exists inherently from its own side without any dependence? do that and we're done :-) Tony... #129074 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dhamma is everywhere nilovg Dear Sarah and Azita, It is good to be reminded that dhamma is everywhere. I have to adapt myself again to a solitary life, but anyway, we are seeing... thinking alone. Op 4-feb-2013, om 8:01 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > >A: To know that the purpose of studying the dhamma is to > understand realities as they arise, not to avoid difficulties and > discomforts, is in some way a great relief because one does not > have to "control" whatever has arisen. > ... > S: And these so-called difficulties and discomforts are so very > fleeting, never lasting longer than a moment. What seems so > problematic now will be forgotten in an instant at a moment of > seeing or hearing or attachment or occasionally kusala of one kind > or other. ------- N: And I remember that tomorrow, what is today will be yesterday, of no importance. But not easy to apply it at the moment. Kh S stressed this all the time. > ... > > Sarah > p.s having lots of fun being back in Manly, swimming with friends, ------ N: Sarah, I hope you do not go out of your depth, can you stand, and do you go along the coast? The swimming lessons you had in Bgk will be very useful. ------ Nina. #129075 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:26 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (KEN) kenhowardau Hi Tony, I am glad you are enjoying our discussion. So am I. ------------ > T: <. . .> to use your logic below if we are ONLY discussing Theravada then this rules out any possibility of bringing answers from other sources. Thats a massive limitation. ------------- KH: I think there would be a massive limitation if we couldn't bring in similes and metaphors from other sources. Audiences in the suttas often asked for, and were given, similes. Ultimately, however, the *answers* we are interested in should be in the Dhamma we have chosen to study, shouldn't they? ---------------------- > T: I don't contend the difference between concept and reality. My issue is with the assumption that realities are ultimately real. I disagree here as they're only relativley real and ultimately illusory. ----------------------- KH: There is a sense in which ultimate realities can be called illusory, and that is in the way they always fail to satisfy. When experienced with ignorance, conditioned dhammas give the impression of having a lasting quality – something that can be satisfactory. Therefore, the suttas often talk about the falsity of conditioned dhammas. Just as people who claim to be our friends can prove to be false or unreal, so too dhammas that appear satisfactory can be called false or unreal. But that doesn't relate to their truth and reality *as physical and mental phenomena.* ---------------- <. . .> > T: What matter? There is only an imputed experience, ---------------- KH: In order for there to be an imputed experience (an idea) there must be something that does the imputing (the thinking), mustn't there? Or are you saying the imputer is just as unreal as the imputed? It can't be. We can't logically say everything is unreal. Logically there must be an ultimate reality of some kind. According to the Dhamma there are two kinds of conditioned ultimate realities, the mental and the physical. And there is one kind of unconditioned ultimate reality, nibbana. In addition, there is an infinite number of illusory realities. Illusory realities (concepts) are created - thought up - by some of the ultimate realities. ------------------------ > T: not any fundamental particle that is the source of form. ------------------------ KH: There may not be anything more fundamental than a conditioned dhamma, but that doesn't mean the dhamma itself is not fundamental. In the seen (the visible rupa) there is only the seen: in the heard (the audible rupa) there is only the heard. Physical dhammas and mental dhammas are fundamental realities. All else is illusory concept. ------------------------------ <. . .> > T: All I am saying is what my experience, using the logic I have been taught there are certain facts that when followed through reveal specific truths. If these truths contradict what the Pali Cannon purport then I am afraid thats out of my hands. Sticking to the Theravada at the expense of these facts is not (IMHO) in line with what He taught. -------------------------------- KH: Actually it *is* in line with what he taught. The Buddha said we should choose our teacher wisely, but after that there is no choosing. The teacher teaches, and the student learns. --------------- > T: I am not concerned whether they're called Mahayana or Hahayana :) only concerned if they're valid and irrefutable. --------------- KH: As the saying goes, "a man cannot serve two masters." A true student cannot follow two teachers. There is only one way out of samsara. We have to choose which it is most likely to be. -------------------- >> KH: <. . .> the extinction of dukkha occurs only at parinibana – the death of an arahant (when there are no more conditions for nama and rupa to arise). > T: So no opportunity to experience liberation or enlightenment other than at death? -------------------- KH: Nibbana (the final extinction of dukkha) can be experienced with right understanding, but nibbana itself is the extinction of experience. ---------------------------- <. . .> > T: You stated "They cannot be found to consist of something else". this is the absolute crux of our debate. I would again ask for one example of such a phenomena? One example of a phenomena that exists inherently from its own side without any dependence? do that and we're done :-) ---------------------------- KH: I asked you last time to explain why existence should be exclusive of dependence. Can you give a simile? I, on the other hand, have been saying that conditioned dhammas do exist. To give a simile, I can say a baby is dependent for its conception on mother and father, for nourishment it is dependent on its mother, and for protection it is dependent on mother, father, brothers and sisters, and so on. The point is a dependent baby exists. Doesn't it? Ken H #129076 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 12:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Nina and friends > N: How was the wedding of your daughter? JJ: It went pretty well. Thank you very much for your regards. A lot of lobha though. ================= > N: Birth, weddings, death, that is > life. But when we are so young and going to marry our beloved one we > do not think that there must be an ending too. That seems so far > away. We keep on thinking of stories, beautiful ones and sad ones. JJ: Even now we are not young but most of the time I think ending seem so far away. Than Acharn Sujin always reminds us that it can happen any time. Next month, next week, today or even right after my breakfast. All day I think along with all sense phenomenal. But when speaking of ending this life or death, it feels like everything which glues to me fall off for a moment. Worrisome disappears for very little split second. Even though this is again think about death but it helps to consider more about reality which happens all the time. ================= > N: It is so good to constantly hear about paramattha dhammas, seeing, > visible object, hearing, thinking. Otherwise we forget that only > paramattha dhammas are real. A great lesson I learnt while in > Thailand. These constant reminders did me a lot of good. JJ: I concur with you. That's why Than Acharn relentlessly reminds us of paramattha dhammas every single time of discussion for almost 60 years. Before, I used to be preoccupied with a lot of wordings but when listen to Than Acharn, I understand that why understanding paramattha dhammas is more important. If I die right now, I will forget all wordings but memory of some experiencing paramattha dhammas shall follow my continuous citta to the next life and I do hope to get start to understand more of paramattha dhamma where I have accumulated. ================= JJ: Yesterday, we had dhamma discussion in the countryside with Than Acharn and Thai friends (also Khun Ann and Khun Paina). Than Acharn gave some reminder that: "Everything happens to be forgotten" Nina, Sarah, John and friends would you like to elaborate more about this? Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129078 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > > > 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? > What do you think differentiates panna from other forms of kusala? Panna = Bhavana / mental development is it not? And are not Samatha bhavana and Vipassana bhavana both a reference to panna? Panna in understanding the value of kusala and harm in akusala, increases that much, the tendency toward the one and away from the other. The object of dana for example, is the need of another being, how is this related to panna? Panna sees the value of panna itself and all other kusala, but dana does not perform such a function. === > > 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? > Panna is not selective; therefore kusala and akusala must invariably become its object from time to time. === > > 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. > Being training rules point to the fact that only panna is the Path. Without understanding, what invariably happens is that kusala is taken for "self" and therefore instead of kusala, the one dhamma which is a hindrance to the Path gets encouraged. This of course does not imply that if the rules are broken, it will not lead to bad results. === > 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. > I can't quote you anything, sorry. I don't think that Right Understanding leading other path factors has anything to do with what we are discussing. === > > > 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. > Again, I can't quote you anything. I wish that I could or that I had better understanding, and if possible, give you a better explanation. But there is one thing that I'd like to point out. Supposing someone approached you, suggesting that the Buddha believed in God and asked you for a direct quote to prove otherwise, do you think that you need to bring up such a proof? Is not your conclusion based on a general understanding of what he taught? On some occasions when you ask for quotes from other people, do you think that perhaps the situation may be similar to this? === > > 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. > The argument is, since you say that x, y and z are part of the Path and since other religions practice x and y, then they must be following the Path in part. The Buddha's Dhamma is a totally new set of teachings, which was the reason why the Buddha hesitated at first, to teach. If it was akin to the invention of an airplane which followed from that of a car, then he's have no reason to feel this way. You are suggesting that the Dhamma evolved from teachings which existed prior to the Buddha's enlightenment. Did not the Buddha follow the top teachers during his time and came to the conclusion that theirs was not the Path? === > 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. > See here, you are making a case for the argument that other teachings takes one up to a certain point and only the Buddha's teachings can carry one further all the way to the other shore. This is saying to the effect that development of understanding is not a matter of cira-kala-bhavana or long time development, and one implication of this is that the Buddha-to-be did not really need to study under so many Buddha's before him. === > 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. > Jhana is definitely not an obstacle, but the mistaken view that it is the Path or part of the Path, is. === > 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. > Other teachings understood dukkha and anicca with reference to conventional reality. The difference is not anatta coming in to give a complete picture, but rather the understanding of Dukkha as in the First Noble Truth. Anatta comes together with Dukkha and Anicca, therefore any understanding with regard to the latter two without also understanding the former is not what the Buddha's enlightenment is about. === > > > So we have a situation where with right understanding, other levels of > > kusala must also grow, > > Why? > Because Right Understanding develops in the course of one's life where kusala and akusala both must be a part of. It is highly improbable that only rupas and vipaka cittas will be the object of panna. === > > 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? > As practiced by Buddhism means that they should be seen as conditioned dhammas, anicca, dukkha and anatta. === > > 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. > This was with regard to your suggestion that reference to other forms of kusala in the texts meant that the Buddha was trying to encourage these as part of the Path . And my point is that it is Right Understanding which he in fact ultimately encouraged during those times. === > 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. > Perhaps someone else reading in can help with this.... === > 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. > All cetasikas except sanna and vedana are sankhara khandha. The meaning is that lobha for example, accumulates as tendency with each arising, the same with the other cetasikas including panna. === > I do think that the Buddha taught that developing all three forms of > kusala are necessary > But *development* is the function of panna is it not? How else would dana and sila increase if not with the help of panna? === > 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. > What according to you is the significance of the Buddha "setting in motion the Wheel of Dhamma" and the requirement on the part of the savaka to "hear the Dhamma"? === > 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. > Sorry, I can't. === > 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. > But is it not a fact that the defilements are eradicated only through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path? === > 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. > No passage where the Buddha said, "There is no God" exists either. === > > > 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! > If you can show me who on the DSG said killing and screaming obscenities at someone is fine, I'll retract my statement and apologize to you. === > > 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! > So this is what you were pointing at? There are hindrances to the development of samatha which does not apply to the development of vipassana. For vipassana, the only hindrance is Wrong View. The Suttas and Vinaya agree with this, do it they not? === > > > 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. > They would necessarily arise when the Path is being developed. === > > 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. > The knowledge that comes with the development of right understanding includes the fact that kusala is good and akusala is bad. So why would the Buddha not talk in favor of one and against the other? If akusala still has a chance to arise, why not remind about the benefit of kusala? === > Do you think the Buddha was so distracted that he would teach > repeatedly on unnecessary nice things that had nothing to do with bhavana? > Remember, that thinking in terms of beings, objects and situations is part of what makes up our life and when it is not thinking with kusala, then it must be akusala. So why not talk about this difference? How would doing this take anything away from the importance of developing right understanding of nama and rupa? === > > 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 - > Kusala is kusala, not Hindu, Christian or Buddhist. I am not trying to have it both ways, when kindness is called for, it would in fact require wrong understanding to think that it is not necessary. Right understanding supports all other kinds of kusala. It is better to understand metta as a nama dhamma than to just have more metta. The latter can occur in those who have not heard the Dhamma; the former is the Path which only a Buddha can teach. === > > 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. > You are beginning to mischaracterize. === > > 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. > Kusala is not Brahmanic non-sense. It is good at all levels, but with the help of Right View, it becomes more pure, in fact leading to perfection, the kind that no other set of teachings can do. And btw, pariyatti does not hinder in anyway, the chance of other kinds of kusala arising in a day, but rather encourages it as per the level of understanding. It is in fact "doing kusala" with the idea of "self" that leads to more akusala. This latter may avoid the 'eat, drink and be merry' kind of behavior, but only at the cost of other forms of akusala taking the place, most notably, self-view. Could not avoid the marathon this time. Metta, Sukin #129079 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, Hope you're doing well. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > >T: There are no keys other than what appears to your mind. They are no more real than a rainbow that appears to have form, distance, colour etc...it appears to your mind but upon investigation is utterly unfindable. > > L: The rainbow must have conditions to arise. Without little drops of water in the air, and light it could never appear. ... S: All these are ideas based on scientific ideas. In reality, there is no rainbow and there are no keys. Only visible object is ever seen, only hardness/softness, temperature or motion is ever touched. Metta Sarah ==== #129080 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 4:59 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards sarahprocter... Dear Tony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > There are no keys other than what appears to your mind. They are no more real than a rainbow that appears to have form, distance, colour etc...it appears to your mind but upon investigation is utterly unfindable. > >L: Tonny, but keys exist in real, they are real. They are dhammas. Each one performs its specific function has its own characteristic. ... S: You're correct, Tony. Such keys and rainbows are concepts only. They are in contrast to realities, paramattha dhammas, such as seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, which have characteristics which can be directly known. Metta Sarah ==== #129081 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) sarahprocter... Dear Tony, With regard to Pt's suggestion of looking in Useful Posts below, you may also be interested to look at the sections under: "Theravada and Mahayana" and "Nagarjuna". Feel free to re-quote, discuss anything further. This is a message I wrote a long time ago - take a look and comment if you care to. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27999 Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: >Pt: Anyway, sorry I don't have time to go into this further, but if you haven't discovered already, there is a file called "Useful Posts" here, which is a collection of links to posts on certain topics discussed over the years. For example, on the difference between concepts and dhammas, there's a topic called: > "Concepts4 (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammas)". On dhammas being real and not abstractions, there is for example the topic: > "Dhamma2 -realities, only dhammas", etc. > > The file itself is located in the Files section - when you sign in on dsg yahoo homepage, there will be a menu in the left corner, Files will be one of the links, and when you click on Files, the Useful Posts file will be one of the files in the list that you get. This is a direct link to the file, but you will have to be signed in Yahoo in order to access it: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm ======= #129082 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) sarahprocter... Dear Tony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > The view I hold, and I think its perfectly demonstrable is that there is no such thing as 'form' as such (that'll set the cat amongst the pigeons). ... S: I'd like to know what you mean by 'form' first! ... > > As soon as we see/hear etc something we can then start to reduce the phenomena to its parts. ... S: No "we" to see or hear anything. What is the "something" here? Again, no "we" to do anything at all. Metta Sarah ==== #129083 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah sarahprocter... Oh Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Really? Through which door-way? > > > > >A: The brain. > > ... > >S: We are discussing the Buddha's teachings about realities. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >The Buddha described 6 doorways only - not 6 doorways and a brain >door-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >A: Does eye by itself sees? No, it is a tool to capture electromagnetic wave and bring it to the brain - the physical basis for consciousness. ... S: We are discussing dhammas, not science. Seeing consciousness, a citta, sees. At each moment of experience, a citta arises and performs its function and then falls away. When there are conditions, seeing sees visible object. ... > > > >S: When there is an idea of "key-board" or "brain", it is just an >idea >thought about through the mind-door... > > S: It's a concept only as Tony explained to you as well. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: We need to distinguish between english word "keyboard" (a concept) and the object itself. Keyboard was made in a factory, before which it didn't exist. ... S: Whatever is thought about, such as keyboard, factory or brain, is just an idea, a concept. ... > > Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant (hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. ... S: More thinking about concepts only. At the moment of thinking like this, what is the reality? Is there seeing? Is there thinking? Is there pleasant feeling? .... > > Right now I type on the keyboard. I do not hit the wall or the table. So objects have their own functions. ... S: Actually, there are only ever dhammas. Right now, there is thinking about the idea of "I type on the keyboard". Thinking is real at such moments, seeing is real, visible object is real, but "I" and "Keyboard" are imagined. ... Metta Sarah ===== #129084 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:49 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes... sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > > >S: Yes, this is why attanuditthi, wrong view of atta is much broader >than sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Are you sure? What are specific definitions of attanuditthi and sakkay-ditthi? ... S: Have a look here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm and in Useful Posts under "sakkaya ditthi" and "attanuditthi" ... > >S:For example, when the hardness experienced is taken to be a keyboard >or computer in reality, "some thing", it is attanuditthi, wrong >belief in atta. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This doesn't follow. > > Belief in atta is belief in unchanging and sukha thing. Neither keyboard, nor even wrong Christian idea about a Soul fits Atta. ... S: When there's an idea of a keyboard or soul or self as existing in reality, there is ditthi, wrong view which takes a reality, a dhamma, to be such a thing or person and so on: From the dict: (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1). ... > Keyboards do exist, this is why we can type on them. It doesn't exist in a mode of totally unchanging and eternal thing that can bring eternal happiness, though. ... S: What exists are only ever the presently arising khandhas - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, i.e. other cetasikas, and vinnana, i.e present citta. Metta Sarah ===== #129085 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (jonoabb) jonoabb Hi Tony --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > Hi J, > > But I hear from others that there are forms that exist outside the mind, waiting to be met with one of the sense conciousness. I am getting confused here as to whether the Theravada says that form is a separate phenomena from mind/conciousness or whether they're synonomous. > =============== J: The Theravada position is that, with one notable exception, dhammas (dhammas being a defined class) (a) are conditioned and (b) each have a unique characteristic as well as the 3 general characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. The conditioning factors for rupas such as form (visible object) will be different from the conditioning factors for namas such as consciousness. Hoping this helps resolve any confusion. > =============== > TH: The process of apprehending an 'object' is the same either way I think and consquently the logic still works. > =============== J: Dhammas are by definition things that are not comprised of component parts. For example, there is no component part to the hardness currently being experienced through the body door wherever there is contact with a chair or the ground. Another consideration is that dhammas cannot be 'examined' or 'analysed' by deciding to do so and selecting one for study. Only panna, itself a conditioned dhamma, can know anything about dhammas by direct experience. So I don't think the line of reasoning on your earlier message has any application. Jon 1) Pick any object in your field of vision (for example) now. 2) Describe it. (you will be describing its 'parts'). 3) Now identify the thing that has these parts. The parts' possessor if you like. 4) As this is unfindable ... 5) If we conclude that the thing cannot be found in its parts nor does it exist outside of its parts then logically it does not exist. It only appears to exist and is therefore illusory and merely an appearance to mind. #129086 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 6, 2013 8:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reminder. nilovg Dear Jagkrit, Thank you very much for your Email, very helpful. Op 6-feb-2013, om 2:08 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > Yesterday, we had dhamma discussion in the countryside with Than > Acharn and Thai friends (also Khun Ann and Khun Paina). Than Acharn > gave some reminder that: > > "Everything happens to be forgotten" > > Nina, Sarah, John and friends would you like to elaborate more > about this? ------- N: Yes, very much so. Where in the countryside was the discussion? ----- Nina. #129087 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 12:46 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > > >S: Really? Through which door-way? > > > > > > >A: The brain. > > > ... > > >S: We are discussing the Buddha's teachings about realities. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >The Buddha described 6 doorways only - not 6 doorways and a brain >door-way. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >A: Does eye by itself sees? No, it is a tool to capture electromagnetic wave and bring it to the brain - the physical basis for consciousness. > ... > S: We are discussing dhammas, not science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: If something in ancient Buddhist philosophy contradicts modern science, with what do you side? Dhamma is the best when it comes to psychology. > ... > S: Whatever is thought about, such as keyboard, factory or brain, >is just an idea, a concept. > ... Alex: As an English word, you are right. It is a concept. But some of them do point to something existing that has a certain function. >A: Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. > ... > S: More thinking about concepts only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: This is correct thinking about origination/finish of real keyboard. > ... > S: Actually, there are only ever dhammas. Right now, there is >thinking about the idea of "I type on the keyboard". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex: And why is there such thinking in the first place? Because there is real keyboard on which I type, and you who read this using computer (or similar device) which is why you can read this. >Thinking is real at such moments, seeing is real, visible object is >real, but "I" and "Keyboard" are imagined. > ... Alex: As concepts, they are imagined. As tools to get the job done, they are not. With metta, Alex #129088 From: "Tony H" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 1:16 am Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) tony.humphreys Hi Sarah, The 'we' is what appears to our mind. Like a 'self'...illusory but existent nonetheless, just not ultimately. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > > The view I hold, and I think its perfectly demonstrable is that there is no such thing as 'form' as such (that'll set the cat amongst the pigeons). > ... > S: I'd like to know what you mean by 'form' first! > ... > > > > As soon as we see/hear etc something we can then start to reduce the phenomena to its parts. > ... > S: No "we" to see or hear anything. What is the "something" here? Again, no "we" to do anything at all. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > #129089 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 2:34 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Alex: If something in ancient Buddhist philosophy contradicts modern science, with what do you side? As far as I get what Sarah is saying, science and dhamma in fact don't cross paths, so contradicting is not really an issue. Each has its own domain, science deals with keyboards, cars and other things that apparently make life easier, dhamma deals with liberation. Do you think that there's a sort of a cross-section between the two? What would you say it is? Best wishes pt #129090 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 2:44 am Subject: Abhs ptaus1 Hi all, Going through Abhidhammathasangaha slowly. Got questions: In Ch.1, par.4 - 8 akusala cittas rooted in lobha are enumerated, the first of which is: Somanassasahagata? di??higatasampayutta? asa?kharikam eka? BB translation: One consciousness, accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, unprompted. I was wondering: 1. are sahagata and sampayutta synonyms here, or is one used in order to point to some difference from the other? 2. does somanassa here stand for pleasant feeling, or something more than that? B.B. translates joy, not sure why not just pleasant feeling. 3. does eka? here indicate one kind or item of consciousness in the list of eight, or does it refer to one mind-moment? Thanks Best wishes pt #129091 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 3:37 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, As long as Dhamma is concerned with ending of Dukkha (psychology), it is great and I have no problem. Dhamma is the best. But when people use it to enter the territory of hard sciences, and when it claims to know better than sciences, and when it doesn't, then it is like Christian Fundamentalists believing in earth being flat and all that regardless of the evidence... With best wishes, Alex #129092 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 3:45 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > He is adroit and nimble in fulfilling his duties towards beings when these are conducive to their good. He serves as their companion. When beings are afflicted with the suffering of disease, etc., he prepares the appropriate remedy. He dispels the sorrow of those afflicted by the loss of wealth, etc.- Of a helpful disposition, he restrains with Dhamma those who need to be restrained, rehabilitates them from unwholesome ways, and establishes them in wholesome courses of conduct. He inspires with Dhamma those in need of inspiration...." Thanks for the descriptive excerpts of the two types of sila, and the role of wisdom in developing higher sila. It reminds me in an analogous way of the difference between those who are "pious" because they want to be "good people" and those who have studied and understand the benefits of behaving in a way that is in accord with higher understanding and so have a deeper reason for "good behavior." I was once friends with an Orthodox girl and I asked her what is the reason for following certain religious rules. She basically said she didn't know and didn't care. She did it because "God wanted her to." But with wisdom one would understand why certain behaviors will cause akusala kamma and others will not, etc. If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially prepared for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. I also note with interest that there are both important abstentions and important performances to be observed in sila, and that they are both, seems to me, equally significant. It is sometimes said on dsg that higher sila is all abstention as there are no real actions to perform on the paramatha level. I think this passage contradicts that idea. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #129093 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 4:08 am Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Regarding, "At the very least, he is encouraging all those who have the potential to attain jhana to go attain it *as purposively as possible*", the purposive aspect is not express. You seem to think it is implied. However, as I've said in earlier posts, reference to quiet places does not necessarily imply a purposive aspect to the development of jhana. It is said somewhere (Vism, perhaps) that sound is the enemy of jhana. It seems like your paraphrase that "sound is the enemy of jhana" bears out the implication that a "quiet place" is an invitation to develop jhana, as these two ideas are in accord. In any case, the statement "There are the roots of trees - go develop jhana, or you will regret it" is a pretty obvious indication that one is to go develop jhana at the root of a tree. Unless you think it is correct to take parts of sentences separately, eg, "Go to the store and get some milk" may be broken down into two unrelated propositions - "go to the store," [for no particular reason,] and "get some milk" [at no particular place.] > > =============== > > RE: 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. > > =============== > > J: Regarding "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability [i.e., jhana], as are also discussed in the Vism", would you mind giving some specific instances of such exercises from the Vism, so that we may discuss. Thanks. More homework for me. I am thinking of the breathing exercises, etc., but you may not agree that those are training for samatha meditation. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #129094 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhs nilovg Dear pt, Op 6-feb-2013, om 16:44 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > One consciousness, accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, > unprompted. > > I was wondering: > > 1. are sahagata and sampayutta synonyms here, or is one used in > order to point to some difference from the other? ------- N: Saha means together, going together. Sampayutta: associated. Naama can be associated with naama only, this is not said of naama and ruupa. Sampayutta seems very close, closely. ----- > > 2. does somanassa here stand for pleasant feeling, or something > more than that? B.B. translates joy, not sure why not just pleasant > feeling. ----- N: pleasant or happy feeling. So stands for su: good. manassa, of the mind. But we should not attach to terms. Is there happy feeling now? No need to name it, but know its characteristic. ------ > > 3. does ekaᚃ here indicate one kind or item of consciousness in > the list of eight, or does it refer to one mind-moment? ------ N: in each of these classifications eka.m is used, also in the case of the two cittas rooted in dosa, for example. In this case: one of the eight. ---- Nina. #129095 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 6-feb-2013, om 17:45 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially prepared > for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, > which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. ------ N: It is slightly different. If a fish in a restaurant is specially killed for a customer, then it is not right to order it. ------ > > R:I also note with interest that there are both important > abstentions and important performances to be observed in sila, and > that they are both, seems to me, equally significant. It is > sometimes said on dsg that higher sila is all abstention as there > are no real actions to perform on the paramatha level. I think this > passage contradicts that idea. ------ N: Higher siila is with pa~n~naa. Siila is also mental good conduct, awareness and understanding of naama and ruupa. ------ Nina. #129096 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:05 am Subject: Reminder. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn:Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality. Nina: Trying not to think is forced. Acharn: It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger. Sarah: When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it. N: We should not select, but just be aware of any reality. Acharn: The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaness is not firm, not well established. But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When it arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When there is awareness for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and the moment of understanding a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss. **** Nina. #129097 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 8:57 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Robert E and Sukin, --- >> RE: 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. > > S: Perhaps someone else reading in can help with this.... ------------- KH: I notice, Rob, that you refer to eight `limbs' and I suspect you imagine samsara as like an octopus with eight paths leading out of it. You concede that the panna limb might be a single moment of consciousness, but you can't concede the same of the other seven limbs -- unless Sukin can provide a sutta quote specifically to that effect. In fact there is only one path leading out of samsara. It is eightfold, but that means `having eight parts' not `being eight in number.' So the sutta quote you require is very unlikely to exist. The Buddha was never talking about eight paths, only one. If one part of the path arises in a single citta so too must the other seven. Ken H #129098 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 10:00 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards kenhowardau Hi Sarah, Azita and Tony (and Lukas), We all got a shock when Lukas said keys were dhammas, but I think that was because we hadn't read his explanation carefully enough. Here is a part of Lukas's explanation from message 128999: > 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.> KH: So when Lukas wrote, "Tony, but keys exist in real, they are real. They are dhammas. Each one performs its specific function has its own characteristic," I am sure we were meant to understand that as "dhammas are keys" rather than "keys are dhammas." :-) Ken H #129099 From: "azita" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 12:31 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Keyboards gazita2002 Hi KenH, and Lucas, I think you're right KenH, on re reading Lucas's post I can see what he means. sorry Lucas, I thought for a moment you had 'lost it'. hope all is well for everyone. patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Azita and Tony (and Lukas), > > We all got a shock when Lukas said keys were dhammas, but I think that was because we hadn't read his explanation carefully enough. > > Here is a part of Lukas's explanation from message 128999: > > > 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.> > > KH: So when Lukas wrote, "Tony, but keys exist in real, they are real. They are dhammas. Each one performs its specific function has its own characteristic," I am sure we were meant to understand that as "dhammas are keys" rather than "keys are dhammas." :-) > > Ken H > #129100 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 12:50 pm Subject: Re: Abhs ptaus1 Hi Nina, > N: Saha means together, going together. Sampayutta: associated. Naama > can be associated with naama only, this is not said of naama and > ruupa. Sampayutta seems very close, closely. Thanks for that, it is clear now. Best wishes pt #129101 From: "azita" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 12:53 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) gazita2002 Hallo KenH, RE, Sukin, At a path moment (lokkuttara citta) all 8 path factors arise however, before that usually only 5 factors arise. The 3 involving speech, action, livelihood do not arise until sottapattimagga citta when sila is at that moment perfected. having stated that, I recall that one of them can arise before lokuttara citta and that would make 6 factors arising together. patience, courage and good cheer azita > In fact there is only one path leading out of samsara. It is eightfold, but that means `having eight parts' not `being eight in number.' > > So the sutta quote you require is very unlikely to exist. The Buddha was never talking about eight paths, only one. If one part of the path arises in a single citta so too must the other seven. > > > Ken H > #129102 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 1:19 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah ptaus1 Hi Alex, > As long as Dhamma is concerned with ending of Dukkha (psychology), it is great and I have no problem. Dhamma is the best. > > But when people use it to enter the territory of hard sciences, and when it claims to know better than sciences, and when it doesn't, then it is like Christian Fundamentalists believing in earth being flat and all that regardless of the evidence... Thanks. If I understand you right, you too are basically saying that dhamma and science should not be mixed. So perhaps then the problem arises when we read too much into someone's statement. I mean, Sarah and others too seems to be saying that dhamma and science are different things. So, I take it that when it's said that keyboards, keys, etc, are concepts, not real, or rupas and real - it still has nothing to do with entering the domain of science, nor contradicting science, rather, the statement still remains in the domain of the dhamma - as in that dhamma indicates that all such things are best considered as concepts, thinking, rupas and sense-cittas, and that considering them this way would help with the business of ending dukkha. Of course, if instead we need to consider keyboards, etc, in the domain of science which does not deal with the business of ending dukkha, then we could talk about functions, keys, numbers, algorithms, etc, and nobody (except maybe KenH;)) would dismiss them. Don't know if this is making sense. Best wishes pt #129103 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 1:49 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Regarding "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability [i.e., jhana], as are also discussed in the Vism", would you mind giving some specific instances of such exercises from the Vism, so that we may discuss. Thanks. > > RE: More homework for me. > =============== J: To ease the homework burden and sharpen the focus of our discussion, I suggest we start with the *first mention* in the Vism of any such "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of jhana". I presume that would be somewhere in Chapter IV, beginning with the section "Detailed Instructions for Development" at para 21 (please correct me if I'm wrong), since the preceding parts of Part II deal with preparations that precede the actual development of jhana as dealt with in the Vism. The Detailed Instructions begin with the earth kasina as "meditation subject". Are there any preliminary exercises mentioned in relation to this object? What is the first of these? > =============== > I am thinking of the breathing exercises, etc., but you may not agree that those are training for samatha meditation. :-) > =============== J: :-)). Let's deal with breathing as object when we come to it. If what you say is correct, it should be apparent in the context of other "meditation subjects" also. Jon #129104 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 6-feb-2013, om 17:45 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially prepared > > for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, > > which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. > ------ > N: It is slightly different. If a fish in a restaurant is specially > killed for a customer, then it is not right to order it. > ------ I am not sure if I see the difference. Can you explain the difference between this and what I said? I think this is what I meant. > > R:I also note with interest that there are both important > > abstentions and important performances to be observed in sila, and > > that they are both, seems to me, equally significant. It is > > sometimes said on dsg that higher sila is all abstention as there > > are no real actions to perform on the paramatha level. I think this > > passage contradicts that idea. > ------ > N: Higher siila is with pa~n~naa. Siila is also mental good conduct, > awareness and understanding of naama and ruupa. That is a good point - thanks for pointing it out. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #129105 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 7:28 am Subject: Re: Reminder. colette_aube "BE LIKE WATER" Bruce Lee colette: water does not try. Like prana, water will flow. I'm just using the JKD doctrine because I haven't gotten my version of it worked out completely, My version applies AIR i.e. "be like AIR" toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Acharn:Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a > person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, > even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right > understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have > the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking > as just a reality. > Nina: Trying not to think is forced. > Acharn: It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. > It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger. > Sarah: When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is > conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it. > N: We should not select, but just be aware of any reality. > Acharn: The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the > understanding of anattaness is not firm, not well established. > But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by > conditions. When it arises by its own conditions it is much better > than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is > building up at that very moment. When there is awareness for only a > moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day > and the moment of understanding a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when > lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, > hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss. > > **** > Nina. > #129106 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice jonoabb Hi Tony H Going back to your original message clarifying your Hua Hin musings :-)) You raised a question about intellectualising vs. meditation, based on a number of assumptions. Thought you might be interested to hear (or hear again, since others have already covered most of the points) the Theravadin perspective on all that. (128822) --- 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. > =============== J: In the Pali Canon, `not-self' is one of the 3 general characteristics of all conditioned dhammas (the three being anicca, dukkha and anatta). In the commentarial texts, it is explained that the characteristic of `not-self' reflects the fact that dhammas are not subject to mastery (by anyone). The understanding of the 3 characteristics of dhammas comes about by the understanding of dhammas themselves. There is no understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta separate from the understanding of dhammas (such as, for example, having the general idea that "everything in life is impermanent"). As the direct understanding of (or insight into the true nature of) dhammas is further developed, dhammas come to be seen by panna as "not-self", or "empty of self". Whether this is the same as your "experience the emptiness of phenomena", I can't say for sure, but I suspect it's not :-)). > =============== > Tony H: 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. > =============== J: The Pali Canon speaks of both (a) intellectual or theoretical understanding of dhammas and (b) direct understanding of dhammas. The former is a prerequisite for the latter, not just at the beginning of the path but throughout the entire development of the path to final enlightenment: as direct understanding of dhammas at one level is developed, intellectual understanding in relation to the next level becomes possible. Of course, intellectual understanding is not and never can be a substitute for direct understanding. However, direct understanding is not a matter of "analytical meditation". The function of direct understanding is performed by the mental factor panna. And panna, being itself a dhamma and thus having the characteristic of not being subject to mastery, occurs/arises at a time and with an object that is not of anybody's choosing. > =============== > Tony H: 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. > =============== J: In the suttas the Buddha declares that the idea that things do exist and the idea that things don't exist are both views that are not taught by him. So it is not the function of understanding to see "how things exist" or "don't exist", but rather to see the conditioned, and momentary, nature of dhammas. > =============== > Tony H: 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: Coming now to your question. Intellectual understanding of dhammas, gained from having the teachings properly and appropriately explained, is essential to the development of direct understanding of dhammas. However, as explained above, neither kind of understanding is concerned with the question of "how phenomena exist or don't". Nor is direct understanding a matter of "meditation" as that term is commonly understood. We come into this life with (hopefully) a certain level of direct understanding that has been accumulated in previous lifetimes, but needs the frequent hearing of the teachings appropriately explained, and reflection on what has been thus understood, to arise/manifest. It is the repeated arising of this accumulated understanding, after hearing the teachings in the present lifetime, that constitutes its development. And there is no way of knowing in advance when such understanding will (re-)arise or what dhamma(s) will be its object when it does. Happy to discuss further is there's anything that's not clear or that you have difficulty with, Jon #129107 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 7-feb-2013, om 4:22 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially > prepared > > > for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, > > > which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. > > ------ > > N: It is slightly different. If a fish in a restaurant is specially > > killed for a customer, then it is not right to order it. > > ------ > > I am not sure if I see the difference. Can you explain the > difference between this and what I said? I think this is what I meant. ------ N:you said < If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially prepared > for you>. These words are not so clear. Perhaps you meant: when > you know that an animal, like a chicken, has been killed especially > for you. It is not the eating of meat in itself that is wrong. ----- Nina. #129108 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice (Jon) tony.humphreys Thanks for the reply Jon J: Happy to discuss further is there's anything that's not clear or that you have difficulty with. TH: Nope all clear and I went through similar conclusions myself at one time. J: Intellectual understanding of dhammas, gained from having the teachings properly and appropriately explained. TH: Who is to decide that the teachings are being appropriately explained? In the Tibetan Tradition there is something called 'Intellectually Formed Delusions'. Very subtle and seductive explanations of (for example) why the craters on the moon are created by large elephants that live permanently on the dark side.... I am of course being facetious. But you get the idea. The best you can hope for regarding an intellectual understanding is like the difference between reading about swimming and actually experiencing it. There is no comparison. You can sit through a thousand lectures on the various technicalities of swimming and become an expert...but this will be of no help at all if you fall in the deep end :) Why? Because you have never experienced it, only understand it. To be honest, not meditating sounds like avoidance. I have seen some of the side debates in here regarding what the Buddha taught about a formal practice. I have also seen some conversational gymnastics tweaking some of his words to imply he didn't really mean sitting meditation was necessary. I think this is undoubtedly a massive misinterpretation of his intention. A non-conceptual experience of Emptiness and by proxy an non-conceptual understanding of the nature of ALL phenomena cannot be understood by the intellect. Krishnamurti made this error too. It is by nature arrived at by conception but experienced non-conceptually. The mind is rarely quiet enough for this to happen whilst sat talking and intellectualising about reality. IMO (and others clearly) its only in a state of meditative equipoise that we can experience the difference between understanding and experiencing. Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > J: Coming now to your question. > > Intellectual understanding of dhammas, gained from having the teachings properly and appropriately explained, is essential to the development of direct understanding of dhammas. > > However, as explained above, neither kind of understanding is concerned with the question of "how phenomena exist or don't". > > Nor is direct understanding a matter of "meditation" as that term is commonly understood. We come into this life with (hopefully) a certain level of direct understanding that has been accumulated in previous lifetimes, but needs the frequent hearing of the teachings appropriately explained, and reflection on what has been thus understood, to arise/manifest. > > It is the repeated arising of this accumulated understanding, after hearing the teachings in the present lifetime, that constitutes its development. And there is no way of knowing in advance when such understanding will (re-)arise or what dhamma(s) will be its object when it does. > > Happy to discuss further is there's anything that's not clear or that you have difficulty with, > > Jon > #129109 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:40 am Subject: Science and Dhamma truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, Yes, I believe that science and Dhamma should be kept separate. However when the talk is about external things, this is domain of science. The fact that you read this is because you have a device made by science that allows you to read this and for Alex to type this and send over the internet (another scientific advancement). Dhamma, IMHO, should stick as much as possible to psychology (ending of Dukkha). With best wishes, Alex #129110 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:15 am Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice kenhowardau Hi Jon and Tony, ------- >>Tony H: 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. >> > J: In the suttas the Buddha declares that the idea that things do exist and the idea that things don't exist are both views that are not taught by him. > So it is not the function of understanding to see "how things exist" or "don't exist", but rather to see the conditioned, and momentary, nature of dhammas. -------- KH: Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that was the answer Tony needed to hear. I am sure it is perfectly valid with regard to concepts, but Tony's problem (if I may call it that) is that he thinks dhammas have no existence outside the mind. In other words, he sees them as concepts. The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist (see Useful Posts under "Exists & does not Exist, Emptiness"). Ken H #129111 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 10:23 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: There is a second kind of dukkha, viparinama dukkha, the dukkha of change. This refers to pleasant feeling which never lasts. There's always the wish to have more and more. > > > > The 1st NT refers to sankhara dukkha, the third kind of dukkha. This is the inherent dukkha of all conditioned realities due to their arising and falling away - the 5 khandhas subject to clinging. > > ...the cause of such dukkha is tanha (attachment), the only end to such dukkha is the eradication of attachment and the cessation of formations. The eightfold path, is the only way leading out. ... >R: Thank you - those are good distinctions to have and to identify the inherent dukkha of arising and falling away. I am wondering though why the viparinama dukkha is not also part of the story as well. It seems that it is the dukkha that would be associated with anicca and should be part of arising and falling as well...? Or is it a more gross level of change that it indicates...? ... S: Sankhara dukkha (as in 1st NT) includes all conditioned dhammas, so it includes the other kinds of dukkha as well. The pleasant feeling which is viparinama dukkha is also sankhara dukkha because it's a dhamma which is conditioned and arises and falls away. Without the Buddha's teaching on sankhara dukkha, on conditioned realities as dukkha, the viparinama dukkha, the pleasant feeling which doesn't last, would still be taken for self - 'my' pleasant feeling which is being sought all day. So even though it is more subtle than dukkha dukkha - everyone knows unpleasant feeling and pain is dukkha, but not everyone knows that the continual search for pleasant feeling is dukkha too - it is still not as subtle as sankhara dukkha. Sankhara dukkha can only be truly understood at the third stage of insight with the direct understanding of the rising and falling away of realities. Metta Sarah ===== #129112 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 10:32 am Subject: Re: On Siila 1. sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > I am looking for anything concerning siila in the Text: Suttas, commentaries...,etc. ... S: I'm sure you have read/have access to the first section in the Vism on sila? The Vinaya is also full of detail on siila too - ways of behaviour for the well-being of all. There is also lots of detail and quotes in Useful Posts under "sila". I quoted a section the other day from the commentary to the Cariya Pitaka. Here we are looking at sila as a parami (perfection) - to be developed with right understanding and the other perfections. As Ajahn stressed, all the perfections are developed out of consideration for others. Let me quote the full section on sila in extracts: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m From the introduction: "(2) Virtue is stated immediately after giving: (a) because virtue purifies both the donor and the recipient; (b) to show that, while giving benefits others virtue prevents the affliction of others; (c) in order to state a factor of abstinence immediately after a factor of positive activity, and (d) in order to show the cause for the achievement, of a favourable state of future existence right after the cause for the achievement of wealth." to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129113 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: On Siila 2. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Firstly, all the paramis, without exception, have as their characteristic the benefitting of others; as their function, the rendering of help to others, or not vacillating; as their manifestation, the wish for the welfare of others, or Buddhahood; and as their proximate cause., great compassion, or compassion and skilful means. Taken separately the perfection of giving is the volition of relinquishing oneself and one's belongings; accompanied by compassion and skilful means. The perfection of virtue is good conduct of body and speech, accompanied by compassion and skilful means; in denotation, it is the abstinence from what should not be done, the volition to do what should be done, etc." to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129114 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sukinderpal Hi Ken H. ( & Rob E), Thanks for you input. I like your comparison with the octopus. Metta, Sukin > > --- > >> RE: 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. > > > > > S: Perhaps someone else reading in can help with this.... > ------------- > > KH: I notice, Rob, that you refer to eight `limbs' and I suspect you > imagine samsara as like an octopus with eight paths leading out of it. > > You concede that the panna limb might be a single moment of > consciousness, but you can't concede the same of the other seven limbs > -- unless Sukin can provide a sutta quote specifically to that effect. > > In fact there is only one path leading out of samsara. It is > eightfold, but that means `having eight parts' not `being eight in > number.' > > So the sutta quote you require is very unlikely to exist. The Buddha > was never talking about eight paths, only one. If one part of the path > arises in a single citta so too must the other seven. > > Ken H > #129115 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 10:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: dhamma is everywhere sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > It is good to be reminded that dhamma is everywhere. I have to adapt > myself again to a solitary life, but anyway, we are seeing... > thinking alone. ... S: And in truth, no 'we' to adapt, see, think or do anything else. From birth to death, just the solitary life of one citta at a time.... ... > > S: And these so-called difficulties and discomforts are so very > > fleeting, never lasting longer than a moment. What seems so > > problematic now will be forgotten in an instant at a moment of > > seeing or hearing or attachment or occasionally kusala of one kind > > or other. > ------- > N: And I remember that tomorrow, what is today will be yesterday, of > no importance. But not easy to apply it at the moment. Kh S stressed > this all the time. ... S: Nothing to be applied, just the development of understanding of the presently appearing dhamma.....otherwise it's self again thinking of doing, practising or applying... Metta Sarah ===== #129116 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sukinderpal Hi Azita, On 2/7/2013 8:53 AM, azita wrote: > > Hallo KenH, RE, Sukin, > > At a path moment (lokkuttara citta) all 8 path factors arise however, > before that usually only 5 factors arise. The 3 involving speech, > action, livelihood do not arise until sottapattimagga citta when sila > is at that moment perfected. > > having stated that, I recall that one of them can arise before > lokuttara citta and that would make 6 factors arising together. > > patience, courage and good cheer > azita > Right, so I wonder what those who consider the N8FP as eight separate things to be done, think about this idea regarding only five and six factors arising prior to enlightenment? Thanks. Metta, Sukin #129117 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit & friends, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: >....Than Acharn gave some reminder that: > > "Everything happens to be forgotten" > > Nina, Sarah, John and friends would you like to elaborate more about this? .... S: All day there is clinging to sense objects, feelings, other dhammas and concepts on account of them. Everything we find so important and precious and cling to so dearly will all be forgotten. Can we remember the taste of the food yesterday that seemed so special at the time? Can we remember the visible object that was seen when we first woke up? Can we remember the sound of the voice of a dear friend who spoke to us a little while ago? All conditioned dhammas arise and fall instantly, to be completely forgotten. All the stories that are fondly recalled now about what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched will be completely forgotten very soon. The only thing of any value at all during this life is the development of understanding. Without such understanding, there is just the being born, experiencing all sorts of realities and concepts, all to be forgotten by the end of life if not before. Can we remember our husband/wife, family members, dear ones from the last life? Next life it'll be the same - all that is dear now will be unknown. There will be new friends, new dear ones, new objects of attachment, over and over again. Don't be heedless! Develop understanding now! Understanding dhammas as anatta beginning now! Metta Sarah ==== #129118 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:17 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Azita & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > At a path moment (lokkuttara citta) all 8 path factors arise however, before that usually only 5 factors arise. The 3 involving speech, action, livelihood do not arise until sottapattimagga citta when sila is at that moment perfected. > > having stated that, I recall that one of them can arise before lokuttara citta and that would make 6 factors arising together. ... S: 5 or 6 factors before sotapattimagga - always 5 plus one of the 3 virati (abstentions) of right speech, action or livelihood at moments of abstention from wrong speech, action or livelihood. At sotapattimagga, all 8 arise together as you stated. Metta Sarah p.s further exceptions in the case of those who attain enlightenment with higher jhanas as basis ===== #129119 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 1:29 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Sukin. Pt. I of my response. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > 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? > What do you think differentiates panna from other forms of kusala? Panna > = Bhavana / mental development is it not? And are not Samatha bhavana > and Vipassana bhavana both a reference to panna? I don't know technically what is the case, but samatha is not the same as vipassana. To turn them into the same thing under the idea that only panna creates development is just to take your own formula and basically turn all bhavana into that formula. The way I understand it, kusala of different kinds allows for development in various ways. If there is a great development of samatha into jhana, for instance, that suppresses defilements and gives an opportunity for greater understanding of the moment. The Buddha describes these things in sutta, and there is no statement in sutta that only panna leads to development. > Panna in understanding the value of kusala and harm in akusala, > increases that much, the tendency toward the one and away from the > other. What is the value, if other kusala is not part of the path? Why would panna value it if it is meaningless? > The object of dana for example, is the need of another being, how > is this related to panna? Panna sees the value of panna itself and all > other kusala, but dana does not perform such a function. Why would panna value dana, if dana is not part of the path? Who cares about 'caring for another human being,' a useless waste of time, if it is not part of the path? Why wouldn't panna just dismiss all other kusala as a waste of time, if it has no relation to the path? What you are saying is not logical. There is no reason to value kusala if it is not part of the path. > === > > > > 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? > > > > Panna is not selective; therefore kusala and akusala must invariably > become its object from time to time. That is not the question. You said that there will be *less akusala* with greater wisdom. Why? If other kusala is meaningless, there is no reason why wisdom should develop such kusala. It's just a waste of time. Panna should focus on panna and nothing else. If it's panna all the way, then sila and dana and all that other nice stuff is just some fluffy nonsense, a waste of time. > === > > > > 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. > > > > Being training rules point to the fact that only panna is the Path. > Without understanding, what invariably happens is that kusala is taken > for "self" and therefore instead of kusala, the one dhamma which is a > hindrance to the Path gets encouraged. This of course does not imply > that if the rules are broken, it will not lead to bad results. It shouldn't really matter - if one has unpleasant vipaka then panna can just as easily awaken to akusala as to kusala, so why bother? One may as well refrain from following the rules in the first place, since they are meaningless and have no relation to the path. ... > Supposing someone approached you, suggesting that the Buddha believed in > God and asked you for a direct quote to prove otherwise, do you think > that you need to bring up such a proof? Is not your conclusion based on > a general understanding of what he taught? On some occasions when you > ask for quotes from other people, do you think that perhaps the > situation may be similar to this? No not really. To ask for some random idea that has nothing to do with Buddhism is one thing; it is quite another to ask someone to give some evidence in scripture for what they are asserting is the core of Buddhism. If you can't back up your most important point with anything the Buddha said, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't even show that what you think is "Buddhism" if the Buddha never even said it! It's not trying to prove a negative like "Prove to me that the Buddha did not believe in unicorns!" Obviously there is no quote for that. But there had better be a quote for the idea that "panna is the only path factor that is actually the path," or I will tell you that you just made it up! End of Part I - thanks, Sukin. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #129120 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 1:38 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Azita and all, Now that you have settled the 8, 5 & 6 fold issue, the only remaining question was whether they could all be called paths leading out of samsara, or whether only the 8fold path could be called that. To cut my theorising short, I think paths in the ultimate sense are javana cittas. And I think all ultimately real paths lead to their objects. The 8fold supramundane magga-citta is the only javana citta that has nibbana as its object. Therefore, according to my theory, it is the only path out of samsara. The 5 and 6 fold paths have conditioned dhammas as their objects and therefore they could be called paths to samsara. That might not be a nice-sounding name, but we should remember that the Buddha's teaching was entirely a description of samsara. There are other javana cittas –- kusala and akusala – that have either conditioned dhammas or concepts as their objects, but I will my theorising there. :-) Ken H #129121 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 1:41 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > --- > >> RE: 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. > > > > > S: Perhaps someone else reading in can help with this.... > ------------- > > KH: I notice, Rob, that you refer to eight `limbs' and I suspect you imagine samsara as like an octopus with eight paths leading out of it. Not what I have in mind. I see the path as containing eight factors to be developed,both in life and as mental factors, and they do not all add up to panna panna panna, though understanding is the ultimate result. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for "right livelihood" to be a single moment of consciousness. Does one imagine an especially wholesome job for a single moment to satisfy that path factor? It's kind of ridiculous. Obviously the Buddha was talking about doing wholesome, non-harmful work. You will tell me that this is a conceptual understanding of the mundane path, not the Noble eight-fold path which is consciousness only, but it still doesn't make any sense to have "right livelihood" or "right action" as a single moment of consciousness that arises as a pure experience of citta. Also, Buddha explicitly says that "jhana is the path factor of concentration" many times, yet it is understood to mean that something equivalent to jhana must arise for a single moment, ignoring the fact that the monks who lived at the time of the Buddha spent a large portion of their lives developing this factor through sitting meditation. So as far as I'm concerned, this model of the path is very abstract, and is not taking into account the full picture of how understanding is developed by laying the groundwork in several different areas of living, specified by the Buddha in quite a lot of detail. > You concede that the panna limb might be a single moment of consciousness, but you can't concede the same of the other seven limbs -- unless Sukin can provide a sutta quote specifically to that effect. Understanding may arise in a single moment -- hopefully followed by many other single moments if you don't want it to be a flash in the pan -- but it takes many moments to really accumulate any of the path factors. A single moment is fine for understanding the structure of momentary reality, the single unit of paramatha reality, but doesn't give you much insight into the way in which the factors accumulate and develop, which is never a matter of an isolated moment, and is always a matter of accumulation and development over many many moments. > In fact there is only one path leading out of samsara. It is eightfold, but that means `having eight parts' not `being eight in number.' I would agree that they are eight aspects to the single path, and that they can develop in various ways, in tandem, sequentially, etc., to reach a certain critical mass to create conditions for understanding the nature of reality through development of panna. > So the sutta quote you require is very unlikely to exist. The Buddha was never talking about eight paths, only one. If one part of the path arises in a single citta so too must the other seven. Well the Buddha should at least have said something about your view of the path being correct. If he didn't, you don't have any evidence that he was talking about what you are talking about. You may be off course. I would go to the teacher to get the teaching, and then see other commentaries as elucidating the Buddha's points, I would not take someone else's teaching as the core source for my understanding. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #129122 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Without the Buddha's teaching on sankhara dukkha, on conditioned realities as dukkha, the viparinama dukkha, the pleasant feeling which doesn't last, would still be taken for self - 'my' pleasant feeling which is being sought all day. So even though it is more subtle than dukkha dukkha - everyone knows unpleasant feeling and pain is dukkha, but not everyone knows that the continual search for pleasant feeling is dukkha too - it is still not as subtle as sankhara dukkha. Those are good distinctions, thank you. > Sankhara dukkha can only be truly understood at the third stage of insight with the direct understanding of the rising and falling away of realities. What is the best translation for dukkha in this context? Unsatisfactoriness? Best, Rob E. ------------------------ #129123 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reminder. tambach  Thank you Sarah and Jagkrit, very hepful ! Metta, Tam B  Dear Jagkrit & friends, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: >....Than Acharn gave some reminder that: > > "Everything happens to be forgotten" > > Nina, Sarah, John and friends would you like to elaborate more about this? .... S: All day there is clinging to sense objects, feelings, other dhammas and concepts on account of them. Everything we find so important and precious and cling to so dearly will all be forgotten. Can we remember the taste of the food yesterday that seemed so special at the time? Can we remember the visible object that was seen when we first woke up? Can we remember the sound of the voice of a dear friend who spoke to us a little while ago? All conditioned dhammas arise and fall instantly, to be completely forgotten. All the stories that are fondly recalled now about what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched will be completely forgotten very soon. The only thing of any value at all during this life is the development of understanding. Without such understanding, there is just the being born, experiencing all sorts of realities and concepts, all to be forgotten by the end of life if not before. Can we remember our husband/wife, family members, dear ones from the last life? Next life it'll be the same - all that is dear now will be unknown. There will be new friends, new dear ones, new objects of attachment, over and over again. Don't be heedless! Develop understanding now! Understanding dhammas as anatta beginning now! Metta Sarah ==== #129124 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 7:56 pm Subject: for nina rjkjp1 Dear Nina thought you might like to read this as it has some quotes from yoru interview. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 with respect robert #129125 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah, Nina, Tam and friends > >....Than Acharn gave some reminder that: > > > > "Everything happens to be forgotten" > S: ......All conditioned dhammas arise and fall instantly, to be completely forgotten. All the stories that are fondly recalled now about what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched will be completely forgotten very soon. ........ > Don't be heedless! Develop understanding now! Understanding dhammas as anatta beginning now! JJ: Thank you very much Sarah for your further explanation. This is very useful for reminder. ============= JJ: And to answer Nina about where we had the discussion. We were invited by one of our dhamma friend in Rajchaburi about 2 hours from Bangkok. She owns a steak restaurant and a farm there. She arranged buses and lunch for almost 100 dhamma friends from Bangkok with her own budget. We had one day dhamma discussion which was very good. There are a lot of interesting new discussion like: When we listen to dhamma, how we are going to do with our daily life and work? How we are going react toward finding more money for our living or following our career prosperity. Do we have to get away from rich and famous? That is lobha, isn't it? What we should do? May be Sarah, Nina and friends would like to inject right thought to this question. I'm interested to here more. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129126 From: "Tony H" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:44 am Subject: Notional Existence (Ken) tony.humphreys Ken, KH: Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that was the answer Tony needed to hear. I am sure it is perfectly valid with regard to concepts, but Tony's problem (if I may call it that) is that he thinks dhammas have no existence outside the mind. In other words, he sees them as concepts. The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist (see Useful Posts under "Exists & does not Exist, Emptiness"). TH: I am indeed saying that. Can you explain how anything can 'exist' without a mind to apprehend it? To state otherwise is illogical. I think this is fundamental philosophy. You don't know what you don't know. A much more articulate statement regarding my stance - also the following can be demontrable and clearly proven logically: "The Madhyamaka school has been perhaps simplistically regarded as a reaction against the development of the Abhidharma, especially the Sarvâstivâdin. In the Abhidharma, dharmas are characterized by defining traits (lak?a?a) or own-existence (svabhâva), whose ontological status is not dependent upon concepts.The problem with the Abidharma is not that things are 'independently existent' (a position that most Abhidharma schools would not accept), but rather (from a Madhyamaka perspective) that they are independent from notions. For the Madhyamaka, dharmas are notionally dependent, and further more, their notional dependence entails existential dependence and hence lack of ultimate, true existence." Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Tony, > > ------- > >>Tony H: 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. > >> > > > J: In the suttas the Buddha declares that the idea that things do exist and the idea that things don't exist are both views that are not taught by him. > > > So it is not the function of understanding to see "how things exist" or "don't exist", but rather to see the conditioned, and momentary, nature of dhammas. > -------- > > KH: Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that was the answer Tony needed to hear. I am sure it is perfectly valid with regard to concepts, but Tony's problem (if I may call it that) is that he thinks dhammas have no existence outside the mind. In other words, he sees them as concepts. > > The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist (see Useful Posts under "Exists & does not Exist, Emptiness"). > > Ken H > #129127 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] for nina nilovg Dear Robert, Thank you. I did not quite see where you quoted, but it is OK. You missed quite some discussions, perhaps Vietnam in Sept? I will come again. Nina. Op 8-feb-2013, om 9:56 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > Dear Nina > thought you might like to read this as it has some quotes from yoru > interview. > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 > with respect > robert > #129128 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reminder. nilovg Dear Jagkrit, I have been to Rachaburi, long ago. Very nice. Op 8-feb-2013, om 11:08 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > We were invited by one of our dhamma friend in Rajchaburi about 2 > hours from Bangkok. She owns a steak restaurant and a farm there. > She arranged buses and lunch for almost 100 dhamma friends from > Bangkok with her own budget. We had one day dhamma discussion which > was very good. There are a lot of interesting new discussion like: > > When we listen to dhamma, how we are going to do with our daily > life and work? How we are going react toward finding more money for > our living or following our career prosperity. Do we have to get > away from rich and famous? That is lobha, isn't it? What we should do? ----- N: Do not change your lifestyle, we have to come ot know our own accumulations. Everything should be natural, as Acharn says. We do not have to retire from our worldly life, that is unnatural. We understand more that having possessions or fame is not our own doing, it is conditioned by kamma. Nothing to be proud of. We like it, we have lobha, but only the anaagaami has eradicated lobha for sense objects. The first thing is: knowing the present reality as only a dhamma, and understand more that there is no self who can control anything in life. Kusala citta may arise, akusala citta may arise, whatever arises is conditioned and beyond control. What did Acharn say? Nina. #129129 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] for nina rjkjp1 Dear Nina There were numerous posts referring to you, by several people over quite a few pages, I guess you skimmed the 300 posts. I will be in Bangkok in June and July I but maybe too soon for you. Vietnam sounds like it was nice. With respect Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Robert, > Thank you. I did not quite see where you quoted, but it is OK. > You missed quite some discussions, perhaps Vietnam in Sept? I will > come again. > Nina. > Op 8-feb-2013, om 9:56 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > > > Dear Nina > > thought you might like to read this as it has some quotes from yoru > > interview. > > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952 > > with respect > > robert > > > > > > > #129130 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 8:42 am Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) kenhowardau Hi Tony, ---- <. . .> < TH: I am indeed saying that. Can you explain how anything can 'exist' without a mind to apprehend it? To state otherwise is illogical. I think this is fundamental philosophy. You don't know what you don't know. ---- KH: I am glad my interruption was valid, but I am more interested in seeing Jon's answer to your question than in repeating my own. The idea that nothing exists without a mind to apprehend it applies logically to concepts, but it doesn't apply to realities. Concepts are created by thinking and, by definition, they rely for their existence on the mind that creates and experiences them. But realities are not created by thinking, and they exist regardless of whether or not they are experienced. ----------------- > TH: A much more articulate statement regarding my stance - also the following can be demonstrable and clearly proven logically: "The Madhyamaka school has been perhaps simplistically regarded as a reaction against the development of the Abhidharma, especially the Sarvâstivâdin. In the Abhidharma, dharmas are characterized by defining traits (lak?a?a) or own-existence (svabhâva), whose ontological status is not dependent upon concepts.The problem with the Abidharma is not that things are 'independently existent' (a position that most Abhidharma schools would not accept), but rather (from a Madhyamaka perspective) that they are independent from notions. For the Madhyamaka, dharmas are notionally dependent, and further more, their notional dependence entails existential dependence and hence lack of ultimate, true existence." ---------------- KH: Yes, I think I can follow that explanation, but I can't agree with it. I can't see why things that are *dependently* existent should be logically *non*-existent. Do you recall my simile of the dependent baby? I asked you if (logically speaking) dependent babies were existent or non-existent. You haven't replied yet, but I think a reply would help our discussion. Ken H #129131 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 11:17 am Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) truth_aerator Hello Tony, >TH: I am indeed saying that. Can you explain how anything can >'exist' without a mind to apprehend it? To state otherwise is >illogical. I think this is fundamental philosophy. You don't know >what you don't know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because knowing, and the object known do not have to be equal. Knowing does NOT have to equal physical object. One can trip over the rock which one didn't know about until tripping. One can drink poison even though thinking that he is drinking tea. When you are asleep, why don't you fall through your bed, earth and fall into a void? Your bed still exists when you are asleep or unconscious. Laws of gravity still work, earth exists. How can a person have surgery when s/he is under anasthesia and is unconscious? With best wishes, Alex #129132 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:01 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: Regarding "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of that capability [i.e., jhana], as are also discussed in the Vism", would you mind giving some specific instances of such exercises from the Vism, so that we may discuss. Thanks. ... > The Detailed Instructions begin with the earth kasina as "meditation subject". Are there any preliminary exercises mentioned in relation to this object? What is the first of these? I had not been thinking of this section, but of the segments on breathing, for preliminary exercises. Even there, I will have to review to see exactly what is there. Anyway, you switched me over to kasinas, which is a subject I know little about, but for the sake of being systematic, it's fine... Here are some segments that I think refer to meditation and/or meditation preparation: "...he should sit down comfortably in a secluded place and apprehend the sign in earth that is either made up or not made up." So he is instructed to once again purposely sit down [control freak that he is] in a secluded place, and "apprehend the sign," another "formal meditation practice." It's like...a formal meditation session! "22. For this is said: 4 "One who is learning the earth kasióa apprehends the sign in earth that is either made up or not made up...He sees to it that that sign is well apprehended, well attended to, well defined. "He sees to it" - more control. "Having done that, and seeing its advantages and perceiving it as a treasure, building up respect for it, making it dear to him, he anchors his mind to that object..." "He anchors his mind to the object" - more formal meditation practice with purposeful intent to fix the mind on the object. "Secluded from sense desires … he enters upon and dwells in the first jhána …" And of course, it inevitably leads to jhana, like all the other Buddhist practices. Then ancient commentary says: "Having thoroughly established his mindfulness there, observing it again and again with his mind not straying outside, he sees that it is `well attended to'. When it is well attended to thus by adverting and attending again and again by producing much repetition and development instigated by that, he sees that it is `well defined'." "By adverting and attending again and again!" So there is a purposeful effort to focus on the kasina over and over again until it is 'well attended to' and 'well defined.' So much for a single moment arising all by itself and no purposeful effort to do anything. The ancient commentary does *not* support such a view! More as we go through further pages...? > > =============== > > I am thinking of the breathing exercises, etc., but you may not agree that those are training for samatha meditation. :-) > > =============== > > J: :-)). Let's deal with breathing as object when we come to it. If what you say is correct, it should be apparent in the context of other "meditation subjects" also. Well the main point as a general proposition is the purposeful intent to develop awareness or samatha through formal meditation practices. Whether an exercise is preliminary or not is secondary to this main point. But no problem looking into it when it arises. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #129133 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 7-feb-2013, om 4:22 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > > > If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially > > prepared > > > > for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, > > > > which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. > > > ------ > > > N: It is slightly different. If a fish in a restaurant is specially > > > killed for a customer, then it is not right to order it. > > > ------ > > > > I am not sure if I see the difference. Can you explain the > > difference between this and what I said? I think this is what I meant. > ------ > N:you said < If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been > specially prepared > > for you>. These words are not so clear. Perhaps you meant: when > > you know that an animal, like a chicken, has been killed especially > > for you. It is not the eating of meat in itself that is wrong. I see. Yes, my understanding was that the killing in order to provide food for someone is wrong, because it involves the recipient in the death. If someone has meat and gives you some, that is okay; but if you were to order the meat from the butcher and it was killed especially for your order, that would be wrong. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129134 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:20 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) kenhowardau Hello Alex, Tony and Jon, If I may set the scene: Alex is saying that concepts exist. (He often tells us, "If you think people, cars and trees do not ultimately exist, try driving your car into a tree.) I (Ken H) am saying that concepts do not exist, but paramattha dhammas do exist. Tony is saying neither concepts nor paramattha dhammas exist. I suspect Jon is saying that paramattha dhammas do exist but he wants to add an important point. As he said to Tony: ". . . it is not the function of understanding to see "how things exist" or "don't exist", but rather to see the conditioned, and momentary, nature of dhammas." I think that is where we stand: corrections welcome. Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Tony, > > > >TH: I am indeed saying that. Can you explain how anything can >'exist' without a mind to apprehend it? To state otherwise is >illogical. I think this is fundamental philosophy. You don't know >what you don't know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Because knowing, and the object known do not have to be equal. > Knowing does NOT have to equal physical object. > One can trip over the rock which one didn't know about until tripping. #129135 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) truth_aerator Hello KenH, Tony, It is very strange to deny the existence of the very same thing you used to type this and read what I've wrote. When you eat soup, you use spoon. When you need to cut something hard, you use sharp knife. You can't drink soup using a knife. Spoon has one kind of function, knife has another. So the characteristics of them do differ. With best wishes, Alex #129136 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for nina tambach Dear Nina, Seems like you are prepared to join us in Vietnam in Sept. We are very glad! Robert, I don't know if you can make it to Vietnam this time, but you are most welcome! The thread Robert has mentioned is long, so I copy here the part you (Nina) are quoted and one question: When you write about the development of vipassana, you don’t speak about concentration methods or sitting practice. Vipassana, insight, is actually panna (wisdom) which has been developed to clearly understand realities as they are, as non-self. It is not some special practice, it is not sitting or breathing. If one wishes to induce calm by sitting one still wants to get something. There is subtle clinging which can pass unnoticed. The aim of vipassana is to have less ignorance of realities, including our defilements, even subtle ones. Therefore it can and should be developed in daily life; any object can be an object for mindfulness and understanding. But can’t sitting quietly be an assistance for mindfulness to arise? Even mindfulness is anatta, non-self, it cannot be induced just by concentrating or trying to be calm or by sitting quietly. The conditions for mindfulness to arise are listening to the Buddha’s teaching, discussing, considering and pondering over realities. And it develops by studying realities as they appear in our daily lives. Some people find it difficult to accept that one cannot force sati to arise, and they wonder whether this means idleness. The Buddha taught us to develop all good qualities, such as generosity and metta, along with right understanding. It is understanding, actually, that should be emphasized. Nevertheless, the Buddha taught concentration practices such as anapanasati--breathing mindfulness. Doesn’t that suggest that they are important? We read about this in the scriptures because in the Buddha’s time there were people who were able to concentrate on the breath. This is a very subtle rupa, which is produced by citta. It is most difficult to be aware of breath, before one knows it one takes for breath what is something else, air produced by other factors, not breath. The commentary to the Kindred sayings V, The lamp, states that only Maha-Purisas, the great disciples can practice it in the right way. Thus, the Buddha did not teach that everyone should practice it. To those who were gifted, who had the accumulations to do so, he taught it. He explained that there is no self who is breathing, and that breath is only rupa. -- Interview with Nina van Gorkom One question is: In the interview Nina van Gorkom says "It is most difficult to be aware of breath, before one knows it one takes for breath what is something else, air produced by other factors, not breath". It there a slightly different definition of "breath here? What does "air produced by other factors" mean? Tks and metta, Tam B  perhaps Vietnam in Sept? I will > come again. > Nina. #129137 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for nina sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, Why not share some of the quoted parts here to make it easier for Nina and anyone else to read and comment further on if they wish. Have you and your wife had your baby yet? How's Kuwait going? Hope to see you in Bangkok sometime. If anyone else is interested to join the next trip to Vietnam (Saigon and S.Vietnam) durig the first 2 weeks of Sept, pls let Tam and myself know for more details in due course. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Robert, > Thank you. I did not quite see where you quoted, but it is OK. > You missed quite some discussions, perhaps Vietnam in Sept? I will > come again. #129138 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Sukin, Glad to read your discussions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > >Suk: The reason for this is that right understanding / > > > satipatthana is primary and overrides everything else. ... > >R: Did the Buddha ever say this? Please let me see a quote if one is > > available that you know of.... ... > Again, I can't quote you anything. ... S: Plenty in "useful posts" under: "Right Understanding as forerunner", "Satipatthana" or "ekayano - one way". For example, we know the goal is the eradication of defilements. Jon wrote and quoted this: J: "The Visuddhimagga (Ch XXIII) gives, as the first among the `benefits in developing understanding', the removal of various defilements. It explains this as follows: "2. Herein, it should be understood that one of the benefits of the mundane development of understanding is the removal of the various defilements beginning with [mistaken] view of individuality. This starts with the delimitation of mentality-materiality. Then one of the benefits of the supramundane development of understanding is the removal, at the path moment, of the various defilements beginning with the fetters." *** Sarah: As I also quoted: "When a noble disciple is wisely discerning, the faith that follows from that stands solid. The effort that follows from that stands solid. The mindfulness that follows from that stands solid and stable. The concentration that follows from that stands solid and stable."- SN 48.52 **** Metta Sarah ==== #129139 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 3. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "(2) Virtue has the characteristic of composing (siilana); co-ordinating (samaadhaana) and establishing (pati.t.thaana) are also mentioned as its characteristic. Its function is to dispel moral depravity, or its function is blameless conduct; its manifestation is moral purity; shame and moral dread are its proximate cause." to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129140 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:34 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > >A: Does eye by itself sees? No, it is a tool to capture electromagnetic wave and bring it to the brain - the physical basis for consciousness. > > ... > > S: We are discussing dhammas, not science. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Alex: If something in ancient Buddhist philosophy contradicts modern science, with what do you side? ... S: I am on the side of understanding the realities of life at this moment. This is the only way out of samsara and the only way that defilements will eventually be eradicated. Nothing else helps at all. .. > Dhamma is the best when it comes to psychology. ... S: Understanding dhammas now is the only one way. Psychology and science have totally different goals and parameters. There are many benefits - and I've studied and worked in areas of psychology for many years - but they should not be confused with the Buddha's teachings. ... > > S: Whatever is thought about, such as keyboard, factory or brain, >is just an idea, a concept. > > ... > > Alex: As an English word, you are right. It is a concept. But some of them do point to something existing that has a certain function. ... S: It doesn't matter. We are considering the reality experienced at this moment. What is real now? ... > >A: Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. > > ... > > S: More thinking about concepts only. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Alex: This is correct thinking about origination/finish of real keyboard. ... S: Maybe, but it will never take you any closer to the goal. ... > > S: Actually, there are only ever dhammas. Right now, there is >thinking about the idea of "I type on the keyboard". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Alex: And why is there such thinking in the first place? Because there is real keyboard on which I type, and you who read this using computer (or similar device) which is why you can read this. ... S: There is such thinking because it has been accumulated. There is the experience of hardness, visible object and other realities. Sanna (perception) arises at each moment recognizing and marking what is experienced. When we study and consider more about the 24 conditions, it's clear that there are only dhammas conditioned in various ways. Just like when we are asleep, thining and dreaming is conditioned to think in an uncountable, diverse way about different objects. ... > >S: Thinking is real at such moments, seeing is real, visible object is >real, but "I" and "Keyboard" are imagined. > > ... > > Alex: As concepts, they are imagined. As tools to get the job done, they are not. ... S: Yes, like now, without concepts, we could not communicate. However, concepts can never be realities. Metta Sarah ==== #129141 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Phenomena (to recap) sarahprocter... Hi Tony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: >T: The 'we' is what appears to our mind. Like a 'self'...illusory but existent nonetheless, just not ultimately. ... S: Only "existent" as an idea, as a conventional truth. As you say, not an ultimate truth. Hardness experienced now or visible object or seeing or hearing are ultimate truths. ... > > >T: The view I hold, and I think its perfectly demonstrable is that there is no such thing as 'form' as such (that'll set the cat amongst the pigeons). > > ... > > S: I'd like to know what you mean by 'form' first! ... S: Still waiting to hear what you mean by 'form'. ... > > >T: As soon as we see/hear etc something we can then start to reduce the phenomena to its parts. > > ... > > S: No "we" to see or hear anything. What is the "something" here? Again, no "we" to do anything at all. ... S: Again, waiting to hear what the "something" is that is seen or heard. Metta Sarah p.s. Perhaps you'll consider joining us in Vietnam next Sept or in Thailand again next Jan - for longer! ===== #129142 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for nina nilovg Dear Tam Bach, For example when you are blowing out the air. Or sighing. Nina Op 9-feb-2013, om 3:37 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > In the interview Nina van Gorkom says "It is most difficult to be > aware of breath, before one knows it one takes for breath what is > something else, air produced by other factors, not breath". It > there a slightly different definition of "breath here? What does > "air produced by other factors" mean? #129143 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 6:37 pm Subject: Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 9 chapters in abhidhammatthasangaha. The last chapter is about kamma.t.thaana. Regarding kamma.t.thaana there are two types and the first one has been discussed on previous threads of Dhamma Threads. DT number ends with 887. This post may be assumed as 888 of DT. Vipassanaa is a kamma.t.thaana. Kamma.t.thaana is a word made up of 1. kamma and .thaana. Kamma is 'work'. and .thaana is 'cause', is 'place', is 'station', is 'working site'. Kamma here is bhaavanaa kamma. That is the work of bhaavana. Bhaavanaa --> bhaaveti-iti bhaavanaa. It proliferates so it is called bhaavanaa. What proliferate? Good merits are proliferated. There are 2 bhaavanaa. Samatha bhaavanaa and vipassanaa bhaavanaa. Samatha is the word arises from 'sameti-iti samatho'. It calms down so it is called samatho. Samatha bhaavanaa calms down the mind. There are 40 samatha bhaavana. In tipi.taka there are 38 samatha bhaavanaa. Aaloka kasi.na and aakaasa kasi.na are not included. Aarama.nam vividehi passati-iti vipassanaa. The object that is viewed is realised through different angles such as 'as anicca or dukkha or anatta or asubha'. This has to be at any time except at the exact time of arising of magga or phala citta. So if there is no recognition as anicca or dukkha or anatta or asubha then the mind at that time is not vipassanaa mind. Vipassanaa is the path that bridges puthujjana and sotapanna, sotapanna and sakadaagaamii, sakadaagaamii and anaagaamii' and 'anaagaamii and arahat. At least precepts have to be kept well. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #129144 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 6:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Nina and friends > > Q: When we listen to dhamma, how we are going to do with our daily > > life and work? How we are going react toward finding more money for > > our living or following our career prosperity. Do we have to get > > away from rich and famous? That is lobha, isn't it? What we should do? > ----- > N: Do not change your lifestyle, we have to come to know our own > accumulations. Everything should be natural, as Acharn says. We do > not have to retire from our worldly life, that is unnatural. We > understand more that having possessions or fame is not our own doing, > it is conditioned by kamma. Nothing to be proud of. We like it, we > have lobha, but only the anaagaami has eradicated lobha for sense > objects. JJ: Thank you very much Nina. You point out clearly about doing something unnatural. Than Acharn also explained this question with the word "dhammadaa" (in Thai) or "dhamma taa" (in Pali). "Dhamma taa" means being dhamma. Each person lifestyle is according to each person accumulation. And this is dhamma taa or natural. Because kusala or akusala arises according to accumulation and condition. If there are accumulation and condition of akusala, no one can stop akusala to arise. This is dhamma taa. When one studies dhamma and tries to obtain kusala and avoid akusala by trying to do something without understanding accumulation and condition. Is this dhamma taa? Surely, it is not and in the opposite trying to do something will accumulate more akusala of wrong view about self or sakkaya dhiti. =============== >N: The first thing is: knowing the present reality as only a > dhamma, and understand more that there is no self who can control > anything in life. Kusala citta may arise, akusala citta may arise, > whatever arises is conditioned and beyond control. JJ: Than Acharn also stressed the same fundamental as you mentioned above. And this is always the very first step of understanding dhamma. Not doing or practicing anything unnatural. And Then Acharn again said " Dhamma is natural, right now!" Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129145 From: "Tony H" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) tony.humphreys Hi Alex/Ken Alex: It is very strange to deny the existence of the very same thing you used to type this and read what I've wrote. Actually I am using a phone! When did I deny the existence of a keyboard? I deny the existence of the 'reality' of the keyboard that appears to my mind. THAT keyboard is utterly non-existent as it appears as an inherently existent thing in and of itself. It isn't because no matter how to dismantle it you will only ever end up with a pile of the keyborads parts. Keys, wires, bits of plastic etc...where is the keyboard then? If you say its there in that pile of plastic, try typing with it. Put it all back together than kaboom! there is the keyboard again...apparently....but not really....hehehe! Tony... #129146 From: "Tony H" Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 8:38 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) tony.humphreys Hi Ken, KH: But realities are not created by thinking, and they exist regardless of whether or not they are experienced. But you only know this when they're are experienced. Prior to that they're concepts. KH: Do you recall my simile of the dependent baby? I asked you if (logically speaking) dependent babies were existent or non-existent. You haven't replied yet, but I think a reply would help our discussion. TH: I did see your question, but its basing its premise on something I have not said. I haven't ever said that things DO NOT EXIST. That would be ludicrous and fly in the face of experience. I am positing that things DO NOT EXIST IN THE WAY THAT THEY APPEAR. So, Babies do exist of course they do. However, our experience if them is that they exist inherently, independently and are self born (no oun intended) - this baby does not exist anywhere other than as an appearance to our mind and a mere name. The baby that DOES exist is the appearance to our mind. So there are the Two Truths in the Mahayana tradition. Things DO exist but their appearance is false, empty. This doesn't meant that nothing exists? Emptiness is not nothingness. It is the other side of interdependence (pratityasamutpada). All things are interrelated, you cannot take out an object and say this is here in and of itself, this applies to ALL phenomena without exception. Its existence has no self-being (svabhava). This is explained further by Avalokitesvara in the Heart Sutra using the five skandhas. Until we have a non-conceptual experience of these truths we can only ever hold one in our consciousness. As a result we lapse into what are called the Two Extremes. We err on the side that things either exist as they appear or they do not exist at all. 'Existence can be understood as both ultimate and conventional (or, absolute and relative). Conventional truth is how we usually see the world, a place full of diverse and distinctive things and beings. The ultimate truth is that there are no distinctive things or beings'. I suspect were we disagree is that I see no phenomena anywhere or experience that currently that do not appear as being independent and existing inherently. This includes me, mine, you, mind, sight consciousness....all are empty of any true reality other than my conceptual imputation. But this is not how they appear to my (equally illusory) mind. Tony... #129147 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:58 am Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) truth_aerator Hello Tony, Ken, all, >Alex: It is very strange to deny the existence of the very same >thing you used to type this and read what I've wrote. > >T: Actually I am using a phone! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same principle. It is strange to deny the existence of phone, ipads, and all the mobile devices that you use to type or read this. Of course we need to be clear and deny the permanent existence and ability of the physical thing to bring eternal happiness. These kinds of modes do not exist. > When did I deny the existence of a keyboard? I deny the existence >of the 'reality' of the keyboard that appears to my mind. >>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by reality? Deny the nicca, sukkha, atta aspect - not the phenomenal existence. > THAT keyboard is utterly non-existent as it appears as an >inherently existent thing in and of itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keyboard, etc, is not an indivisible thing. Of course it is made of parts and of course one needs to know what it is in order to use it. >It isn't because no matter how to dismantle it you will only ever >end up with a pile of the keyborads parts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. If take it apart, then you will not have a keyboard. This doesn't mean that keyboard doesn't exist at all. It just means that keyboard CAN be taken apart and that the keyboard doesn't exist after you take it apart. This is common sense. If you can take something apart, then it has to exist in the first place to be taken apart! If something can be taken apart, or analyzed into constituent parts, then it has to exist in the first place to be taken apart or analyzed! >Keys, wires, bits of plastic etc...where is the keyboard then? *Then* there is no keyboard. Keyboard is when all these parts are properly arranged. Of course nobody denies that keyboard can be taken apart at which point it will no longer be a keyboard. Of course keyboard doesn't exist as something that cannot be taken apart and destroyed. With best wishes, Alex #129148 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:22 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: I am on the side of understanding the realities of life at this >moment. This is the only way out of samsara and the only way that >defilements will eventually be eradicated. Nothing else helps at all. >>>>>>>>>>> I agree about the need to understand and have wisdom. > > > Dhamma is the best when it comes to psychology. > ... > S: Understanding dhammas now is the only one way. Psychology and >science have totally different goals and parameters. >>>>>>>>>>> Psychology deals with the mind, hard sciences deal with external physical world. Dhamma is about cessatom of suffering, as since suffering is felt in the mind, Dhamma is psychology in that sense. Dhamma IS the best psychology, no question about that! >There are many benefits - and I've studied and worked in areas of >psychology for many years - but they should not be confused with the >Buddha's teachings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Buddha taught better than psychologists today. No doubt about that. > ... > S: It doesn't matter. We are considering the reality experienced at >this moment. What is real now? > ... I think that it is better to ask question: Is there dukkha? What is the cause of it? How to make it cease? Is there clinging to anything? etc... "What is real now" is extremely loaded question that philosophers are battling about for thousands of years with Buddhist teaching being not much better than ontological philosophies out there. > > >A: Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. > > > ... > > > S: More thinking about concepts only. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what? Are you implying that one should be thoughtless log of wood that can do anything (and thus starve to death) because it would involve believing in concepts? >Alex: This is correct thinking about origination/finish of real >keyboard. > ... > S: Maybe, but it will never take you any closer to the goal. > ... We live in a world where we need to survive. If we don't survive, we can't continue learning about Dhamma. > ... > S: There is such thinking because it has been accumulated. There is the experience of hardness, visible object and other realities. Sanna (perception) arises at each moment recognizing and marking what is experienced. > Just because a phenomenon can be analyzed in 100 parts, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! It exists as a emergent property of those parts taken together and doesn't exist when they fall apart. > When we study and consider more about the 24 conditions, it's clear >that there are only dhammas conditioned in various ways. >>>>>>> No it is not clear at all. > > >S: Thinking is real at such moments, seeing is real, visible object is >real, but "I" and "Keyboard" are imagined. > > > ... > > > > Alex: As concepts, they are imagined. As tools to get the job done, they are not. > ... > S: Yes, like now, without concepts, we could not communicate. However, concepts can never be realities. > It depends what you mean by "reality". If words were totally false, then how could we communicate? With best wishes, Alex #129149 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) to Htoo. nilovg Dear Htoo, Op 9-feb-2013, om 8:37 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > Vipassanaa is the path that bridges puthujjana and sotapanna, > sotapanna and sakadaagaamii, sakadaagaamii and anaagaamii' and > 'anaagaamii and arahat. At least precepts have to be kept well. ------- N: But first there is a beginning of developing insight as you will agree. As to precepts, this reminds me of something. Some people stress that first siila must be observed, then samatha developed, and only then vipassanaa can be developed. I mention this, because I often hear this. When one reads some texts it seems that there has to be síla first, then concentration and then pańńĺ. We discussed this with Acharn Sujin who said: “Can síla and samĺdhi be fully developed without pańńĺ?” The sotĺpanna has fully developed síla, he cannot transgress the five precepts nor commit akusala kamma leading to an unhappy rebirth. The anĺgĺmi has fully developed calm, he has eradicated all clinging to sense pleasures. Síla and samĺdhi become fully developed by pańńĺ. We have to investigate whether the text refers to the lokuttara cittas. See the following: We read in the Commentary to the Mahĺparinibbĺnasutta: “Such and such is síla (virtue), meaning, it is indeed síla, síla to that extent; here it is síla which are the four purities of síla. Samĺdhi is concentration. Wisdom should be understood as insight wisdom (vipassanĺ). As to the words, when it is fully developed by síla, this means, when he has abided in that síla etc., these produce concentration accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness; when this is fully developed by that síla it is of great fruit and of great benefit. When he has abided in this concentration, they produce wisdom accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and this, when it is fully developed by this concentration, is of great fruit, of great benefit. When he has abided in this wisdom, they produce the path- consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and thus when it is fully developed by this (wisdom) he is completely freed from the intoxicants.” Thus, when we read about full development this pertains to lokuttara cittas arising at the different stages of enlightenment. ------ Nina. #129150 From: Tam Bach Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah tambach Dear Alex, A: I think that it is better to ask question: Is there dukkha? What is the cause of it? How to make it cease? Tam B: What do you think is the Buddha's exposition about these questions? Best regards, Tam B #129151 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:31 am Subject: reminder nilovg Dear friends, Acharn: Sometimes there is very strong lobha or very strong dosa, who can condition that? The nature of attachment is different from the nature of aversion.Who can control them? There must be conditions, no matter kusala or akusala arises. The truth can appear little by little as not permanent. At this moment there can be a little understanding of what appears as uncontrollable; it does not belong to anyone. Can that which arises and falls away and never comes back be anyone? Not at all. That is the way pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti, to pa.tipatti, to pativedha. Next life one is a different person, suddenly. But past accumulations go on. That is why people have different characters, different likes and dislikes. N: I experience a very pleasant object with pleasant feeling, such as the mountains. Acharn: It is a reality, it is conditioned. It falls away before we know what it is. As soon as it is an object that is experienced, it is gone. Then another object appears and pa~n~naa can understand that. The intellectual understanding conditions detachment from clinging when time comes. But it is not as effective as direct understanding. The difference between the two can be seen. N: It is not so easy to know direct understanding. Acharn: When awareness arises it can be seen that it is quite different. Intellectual understanding can condition direct understanding, and it keeps on going by conditions. Otherwise it is always, how, how can "I" understand. ****** Nina. #129152 From: "Tony H" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:35 am Subject: Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) tony.humphreys Hi Alex A: It is strange to deny the existence of phone, ipads, and all the mobile devices that you use to type or read this. Of course. If take it apart, then you will not have a keyboard. This doesn't mean that keyboard doesn't exist at all. It just means that keyboard CAN be taken apart and that the keyboard doesn't exist after you take it apart. This is common sense. Actually its as far from common sense as we can get! I really can't go over this anymore - you seem to want to stick with stating that I am saying this 'don't exist'. I am not saying this at all. Please re-read my efforts at clarifying this :) A: Keyboard is when all these parts are properly arranged. This is a fundamental error! How does the keyboard suddenly appear once all the bits are arranged in a certain way? Now THAT sounds like some sort of magic trick ;) One second its not there...then it is. How? By imputation of mind. Your mind MAKES the keyboard. Therefore outside of the mind there is no keyboard. This goes for all phenomena...thats ALL phenomena including Shunyata! Again, there's no more I can say on this without going over old ground and repeating myself. Please don't misunderstand me - this view took me years to understand I and I had many many similar conversations nearly always concluding that the Prasangikas were saying things don't exist per se. Tony... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Tony, Ken, all, > > > >Alex: It is very strange to deny the existence of the very same >thing you used to type this and read what I've wrote. > > > > > Of course we need to be clear and deny the permanent existence and ability of the physical thing to bring eternal happiness. These kinds of modes do not exist. > > > > When did I deny the existence of a keyboard? I deny the existence >of the 'reality' of the keyboard that appears to my mind. > >>>>>>>>>> > > What do you mean by reality? Deny the nicca, sukkha, atta aspect - not the phenomenal existence. > > > > > > > THAT keyboard is utterly non-existent as it appears as an >inherently existent thing in and of itself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Keyboard, etc, is not an indivisible thing. Of course it is made of parts and of course one needs to know what it is in order to use it. > > > >It isn't because no matter how to dismantle it you will only ever >end up with a pile of the keyborads parts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > If you can take something apart, then it has to exist in the first place to be taken apart! > > If something can be taken apart, or analyzed into constituent parts, then it has to exist in the first place to be taken apart or analyzed! > > > > >Keys, wires, bits of plastic etc...where is the keyboard then? > > *Then* there is no keyboard. Keyboard is when all these parts are properly arranged. > > > Of course nobody denies that keyboard can be taken apart at which point it will no longer be a keyboard. Of course keyboard doesn't exist as something that cannot be taken apart and destroyed. > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #129153 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Tam, >Tam:What do you think is the Buddha's exposition about these questions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craving is the cause. So we need to practice to eliminate craving. With best wishes, Alex #129154 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:47 am Subject: Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) upasaka_howard Hi, Tony (and Alex) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > A: It is strange to deny the existence of phone, ipads, and all the mobile devices that you use to type or read this. > Of course. If take it apart, then you will not have a keyboard. This doesn't mean that keyboard doesn't exist at all. It just means that keyboard CAN be taken apart and that the keyboard doesn't exist after you take it apart. This is common sense. > > Actually its as far from common sense as we can get! I really can't go over this anymore - you seem to want to stick with stating that I am saying this 'don't exist'. I am not saying this at all. Please re-read my efforts at clarifying this :) > > A: Keyboard is when all these parts are properly arranged. > > This is a fundamental error! How does the keyboard suddenly appear once all the bits are arranged in a certain way? Now THAT sounds like some sort of magic trick ;) One second its not there...then it is. How? By imputation of mind. Your mind MAKES the keyboard. Therefore outside of the mind there is no keyboard. This goes for all phenomena...thats ALL phenomena including Shunyata! -------------------------------- HCW: Tony, I sympathize with your perspective, but in a way I think it doesn't go far enough: From my perspective, whatever exists (other than nibbana, I propose) does so as content of consciousness, and that includes the "parts" to be assembled into a "keyboard" as well as the resulting assemblage. And note that once the assembling has occurred, there is the possibility of a functioning that was not possible prior to the assembling. So, the "assembling" does create the "keyboard," but this all occurs as content of consciousness. What is happening, as I view the matter, is that the arising of various contents of consciousness, i.e., of a variety of experiences, leads to subsequent experiences. (There are, of course, varying degrees of simplicity of experiences, with those called "paramattha dhammas" (or ultimate phenomena) by Theravadins being elementary, though even these consisting of phases.) --------------------------------- > > Again, there's no more I can say on this without going over old ground and repeating myself. Please don't misunderstand me - this view took me years to understand I and I had many many similar conversations nearly always concluding that the Prasangikas were saying things don't exist per se. > > Tony... > ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129155 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:47 am Subject: Re: Science and Dhamma ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Yes, I believe that science and Dhamma should be kept separate. > > However when the talk is about external things, this is domain of science. The fact that you read this is because you have a device made by science that allows you to read this and for Alex to type this and send over the internet (another scientific advancement). > > Dhamma, IMHO, should stick as much as possible to psychology (ending of Dukkha). My impression is that when dhamma addresses the issue of external things, it still doesn't enter the domain of science. After all, dhamma is not trying to posit that 2+2=5 or that keyboards should have levers instead of keys. Rather, it gives a description of the manner of consideration in those instances when such consideration leads to ending of dukkha - consideration of external things in this particular case. I mean, as you note, interaction with external things seems to be a big chunk of our everyday activities, so there also has to be some manner of considering such interaction that happens in instances that lead to ending of dukkha. Afaik, dhamma describes such manner of considering as considering/understanding external things (psychologically if you wish) in terms of rupas, dhammas and concepts. I don't see this as contradicting science in some way, I mean we are still happy that 2+2=4, that keyboards have keys and not levers, etc. Best wishes pt #129156 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:53 pm Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E (129093) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > It seems like your paraphrase that "sound is the enemy of jhana" bears out the implication that a "quiet place" is an invitation to develop jhana, as these two ideas are in accord. > =============== J: Yes, there is a nexus between a quiet place and the development of jhana of the samatha kind (and BTW I have never suggested otherwise). However, I think the passage needs to be considered in its context, including both (a) the immediate audience and (b) the sutta as a whole in which the comments are made. As regards the latter, I set out at the end of this message an abbreviated version of the sutta (the Indriya Bhavana or 'Development of the Faculties' Sutta, MN 152). From this it can be seen that the *teaching* given in the sutta is the following: a/. the meaning of "the unexcelled development of the faculties" in the Buddha's teaching; b/. how one is a person in training, someone following the way; c/. how one is a noble one with developed faculties. (see the sections I have numbered 1, 2 and 3) The sutta closes (section 4) with the declaration by the Buddha that he has now taught everything that a disciple needs to hear (this is a clear reference to the importance of the preceding part of the sutta). The Buddha then makes the statement that contains the passage we are discussing in this thread. As regards the immediate audience, I would assume that Ven. Ananda was already enlightened (although not yet an arahant) and had probably attained jhana of the samatha kind. In my view, given the context, the admonition regarding the development of jhana at the roots of trees is (a) an indication that once the teachings have been made available it is up to the individual's own effort to develop the path and (b) a recommendation to Ven. Ananda and others continue the development they are already familiar with. There is no actual *teaching* by the Buddha stating the importance of formal practice to the development of the path, or declaring samatha jhaana to be a prerequisite to enlightenment. It's more like, "Continue as you've been going, and don't slacken off" :-)). Jon. ******************************************* The Blessed One said: 1. "Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. … In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to forms cognizable by the eye. "Furthermore, when hearing a sound with the ear, … when smelling an aroma with the nose, when tasting a flavor with the tongue, … when touching a tactile sensation with the body, … when cognizing an idea with the intellect, In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to ideas cognizable by the intellect. 2. "And how is one a person in training, someone following the way? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing. "When hearing a sound with the ear... When smelling an aroma with the nose... When tasting a flavor with the tongue... When touching a tactile sensation with the body... When cognizing an idea with the intellect, there arises in him what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing. "This is how one is a person in training, someone following the way. 3. "And how is one a noble one with developed faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. "When hearing a sound with the ear... When smelling an aroma with the nose... When tasting a flavor with the tongue... When touching a tactile sensation with the body... When cognizing an idea with the intellect, there arises in him what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. "This is how one is a noble one with developed faculties. 4. "So, Ananda, I have taught you the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one; I have taught you how one is a person in training, someone following the way; I have taught you how one is a noble one with developed faculties. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. 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." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html ******************************************* #129157 From: Kanchana Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Science and Dhamma kchuathong Hello Sarah,J. And Nina This is my first time posting on the web site. Khun Ann Is helping me. we are at the foundation. to day acharn said lthat even understanding one word of Dhamma is very valuable. Kanchana #129158 From: Tam Bach Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah tambach Dear Alex,  >Tam:What do you think is the Buddha's exposition about these questions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A: Craving is the cause. So we need to practice to eliminate craving. Tam B:  And ignorance too. What, do you think the Buddha meant by ignorance? Metta, Tam B With best wishes, Alex #129159 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: Re: Science and Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Kanchana, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kanchana wrote: > This is my first time posting on the web site. Khun Ann > Is helping me. we are at the foundation. ... S: So glad you've joined us and look forward to hearing more from you and Ann, too! If you have time, do introduce yourself a little to others or to share anything more from the recent Thai discussions, please do. For others - Kanchana is a good Dhamma friend who we've known for a very long time. We have been on many trips together. > to day acharn said lthat even understanding one word of Dhamma is very valuable. ... S: Like "dhamma", she will ask us. What is dhamma now? Metta Sarah p.s Thank you again for hosting our lovely lunch and dhamma discussions in Ayutthaya recently. ======= #129160 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) nilovg Hi Howard, I am glad to see you here, and obviously you are not without electricity. The news about the snow is so bad. I know your view about contents of consciousness. As to paramattha dhammas, no need to name anything that appears, but just develop a little bit more understanding of what appears now, such as visible object or seeing. No need to name these or think about them. There are different characteristics and gradually these can be understood. But a lot of courage and patience is needed. Nina. Op 9-feb-2013, om 21:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What is happening, as I view the matter, is that the arising of > various contents of consciousness, i.e., of a variety of > experiences, leads to subsequent experiences. (There are, of > course, varying degrees of simplicity of experiences, with those > called "paramattha dhammas" (or ultimate phenomena) by Theravadins > being elementary, though even these consisting of phases.) #129161 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Science and Dhamma nilovg Dear Kanchana, That is wonderful, welcome here. You can contribute a lot, even from your book, you can write in English about some themes. People will be interested. Like: in no long time we will not know each other. The truth is bitter, as Acharn said. Yes, I remember that we have to carefully consider each word. Nina. Op 10-feb-2013, om 7:20 heeft Kanchana het volgende geschreven: > to day acharn said lthat even understanding one word of Dhamma is > very valuable. #129162 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Tam B, all, >A:Craving is the cause. So we need to practice to eliminate craving. >Tam B:  And ignorance too. What, do you think the Buddha meant by >ignorance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html With best wishes, Alex #129163 From: "connie" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:49 am Subject: dhammastudygroup.org nichiconn hi archive users, i should mention we've tried to make www.dhammastudygroup.org a little easier to get around in, so be sure to "refresh" the page when you go there if it doesn't already look different to you. peace, connie #129164 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > I am glad to see you here, and obviously you are not without > electricity. ----------------------------------- HCW: Thanks! Yes, we had no power outage and only about 14" of snow. Some areas on Long Island had as much as 33" of snow, and over 25,000 homes and businesses on L.I. lost power! ---------------------------------- The news about the snow is so bad. ----------------------------------- HCW: Yes, and I worry now about flooding in some areas as the snow melts. ------------------------------------ > I know your view about contents of consciousness. ------------------------------------- HCW: Good! Agreement is not needed at all, but understanding is much appreciated. :-) ------------------------------------- As to paramattha > dhammas, no need to name anything that appears, but just develop a > little bit more understanding of what appears now, such as visible > object or seeing. ----------------------------------- HCW: I quite agree! ------------------------------------ No need to name these or think about them. There > are different characteristics and gradually these can be understood. ------------------------------------ HCW: Yes!! ---------------------------------- > But a lot of courage and patience is needed. ----------------------------------- HCW: Patience for sure!!! --------------------------------- > > Nina. > Op 9-feb-2013, om 21:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > What is happening, as I view the matter, is that the arising of > > various contents of consciousness, i.e., of a variety of > > experiences, leads to subsequent experiences. (There are, of > > course, varying degrees of simplicity of experiences, with those > > called "paramattha dhammas" (or ultimate phenomena) by Theravadins > > being elementary, though even these consisting of phases.) > ============================ With metta, Howard P. S. I hope you are very well, Nina! Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129165 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Sarah, and Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & Sukin, > > Glad to read your discussions. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > > >Suk: The reason for this is that right understanding / > > > > satipatthana is primary and overrides everything else. > ... > > >R: Did the Buddha ever say this? Please let me see a quote if one is > > > available that you know of.... > ... > S: Plenty in "useful posts" under: "Right Understanding as forerunner", "Satipatthana" or "ekayano - one way". > > For example, we know the goal is the eradication of defilements. Jon wrote and quoted this: > > J: "The Visuddhimagga (Ch XXIII) gives, as the first among the `benefits in > developing understanding', the removal of various defilements. It explains this > as follows: > > "2. Herein, it should be understood that one of the benefits of the mundane > development of understanding is the removal of the various defilements beginning > with [mistaken] view of individuality. This starts with the delimitation of > mentality-materiality. Then one of the benefits of the supramundane development > of understanding is the removal, at the path moment, of the various defilements > beginning with the fetters." > *** > Sarah: As I also quoted: > > "When a noble disciple is wisely discerning, the faith that follows from that > stands solid. The effort that follows from that stands solid. The mindfulness > that follows from that stands solid and stable. The concentration that follows > from that stands solid and stable."- SN 48.52 No one would doubt the central importance of panna, either in its own right or as a support for other path factors. But the idea that panna is the whole of the path and takes precedence over all other path factors is not borne out by these quotes, as far as I can tell. Neither do they establish that it is not necessary or important to develop the other mundane path factors in their own right in order to fully create the conditions for the path. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #129166 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:30 am Subject: Re: On Siila 4. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m " The perfection of virtue should be reflected upon as follows: "Even the waters of the Ganges cannot wash away the stain of hatred, yet the water of virtue is able to do so. Even yellow sandalwood cannot cool the fever of lust, yet virtue is able to remove it. Virtue is the unique adornment of the good, surpassing the adornments cherished by ordinary people, such as necklaces, diadems, and earrings. "It is a sweet-scented fragrance superior to incense as it pervades all directions and is always in place; a supreme magical spell which wins the homage of deities and of powerful khattiyas, etc., a staircase ascending to the world of the gods, to the heaven of the Four Great Kings,10 etc., a means for achieving the jhanas and the direct knowledges; a highway leading to the great city of nibbana; the foundation for the enlightenment of disciples, paccekabuddhas, and perfectly enlightened Buddhas. And as a means for the fulfilment of all one's wishes and desires, it surpasses the tree of plenty and the wish-fulfilling gem." " to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129167 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Thanks for the descriptive excerpts of the two types of sila, and the role of wisdom in developing higher sila. It reminds me in an analogous way of the difference between those who are "pious" because they want to be "good people" and those who have studied and understand the benefits of behaving in a way that is in accord with higher understanding and so have a deeper reason for "good behavior." ... S: Exactly! One may be good because one's been told one must be at school or home, because one is afraid of being caught, or because one wants to be thought of as a good person, for example. Only when there is understanding of the value of good deeds and behaviour and abstaining from harm will the confidence and sila be firm. This is why it is the sotapanna only who has unshakeable sila and will never break the precepts. ... > > I was once friends with an Orthodox girl and I asked her what is the reason for following certain religious rules. She basically said she didn't know and didn't care. She did it because "God wanted her to." But with wisdom one would understand why certain behaviors will cause akusala kamma and others will not, etc. If the Buddha says not to eat meat that has been specially prepared for you, that is because it involves you more directly in killing, which is a source of akusala. So the rules aren't arbitrary. ... S: "God's wish" is another reason, but again without understanding, there is no firm foundation for good behaviour. Same with killing and your example. ...... > > I also note with interest that there are both important abstentions and important performances to be observed in sila, and that they are both, seems to me, equally significant. It is sometimes said on dsg that higher sila is all abstention as there are no real actions to perform on the paramatha level. I think this passage contradicts that idea. ... S: Yes, both significant and important. I think that what is often pointed out here is that the three sila factors of the eightfold path - right speech, right action and right livelihood - are all virati cetasikas, that is abstentions from wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood which only arise momentarily, when there is an opportunity for abstention. Metta Sarah ==== #129168 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:01 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Azita), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Now that you have settled the 8, 5 & 6 fold issue, the only remaining question was whether they could all be called paths leading out of samsara, or whether only the 8fold path could be called that. ... S: The fivefold (sixfold) path is the way leading to the 8fold path which leads out of samsara. ... > To cut my theorising short, I think paths in the ultimate sense are javana cittas. And I think all ultimately real paths lead to their objects. > > The 8fold supramundane magga-citta is the only javana citta that has nibbana as its object. Therefore, according to my theory, it is the only path out of samsara. ... S: (Apart from paccevekana cittas (reviewing consciousness) and gotrabhu (change of lineage citta). ... > > The 5 and 6 fold paths have conditioned dhammas as their objects and therefore they could be called paths to samsara. That might not be a nice-sounding name, but we should remember that the Buddha's teaching was entirely a description of samsara. ... S: I think that sometimes vipassana nanas are included as leading out of samsara, but in the following quote, it does stress just the ariyan paths: From the (Atthasalini), Expositor: "In the triplet of 'leading to accumulation,' 'accumulation' means 'that which is accumulated by kamma and corruptions. It is a name for the processes of rebirth and decease. 'Leading to accumulation' are 'those causes which by being accomplished go to, or lead a man, in whom they arise, to that round of rebirth.' It is a name for co-intoxicant moral or immoral states. "Nibbaana being free from 'cumulation,' which is another word for 'accumulation,' is called 'dispersion'. 'Leading to dispersion' is 'going towards that dispersion which he has made his object.' It is a name for the Ariyan Paths. Or, 'leading to accumulation' are 'those states which go about severally arranging (births and deaths in) a round of destiny like a bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer, in a wall.' 'Leading to dispersion' are those states which go about destroying that very round, like a man who continually removes the bricks as they are laid by the mason. The third term is spoken by way of rejecting both." **** > There are other javana cittas - kusala and akusala - that have either conditioned dhammas or concepts as their objects, but I will my theorising there. :-) ... S: Always happy to hear your theorising... Metta Sarah ==== #129169 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Science and Dhamma jagkrit2012 Dear Pee Daeng (in full: Air Vice Marshall Kanchana) and Nina I'm glad that besides reading DSG, you contribute some valuable dhamma reminders for developing right understanding. Due to your experience of learning dhamma with Than Acharn and knowing our friends in DSG (like Nian, Sarah, Jon, Ann) for more than 40 years (if my memory is not wrong) and you also wrote the book about right understanding (even though it is in Thai), I'm sure that you have many interesting dhammas to share Na Krub. I'm remember long ago that you translated dhamma quotes of Mr. Alan Driver into Thai and posted in Thai Dhammahome discussion board website. It is very interesting still and I learn a lot from that. Pee Daeng, would you like to pick some interesting quotes to share some thought if you have time besides dhamma reminders from Than Acharn. =============== > N: People will be > interested. Like: in no long time we will not know each other. The > truth is bitter, as Acharn said. JJ: Yes, it is especially dhamma friends who always give us right understanding. =============== > > KN: Today Acharn said that even understanding one word of Dhamma is > > very valuable. JJ: Before I met Than Acharn, I love to learn about dhamma words. When new word comes up, I'm anxious to know what it means. It is like a student learning in school. But learning dhamma is not like conventional study at all. Because the dhamma of the Lord Buddha is the word of truth or Sajja Vacana. Each word reflects the truth. If there is no real understanding the truth of that word, we yet understand. Then I know knowing a lot of dhamma words is nothing comparing to real understanding just one word like "Dhamma". Than Acharn once said only the word "dhamma" one must learn and understand until he attains arahat. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129170 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > What do you think differentiates panna from other forms of kusala? > Panna > > = Bhavana / mental development is it not? And are not Samatha bhavana > > and Vipassana bhavana both a reference to panna? > > I don't know technically what is the case, but samatha is not the same > as vipassana. To turn them into the same thing under the idea that > only panna creates development is just to take your own formula and > basically turn all bhavana into that formula. > Just because in both cases there is bhavana, you think that I am saying that vipassana and samatha are the same? Bhavana is function of panna. In the development of samatha this panna understands the kusala or akusala nature of some other dhammas. It does not however see them as conditioned realities with the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. The latter is still the same panna cetasika, but comes only after there is hearing the Buddha's teachings when pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha has arisen. Do you have a problem with this? === > > The way I understand it, kusala of different kinds allows for > development in various ways. > You mentioned Jhana following this. But do also explain to me how other kusala allows for the development of panna. === > If there is a great development of samatha into jhana, for instance, > that suppresses defilements and gives an opportunity for greater > understanding of the moment. > Can you explain the process by which suppression of the defilements take place and how this then allows for panna that sees the anicca, dukkha and anatta aspect of a given reality, to arise? Or you can show me where exactly the Buddha suggested the same, because what I keep hearing is that panna is developed by virtue of its repeated arising and must understand any and every reality. This means that it as easily follows akusala as it does kusala. === > The Buddha describes these things in sutta, and there is no statement > in sutta that only panna leads to development. > You mean that when it is said that the Noble Eightfold Path is the One Path that this is not really true, or that when it is said that Right View is the forerunner, it is in fact not always the case? You say that the Buddha describes these things in sutta; do you mean that he talked about the relationship between the suppression of defilements and the arising of vipassana panna? Ok, show me the text? === > > Panna in understanding the value of kusala and harm in akusala, > > increases that much, the tendency toward the one and away from the > > other. > > What is the value, if other kusala is not part of the path? Why would > panna value it if it is meaningless? > Simple, because the kusala aspect is seen, while the akusala aspect of some other dhamma is also likewise known. And on another occasion there can be understanding of the same dhamma regarding its conditioned nature and general characteristics. And in both cases, sanna plays a part. How does it follow that it is meaningless to have metta towards another being since it is better to understand metta as a conditioned reality? === > > The object of dana for example, is the need of another being, how > > is this related to panna? Panna sees the value of panna itself and all > > other kusala, but dana does not perform such a function. > > Why would panna value dana, if dana is not part of the path? > When panna arises to see the value of kusala, this is accumulated as sankhara, thereby increasing the chance of the same to arise in the future. It is simply how "dhammas" work. Dana not being part of the Path does not take away its value as kusala aimed at the happiness of another being. === > Who cares about 'caring for another human being,' a useless waste of > time, if it is not part of the path? > Does this not sound more like wrong view talking? === > Why wouldn't panna just dismiss all other kusala as a waste of time, > if it has no relation to the path? What you are saying is not logical. > There is no reason to value kusala if it is not part of the path. > And this is how "self" thinks that dhamma works or should work. The mistake in logic is in self's line of reasoning. Panna is not self and therefore does not decide when it arises and what object to take. Remember, even the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, only one of these can be the object of panna at any given moment. When panna arises to see the value of metta, that is what it does and falls away immediately. You are talking as though panna is somewhere in the background and can decide which aspect of the metta or any other reality to understand. === > > Panna is not selective; therefore kusala and akusala must invariably > > become its object from time to time. > > That is not the question. You said that there will be *less akusala* > with greater wisdom. Why? If other kusala is meaningless, there is no > reason why wisdom should develop such kusala. It's just a waste of > time. Panna should focus on panna and nothing else. If it's panna all > the way, then sila and dana and all that other nice stuff is just some > fluffy nonsense, a waste of time. > Again, this sounds like thinking based on the perception of "self" rather than conditioned realities which arise for an instant and in that, perform their individual functions. === > > Being training rules point to the fact that only panna is the Path. > > Without understanding, what invariably happens is that kusala is taken > > for "self" and therefore instead of kusala, the one dhamma which is a > > hindrance to the Path gets encouraged. This of course does not imply > > that if the rules are broken, it will not lead to bad results. > > It shouldn't really matter - if one has unpleasant vipaka then panna > can just as easily awaken to akusala as to kusala, so why bother? One > may as well refrain from following the rules in the first place, since > they are meaningless and have no relation to the path. > I get the impression that you are not coming in from the standpoint of a dhamma arisen by conditions beyond control and performing its function in that instant, only to fall away immediately. But instead you are projecting self and the idea of control into the situation. So when you say that it shouldn't really matter, this is from thinking to keep the precepts with the idea of self. === > > > > Supposing someone approached you, suggesting that the Buddha > believed in > > God and asked you for a direct quote to prove otherwise, do you think > > that you need to bring up such a proof? Is not your conclusion based on > > a general understanding of what he taught? On some occasions when you > > ask for quotes from other people, do you think that perhaps the > > situation may be similar to this? > > No not really. To ask for some random idea that has nothing to do with > Buddhism is one thing; it is quite another to ask someone to give some > evidence in scripture for what they are asserting is the core of Buddhism. > Not so random, but based on the perception that the Buddha was wise and taught to do good deeds just as their own religion does. And because they tie everything to God, they can't imagine that the Buddha would not believe in God. And they know that the Buddha on one occasion was silent in response to the question. Besides, there is the concept of Nibbana which they consider as possibly equivalent to God. Core ideas? Do you think anything that we say goes outside of the teachings on the Four Noble Truths, the Dependent Origination, Conditionality, Perfections and so on? And in terms of motivation, is there anything that goes against the reminder to "Do good, avoid evil and cultivate the mind"? From where I stand, rather than it being us who state anything outside of what the Buddha taught, it is you who are ignoring some of the core ideas and want to add things into the teachings. === > If you can't back up your most important point with anything the > Buddha said, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't even > show that what you think is "Buddhism" if the Buddha never even said it! > The question really is, are you reading the texts such as those which refer to Jhana, with the "core ideas" in mind? I don't think that you do this when you ask for a quote and when it is given to you. === > It's not trying to prove a negative like "Prove to me that the Buddha > did not believe in unicorns!" > Thanks for expressing it like this, because this is actually what I sometimes feel with regard to your query. ;-) === > Obviously there is no quote for that. But there had better be a quote > for the idea that "panna is the only path factor that is actually the > path," or I will tell you that you just made it up! > The path is the N8FP and panna is the forerunner. This is what I maintain. Metta, Sukin #129171 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:03 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, you wrote to Ken H: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >R:....It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for "right livelihood" to be a single moment of consciousness. Does one imagine an especially wholesome job for a single moment to satisfy that path factor? It's kind of ridiculous. Obviously the Buddha was talking about doing wholesome, non-harmful work. ... S: Right livelihood of the eightfold path refers to the abstention from wrong livelihood. For example, when there is the opportunity to kill or harm in the course of one's work and there is abstention with right undersanding. ... >You will tell me that this is a conceptual understanding of the mundane path, not the Noble eight-fold path which is consciousness only, but it still doesn't make any sense to have "right livelihood" or "right action" as a single moment of consciousness that arises as a pure experience of citta. ... S: All factors of the five, six or eight-fold path are cetasikas (mental factors) arising with a citta. ... >Also, Buddha explicitly says that "jhana is the path factor of concentration" many times, yet it is understood to mean that something equivalent to jhana must arise for a single moment, ignoring the fact that the monks who lived at the time of the Buddha spent a large portion of their lives developing this factor through sitting meditation. So as far as I'm concerned, this model of the path is very abstract, and is not taking into account the full picture of how understanding is developed by laying the groundwork in several different areas of living, specified by the Buddha in quite a lot of detail. ... S: Mundane jhana cittas cannot arise at the same time as eightfold path cittas. The object is quite different. See CMA, edited by B.Bodhi, ch 1#30 which gives details of the various permutations according to what level of jhana was attained prior to the arising of supramundance cittas. In the explanatory note, it says: "All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom (pa~n~naa) - insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. However they differ among themselves in the degree of their development of concentration (samaadhi). Those who develop insight without a basis of jhaana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhaana. "Those who develop insight on the basis of jhaana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhaana they had attained before reaching the path." A lot more detail follows. Metta Sarah ==== #129172 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) kenhowardau Hi Tony, ---- > T: When did I deny the existence of a keyboard? I deny the existence of the 'reality' of the keyboard that appears to my mind. THAT keyboard is utterly non-existent as it appears as an inherently existent thing in and of itself. It isn't because no matter how to dismantle it you will only ever end up with a pile of the keyborads parts. Keys, wires, bits of plastic etc...where is the keyboard then? If you say its there in that pile of plastic, try typing with it. Put it all back together than kaboom! there is the keyboard again...apparently....but not really....hehehe! -------- KH: No doubt the fault is mine, but I can't make head or tail of that. You say the keyboard is real, but the reality of it that presents to your mind is not real. You've lost me. :-) Ken H #129173 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:26 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) kenhowardau Hi Tony, --- <. . .> > TH: I did see your question, but its basing its premise on something I have not said. I haven't ever said that things DO NOT EXIST. That would be ludicrous and fly in the face of experience. ---- KH: The Dhamma flies in the face of conventional understanding. It says there are only dhammas. That is, there are only cittas, cetasikas rupas, and nibbana. The first three are fleeting (trillionth of a second) mental phenomena and physical phenomena. They make up the entire conditioned world. There is nothing else in this world. The people we call Tony and Ken, and all the keyboards, phones, cars –- everything that seems to last more than a trillionth of a second – are just concepts created by mental phenomena. ------------ > T: I am positing that things DO NOT EXIST IN THE WAY THAT THEY APPEAR. So, Babies do exist of course they do. However, our experience if them is that they exist inherently, independently and are self born (no oun intended) - this baby does not exist anywhere other than as an appearance to our mind and a mere name. The baby that DOES exist is the appearance to our mind. So there are the Two Truths in the Mahayana tradition. Things DO exist but their appearance is false, empty. ------------ KH: We have one or two DSG members who occasionally tell us there really is only nibbana, and anything else is just a misleading appearance of nibbana. Is that what you are saying? Ken H #129174 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) tony.humphreys :-) KH: You say the keyboard is real, but the reality of it that presents to your mind is not real. You've lost me. :-) TH: The fact that the keyboard appears to have an independednt reality separate from my mind is what I deny. The fact that it appears to my mind as real I don't dispute for a second. Tony... #129175 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:57 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (Ken) tony.humphreys Hi Ken, KH: We have one or two DSG members who occasionally tell us there really is only nibbana, and anything else is just a misleading appearance of nibbana. Is that what you are saying? TH: Not really. I am saying that whatever appears to our mind is empty. This excludes no phenomena, at all, anywhere. Including Nibbana. All dependent relate phenomena are empty. I am struggling to give any different examples :-) There were/are some schools in the Mahayana that posit that there is only the mind that projects 'realities'. This too (according to the Prasangika school) is false as mind itself is a dependent related phenomena that is ultimately irreducible and therefore by nature its appearance is false. So, Mind is empty too. There is no end of the road phenomena that can be identified as the source of all. Not mind not consciousness. So, according to this logic the ultimate nature of reality is is lack of inherent existence. #129176 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: Re: A chat with friend. szmicio Hi Sarah, To think of others. I understand you. Like sending a parcel to my brother that is totally alone in rehabilitation center without any support. Or bring some wholesome vitaka, like 'do not harm anyone' to my friends here. Better to come to my friend for a tea. And talk peacefuly. But this is impossible here. Not possible. This people must give up knives, gunes, drugs first. I dont smoke for a 7days now. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Lukas & Lukas23, > > I'm sure it's very difficult for Lukas23 to come out of prison and not to drink or do anything bad. There are bound to be a lot of fears and worries too. > > As we know, only an anagami (the one who has no more attachment to sense objects) has no more fear or worries. > > It helps a lot to discuss and understand the Dhamma, to know that all the problems in life arise in the mind - they are just the kinds of thinking with ignorance, attachment and aversion. > > No one can get rid of these unwholesome ways of thinking because there is no One, no Person in reality. There are just moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, followed by useful or useless ways of thinings. > > What are useful ways of thinking, you may ask? When there is concern and care for other people's welfare instead of our own for a change, when there is some generosity or kind help, when there is avoiding drink, telling lies or stealing, when there is a little understanding of the present realities, these are all beneficial ways of thinking and acting. > > When we are so concerned with ourselves, our own problems and our own wishes, we forget all about what is beneficial in this very precious life. > > Life just exists for a moment - don't waste the opportunity to develop more understanding and goodness! > > Finally, you have many, many good Buddhist friends, like here! As you're both having a difficult time, you also need the assistance of a supportive community, such as the one that Lukas was staying at before his trip to Thailand. Both of you, get the help and support you need now before anything happens which you will regret. > > It shows courage to receive help. To think it's not necessary because one has some understanding of the Dhamma is an "I am anatta" approach. Pls don't delay! > > Metta and very best wishes to you both. > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > Here is a chat with Lukas, my bestfriend who I grow up with. He went out prison after 3 years there. This was his 3rd stay in prison untill now. He is 23 years old now. We had quite interesting conversation. He dont speak english. I translate this. > > > > > > Lukas23: How are you feeling now, bro? Are you better now? > > me: yes, better. > > Lukas23: that's good...but it's something wrong with us..that we have like this..we wake up early morning...and we regret yesterday day, even if nothing would have happened that day. > > me: Yeap, I have like this for sure. Such kind of accumulations. > > Lukas23: Exactly! and the fear of tomorrow..not to drink and take anything and not to do anything bad and round and round the same kinds of thoughts. Fu.. How to get rid of this? > > > > How to get rid of this? > ===== > #129177 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence (Ken) sukinderpal Hello Tony, Good to see you on DSG. I have not read all the posts in this discussion but still, would like to come in here with some questions. After the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness, there is thinking about the object. Many processes of this results in say, thinking about a red rose. This red rose is an example of a concept which is the object of the thinking process and therefore not a reality. The visible object which was the object of seeing consciousness however, is a reality, not a concept, since seeing, unlike thinking, experiences a physical reality. You on the other hand are saying that even the visible object is unreal. And not only, but also all experiences and their objects are not real. So I ask you: Do you agree that a red rose is not real by virtue of it being the object of consciousness which thinks? If so, by virtue of what is visible object and all other "seeming" realities also not real, and how is this unreality distinguished from concepts which is the object of thinking? Sukin On 2/11/2013 6:57 PM, Tony H wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > KH: We have one or two DSG members who occasionally tell us there > really is only nibbana, and anything else is just a misleading > appearance of nibbana. Is that what you are saying? > > TH: Not really. I am saying that whatever appears to our mind is > empty. This excludes no phenomena, at all, anywhere. Including > Nibbana. All dependent relate phenomena are empty. > > I am struggling to give any different examples :-) > > There were/are some schools in the Mahayana that posit that there is > only the mind that projects 'realities'. This too (according to the > Prasangika school) is false as mind itself is a dependent related > phenomena that is ultimately irreducible and therefore by nature its > appearance is false. So, Mind is empty too. There is no end of the > road phenomena that can be identified as the source of all. Not mind > not consciousness. > > So, according to this logic the ultimate nature of reality is is lack > of inherent existence. > > #129178 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:12 am Subject: Re: A chat with friend. jagkrit2012 Dear Lukas > L: I don't smoke for a 7days now. JJ: I ran into one of the Dhammapada #160 Oneself indeed is master of oneself, Who else could other master be? With oneself perfectly trained, One obtains a refuge hard to gain. Smoking will not be your arammana-thippati-pacaaya anymore. (it was mine too long time ago) Good luck friend Jagkrit #129179 From: Tam Bach Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah tambach  Dear Alex,  "And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html So it is ignorance of the 4 Noble truths. Let's talk briefly about the 1rst truth. "...In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." We know that, the five khandas are: Matter (Rupa). Feeling (Vedana). Perception (Sanna). Mental Formations (Sankhara). Consciousness (Vinnana). They are dhammas which appear now and to be understood. Otherwise, ignorance keeps going. There are 3 kinds of dukkha: 1. Dukkha dukkha 2. Viparanama dukkha 3. Sankhara dukkha You said Dukkha is psychology. IMO, psychology deals only with the first kind of dukkha. What about the 2nd and 3rd? Metta, Tam B Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (21)             Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . #129180 From: Tam Bach Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A chat with friend. tambach Dear Lukas, L: Like sending a parcel to my brother that is totally alone in rehabilitation center without any support. Or bring some wholesome vitaka, like 'do not harm anyone' to my friends here. Tam B: ------------------------- L: Better to come to my friend for a tea. And talk peacefuly. But this is impossible here. Not possible. This people must give up knives, gunes, drugs first. Tam B: Or you can have a tea now, and discuss the Dhamma with friends on DSG. ------------------------ L: I dont smoke for a 7days now. Tam B:  I will tell other friends of the Vietnamese team about this: Hai, Mai, little Tam, Hang, Lan and Son- we are having New Year holiday together, discussing the Dhamma too. Metta from all of us, Tam --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Lukas & Lukas23, > > I'm sure it's very difficult for Lukas23 to come out of prison and not to drink or do anything bad. There are bound to be a lot of fears and worries too. > > As we know, only an anagami (the one who has no more attachment to sense objects) has no more fear or worries. > > It helps a lot to discuss and understand the Dhamma, to know that all the problems in life arise in the mind - they are just the kinds of thinking with ignorance, attachment and aversion. > > No one can get rid of these unwholesome ways of thinking because there is no One, no Person in reality. There are just moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, followed by useful or useless ways of thinings. > > What are useful ways of thinking, you may ask? When there is concern and care for other people's welfare instead of our own for a change, when there is some generosity or kind help, when there is avoiding drink, telling lies or stealing, when there is a little understanding of the present realities, these are all beneficial ways of thinking and acting. > > When we are so concerned with ourselves, our own problems and our own wishes, we forget all about what is beneficial in this very precious life. > > Life just exists for a moment - don't waste the opportunity to develop more understanding and goodness! > > Finally, you have many, many good Buddhist friends, like here! As you're both having a difficult time, you also need the assistance of a supportive community, such as the one that Lukas was staying at before his trip to Thailand. Both of you, get the help and support you need now before anything happens which you will regret. > > It shows courage to receive help. To think it's not necessary because one has some understanding of the Dhamma is an "I am anatta" approach. Pls don't delay! > > Metta and very best wishes to you both. > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > Here is a chat with Lukas, my bestfriend who I grow up with. He went out prison after 3 years there. This was his 3rd stay in prison untill now. He is 23 years old now. We had quite interesting conversation. He dont speak english. I translate this. > > > > > > Lukas23: How are you feeling now, bro? Are you better now? > > me: yes, better. > > Lukas23: that's good...but it's something wrong with us..that we have like this..we wake up early morning...and we regret yesterday day, even if nothing would have happened that day. > > me: Yeap, I have like this for sure. Such kind of accumulations. > > Lukas23: Exactly! and the fear of tomorrow..not to drink and take anything and not to do anything bad and round and round the same kinds of thoughts. Fu.. How to get rid of this? > > > > How to get rid of this? > ===== > #129181 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:38 pm Subject: Avijja Sutta : Ignorance is the leader. jagkrit2012 Dear friends I read this following sutta and would like to carefully investigate the understanding: ============ SN 45.1 PTS: S v 1 CDB ii 1523 Avijja Sutta: Ignorance translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises. "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises." =============== The Lord Buddha pointed that ignorance is the leader of all defilement. In the opposite, clear knowing or right understanding or vijja or panna is the leader of all wholesome. The Lord also pointed out that when ignorance arises what will follow it. It is very interesting always that after ignorance arises, lack of conscience and concern (ahiriga and anodtappa) follow. Then comes wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech....... wrong effort and wrong mindfulness and then wrong concentration. Very important to know that when one starts with ignorance, at last one ends up with wrong concentration (mijja samathi). Even during that way, everything is wrong. Wrong resolve and wrong effort are in my interest. In conventional life, we always resolve and make effort to do something with ignorance except during the time of give dhanna and not exploiting others. But when we study dhamma of the Lord Buddha and realise how danger of defilement and the benefit of wholesomeness. We start to resolve and make effort toward kusala. Even we try to be mindful and concentrate to develop panna. And certainly, everyone who make effort to do or to practice vipatsana or samatha and expect to throw off all defilement, always assure that he make right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. The very crucial point is how can we aware that we do not start to do or practice something for development of panna with ignorance because we are full of it as usual. Is this the starting scenario we must investigate closely? To me, it seems that ignorance is everywhere, every moment. Even a little move, it is ignorance. No clear knowing at all. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129182 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:29 pm Subject: Re: A chat with friend. sarahprocter... Hi Lukas & friends, Good to hear from you! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > To think of others. I understand you. > > Like sending a parcel to my brother that is totally alone in rehabilitation center without any support. Or bring some wholesome vitaka, like 'do not harm anyone' to my friends here. ... S: Send him our best wishes. Tell him to stay strong and be courageous. Awareness and understanding anytime. He's making a good investment for life. ... > > Better to come to my friend for a tea. And talk peacefuly. But this is impossible here. Not possible. This people must give up knives, gunes, drugs first. > > I dont smoke for a 7days now. ... S: Best wishes for the next 7 days too - one moment at a time. Not easy, but if there are the conditions to appreciate the Dhamma now, to begin to understand reality now, there's nothing that cannot be achieved. The battle hardest of all to win is the path to the Deathless: From Itivuttaka: § 82. {Iti III.33; Iti 75} Woodward’s translation of the final verse (PTS) is: “Beholding him victorious in the fight, Disciple of the rightly wakened One, Even the devas call aloud in honour Of him the mighty one, of wisdom ripe: ‘We worship thee, O thoroughbred of men! For thou hast won the battle hard to win, Routing by thy release (from birth-and-death) The host of Death that could not hinder more,’ Thus do they praise him who has won the goal. Surely the devas praise in him that thing By which one goes to mastery of Death.” **** S: On giving up weapons, drugs and the cause of suffering: Sammohavinodani (Dispeller of Delusion, PTS) 846: “ ‘Herein, what is sense-desire clinging? That which in sense-desires is lust for sense-desires, greed for sense-desires, delight in sense-desires, craving for sense-desires, love of sense-desires, fever of sense-desires, infatuation with sense-desires, cleaving to sense-desires - this is called sense-desire clinging’ (Dhs 1214). Firmness of craving is a name for subsequent craving that has become firm owing to previous craving, which acts as its decisive support condition. But some have said: ‘Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief’s stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief’s grasping the goods. These states are opposed to fewness of wishes (appicchaata) and contentment. Hence they are the root of the suffering due to seeking and guarding [of property]’ (see Dii58f). The remaining three kinds of clinging are in brief simply [wrong] view.” **** Best wishes, Lukas Metta Sarah ===== #129183 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 4. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Virtue should be reflected upon as the basis for rapture and joy as granting immunity from fear of self-reproach, the reproach others, temporal punishment, and an evil destination after death; praised by the wise; as the root-cause for freedom from remorse; the basis for security; and as surpassing the achievements of big birth, wealth, sovereignty, long life, beauty, status, kinsmen, as friends. "For great rapture and joy arise in the virtuous man when he reflects on his own accomplishment in virtue: "I have done what is wholesome, I have done what is good, I have built myself a shelf from fear." " to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129184 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:45 pm Subject: Re: dhammastudygroup.org sarahprocter... Dear Friends, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > i should mention we've tried to make www.dhammastudygroup.org a little easier to get around in, so be sure to "refresh" the page when you go there if it doesn't already look different to you. ... S: Yes, much easier, thanks for your help, Connie. The "Kaeng Krajaan, January 2012" of audio recordings is finished and uploaded in the "Editing in Progress" section. (This means it's just a first 'minimal' edit, but there's more work to be done, including introductions etc - we're just trying to get sets uploaded more quickly first.) This particular set (with Phil & Jessica) is one of my favourites..... really great discussions, mostly held in the garden. The "Bangkok, Jan 2012" partner set will probably be uploaded tomorrow. And now we've started work on the very large Thailand Jan 2013 series - we'll start uploading these as we do them in the same section. Enjoy the listening! Metta Sarah (& Jon) ========= #129185 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:49 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: Sankhara dukkha can only be truly understood at the third stage of insight with the direct understanding of the rising and falling away of realities. > >R: What is the best translation for dukkha in this context? Unsatisfactoriness? ... S: Whether it's "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" (which I tend to prefer) or anything else, it is the understanding of dhammas and the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory, that is important. Metta Sarah ==== #129186 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. sarahprocter... Hi Jagkrit, To add a few more comments to Nina's: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: >There are a lot of interesting new discussion like: > > When we listen to dhamma, how we are going to do with our daily life and work? How we are going react toward finding more money for our living or following our career prosperity. Do we have to get away from rich and famous? That is lobha, isn't it? What we should do? ... S: Seems the questions are all about "me" - what am "I" going to do, how am "I" going to react, what should "I" do? They indicate there is no understanding of dhammas, realities and there is the taking of 'myself', various situations, such as work, career, prosperity and so on for being real. The more understanding there is that there are only conditioned realities arising and falling away now, such as seeing and visible object, the less inclination there is to think in terms of "what should I do". With more understanding, it becomes clear that this is true, however life unfolds, however rich or poor, whatever our job is. If we have the idea that certain work situations or careers or pursuits will be less conducive to the development of understanding, again it indicates a lack of understanding now. The test is always the understanding of the reality appearing now. I'm interested to hear more of your comments, too, Jagkrit and others. Metta Sarah ===== #129187 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah and all > S: If we have the idea that certain work situations or careers or pursuits will be less conducive to the development of understanding, again it indicates a lack of understanding now. The test is always the understanding of the reality appearing now. JJ: As always of everyone: idea. And we can't help it. But as you say thinking to do something conducive to panna, it is again get away from understanding. In Rajchaburi, Than Acharn said "Choose to do something is only thinking". I consider more on this quote. It is exactly what it is. We've chosen or decided to do something but what happens, whether according to what we chose or not, is different. What happens is reality which arises according to set of conditions not choosing. Then who can choose? Thank you and anumodhana jagkrit #129188 From: "colette_aube" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. colette_aube Hi Sarah, Aren't you just speaking of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION? You frame your position as though the people/person you're talking to is only conscious of a "self" which, in this case, happens to HIM, HIS, "self". I always looked at the Dharma as being a "reflection" in that it helped me to better see, hear, know, my "self" and in that case to better see why there is NO SUCH THING AS A "SELF", which is anatta's meaning i.e. by knowing better what I am I am better able to see the actuality of the Buddha's dharma he presented. Now that anatta has been established, we can then re-examine what you were trying to express. It all seems as though you are suggesting something that I've always accepted as fact, that people are too afraid of living and search hopelessly for a "guide" or "user's manual" to tell them WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT. Anatta is one huge thing to grasp, let alone to conceive within "consciousness". This post, your post initiating my reply, is all part of a learning and experiencing PROCESS, much like a PURIFICATION process in TANTRA. Thus I arrive at my focus, which is FLOW in the nadis through the chakras. Consciousness exists in three nadis, channels, and you are forcing the MIDDLE NADI, Sushumna, to be that of the "self/anatta" i.e. nama/rupa. I just, IMO, do not like the "flow" in the sushumna as having anything to do with the "self/anatta" Pardon me, I just taught myself something and wonder if my bothering the discussion is worth the effort (zen). Interesting. The nadis are rather "specific" about "flows" aren't they? Pardon me for bothering. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: <...> > S: Seems the questions are all about "me" - what am "I" going to do, how am "I" going to react, what should "I" do? > > They indicate there is no understanding of dhammas, realities and there is the taking of 'myself', various situations, such as work, career, prosperity and so on for being real. > > The more understanding there is that there are only conditioned realities arising and falling away now, such as seeing and visible object, the less inclination there is to think in terms of "what should I do". With more understanding, it becomes clear that this is true, however life unfolds, however rich or poor, whatever our job is. > > If we have the idea that certain work situations or careers or pursuits will be less conducive to the development of understanding, again it indicates a lack of understanding now. The test is always the understanding of the reality appearing now. <...> #129189 From: "Tony H" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:16 pm Subject: (Sukin) - and everyone else... tony.humphreys Hi Sukin, and everyone. I feel like I am labouring a point and seem to be repeating the same explanation repeatedly. This must be irritating for you all. I will set out my stall as it were below in my reply to Sukin and I will gracefully back away. Understanding of the Madhyamika Prasangika view is an extremely difficult one to understand and took me many years for it to click! I have found it to be utterly watertight in terms of being irrefutable. I will of course still read all of your posts with interest, but having seen the Ox I need to concentrate on catching it now :-) S: After the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness, there is thinking about the object. Many processes of this results in say, thinking about a red rose. This red rose is an example of a concept which is the object of the thinking process and therefore not a reality. The visible object which was the object of seeing consciousness however, is a reality, not a concept, since seeing, unlike thinking, experiences a physical reality. You on the other hand are saying that even the visible object is unreal. And not only, but also all experiences and their objects are not real. T: Just because something isn't 'real' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its the mode of its existence that is illusory and contrary to the way it appears. To take your example of the Rose, when you see 'the rose' there is an appearance to your mind of a rose. This is fine, the 'appearance' to your mind is a legitimate cognition based upon all the suitable causes and conditions arising for you to experience 'rose' in your consciousness. You can smell the rose, feel the rose, admire the colour of the rose...etc. However, if you go looking for the thing that possesses all of these qualities you will never ever find it. This is called the 'object possessor' or 'part possessor'. Try this: Take the stem away from the rose, Take the thorns away from the rose, Take the buds away from the rose..... ....note all these things are being taken away from 'the rose' and we still have yet to be left with this rose we keep talking about.... Take the petals away from the rose....etc..etc... Are you left with the rose? You have taken away all of the parts that belong to the rose....so where now is the rose that had petals on it? You can never find it because it was only an appearance to your mind in dependence upon all of the parts described. As is ALL phenomena including the formless type :) You may say that the pile of thorns and petals is the rose. Try putting that pile in a vase and see what it looks like....not a rose that's for sure! :) The collection is not the thing. It is a collection of parts of a rose. Not a rose. The rose that appears to your mind is the conventional existence of the rose. The unfindability of the rose is its ultimate nature, its lack of inherent existence, its Emptiness. Put them all back together and magically a rose re-appears to our mind! Pick any object or phenomena like sight, sound (sound is a really good way of identifying Emptiness). The Ultimate Nature of ALL phenoemena is its Emptiness of its Inherent Existence. Good luck, _/\_ Metta all... Tony... #129190 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... jagkrit2012 Dear Tony > T: Pick any object or phenomena like sight, sound (sound is a really good way of identifying Emptiness). > > The Ultimate Nature of ALL phenoemena is its Emptiness of its Inherent Existence. JJ: I follow your point here. However, I'm just curious that when? When is its emptiness? Thank you Jagkrit #129191 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:34 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Robert) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: Sankhara dukkha can only be truly understood at the third stage of insight with the direct understanding of the rising and falling away of realities. > > > >R: What is the best translation for dukkha in this context? Unsatisfactoriness? > ... > S: Whether it's "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" (which I tend to prefer) or anything else, it is the understanding of dhammas and the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory, that is important. --------------------------- HCW: Sarah, did you mean "MISunderstanding"? And, Sarah, if there are conditions for dhammas being dukkha - primarily moha and tanha - in what sense is that unsatisfactoriness inherent? Is it not, instead, extrinsic/adventitious? --------------------------- > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Avijja Sutta : Ignorance is the leader. nilovg Dear Jagkrit, Thank you for your useful correspondance on the subject of: what to do. Just a little remark about Ven. Thanissaro's translation of samma sankappa: it is right thinking, vitakka cetasika, but I know that several translators prefer: right resolve. I have seen in PTS right aim, Ven. Bodhi: right intention. I find this confusing and would rather stick to the Pali, sankappa, thinking. Nina. Op 12-feb-2013, om 3:38 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view > arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong > resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In > one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong > livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong > mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration > arises. #129193 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] (Sukin) - and everyone else... sukinderpal Hi Tony, Ken H, > I feel like I am labouring a point and seem to be repeating the same > explanation repeatedly. This must be irritating for you all. > I thought that this might happen. As I said, I have not been reading all the posts, in fact I must have read only two of your posts including other threads. So I did anticipate that the points I raised have already been addressed. Sorry about that. But please do continue expressing your understandings and I'm sure no one here is bored or irritated. I just hope that you don't get bored with me. ;-) === > I will set out my stall as it were below in my reply to Sukin and I > will gracefully back away. Understanding of the Madhyamika Prasangika > view is an extremely difficult one to understand and took me many > years for it to click! I have found it to be utterly watertight in > terms of being irrefutable. I will of course still read all of your > posts with interest, but having seen the Ox I need to concentrate on > catching it now :-) > And the Ox is not "now"? Is it not there when you respond to posts? :-) === > > S: After the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness, > there is thinking about the object. Many processes of this results in > say, thinking about a red rose. This red rose is an example of a > concept which is the object of the thinking process and therefore not > a reality. The visible object which was the object of seeing > consciousness however, is a reality, not a concept, since seeing, > unlike thinking, experiences a physical reality. You on the other hand > are saying that even the visible object is unreal. And not only, but > also all experiences and their objects are not real. > > T: Just because something isn't 'real' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > Its the mode of its existence that is illusory and contrary to the way > it appears. > I was struggling to understand the above, perhaps because in my simple thinking, I've always equated "real" with "existing". So I had to go look at some of your older posts when I came upon this conversation between you and Ken H: Quote: KH: Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that was the answer Tony needed to hear. I am sure it is perfectly valid with regard to concepts, but Tony's problem (if I may call it that) is that he thinks dhammas have no existence outside the mind. In other words, he sees them as concepts. The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist (see Useful Posts under "Exists & does not Exist, Emptiness"). TH: I am indeed saying that. Can you explain how anything can 'exist' without a mind to apprehend it? To state otherwise is illogical. I think this is fundamental philosophy. You don't know what you don't know. So you appear to be saying that since anything is known only by mind, they do not have an existence other than how the mind experiences it. And as Ken H suggested, this applies not only to concepts, but also to what he and I consider realities. First, you have not responded to my query and I would really like you to. Namely, what distinguishes concepts such as "red rose" which is the object of the thinking process and say, "sound" which you consider as existing only in the mind but is not the object of the thinking process. Also, could you break sound down to parts as you do a red rose? Second, your reason for considering an object as existing only in the mind just because only mind can experience it does not sound valid to me. To say that only mind can know or experience anything is a statement about the nature of mind and not that which is being experienced. To say that sound can only be experienced by hearing, is saying that hearing is a unique kind of experience, which has sound as its object. It does not imply that sound exists only when there is hearing. So the tree in the forest makes sound regardless of whether anyone hears it or not. But you are saying that it does not, right? === > To take your example of the Rose, when you see 'the rose' there is an > appearance to your mind of a rose. This is fine, the 'appearance' to > your mind is a legitimate cognition based upon all the suitable causes > and conditions arising for you to experience 'rose' in your > consciousness. You can smell the rose, feel the rose, admire the > colour of the rose...etc. However, if you go looking for the thing > that possesses all of these qualities you will never ever find it. > This is called the 'object possessor' or 'part possessor'. Try this: > > Take the stem away from the rose, > Take the thorns away from the rose, > Take the buds away from the rose..... > > ....note all these things are being taken away from 'the rose' and we > still have yet to be left with this rose we keep talking about.... > I wouldn't think to analyze this way. To me a rose is concept, so are all the parts like stem, thorns, buds etc., being that they can only ever be the object of thinking. Concepts are not real and therefore non-existent, different from visible object, perception, applied thought, attention, seeing and so on. The latter are the realities without which there would not be the experience of "red rose". They are what constitute the "world" as referred to by the Buddha in the Loka Sutta: Quote: "Insofar as it disintegrates,[2] monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye --- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain --- that too disintegrates. "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html So it appears that the Buddha did make the reality vs. concept distinction by pointing out quite clearly, the nature of reality. Note that in the above "eye" is included, and as I hope you will agree, eye itself is never the object of experience, but is only the physical base, one of the Five Aggregates. === > > Take the petals away from the rose....etc..etc... > > Are you left with the rose? You have taken away all of the parts that > belong to the rose....so where now is the rose that had petals on it? > > You can never find it because it was only an appearance to your mind > in dependence upon all of the parts described. As is ALL phenomena > including the formless type :) > So please describe how you would analyse say, feeling or tasting? === > You may say that the pile of thorns and petals is the rose. Try > putting that pile in a vase and see what it looks like....not a rose > that's for sure! :) The collection is not the thing. It is a > collection of parts of a rose. Not a rose. > In the case of hearing experiencing sound, the coming together of the different phenomena does not add up to a another kind of phenomena. So I don't think the above example and kind of analyses applies. === > The rose that appears to your mind is the conventional existence of > the rose. The unfindability of the rose is its ultimate nature, its > lack of inherent existence, its Emptiness. > So it appears that your Emptiness is not the same as my understanding of Anatta. My anatta applies to realities, and is not because these realities rise together with other realities, but rather that the characteristic is inherent in each one of them, as are anicca and dukkha. So to me a rose is not anatta, nor are its parts, and the reason for this is simply that it does not exist to begin with. === > Put them all back together and magically a rose re-appears to our mind! > > Pick any object or phenomena like sight, sound (sound is a really good > way of identifying Emptiness). > As I said, the former is the object of consciousness which thinks, the latter exists regardless of whether there is or not any experience. However when it is experienced, it is not by thinking, but directly by hearing. I wait for your response to my query from the last message. But note this also, that while thinking depends on memory of past experience, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling do not. === > The Ultimate Nature of ALL phenoemena is its Emptiness of its Inherent > Existence. > So far it sounds illogical, this conclusion. But maybe you can try to put your understanding in a different way.... Metta, Sukin #129194 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Tam, all, >TB:So it is ignorance of the 4 Noble truths. Let's talk briefly >about >the 1rst truth. >"...In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But please don't forget the other parts of Dukkha. I understand why you leave them out, they deal with conventional truth (aging, sickness, death). >TB:You said Dukkha is psychology. I've said that Dhamma is best psychology as it deals with the mind, suffering (which is mental) and cessation of suffering. With best wishes, Alex #129195 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:42 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) thomaslaw03 Dear Dhamma-Study friends, I posted the following message/question to the Yahoo Pali Group in reply to a question and the group, but not being posted there so far. I now post it here for discussions: According to the commentaries, after the Buddha performed the Twin Miracle under the Gandamba tree (Mango tree) at Savatthi (Sravasti), he then (in three strides?) went to the heaven Tavatimsa (Trayastrimsa) to preach the Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother. After preaching the Abhidhammas in Tavatimsa, the Buddha returned to earth at Sankassa. The god Sakka (Sakra), ruler of the Tavatimsa, provided three ladders for the Buddha's descent from the mount Sineru (Sumeru) to the earth. I am not sure how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time. Does anyone know how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time, according to the Pali tradition? I consider this story not only is unusual, irrational, but also superstitious. Any comments? Sincerely, Thomas #129196 From: Tam Bach Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:50 pm Subject: Question on pariccheda rupa, to Nina and all tambach Dear Nina and all, When we were in Wang Nam Kweo, there was mentioning about akasa rupa as being an unconditioned dhamma. And here in the appendix on Rupa of Survey of paramatha dhammas, we read: "Pariccheda rúpa or space (akĺsa), which delimits kalĺpas, originates from 4 factors: it originates from kamma when it separates kalĺpas originated from kamma. In the same way it originates from citta, from temperature or from nutrition when it separates the kalĺpas originated from citta, temperature or nutrition." Could you and others explain more to me about this? Metta, Tam B #129197 From: Tam Bach Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah tambach Dear Alex, >TB:So it is ignorance of the 4 Noble truths. Let's talk briefly >about >the 1rst truth. >"...In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But please don't forget the other parts of Dukkha. I understand why you leave them out, they deal with conventional truth (aging, sickness, death). >TB:You said Dukkha is psychology. ------------------- A: I've said that Dhamma is best psychology as it deals with the mind, suffering (which is mental) and cessation of suffering. Tam B: Sorry for my mistake. Please replace the word Dukkha there by Dhamma. The remaining of my comment and  question stays the same. Does psychology deal with the 2nd and 3rd kind of Dukkha? Metta, Tam B #129198 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 5. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "The virtuous man does not blame himself, and otherwise wise men do not blame him, and he does not encounter the danger of temporal punishment or an evil destination after death. To the contrary, the wise praise the noble character of the virtuous man and the virtuous man is not subject to the remorse which arises in the immoral man when he thinks: "I have committed evil, wicket sinful deeds." "And virtue is the supreme basis for security, since is the foundation for diligence, a blessing, and a means for achieving great benefits, such as preventing the loss of wealth, etc. " **** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129199 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Question on pariccheda rupa, to Nina and all sarahprocter... Dear Tam B, In brief, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > When we were in Wang Nam Kweo, there was mentioning about akasa rupa as being an unconditioned dhamma. ... S: We mentioned two kinds of akasa rupa - a) the conditioned akasa rupa which separates kalapas of rupas and is dependent on them for its arising and b) the unconditioned akasa rupa in open spaces. .... >And here in the appendix on Rupa of Survey of paramatha dhammas, we read: > > "Pariccheda rďż˝pa or space (akďż˝sa), which delimits kalďż˝pas, originates from 4ďż˝factors: it originates from kamma when it separates kalďż˝pas originated from kamma. In the same way it originates from citta, from temperature or from nutrition when it separates the kalďż˝pas originated from citta, temperature or nutrition." > > Could you and others explain more to me about this? ... S: This is the conditioned akasa rupa, dependent on the kalapas it separates and therefore originating by the same cause as the kalapas it separates, i.e. kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. Lots more in "Useful Posts" under "Space". Metta Sarah ====