#130600 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:57 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Jon, all, >A:But the Buddha didn't physically speak them. How do we know that >what the monks said was not mis-interpretation? Even during the >Buddha, there were monks with mistaken views (Sati, Arittha, >Devadatta). >>> ... >S: Such monks were not the Mahavihara Theras who preserved the >Teachings. At these early Councils, starting with the first one under >Maha Kassapa, only arahats recited the Buddha Vaccana which included >many commentaries. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sati, Arittha, etc, were monks who studied under the Buddha - rather than monks living generations after the Buddha. > ... >S: Yes and it was made very clear that they had dangerous wrong >views. The Buddha never praised them as he did the noble disciples >who 'commentated' on what he had said, such as Maha Kaccayana: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference is that when the Buddha was alive, he could correct wrong views by the monks, and he could approve good teaching by monks such as Maha Kaccayana, etc. After the Buddha is gone... We don't have this. Furthermore... think... Why would there be a need for later commentators to comment on Buddha's teaching? Why couldn't sutta compilers do a good job which would not require further interpretation? Why are we sure that some monks living later could explain BETTER than the suttas? >S:We know from the descriptions of the early councils that they were >all arahats. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because someone is an Arhant, it doesn't mean that one is an expert at *teaching* Dhamma. It seems that some Arhats (such as Asajji) could teach 1000x less than many people here... As for councils: Different schools have different opinions. There are two sides of any schism... With best wishes, Alex #130601 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Jon, all, >>S:As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with >the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of >consciousness> accompanied by insight that knows something about the >true nature of a presently arising dhamma. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > And why would those states arise? Because of conditions, one of which is actual practice. > ... >S: As made clear in the sutta referred to, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutta can easily be interpreted as: "when one learns what to do, then one does it.". This would also fit with many other suttas, and with what Abhidhamma masters teach., >S:No one to put in any effort. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this mean that Sarah would not swim when placed in deep water? With best wishes, Alex #130602 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) htoonaing... > > Does this mean that Sarah would not swim when placed in deep water? > > With best wishes, > > Alex ----------------- Dear Alex and Sarah, We should not deny the existance while we should keep seeing dhamma as dhamma. That is rupa as rupa and nama as nama. With metta, Htoo Naing #130603 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: A request szmicio hello Sarah, Jon, Ann, Phil and everyone, I am living with monks. I am gona to stay UK. And never come back Poland. I met wise friends here and I need this wholesome elements to be assocciated with them. This is my protection. I am gona to have a work here, 6 km from monastery and commute to vihara every weekend, so I am sure not loosing contact with wholesome elements. What I must ask now, is a money help cause I must pay to rent a house for one month, cause i cannot work and live monastery. I need around 400 pounds to borrow. I will give it in 3-4 weeks. If you want to help me, this is the best moments I probably have, since I am really determined. I gave up somking etc. and I want to change my life permanently. In vihara i am staying I have a huge library with pali and english texts, so here I have a great opportunity to study Dhamma. This is very important to me, since in next week I must leave vihara, and when I think of Poland I am really shocked. I just want to try to work and live normally, I dont look for anything special. Take care of your body and mind, Lukas #130604 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. t.sastri Dear Tam Bach, (Bach Lang, others)- I appreciate your touching on Khun Sujin's teaching for Bach Lang. Allow me to extract the main points into the following list. 1. "Although there is a path, it is not done by a person. A person -a concept- has a lot of ignorance, wrong view, and very little -if at all- right understanding. 2. "As long as there is still taking what is merely the five aggregates or elements as "I", mine , my-self, it would be impossible to understand the right path. We might read suttas, visudhimagga and all that and still are led by the idea of someone doing something. 3. "Right understanding is not "will", it is not "effort", it is a reality which has its own function and its own conditions to arise. There first has to be this clear understanding that it is not a person trying, but only right understanding, when it arises, it is doing the practice. 4. "And what is the condition for the arising of right understanding? Hearing the right Dhamma and wise consideration of what is being heard. Understanding of the words is not the same than the intellectuall understanding that many members here refer to as pariyati. When intellectual understanding arises, panna cetasika arises with it too, and it knows how it is worth. 5. "Intellectual understanding can grow to become direct understanding, if there is consideration again and again, by conditions, of the realities which appear now with right intellectual understanding. "Thira sanna-firm remembrance" is a proximate cause for sati ,which is directly aware of realities, to arise. When sati has arisen thanks to firm remembrance, it conditions more  sati which is aware of realities for understanding to develop deeper and deeper, even to the point of insight knowledge and the experience of Nibanna, where defilements are uprooted by stages. But it is an extremely long process. 6. "We might find craving disturbing and want to deal with it first. However, in reality, as long as there is still the wrong view of someone who can do something at will, instead of just dhammas arising by conditions, it is impossible." Did I miss something important? Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Bach Lang, > > Glad to see you back here. > > Bach Lang: I have a couple of questions: > 1./ I hope you explain more about the practices of "seeing is just > seeing". > 1a.) This practice can help you understand anatta, is it? How it help you > decline the craving for existence, which is lying deeply and subtle that > can't transform into thinking? Your practice is just thinking, and maybe, > understanding, how can it destroy the defilement which lying deeply than > your consciousness? > --------- .... > Bach Lang: 1b.) "Perceiving the seen as the seen, he conceives [things] > about the > seen, he conceives [things] in the seen, he conceives [things] coming out > of the seen, he conceives the seen as 'mine,' he delights in the seen. Why > is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." > Mulapariyaya Sutta > As the 5 hindrances still in you, it's sure that your view is not pure, > and "perceive" is the thing that absolute. Just need to > "perceive" and that > is the cause for all the thing the Buddha said. > -------- #130605 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: SN 55:55: > > > "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the > > > realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? > > > Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, > > > practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." > > > > > > As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the > > > Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness > > > accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently > > > arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view > > > to having that consciousness occur."< > > > >R: I think this last point is a point that has been in dispute for a long time, and is not resolved. I have never seen a quote from any scripture, whether sutta or commentary, that claims that the act of meditation is wrong view or wrong practice - not a single one. > ... > S: What do you mean by "the act of meditation"? Sitting down at the root of a tree, or in some other quiet place, putting mindfulness to the forefront of attention. focusing on the breath, body-sensation or on the momentary arising object of awareness, and practicing mindfulness or samatha meditation, as the Buddha described on countless occasions. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130606 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn thanks, Tep. > > >C: feelings, etc., born of contacts. phassa, a cetasika. so what is this touchy stuff? how can we tell nama from rupa? what is 'form'? the clear reality is pasada rupa. > > T: A person's touchy stuff may not be touchy at all to another; their preferences and biases make someone's viewpoint different from that of another person. c: The 'touchy stuff' I meant - Phassa or Contact - is not between people, so viewpoint/storylines aside, the Feeling Born of Contact is going to be the same ... painful, pleasant, neutral. Also, it will be mental or physical - i'm not sure of the difference. Everything in the mix! connie #130607 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 12:04 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration colette_aube Good Morning Ken H. and Tep, and Connie, Exactly, Ken! Jon or Sarah has shown your acknowledgement of THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THE GROUP, here, by posting connie's question to tep and tep's reply to connie. Now I'll fall in line with Tep's answer by suggesting that Tep and Connie have both forgotten the rationale for SUNYATA and the MADHYAMIKA. Notice that the entire topic of discussion between Tep and Connie DEPENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING i.e. arising and ceasing. As long as Sunyata IS then there can be NO ARISING and NO CEASING because it has NO ULTIMATE EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE. It is all part of THE MIND, ONLY, and "existence" is only through the mind's ability TO PROJECT OUTWARDLY. How distant from the MIND does reality and "existence" get before it reaches MANIFESTATION in and through the FORCE that projected it? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Connie, - > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness. <...> #130608 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 6:24 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn dear colette, if it is Mind Only, there can be no 'external'. we can have our cake and eat it, too, but not the other way around. Universal consciousness sounds dangerously close to proclaiming my own space in the godhead; otoh, i'm willing to believe "the ALL" can be sensed... depends on how penetrative our minds are, i guess. Arising and ceasing don't have arising and ceasing... this is i what i was stumbling around the other day... thinking about what 'real' might mean. Yathabhuta is not my word... it is 'the way things are', they say, so if the whole idea of existence/non-existence is bunk, what's the significance of a word like bhuta in the first place? Are bhuta and bhava totally different 'words' as far as what they point out? Did i recently hear someone say Buddha didn't teach about samsara?! arg! good to see you, connie > > Exactly, Ken! Jon or Sarah has shown your acknowledgement of THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THE GROUP, here, by posting connie's question to tep and tep's reply to connie. > #130609 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 7:53 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Hello Colette (Connie, others) Thank you for paying attention to this sutta, SN 22.5, and communicating back to me. Your participation here is significant by virtue of bringing in the Sunyata (su~n~nata) component to complete the "picture". Earlier I quoted from SN 22.5, Samadhi Sutta: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness." This Samadhi Sutta tells us that it takes mental unification aka concentration (samadhi) in order to understand/discern the origination & disappearance phenomena of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The sutta does not concern voidness or su~n~nata or no-self/not-self. Colette: >Jon or Sarah has shown your acknowledgement of THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THE GROUP, here, by posting connie's question to tep and tep's reply to connie. >Now I'll fall in line with Tep's answer by suggesting that Tep and Connie have both forgotten the rationale for SUNYATA and the MADHYAMIKA. Notice that the entire topic of discussion between Tep and Connie DEPENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING i.e. arising and ceasing. As long as Sunyata IS then there can be NO ARISING and NO CEASING because it has NO ULTIMATE EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE. .......... T: It is true that when citta takes voidness as its object, there is nothing else in that moment but su~n~nata! Then right then and right there there is no longer arising & ceasing since the phenomena are not the citta's object anymore. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Good Morning Ken H. and Tep, and Connie, > ... ... > It is all part of THE MIND, ONLY, and "existence" is only through the mind's ability TO PROJECT OUTWARDLY. How distant from the MIND does reality and "existence" get before it reaches MANIFESTATION in and through the FORCE that projected it? > #130610 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---- <. . .> > S: Many excellent comments and quotes: ----- KH: Is this a good time for one of my homespun theories? :-) As you have often said before, the suttas were delivered in a way that suited their particular audiences. The Fire Sutta, for example, was delivered to a group of former fire worshippers, and the Mulapariya (Root of Existence) Sutta to a group of former Vedic scholars. The Bhikkhuni Sutta was addressed to a nun who had tried to seduce Ananda. We have to remember all suttas contain the same Dhamma. When we read "All is burning, monks!" we don't see this as a previously unrevealed characteristic of dhammas. The unusual framework of the Mulapariya Sutta mirrors (according to Ven Bodhi's commentary) the Vedas, but that doesn't mean the Dhamma has a previously unrevealed Vedic element to it. The Bhikkhuni Sutta is about giving in to one's desires, so are we suddenly to believe desire is Path factor? No, we have to know how to interpret the sutta in line with all the others. And that's why we have you. :-) Ken H #130611 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration colette_aube Hi connie, WRONG. It's nothing more than your inexperience to the MIDDLE PATH, to the MIND ONLY SCHOOL, to THE MADHYAMIKAKARIKA, ETC. and probably your devotion to the THERAVADA. > if it is Mind Only, there can be no 'external'. YES THERE CAN BE AN EXTERNAL because the mind is so heavily addicted and controlled by "Manifestation" It, the mind, is soooo utterly and completely addicted to, for instance, the cake actually BEING THERE, BEING EXTERNAL SO THAT THE MIND CAN APPLY THE NAME TO IT WHICH IT THEN PLACES IN A CATEGORY. You, as being a MIND, you possess this NAME and the only reason that you cling to this NAME is because you hold the truth that the NAME defines this FORM that confronts you from time to time and you want that FORM taken care of so that it, the FORM and the NAME THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE FORM AFTER YOUR MIND WHICH IS FIRST IN THE CLINGING TO THE FORM. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear colette, > if it is Mind Only, there can be no 'external'. > we can have our cake and eat it, too, but not the other way around. > Universal consciousness sounds dangerously close to proclaiming my own space in the godhead; otoh, i'm willing to believe "the ALL" can be sensed... depends on how penetrative our minds are, i guess. > Arising and ceasing don't have arising and ceasing... this is i what i was stumbling around the other day... thinking about what 'real' might mean. Yathabhuta is not my word... it is 'the way things are', they say, so if the whole idea of existence/non-existence is bunk, what's the significance of a word like bhuta in the first place? Are bhuta and bhava totally different 'words' as far as what they point out? > Did i recently hear someone say Buddha didn't teach about samsara?! > arg! > good to see you, > connie > > > > > > Exactly, Ken! Jon or Sarah has shown your acknowledgement of THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THE GROUP, here, by posting connie's question to tep and tep's reply to connie. > > > #130612 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn nothing most people say makes much sense to me, colette. connie #130613 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat May 11, 2013 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Dear Tep T: I appreciate your touching on Khun Sujin's teaching for Bach Lang. Allow me to extract the main points into the following list. --------- Tam B: I appreciate your sense of organisation ! It seems much clearer now. When I sent out my post and looked at how it appeared, I thought: what a mess ! -------------------------- Tep: Did I miss something important? --------- Tam B: What was said is gone now, Tep :-)! To be forgotten, as AS says . Nothing is as important as now. Thank you very much, Tep Metta, Tam #130614 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 11, 2013 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > What kind of cause /effect are you pointing at, conditionality, kamma / > > vipaka or is it accumulated tendencies? > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > I believe it goes much beyond this. For example, physical conditions > that one is born with affect all sorts of things throughout life. > Consider birth defects, for example. > Is the seeing of a dwarf different from that of a giant? Is the attachment or aversion which follows the sense experiences any less in the one as compared to the other? Is the aversion of someone with a birth defect greater than that of a normal person? > > The "interrelationship" which the "staccato, freeze-frame perspective" > > fails to cover. What exactly are involved in the interrelationship and > > which concept in the Dhamma it corresponds with? > -------------------------------- > HCW: > Only-at-the-moment conditionality cannot account for change, for > change is a cross-temporal matter. > When it comes to reality, I know impermanence which I believe the "only-at-the-moment conditionality" best illustrates, but I don't understand change. Can you tell me what this "change" is? > > There are 24 conditions, I don't remember most of them, but I do > believe > > that they are all different. Saying that conditionality happens in the > > moment does not imply that there is only one type of condition, namely > > contiguity condition. That one kind of dhamma arises before another > > dhamma still points to the conditioning / conditioned relationship that > > happens in the moment. Even in the case of asynchronous > kamma-condition, > > the kammaja rupa or vipaka citta arises as a result of the coming > > together of different realities, in the moment. > --------------------------------- > HCW: > You have great faith in a particular Abidhammic theory. Particularly, > you are certain that it came from the Buddha and is a complete theory. > Okay. > I'll admit that mostly it is regurgitating theory. But this is not what the faith / confidence is based upon. What the Abhidhamma tells me is that there are only the mental and physical phenomena existing from moment to moment, and I know this to be true every time there is any attention to the present moment with any level of understanding. Did it come from the Buddha? Well, if not the Buddha then it must come from someone with greater wisdom. And is there anyone wiser than the Buddha? Why do you think that it wasn't the Buddha who actually taught the Abhidhamma? Is it because you consider what is stated in it to be false? > > So are you referring to the 24 conditions when you talk about the idea > > of "interrelationship"? Why would you do this here on DSG, where more > > than anywhere else, conditionality is emphasized? It seems to me that > > you are talking about something else, something which we in fact never > > take into account. So again I ask, what is this "interrelationship" > > about? My first impression was similar to Ken H's, namely that you are > > making a case for some kind of "self". > --------------------------------- > HCW: > It just ain't so. And there is no basis for it. And, frankly, relating > interrelationship to atta-view is absurd, for they go in opposite > directions! > It may be true, but you have not yet explained what this "interrelationship" is all about. Until then, the mental picture that I presently have, does appear to be about "atta". > > > HCW: > > > You'll state here that this is how it is rather than this is how you > > > *believe* it is? Okay - it's nice to be a truth knower! ;-) > > > > > > > You mean if I say "I believe" that would give credibility to what I > say? > -------------------------------------- > HCW: > I would make your statement true, and it would protect the truth. > What "truth" would you be referring to if you don't have at least an intellectual understanding about it? An abstract idea similar to that of other religions? > > Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands at the > > level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one does > not > > understand at all. > ------------------------------------- > HCW: > This strikes me as quite similar to what devout Moslems would say of > Islam, devout Jews of Judaism, and so on. The Buddha warned against > such attitudes. > So you consider Islam and Judaism to point at the Four Noble Truths which is "now," just as the Dhamma does? Metta, Sukin #130615 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 3:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. t.sastri Dear Tam, (Alex, Sarah, Colette) - > Tam B: I appreciate your sense of organisation ! It seems much clearer now. When I sent out my post and looked at how it appeared, I thought: what a mess ! T: Your writing was clear and great. I only extracted out some key points. > Tam B: What was said is gone now, Tep :-)! To be forgotten, as AS says . Nothing is as important as now. T: Although it is true that "now" is most important moment, but no-one can live a normal life in the world if she/he forgets the past and does not care at all about future. Focusing only on 'no self', 'no person', CAN condition the perception of voidness in one who dwells in deep concentration; and when it arises, the body disappears! Su~n~nata arises and the whole world is empty! Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Tep: Did I miss something important? > > --------- #130616 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > However, it is only when the arising and falling away of realities are clearly understood (at the third vipassana-nana) that dukkha is really understood, because it is the understanding of the unsatisfactoriness of the arising and falling away of dhammas directly which is the understanding of sankhara dukkha. Thank you, that is good to know. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130617 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 4:45 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration htoonaing... Dear Tep and Connie, Let me come in the middle of your discussion. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Connie, - > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness. -------------- [Samadhi.m bhikkhave, bhavetha. ---------------- Htoo Naing: O! Monks! Proliferate (increase, cause existances). This means that Monks have to meditate or do vipassanaa to the degree that mind become calmly concentrate on object of meditation. ------------------------------- Samahito bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathabhuta.m pajanati. ---------------------- Htoo Naing: Because of presence of concentration (samaadhi) Monks become to know things as they really are. Here 'janati' is 'to know'. Pajanati is 'to know in depth in detail penetratively. -------------------------- Ki~nca yathabhuta.m pajanati? ------------------------- Htoo Naing: In what way penetratively know things as they really are? ---------------------- Rupassa samudaya~ca atthagama~nca, -------------------------------- Htoo Naing: origination of forms and vanishing of forms --------------------------- vedanaya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sa~n~naya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sankharana.m samudayaca atthagama~nca, vi~n~na.nassa samudaya~nca atthagama~nca. ] --------------- Htoo Naing: Also in feeling, perception, fabricatiuons and consciousness these also apply. ----------------------------------- > > >C: would you happen to know the phrasing for this concentrated monk's discernment? 'in line with what has come into being'? > > T: As the above Pali text shows, 'in line with what has come into being' is 'yathabhuta.m pajanati'. > > >C: feelings, etc., born of contacts. phassa, a cetasika. so what is this touchy stuff? how can we tell nama from rupa? what is 'form'? the clear reality is pasada rupa. > > T: A person's touchy stuff may not be touchy at all to another; their preferences and biases make someone's viewpoint different from that of another person. > Here, the important stuff for me is the following: Samadhi.m bhikkhave, bhavetha! Samahito bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathabhuta.m pajanati. > > Regards, > Tep > === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > dear Tep, > > > > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness." > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo Naing: The Buddha's teachings in concise form are siila, samaadhi, and pa~n~naa. They are siila sekkaa, samaadhi sekkhaa and pa~n~naa. They constitute 8 NEP. Noble Eightfold Path. In NEP, the Buddha started with sammaa-di.t.thi. So NEP has to be led by panna (sammaa-ditthi). There are differemt level of samaa-ditthi. After jhaana sammaa-ditthi there is vipassanaa-sammaa-ditthi. This can only be obtained through meditation. When calm (samaadhi established) then naama or ruupa can more clearly be seen. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #130618 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:12 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Dear Htoo (Connie, Sarah, jon and others) - Your Pali expertise and Suttas familiarity are helpful, and I believe that other interested members will agree. [Htoo:] 'O! Monks! Proliferate' (increase, cause existances). This means that Monks have to meditate or do vipassanaa to the degree that mind become calmly concentrate on object of meditation. Because of presence of concentration (samaadhi) Monks become to know things as they really are. Here 'janati' is 'to know'. Pajanati is 'to know in depth in detail penetratively. In what way penetratively know things as they really are? Origination of forms and vanishing of forms; in feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousness these also apply. The Buddha's teachings in concise form are siila, samaadhi, and pa~n~naa. They are siila sekkaa, samaadhi sekkhaa and pa~n~naa. They constitute 8 NEP (Noble Eightfold Path). In NEP, the Buddha started with sammaa-di.t.thi. So NEP has to be led by panna (sammaa-ditthi). There are differemt level of samaa-ditthi. After jhaana & sammaa-ditthi, there is vipassanaa-sammaa-ditthi. >Htoo: This can only be obtained through meditation. When calm (samaadhi established) then naama or ruupa can more clearly be seen. T: Well said! But can you expand a little on vipassanaa-sammaa-ditthi? Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > Dear Tep and Connie, > > Let me come in the middle of your discussion. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Connie, - > > > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness. > -------------- > [Samadhi.m bhikkhave, bhavetha. > ---------------- #130619 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:21 pm Subject: Vipassanaa_007 (DT 894 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, After reaching the foot of vipassanaa-mountain one has to climb it steadily. Unlike other exercises this practice leads to bare if stop the self-training. There are things to be cautious when doing vipassanaa. Vipassanaa is panna thing and it is alway associated with panna-cetasika. Vipassanaa is pre-magga. Vipassanaa is pre-path. Vipassanaa is fore-path. Vipassanaa is the bridge. It bridges puthujana and sotapanna. One has to study the fore path before actually walk on the path. Magga is just a moment. It lasts only a moment. Before reaching sotapanna all beings are sotapanna. As soon as magga-citta arises it disappears and immediately followed by phala-citta or fruition-consciousness. This stage is the stage of sotapanna. The bridge is vipassanaa. Vipassanaa again has two edge. The first is beginning and the second is the ending. The middle path is the core of vipassana. Initiation is almost always mixed with non-vipassana thing. Examples are developing mental-names in the mind. But these mental-names support seeing of naama or ruupa when the vipassana-path become approaching toward magga-path. As soon as wake up the state of waking up or alertness has to be recognised by meditating mind. This is followed by continuous noting on all objects that arise serially on mind mirror.This has to continue until falling asleep at night. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #130620 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:41 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration kenhowardau Hi Htoo and all, --- <. . .> > Htoo Naing: When calm (samaadhi established) then naama or ruupa can more clearly be seen. --- KH: If the above were true the Dhamma would not be a here-and-now teaching. It would be a teaching of rituals. If you think the Dhamma is about rituals, and waiting until things can be more clearly seen, go back to the beginning. Go back to the first sutta where the Dhamma is said to be about something "previously unknown." Begin again from there. Ken H #130621 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:46 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: >Dear Htoo (Connie, Sarah, jon and others) - > Your Pali expertise and Suttas familiarity are helpful, and I believe that other interested members will agree. > > [Htoo:] > 'O! Monks! Proliferate' T: Well said! But can you expand a little on vipassanaa-sammaa-ditthi? Be happy, Tep === Dear Tep, Connie, Sarah, Jon and all; Thanks Tep for your comment. Actually I am still a Pali-student and still learning to improve. What the texts say is clear if Pali can be understood. The texts or Pali-canon has to be studied along with a.t.thakathaa or commentary and .tiikaa or subcommentary. These extra texts do not have to be ignored. Without them is to swim accross the ocean of Pali-tipitaka. The texts say there are different level of panna-thing. That is sammaa-di.t.thi. 1. kammassakataa samma-ditthi 2. jhaana samma-ditthi 3. vipassanaa samma-ditthi 4. magga samma-ditthi 5. phala samma-ditthi 6. paccavekkhanaa samma-ditthi Wihtout the first one no one can be true disciple of the Buddha. That is no one can become a true Buddhist without kammassakaata samma-ditthi. This is the lowest level of panna. 2nd and 3rd stages are hard to discuss. But however-it is hard vipassanaa will not be true one without sammaa-samaadhi. This samma-samaadhi is led by jhaana-samma-ditthi or better vipassanaa-samma-ditthi. I think about this matter of jhaana has been discussed under different headings of discussion. Mahaaci-sayaadaw gave an example. It was telescope. Samaadhi is like telescope. Without sammaa-samaadhi naama and ruupa are hardly seen. Real example. Look at your palm right now. Have you looked at it? How was your perception. If you see palm as palm then there is no vipassanaa. This is because there is no vipassanaa samma-ditthi. It is easy to say that panna or understanding is the most important. But how thoroughly studied the texts is not the main core to attain enlightenment. Without actual practice there is no real understanding. There will only be false-understanding or copy-understanding. Not of own understanding. With Metta, Htoo Naing #130622 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 6:08 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > >KH: So you---- Also in commentary to DN2 there it talks about continuing meditating even while walking to the village for alms round. Ken, what you will NOT find is that idea that only hearing dhamma will liberate us. Abhidhamma masters such as Mahasi Sayadaw do teach meditation, including - yes, walking meditation. With best wishes, Alex ------------------------------------ Dear Alex, There are many texts left by Mahasi Sayadaw 'Bhaddanta Sobhna'. Sayadaw preached in an order that the Buddha preached. Among the texts there is only one Abhidhamma text. He was not assumed as Abhidhammist. He prefered on meditation. Many many people attacked what Sayadaw taught especially on meditation. Actually he was one the best Masters of meditation. He was not an abhidhammist. Even when he preached on abhidhamma he always led to meditation practice. Still there are many things in abhidhammatthasangaha that do not match what the Buddha actually taught. Here someone may argue that the Buddha never preached abhidhamma on this earth. This is not to be argued. Kind of dhamma are two. One is dhamma and one is vinaya or disipline. Vinaya is to bind one to the path to nibbaana. The Buddha said to Aanandaa that I have preached on 'dhamma and vinaya' it will be your teacher. Here dhamma is 'suttanta and abhidhamma'. Suttantas are recipes and they are for reaching nibbaana. Vinaya is also bound to nibbaana. Mahasi Sayadaw left a book on vinaya. All other texts are on suttas. Again all these suttas lead to meditation. Exception is moto only. With Metta, Htoo Naing #130623 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 11, 2013 10:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > What kind of cause /effect are you pointing at, conditionality, kamma / > > > vipaka or is it accumulated tendencies? > > ---------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I believe it goes much beyond this. For example, physical conditions > > that one is born with affect all sorts of things throughout life. > > Consider birth defects, for example. > > > > > Is the seeing of a dwarf different from that of a giant? Is the > attachment or aversion which follows the sense experiences any less in > the one as compared to the other? Is the aversion of someone with a > birth defect greater than that of a normal person? ----------------------------- HCW: While you're asking rhetorical questions: Is what you write above an answer?? (Rupas, early on, are conditions for very much that occurs in the future, often for an entire lifetime.) ---------------------------- > > > > > The "interrelationship" which the "staccato, freeze-frame perspective" > > > fails to cover. What exactly are involved in the interrelationship and > > > which concept in the Dhamma it corresponds with? > > -------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Only-at-the-moment conditionality cannot account for change, for > > change is a cross-temporal matter. > > > > > When it comes to reality, I know impermanence which I believe the > "only-at-the-moment conditionality" best illustrates, but I don't > understand change. Can you tell me what this "change" is? ------------------------------------ HCW: No. ------------------------------------ > > > > > There are 24 conditions, I don't remember most of them, but I do > > believe > > > that they are all different. Saying that conditionality happens in the > > > moment does not imply that there is only one type of condition, namely > > > contiguity condition. That one kind of dhamma arises before another > > > dhamma still points to the conditioning / conditioned relationship that > > > happens in the moment. Even in the case of asynchronous > > kamma-condition, > > > the kammaja rupa or vipaka citta arises as a result of the coming > > > together of different realities, in the moment. > > --------------------------------- > > HCW: > > You have great faith in a particular Abidhammic theory. Particularly, > > you are certain that it came from the Buddha and is a complete theory. > > Okay. > > > > > I'll admit that mostly it is regurgitating theory. But this is not what > the faith / confidence is based upon. What the Abhidhamma tells me is > that there are only the mental and physical phenomena existing from > moment to moment, and I know this to be true every time there is any > attention to the present moment with any level of understanding. > > Did it come from the Buddha? Well, if not the Buddha then it must come > from someone with greater wisdom. And is there anyone wiser than the > Buddha? > Why do you think that it wasn't the Buddha who actually taught the > Abhidhamma? Is it because you consider what is stated in it to be false? > > > > > So are you referring to the 24 conditions when you talk about the idea > > > of "interrelationship"? Why would you do this here on DSG, where more > > > than anywhere else, conditionality is emphasized? It seems to me that > > > you are talking about something else, something which we in fact never > > > take into account. So again I ask, what is this "interrelationship" > > > about? My first impression was similar to Ken H's, namely that you are > > > making a case for some kind of "self". > > --------------------------------- > > HCW: > > It just ain't so. And there is no basis for it. And, frankly, relating > > interrelationship to atta-view is absurd, for they go in opposite > > directions! > > > > > It may be true, but you have not yet explained what this > "interrelationship" is all about. Until then, the mental picture that I > presently have, does appear to be about "atta". ------------------------------------ HCW: I find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with interrelationships. ----------------------------------- > > > > > > HCW: > > > > You'll state here that this is how it is rather than this is how you > > > > *believe* it is? Okay - it's nice to be a truth knower! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > You mean if I say "I believe" that would give credibility to what I > > say? > > -------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I would make your statement true, and it would protect the truth. > > > > > What "truth" would you be referring to if you don't have at least an > intellectual understanding about it? An abstract idea similar to that of > other religions? > > > > > Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands at the > > > level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one does > > not > > > understand at all. > > ------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > This strikes me as quite similar to what devout Moslems would say of > > Islam, devout Jews of Judaism, and so on. The Buddha warned against > > such attitudes. > > > > So you consider Islam and Judaism to point at the Four Noble Truths > which is "now," just as the Dhamma does? ------------------------------------ HCW: I said nothing along such lines. What you are asking is a non-sequitur. Actually, it happens that I find much commonality between Judaism and the Dhamma, but that is irrelevant to what I said above. What I spoke about above is failure to distinguish, in thought and speech, between believing and knowing. The Buddha csrtsinly tsught that one dedicated to truth distinguishes these. ----------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukin ================================= With metta, Howard > Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #130624 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 12:34 am Subject: Six Kinds of Samma-ditthi t.sastri Dear Htoo, others - I had not seen the six kinds of samma-ditthi before you introduced them. Being curious, I did some search and here is the result: DHAMMACAKKA PAVATTANA SUTTA (The setting rolling of the wheel of Dhamma) Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw Vol. III, No. 4, 1958 http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/mhsdmcka.htm "Monks, by avoiding these two extremes the Tatthagata has gained the knowledge of the practice of middle path." The middle path which he had learned is the eightfold noble path. Of the eight constituents of the middle path, it would serve the purpose if an explanation is given in respect of right view (sammaditthi). In the commentaries the right view is classified into six categories, viz., 'kammasakata-sammaditthi, jhana-sammaditthi, vippassana-sammaditthi, magga-sammaditthi, phala-sammaditthi and paccavekkana-sammaditthi.' The last two being the sequence of 'magga-sammaditthi' need no particular explanation here. Of the first four, the 'kammasakata-sammaditthi' refers to the acceptance of the view that every individual evolution of re-birth processes is subject to the operation of good and evil deeds committed by each one. This view is an important factor in the evolution of life processes, because this can invariably promote the state of liberal and charitable mindedness. It will also encourage the practice of bhavana (meditation) which will finally result in realising Nibbana. In every meritorious act of charity, sila etc. this 'kammasakata-sammaditthi' and its other constituent factors, such as, 'sammasankappa etc.' as a whole are involved. By virtue of these factors, these meritorious acts can lead to good birth like the present life where Nibbana can be realised. Therefore, this 'kammasakata sammaditthi' should be accepted as one of the factors leading to Nibbana. 'Jhana-sammaditthi' means the practical knowledge in respect of the mental state of four rupajhanas and four arupajhanas. If this ditthi forms the basis of Vipassana-bhavana, it can be taken as a factor leading to the realisation of Nibbana. Because of the fact that they can form the basis features, the 'kammasakata-sammaditthi' and 'jhana-sammaditthi' may be understood as 'mula-magga'. (basis state of way). 'Vipassana-sammaditthi' virtually means the Vipassana knowledge. On the full maturity of the 'Vipassana-sammaditthi' the 'magga-sammaditthi' arises. For this reason this 'vipassana-sammaditthi' is known as 'pobbabhaga magga', that is, former part of the Noble way. ........ Like all other definitions/concepts/labels that are not often seen or not useful for my Dhamma practice, soon I will forget them. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > ... > Dear Tep, Connie, Sarah, Jon and all; > > Thanks Tep for your comment. Actually I am still a Pali-student > and still learning to improve. What the texts say is clear if Pali can be understood. The texts or Pali-canon has to be studied along with a.t.thakathaa or commentary and .tiikaa or subcommentary. > These extra texts do not have to be ignored. Without them is to swim accross the ocean of Pali-tipitaka. The texts say there are different level of panna-thing. That is sammaa-di.t.thi. > > 1. kammassakataa samma-ditthi > 2. jhaana samma-ditthi > 3. vipassanaa samma-ditthi > 4. magga samma-ditthi > 5. phala samma-ditthi > 6. paccavekkhanaa samma-ditthi > #130625 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:40 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Hi Connie (Tep), > Phassa or Contact - is not between people, so viewpoint/storylines aside, the Feeling Born of Contact is going to be the same ... painful, pleasant, neutral. Or, Feeling is conditioned by contact, down to Volition is conditioned by avijja, and When contact arises feeling arises, down to When avijja arises volition arises, dukkha ariyasacca; When contact ceases feeling ceases, down to When avijja ceases volition ceases, nirodha ariyasacca. > Also, it will be mental or physical - i'm not sure of the difference. Tough one, 5 sense doors, but still kusala or akusala cittas arising there, along with somanassa or domanassa or upekkha vedana, physical or mental? > Everything in the mix! Along with concepts, but they aren't even dukkha ariyasacca, In brief the five khandhas object of clinging are dukkha. Alberto #130626 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:39 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration colette_aube it doesn't matter much anyway because "sense" is something that is VERY UN-COMMON for a person to have in this materialistic robotic society that a gang of ANGRY WHITE MEN are trying to control through their HATRED and their ANGER. toodles --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > nothing most people say makes much sense to me, colette. > connie > #130627 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Hi Group, Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Tam, (Alex, Sarah, Colette) - > > > Tam B: I appreciate your sense of organisation ! It seems much clearer now. When I sent out my post and looked at how it appeared, I thought: what a mess ! > > T: Your writing was clear and great. I only extracted out some key points. > > > Tam B: What was said is gone now, Tep :-)! To be forgotten, as AS says . Nothing is as important as now. > > T: Although it is true that "now" is most important moment, but no-one can live a normal life in the world if she/he forgets the past and does not care at all about future. Focusing only on 'no self', 'no person', CAN condition the perception of voidness in one who dwells in deep concentration; and when it arises, the body disappears! Su~n~nata arises and the whole world is empty! #130628 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Hi Group, Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? Does the RAFT CLING TO THE STUDENT OR DOES THE STUDENT CLING TO THE RAFT? Who or what is doing THE CLINGING? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Tam, (Alex, Sarah, Colette) - > > > Tam B: I appreciate your sense of organisation ! It seems much clearer now. When I sent out my post and looked at how it appeared, I thought: what a mess ! > > T: Your writing was clear and great. I only extracted out some key points. > > > Tam B: What was said is gone now, Tep :-)! To be forgotten, as AS says . Nothing is as important as now. > > T: Although it is true that "now" is most important moment, but no-one can live a normal life in the world if she/he forgets the past and does not care at all about future. Focusing only on 'no self', 'no person', CAN condition the perception of voidness in one who dwells in deep concentration; and when it arises, the body disappears! Su~n~nata arises and the whole world is empty! #130629 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Why Is Feeling in the Upadanakkhandha? t.sastri Hi Alberto (and Connie), - Thanks for the good conversation. > >C: Also, it will be mental or physical - i'm not sure of the difference. Everything in the mix! > > A: Tough one, 5 sense doors, but still kusala or akusala cittas arising there, along with somanassa or domanassa or upekkha vedana, physical or mental? > Along with concepts, but they aren't even dukkha ariyasacca, In brief the five khandhas object of clinging are dukkha. > T: Feeling is a better object of contemplation than contact. This may be a reason why feeling aggregate, not contact, is in the upadanakkhandha ? So long! Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Connie (Tep), > > > Phassa or Contact - is not between people, so viewpoint/storylines aside, the Feeling Born of Contact is going to be the same ... painful, pleasant, neutral. > > Or, Feeling is conditioned by contact, down to Volition is conditioned by avijja, and When contact arises feeling arises, down to When avijja arises volition arises, dukkha ariyasacca; > When contact ceases feeling ceases, down to When avijja ceases volition ceases, nirodha ariyasacca. > ... ... ... > Alberto > #130630 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:41 am Subject: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Hi Jon, Sarah, et al., - Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate). Energy is also known as endeavor, effort, and exertion. "When rightly initiates, energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." [Vism XIV, 137] "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira). Its characteristic is marshalling(driving). It is manifested as non-collapse. ... Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly activated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments." So, how possible for knowledge to arise without effort/exertion of the citta? How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? Be diligent, Tep === #130631 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 12:00 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > <. . .> > Even when he preached on abhidhamma he always led to meditation practice. ---------------- Hi Htoo, Excuse my interrupting again. This time I have a question. Do you agree that the Buddha's teaching was entirely about paramattha dhammas (principally about conditioned paramattha dhammas: how they arose, manifested, functioned and ceased)? I am asking if you agree it was *entirely* about those dhammas. I shouldn't complicate the question by mentioning some things the Buddha's Dhamma was *not* about, but I might just say it was not about people doing things and people not doing things. Do you agree with that? Ken H #130632 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 12, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > Is the seeing of a dwarf different from that of a giant? Is the > > attachment or aversion which follows the sense experiences any less in > > the one as compared to the other? Is the aversion of someone with a > > birth defect greater than that of a normal person? > ----------------------------- > HCW: > While you're asking rhetorical questions: Is what you write above an > answer?? (Rupas, early on, are conditions for very much that occurs in > the future, often for an entire lifetime.) > I thought that I was addressing your question. A two feet dwarf and the eight feet giant, what difference when it comes to moment to moment experiences? By "rupas, early on" what particular kind are you referring to? Do any rupas last longer than 17 moments of citta? > > When it comes to reality, I know impermanence which I believe the > > "only-at-the-moment conditionality" best illustrates, but I don't > > understand change. Can you tell me what this "change" is? > ------------------------------------ > HCW: > No. > I must ask, why? > > It may be true, but you have not yet explained what this > > "interrelationship" is all about. Until then, the mental picture that I > > presently have, does appear to be about "atta". > ------------------------------------ > HCW: > I find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with interrelationships. > So you think that I was intentionally misleading you? > > > > Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands > at the > > > > level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one > does > > > not > > > > understand at all. > > > ------------------------------------- > > > HCW: > > > This strikes me as quite similar to what devout Moslems would say of > > > Islam, devout Jews of Judaism, and so on. The Buddha warned against > > > such attitudes. > > > > > > > So you consider Islam and Judaism to point at the Four Noble Truths > > which is "now," just as the Dhamma does? > ------------------------------------ > HCW: > I said nothing along such lines. What you are asking is a > non-sequitur. Actually, it happens that I find much commonality > between Judaism and the Dhamma, but that is irrelevant to what I said > above. What I spoke about above is failure to distinguish, in thought > and speech, between believing and knowing. The Buddha csrtsinly tsught > that one dedicated to truth distinguishes these. > ----------------------------------- > No you didn't say it. But had you considered the fact that I am coming from the Buddha's teachings, which unlike other teachings, is about that which can be proven now, you'd not compare my statement with that of Moslems and Jews. Metta, Sukin #130633 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > It is possible to refer to "I" or "we" conventionally and by that to denote the process of conditional dhammas arising that actually takes place. ... S: Yes, of course. Then there would be no suggestion of a real or imaginary student applying, doing or developing skills. There would be no idea of going somewhere and making a special effort to develop awareness. ... > > To me, a more thorny issue is whether those arising dhammas are "represented" by the concepts that we think are happening, such as a person or murder. It seems to me that the Buddha did not say "there is no person" per se, but rather said that there is no person as a whole or entity, and that we experience as a person breaks down into the impersonal processes called the kandhas, and shows that there is no place for a 'self' in what takes place. ... S: Simply, 'there is no person' at all. There is no person which breaks down into anything. There are only the arising and falling away elements or khandhas at anytime. ... > > The analogy used by the Buddha of the chariot shows in my view that the dhammas are meant to be seen as the ultimate particles of reality, not as a separate reality that has no relation to objects and actions, but as the true analysis of how that reality takes place and a true view of what is actually happening. .... S: It shows that there are just dhammas. Of course there are reasons, conditions why there is thinking now about 'computer' and not 'armchair', for example. Each visible object at each moment is different, each hardness experienced through bodysense is different. Nonetheless, there never is an experience of 'computer' or 'armchair', only of rupas experienced through the senses and thinking about these in different ways. Metta Sarah ===== > > - - - - - - - - - > #130634 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:32 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Hi Tep (Htoo), > This may be a reason why feeling aggregate, not contact, is in the upadanakkhandha ? Contact (phassa cetasika) is included in sankhara khandha, Htoo can confirm this. Alberto #130635 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Nina update sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Alex, Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > ->No Nina at all - > >P: Hmmm. I still don't favour this wording, I don't think panna leads us to this conclusion. .... S: What other conclusion does panna lead to? SN 22:86 (4) Anuraadha, Khandhasa.myutta (Bodhi transl) " 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard form as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - Do you regard feeling...perception...volitional formations...consciousness as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as apart from form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as in feeling......perception...volitional formations....consciousness....?' - 'No, venerable sir.' 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard the Tathaagata as one who is without form....feeling...perception....volitional formations....consciousness?' - 'No, venerable sir.' 'But, Anuraadha, when the Tathaagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: 'Friends, when a Tathaagata is describing a Tathaagata - the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment - he describes him apart from these four cases: 'The Tathagata exists after death,' or....'The Tathaagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'?' 'No, venerable sir.' 'Good, good, Anuraadha! Formerly, Anuraadha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.' " *** S: "just suffering", no Sufferer, no Tathaagata, no Phil, no Sarah, no Nina, no computer, no rose! .... > >S: just different realities being experienced through 6 doorways, realities experiencing them and lots of ideas and dreams on account of them. > >P: Yes, whether there is a being known as Nina or not, only dhammas can be directly experienced. Nina can only be thought about, not seen, not touched etc. ... S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. Metta Sarah ===== #130636 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 5:06 pm Subject: Problems: was Delisting announcement14 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, On 'Problems' and concerns about others: >S: ...Some of the group went with A.Sujin to Safari World which she loves. They have some very loud, touristy shows there including one called "Spy Wars". Jon & I didn't go, but Tom did. A few days later he raised the topic of taking children to such shows or to violent movies and whether they should be avoided. > > A.Sujin gave a very good response about how there is only a problem when "it's not the lone world". When thinking and worrying about children going to such shows, at such a time "there is the problem of children because it's not the lone world". What is the lone world? The world of seeing, hearing and so on just now. That's all. > > Always back to this moment. .... A little more from the recording: A.Sujin: The problem keeps in one's mind - always thinking about it. *** Tom: We have to think about it. Can we say it doesn't matter whether they (the children) see it (the violent show) or not? *** AS: Wholesome or unwholesome moments of thinking about such things? This is the point. See - the children cannot follow you to the other world next life, but worry and what seems like a problem keeps in one's mind - the cetasikas, the realities always think about other things concerning this or that all the time. No understanding of what citta, what reality, is there at the moment of thinking. It seems like one thinks with goodness or kindness, but the citta which thinks - is it clear or full of problems, worry, akusala cetasikas? Even after seeing now, is citta clear or sprinkled with dust of attachment? And then when it comes to be about things and people, more and more worry about them by conditions. There can be the understanding of anatta at any moment of anything when panna is there. Even at the moment of thinking about children, there can be the understanding at that very moment as anatta, not me, only a reality thinking by conditions and is gone. *** Nina: Tom wants to know how to help children with kusala cittas. We live in the conventional world. *** AS: Leave it to condtions. You think in your way and the others think in their way and what about 'just do your best'? *** Tom talks about choosing a video and needing to select one and the dilemmas involved. *** AS: 'Just do your best!' What's the result of attachment? More fire again. Kindness does not hurt at all. They can sense the difference between kindness and attachment. **** ***** Metta Sarah ==== #130637 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Hi Alberto, (and Htoo)- > > Tep : This may be a reason why feeling aggregate, not contact, is in the upadanakkhandha ? > > Alberto: Contact (phassa cetasika) is included in sankhara khandha, Htoo can confirm this. > I was observing that --in contrast with contact(phassa)-- it is easier to experience the rising-and-falling-away of a feeling. Regards, Tep === #130638 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Hi Sarah (Alex, Rob E.) - >Sarah (message #130635): What other conclusion does panna lead to? SN 22:86 (4) Anuraadha, Khandhasa.myutta (Bodhi transl) " 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard form as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - Do you regard feeling... perception... volitional formations... consciousness as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as apart from form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as in feeling......perception...volitional formations....consciousness....?' - 'No, venerable sir.' > S: "just suffering", no Sufferer, no Tathaagata, no Phil, no Sarah, no Nina, no computer, no rose! T: The Buddha's teaching in this Sutta is about sakkaya (the 20 self identifications) that a real monk (mediatator) must relinquish (along with other fetters) in order to realize 'knowledge and vision' (yathabhuta~nana dassana). Now, if there was no real-person Anuraaddha, then what would have been the purpose of such contemplation? If there were no Buddha, then how could there be the true Dhamma that has lasted over 2500 years for the real you and real me to enjoy? Of course, there is no good reason to assume a Self in anyone or assuming a person in the Self -- self views are just wrong assumption. Without self views there is no Self anywhere. ........... >>P: Yes, whether there is a being known as Nina or not, only dhammas can be directly experienced. Nina can only be thought about, not seen, not touched etc. ... >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital! Be realistic, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Phil, Alex, Tep & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > ->No Nina at all - > > > >P: Hmmm. I still don't favour this wording, I don't think panna leads us to this conclusion. #130639 From: han tun Date: Sun May 12, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital! Han: Very well said, dear brother! with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri > S: "just suffering", no Sufferer, no Tathaagata, no Phil, no Sarah, no Nina, no computer, no rose! T: The Buddha's teaching in this Sutta is about sakkaya (the 20 self identifications) that a real monk (mediatator) must relinquish (along with other fetters) in order to realize 'knowledge and vision' (yathabhuta~nana dassana). Now, if there was no real-person Anuraaddha, then what would have been the purpose of such contemplation? If there were no Buddha, then how could there be the true Dhamma that has lasted over 2500 years for the real you and real me to enjoy? Of course, there is no good reason to assume a Self in anyone or assuming a person in the Self -- self views are just wrong assumption. Without self views there is no Self anywhere. ........... >>P: Yes, whether there is a being known as Nina or not, only dhammas can be directly experienced. Nina can only be thought about, not seen, not touched etc. ... >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital! Be realistic, Tep === #130640 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Dear Han, - Thank you Brother for agreeing with me. I did not know that you had been reading the posts here these days! That sent me the message that your health has not deteriorated. It's a great news. May you be strong and continue to be stronger, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, > > >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. > > T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital! > > Han: Very well said, dear brother! > > with metta and respect, > Han > #130641 From: han tun Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, I have survived two "Swords of Damocles." But I still have the third one hanging above me. So please forgive me if I remain silent again. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri Dear Han, - Thank you Brother for agreeing with me. I did not know that you had been reading the posts here these days! That sent me the message that your health has not deteriorated. It's a great news. May you be strong and continue to be stronger, Tep === #130642 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:49 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No. 15 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Often we ask questions with "how can I..." and true, this is motivated by attachment, lobha. We were reminded by Acharn to keep in mind that all dhammas are non-self, anattaa, and that we, in that way, never will be lost by our own thinking or by wrong understanding. We cling to having progress in understanding and this is not effective. As Acharn often said, we cannot do anything. Realities arise because of their own conditions and nobody can cause their arising. Seeing arises when there are the appropriate conditions for its arising. Visible object and eyesense are rpas that condition seeing. Visible object impinges on the eyesense and then there are conditions for seeing. Seeing is caused by kamma, it is vipaakacitta. Some cittas are results of akusala kamma and kusala kamma, they are vipaakacittas. Kamma is intention or volition. Unwholesome volition can motivate an unwholesome deed which can bring an unpleasant result later on, and wholesome volition can motivate a wholesome deed which can bring a pleasant result later on. Akusala kamma and kusala kamma are accumulated from one moment of citta to the next moment, and, thus, they can produce results later on. Kamma produces result in the form of rebirth-consciousness, or, in the course of life, in the form of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and the experience of tangible object through the bodysense. Vipaakacittas experience pleasant objects or unpleasant objects, depending on the kamma which produces them. Kamma also produces ruupas such as eyesense, earsense and the other sense organs. Without eyesense and without visible object there could not be seeing. #130643 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 12, 2013 10:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sukinderpal Hi Tep, (& Sarah), > >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. > > T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is > real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her > accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the > hospital! > > Be realistic, > Tep > There is no Sarah and no Nina, but only conditioned mental phenomena arising at one physical base at a time, and having as object some other mental phenomenon or a physical phenomenon. Sometimes the object is a concept, including 'Sarah', 'Nina' and 'accident'. If Nina is impermanent and not-self, then it must be a mental or physical phenomenon and conditioned by other equally impermanent and not-self mental and physical phenomena. Can you say what these are? Metta, Sukin #130644 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Hi Sukin, - How are you doing? Don't forget to think about the person whose typed-message is on your screen right now. Forgeting to show genuine concern about another person's well-being can condition the lack of metta in our hearts. >Sukin: > If Nina is impermanent and not-self, then it must be a mental or > physical phenomenon and conditioned by other equally impermanent and > not-self mental and physical phenomena. Can you say what these are? T: No "if" ! She IS impermanent and not-self just like me and you. No doubt about it. Thinking of another person as "a mental or physical phenomenon" is not realistic. It can also be a severe disadvantage for you, since inter-personal relationship and genuine concern about another human-being are ignored! Because there are always in your mind the weird thought: no-one, nobody, no Tep (even if he exists, who cares about him anyway), no Sukin (does your wife care?), empty world, no Job, no boss, no salary to pay the bills! About your question, let me guess! :) Other " impermanent and not-self mental and physical phenomena" can be the external conditioned things altogether. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, (& Sarah), > > > > >S: In reality, no being at all - only dhammas as you mention. > > > > T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is > > real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her > > accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the > > hospital! ... > > There is no Sarah and no Nina, but only conditioned mental phenomena > arising at one physical base at a time, and having as object some other > mental phenomenon or a physical phenomenon. Sometimes the object is a > concept, including 'Sarah', 'Nina' and 'accident'. #130645 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Brother Han, - > Han: > I have survived two "Swords of Damocles." > But I still have the third one hanging above me. > So please forgive me if I remain silent again. > It's great that you escaped two! What is the third one that's hanging in the air now? Best wishes, Tep === _______________________________ > From: Tep Sastri > Dear Han, - > > Thank you Brother for agreeing with me. > I did not know that you had been reading the posts here these days! > That sent me the message that your health has not deteriorated. It's a great news. > > May you be strong and continue to be stronger, > Tep > === #130646 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 13, 2013 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > Is the seeing of a dwarf different from that of a giant? Is the > > > attachment or aversion which follows the sense experiences any less in > > > the one as compared to the other? Is the aversion of someone with a > > > birth defect greater than that of a normal person? > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > While you're asking rhetorical questions: Is what you write above an > > answer?? (Rupas, early on, are conditions for very much that occurs in > > the future, often for an entire lifetime.) > > > > I thought that I was addressing your question. > A two feet dwarf and the eight feet giant, what difference when it comes > to moment to moment experiences? By "rupas, early on" what particular > kind are you referring to? Do any rupas last longer than 17 moments of > citta? ------------------------------ HCW: An example is any birth defect. You tell me - does this not bring a lifetime of consequences within the namarupic stream of interrelated dhammas we call "the person"? ------------------------------- > > > > > When it comes to reality, I know impermanence which I believe the > > > "only-at-the-moment conditionality" best illustrates, but I don't > > > understand change. Can you tell me what this "change" is? > > ------------------------------------ > > HCW: > > No. > > > > I must ask, why? ------------------------------- HCW Because it must be experienced, not described in words. ------------------------------- > > > > > It may be true, but you have not yet explained what this > > > "interrelationship" is all about. Until then, the mental picture that I > > > presently have, does appear to be about "atta". > > ------------------------------------ > > HCW: > > I find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with interrelationships. > > > > So you think that I was intentionally misleading you? ----------------------------------------- HCW: No. I think you are simply enmeshed in theory and intellect instead of direct experience. --------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands > > at the > > > > > level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one > > does > > > > not > > > > > understand at all. > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > HCW: > > > > This strikes me as quite similar to what devout Moslems would say of > > > > Islam, devout Jews of Judaism, and so on. The Buddha warned against > > > > such attitudes. > > > > > > > > > > So you consider Islam and Judaism to point at the Four Noble Truths > > > which is "now," just as the Dhamma does? > > ------------------------------------ > > HCW: > > I said nothing along such lines. What you are asking is a > > non-sequitur. Actually, it happens that I find much commonality > > between Judaism and the Dhamma, but that is irrelevant to what I said > > above. What I spoke about above is failure to distinguish, in thought > > and speech, between believing and knowing. The Buddha csrtsinly tsught > > that one dedicated to truth distinguishes these. > > ----------------------------------- > > > > No you didn't say it. But had you considered the fact that I am coming > from the Buddha's teachings, which unlike other teachings, is about that > which can be proven now, you'd not compare my statement with that of > Moslems and Jews. ------------------------------ HCW: I WOULD, because you speak as if you know when you merely believe. ------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukin ================================= With metta, Howard Unreal and Real /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #130647 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon May 13, 2013 4:47 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Hi Tep, > I was observing that --in contrast with contact(phassa)-- it is easier to experience the rising-and-falling-away of a feeling. According to Goenka, yes; according to tipitaka, I don't think so. I can only think of rupas like visible object as near/gross (i.e. fit to be the object of understanding), and other rupas like space as far/subtle (not fit). Alberto #130648 From: han tun Date: Mon May 13, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, I will write you off-line. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri Brother Han, - It's great that you escaped two! What is the third one that's hanging in the air now? Best wishes, Tep ===== #130649 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Hi Alberto, - According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than contact. But I do not recall a sutta that says that the opposite is true. I like your notations "near/gross" and "far/subtle"! Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > I was observing that --in contrast with contact(phassa)-- it is easier to > experience the rising-and-falling-away of a feeling. > > According to Goenka, yes; according to tipitaka, I don't think so. > I can only think of rupas like visible object as near/gross (i.e. fit to be the object of understanding), and other rupas like space as far/subtle (not fit). > > Alberto > #130650 From: han tun Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:38 am Subject: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, It seems that the wisdom of Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, was less advanced and less developed than the wisdom of some people of present-day, in that Venerable Aananda did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Please see the following excerpts from DN 16 Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta translated by Myanmar Pitaka Association. 207. Then the Venerable Ananda went into the pavilion and leaning against the door-post, stood lamenting "I am still a sekha, with tasks still to be done (to reach the higher stages of Magga nana). And my Teacher (i.e., the Buddha), who has ever been compassionate towards me, is going to pass away!" Then the Bhagava asked the bhikkhus, "O Bhikkhus, where is Ananda?" The bhikkhus replied, "Venerable Sir, the Venerable Ananda has gone into the pavilion, and stands leaning against the door-post, lamenting (thus): I am still a sekha, with tasks still to be done. And my Teacher, who has ever been compassionate towards me, is going to pass away." Then the Bhagava said to a bhikkhu, "Come bhikkhu, say you to Ananda in my words: Friend Ananda, the Teacher calls you." That bhikkhu assented respectfully, saying "Very well, Venerable Sir," and went to the Venerable Ananda, and said, "Friend Ananda, the Teacher calls you". The Venerable Ananda, replying "Very well, friend," to that bhikkhu, went to the Bhagava, and making obeisance to the Bhagava., sat at a certain place. The Bhagava said to the Venerable Ananda, seated on one side: [Paragraph 5.13 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] "Enough, Ananda. Do not be grievously anxious, do not lament. Have I not from former times shown that there must be separation (while living), severance (through death) and sundering (through being in different states of existence) from all that are dear and beloved? Ananda in this matter, that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized , even if it is the body of the Tathagata? There can be no such possibility. For a long time now, Ananda, you have served the Tathagata faithfully both in his presence and in his absence and with unbounded loving-kindness indeed, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata); faithfully and with unbounded loving-kindness in words, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata); faithfully and with unbounded loving-kindness in thought, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata). You, Ananda, have gained much merit. Exert yourself in fundamental mental concentration (i.e. vipassana meditation). You will soon become an arahat, free from defilements." [Paragraph 5.14 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] Han: It seems that Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Otherwise, he would not have lamented as described in the above paragraphs. Poor Venerable Aananda! -------------------- 224. When the Bhagava passed away, some bhikkhus who were at that place and who were not free from the passions wept with upraised hands, flung themselves down, rolled forward and backward, and rolled hither and thither, (lamenting) "Too soon has the Bhagava realized parinibbana! Too soon has the Sugata realized parinibbana! Too soon has the Eye (i.e, the Possessor of the Eye of Wisdom) disappeared from the world!" But those bhikkhus who were free from sensual passion could bear it, mindfully and deliberately reflecting: "All conditioned and compounded things (sankhara) are impermanent. How then can it be possible to get that (permanence) in this (compounded nature)?" [Paragraph 6.10 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] 225. Then the Venerable Anuruddha said to the bhikkhus: "Enough; friends! Do not grieve, do not lament. Had not the Bhagava proclaimed from former times that there must be separation (while living), severance (through death) and sundering (through being in different states of existence) from all that are dear and beloved? Friends, in this matter, that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility. Friends, the devas are reproachful." [Paragraph 6.11 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] Han: I belong to the above monks who were not free from the passions. To those persons of present-day, who are free from sensual passions and who are like Venerable Arahant Anuruddha, I bow down three times most respectfully. Dear Brother Tep, I am exhausted. I think I will remain silent again. with metta and respect, Han #130651 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 10:18 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep t.sastri Dear Brother Han, and others- I am very sad everytime I read the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta. Like you I find myself not free from a strong emotion caused by love and great respect in the Buddha. >Han: It seems that Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Otherwise, he would not have lamented as described in the above paragraphs. Poor Venerable Aananda! T: His love and respect in the Tathaagata must be many times greater than mine for sure, since he had been very close to the Greatest Teacher for so many years. The Buddha: "For a long time now, Ananda, you have served the Tathagata faithfully both in his presence and in his absence and with unbounded loving-kindness indeed, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata); faithfully and with unbounded loving-kindness in words, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata); faithfully and with unbounded loving-kindness in thought, to the benefit and welfare (of the Tathagata). You, Ananda, have gained much merit. Exert yourself in fundamental mental concentration (i.e. vipassana meditation). You will soon become an arahat, free from defilements." T: A million thanks to the Buddha for emphasizing the great benefit of exerting (oneself) in mental concentration as the vehicle towards Arahantship. >Then the Venerable Anuruddha said to the bhikkhus: ... "Friends, in this matter, that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility." T: I'll contemplate on the impermanence characteristic of that compounded thing (the body) more often! ............ Many thanks for the Sutta quote and for your comment. May your health improve and the pains go away soon, so you shall be back. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, > > It seems that the wisdom of Venerable Aananda, who was only > a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, was less advanced and less developed > than the wisdom of some people of present-day, in that Venerable Aananda did > not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. > > Please see the following excerpts from DN 16 > Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta translated by Myanmar Pitaka Association. > ... > > Dear Brother Tep, I am exhausted. I think I will remain > silent again. > > with metta and respect, > Han > #130652 From: Sukinder Date: Mon May 13, 2013 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sukinderpal Hi Tep, > > How are you doing? Don't forget to think about the person whose > typed-message is on your screen right now. Forgeting to show genuine > concern about another person's well-being can condition the lack of > metta in our hearts. > Metta and karuna are cetasikas and their object are concept of living being. They arise and fall away by conditions. If I am writing this response, this means that there is thinking about "Tep". One can't write in response to or have metta towards visible object and sound. Whether I do this with metta, with dosa or both (alternating) this is a matter of conditions. You are trying to tell me that if I do not believe in the existence of Tep, there can't be metta. I'd say that if I believe that Tep is real, this is likely to hinder development of all kinds of kusala. > >Sukin: > > If Nina is impermanent and not-self, then it must be a mental or > > physical phenomenon and conditioned by other equally impermanent and > > not-self mental and physical phenomena. Can you say what these are? > > T: No "if" ! She IS impermanent and not-self just like me and you. No > doubt about it. > How is Nina impermanent? Is the Nina of yesterday the same as the Nina of today? If not, then what is the reference point on which the characteristic of impermanence is applied? Is the Nina "now" impermanent and the one of tomorrow impermanent or is there an underlying NIna that exhibits the particular characteristic in time but not during moments in between? > Thinking of another person as "a mental or physical phenomenon" is not > realistic. > Thinking of another person as "a mental or physical phenomenon" is wrong, not just unrealistic. You keep failing to understand what some of us are saying here. We are saying that there are only nama and rupa, anything else must be concept, hence, non-existent. Only nama and rupa have the three marks of existence, concepts can only be thought about and therefore any so-called characteristic attributed, must also be the product of thinking only. So you don't say that a concept such as "person", is "a mental or physical phenomenon", let alone that it is impermanent and not-self. > It can also be a severe disadvantage for you, since inter-personal > relationship and genuine concern about another human-being are > ignored! Because there are always in your mind the weird thought: > no-one, nobody, no Tep (even if he exists, who cares about him > anyway), no Sukin (does your wife care?), empty world, no Job, no > boss, no salary to pay the bills! > This one I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting. After all you do accept that the Ariyan's perception of impermanence, suffering and not-self does not stop him from thinking in terms of people, things and situations. So why do you make such a silly remark as the above? No Nina, Sarah, Tep, Sukin, wife comes from the perception and understanding that at any moment there are in reality, only nama and rupa. It is not a philosophical idea one goes around applying to those very concepts which the understanding denies the existence of. It would be silly to perceive my wife and then tell myself that she does not exist without understanding for example, that seeing sees visible object and thinking thinks shape and form. > About your question, let me guess! :) > Other " impermanent and not-self mental and physical phenomena" can be > the external conditioned things altogether. > That is not an answer. We are debating what in fact are those impermanent and not-self mental and physical phenomena. You say Nina, Tep and Sukin are mental and/or physical phenomena, whereas I say that they are non-existent concepts. Metta, Sukin #130653 From: Tam Bach Date: Mon May 13, 2013 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. tambach Dear Tep, Han Tun, Sukin, all May I offer you all a sutta? Metta, Tam B I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in the Great Wood, at the Hall of the Gabled Pavilion. At that time Ven. Anuradha was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians went to Ven. Anuradha and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Anuradha, "Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death." When this was said, Ven. Anuradha said to the wandering sectarians, "Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death." When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to Ven. Anuradha, "This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced." So the wandering sectarians, addressing Ven. Anuradha as they would a newcomer or a fool, got up from their seats and left. Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to Ven. Anuradha: "If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?" Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.' "When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.' "When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left. "Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'" "What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is consciousness constant or inconstant? "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life—is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html #130655 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Dear Tam, others - [Please replace the previous message that had a few typos. Thanks.] Although I am familiar with this Anuradha Sutta (SN 44.2), I still am grateful that you've offered it. Is it a gentle approach to possibly kick-start another discussion/debate? Go ahead! I believe this is going to be more productive than Sukin's aggressive debate! One thing I am sure is that you'll never call me "silly" and release an angry Self Demon to scare me. :-) Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, Han Tun, Sukin, all > > May I offer you all a sutta? > > Metta, > > Tam B ... ... > "And so, Anuradha " when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life"is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata " the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment " being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > "No, lord." > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html > #130656 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Hi Sukin and others - The khandhas arise and dissolve and continue so long as there are clingings(there are 3 upadanas). Khandhas with clinging are dukkha and so the Buddha taught us to abandon upadanas. One kind of upadana is the clinging to attavada (self-doctrines, see Comy of MN 8), and that's why it is known as 'attavadupadana', i.e., conceiving Self in the khandhas and vice versa. Because of such conception there arises attaditthi (self views) and mana (the conceit 'I am'). Because the khandhas are real, thus there can be listening to the Dhamma, learning the Dhamma, and development of knowledges (~nana) by bhavana-maya-pa~n~na. Because there is total abandonment of upadana in the khandhas, nibbana can be realized. Giving a name to each individual stream of fleeting khandhas, or thinking of it as a person, is not a problem as long as there is no clinging to it by avijja & tanha as 'me, mine, my self'. On the other much-smaller hand, arguing whether a person exists or not has proved to be useless. And I have already stopped debating such issue as of today! Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Metta and karuna are cetasikas and their object are concept of living > being. They arise and fall away by conditions. If I am writing this > response, this means that there is thinking about "Tep". One can't write > in response to or have metta towards visible object and sound. Whether > I do this with metta, with dosa or both (alternating) this is a matter > of conditions. You are trying to tell me that if I do not believe in the > existence of Tep, there can't be metta. I'd say that if I believe that > Tep is real, this is likely to hinder development of all kinds of kusala. > > > How is Nina impermanent? Is the Nina of yesterday the same as the Nina > of today? If not, then what is the reference point on which the > characteristic of impermanence is applied? Is the Nina "now" impermanent > and the one of tomorrow impermanent or is there an underlying NIna that > exhibits the particular characteristic in time but not during moments in > between? > Thinking of another person as "a mental or physical phenomenon" is > wrong, not just unrealistic. > You keep failing to understand what some of us are saying here. We are > saying that there are only nama and rupa, anything else must be concept, > hence, non-existent. Only nama and rupa have the three marks of > existence, concepts can only be thought about and therefore any > so-called characteristic attributed, must also be the product of > thinking only. So you don't say that a concept such as "person", is "a > mental or physical phenomenon", let alone that it is impermanent and > not-self. > > This one I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding or intentionally > misrepresenting. After all you do accept that the Ariyan's perception of > impermanence, suffering and not-self does not stop him from thinking in > terms of people, things and situations. So why do you make such a silly > remark as the above? > > No Nina, Sarah, Tep, Sukin, wife comes from the perception and > understanding that at any moment there are in reality, only nama and > rupa. It is not a philosophical idea one goes around applying to those > very concepts which the understanding denies the existence of. It would > be silly to perceive my wife and then tell myself that she does not > exist without understanding for example, that seeing sees visible object > and thinking thinks shape and form. > > That is not an answer. > We are debating what in fact are those impermanent and not-self mental > and physical phenomena. You say Nina, Tep and Sukin are mental and/or > physical phenomena, whereas I say that they are non-existent concepts. > > Metta, > > Sukin > #130660 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 2:51 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (Alex, et. al) > > > J: When the Buddha spoke of dhammas (whether as dhammas, khandhas, dhatus, etc.) he was referring to those objects that can be directly experienced through a (single) sense/mind door, such as (in the case of rupas), hardness, heat or pressure. > > > > As far as I know, there is no instance in the texts where a conventional object (such as a door or person) is said to have the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > > T: I can find one case. > > Kayagatasati Sutta: "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground one day, two days, three days dead bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'..." > > But you are right with regard to door, tree, or mountain. Although these things are impermanent, they do not help develop insight with regard to the five aggregates of clinging and the noble truths. =============== J: I'm pleased to see we agree on the important point that conventional things like door, tree and mountain do not play a part in the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (the five aggregates) or the realisation of the Noble Truths. And I'm hoping you also agree that this is because it is dhammas that are the object of such insight development, and what the Noble Truths are referring to. Dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. These attributes can be known only with the development of insight with dhammas as object. The impermanence of conventional objects is something else. Every person, whether they have heard the Dhamma or not, knows that conventional objects do not last forever. However, only a Buddha discovers and teaches the truths about dhammas. As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the inevitable destiny for everyone. Jon #130661 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 3:17 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon, Sarah, et al., - > > Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate). Energy is also known as endeavor, effort, and exertion. > > "When rightly initiates, energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." [Vism XIV, 137] > "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira). Its characteristic is marshalling(driving). It is manifested as non-collapse. ... Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly activated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments." > > So, how possible for knowledge to arise without effort/exertion of the citta? How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? > =============== J: First, what is being described here is a dhamma, an impersonal element ("Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate"). The characteristic of that dhamma is "marshalling (driving)". This describes this dhamma's effect on, or function with regard to, other dhammas: it marshals or drives the other kusala dhammas. So the text is not saying that viriya (the dhamma) is a matter of a person doing something, such as trying to have awareness. Secondly, it's easy to overlook the importance of the opening words "When *rightly* initiated" (and also the expression "When *rightly* activated" in the last sentence). It goes without saying that only effort that is itself kusala is right effort, and kusala effort is the effort that arises with kusala citta. Effort to have/do kusala, not itself being a kind of kusala, cannot be right effort. Thirdly, when the text says, "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira)", this means that the person in whom the state is present is called a vigorous person. This is another case of the Buddha explaining how a commonly used term is to be understood in the Dhamma sense. You ask how it is how possible for knowledge to arise for the person who is not "vigorous and driving" to develop panna, and I suppose you mean a person who puts in effort in their 'practice'. I think the answer is that since knowledge (and its accompanying right effort) have been accumulated in the past, it can arise again at any time given the right conditions. Those conditions are, as the text says "a sense of urgency" or "grounds for the initiation of energy". These are mental states that in turn depend on a correct (intellectual or deeper) understanding of the teachings. It all comes back, as ever, to how well the teachings are understood, at an intellectual level initially, including the impersonal and conditioned nature of all dhammas and to how well is appreciated the importance of understanding dhammas that are arising now as we go about our daily life. > =============== > T: Be diligent, > =============== J: Yes, but kusala diligence is based on an understanding of the teachings and an appreciation of their relevance/application to the present moment. Jon #130662 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue May 14, 2013 4:49 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Hi Tep, > According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than contact. But I do not recall a sutta that says that the opposite is true. I don't recall a sutta saying that feeling is fairly easy to know as it really is either, but thanks anyway for sharing your experience. Alberto #130663 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:26 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Hi Jonothan, - > J: I'm pleased to see we agree on the important point that conventional things like door, tree and mountain do not play a part in the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (the five aggregates) or the realisation of the Noble Truths. > > And I'm hoping you also agree that this is because it is dhammas that are the object of such insight development, and what the Noble Truths are referring to. > > Dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. These attributes can be known only with the development of insight with dhammas as object. The impermanence of conventional objects is something else. Every person, whether they have heard the Dhamma or not, knows that conventional objects do not last forever. However, only a Buddha discovers and teaches the truths about dhammas. > > As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the inevitable destiny for everyone. T: Except for a few extreme beliefs here (as summarized very well by Rob E.) I agree with most other things you have been saying, Jon. :-) Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon (Alex, et. al) > > > > > J: When the Buddha spoke of dhammas (whether as dhammas, khandhas, dhatus, etc.) he was referring to those objects that can be directly experienced through a (single) sense/mind door, such as (in the case of rupas), hardness, heat or pressure. > > > > > > As far as I know, there is no instance in the texts where a conventional object (such as a door or person) is said to have the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > > > > T: I can find one case. > > > > Kayagatasati Sutta: "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground one day, two days, three days dead bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'..." > > > > But you are right with regard to door, tree, or mountain. Although these things are impermanent, they do not help develop insight with regard to the five aggregates of clinging and the noble truths. > =============== > #130664 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:16 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Hi Jon, all - > J: First, what is being described here is a dhamma, an impersonal element ("Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate"). The characteristic of that dhamma is "marshalling (driving)". This describes this dhamma's effect on, or function with regard to, other dhammas: it marshals or drives the other kusala dhammas. > T: Right, and it also drives restraint of non-arising akusala dhammas as well as abandons arisen akusala dhammas . .......... > J: So the text is not saying that viriya (the dhamma) is a matter of a person doing something, such as trying to have awareness. > T: Please don't be too quick to jump back to your mantra "there are only dhammas, but no do-ers", Jon. As stated by the great monk Buddhaghosa that "energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments", it unequivocally means the four noble attainments of ariya puggalas. .......... > J: Secondly, it's easy to overlook the importance of the opening words "When *rightly* initiated" (and also the expression "When *rightly* activated" in the last sentence). It goes without saying that only effort that is itself kusala is right effort, and kusala effort is the effort that arises with kusala citta. Effort to have/do kusala, not itself being a kind of kusala, cannot be right effort. > T: Right effort of the path is dhamma of the Sekhas (see Sekha-patipada Sutta, for example). .......... >J: Thirdly, when the text says, "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira)", this means that the person in whom the state is present is called a vigorous person. This is another case of the Buddha explaining how a commonly used term is to be understood in the Dhamma sense. > T: The text is clear; there is no need to explain "one who is vigorous", because it is one who is vigorous that abandons akusalas and attains the highest level of kusalas (such as samma-sati and samma samadhi). In many suttas the Buddha told his disciples to be diligent and talked about not to be lazy since there were "more to be done". Just search the Access-To-Insight, using key words "diligent" and "more to be done". .......... > J: You ask how it is how possible for knowledge to arise for the person who is not "vigorous and driving" to develop panna, and I suppose you mean a person who puts in effort in their 'practice'. I think the answer is that since knowledge (and its accompanying right effort) have been accumulated in the past, it can arise again at any time given the right conditions. Those conditions are, as the text says "a sense of urgency" or "grounds for the initiation of energy". These are mental states that in turn depend on a correct (intellectual or deeper) understanding of the teachings. > > It all comes back, as ever, to how well the teachings are understood, at an intellectual level initially, including the impersonal and conditioned nature of all dhammas and to how well is appreciated the importance of understanding dhammas that are arising now as we go about our daily life. > T: Well, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, Jon. I am not passing any judgment on that anymore. Good luck to you, and may you be successful in achieving your wholesome goal in your own way. Be free & happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jon, Sarah, et al., - > > > > Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate). Energy is also known as endeavor, effort, and exertion. > > > > "When rightly initiates, energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." [Vism XIV, 137] > > "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira). Its characteristic is marshalling(driving). It is manifested as non-collapse. ... Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly activated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments." > > > > So, how possible for knowledge to arise without effort/exertion of the citta? How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? > > =============== > > > =============== > > T: Be diligent, > > =============== > > J: Yes, but kusala diligence is based on an understanding of the teachings and an appreciation of their relevance/application to the present moment. #130665 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:24 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Hello Alberto, - >Alberto: I don't recall a sutta saying that feeling is fairly easy to know as it really is either, but thanks anyway for sharing your experience. T: I also thank you for the conversation. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous Goenka's > teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than contact. > But I do not recall a sutta that says that the opposite is true. > #130666 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: ... in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. > > =============== > > J: Just a quick correction and a clarification here. > > The correction is that the Pali term for function here should have been 'kicca', not 'rasa' -- see CMA Ch. III, para 8 to 10. > > The clarification is that I was referring to the ascribing of a function other than the 'function' part of the 4 defining devices (i.e., characteristic, function (rasa), manifestation and proximate cause) used by the Pali commentators to delimit any dhamma (including rupas). > > Now to get on with responding to your comments (hoping that I've not just muddied the waters :-)) I can vaguely see through the mud - but have some further question about what constitutes a function with regard to dhammas. I can see that merely being a 'visible object' might not qualify as a function, anymore than a rock is "functioning" by being "hard," so if that is the level by which a nama, which is busy apprehending or contacting something, is functional, while a rupa is merely taken up by some form of conscious dhamma, and doesn't do anything itself [other than arising,] then that would make sense. On the other hand, you could say a wall has a function - holding up the ceiling, even though its not conscious of doing so. ... > > =============== > > J: Yes, I think that's pretty much how it is. Audible object is that which is heard. > > The important thing, however, is that the 'that which is heard' is not voice or words or person speaking but merely the audible data from which the concepts of voice, words or person speaking is built up/recalled by the mind (i.e., by thinking, with the help of memory and other mental factors). Okay, that is clear. > > =============== > > > J: However, it it's not said that rupas have the function of being experienced, since rupas arise independently of a citta experiencing them. The conditions for the arising of rupas do not include the simultaneous arising of a citta that experiences them. > > > > RE: Right, that is understandable and thanks for clarifying that. My interest is in figuring out what the significance, if any, there is of sabhava. It seems less important for rupas than for namas. > > =============== > > J: I wouldn't say that. The significance is that being 'sabhaava' means that there is a characteristic that can be directly known by panna. So it is equally important for both. "Being known by panna" is not the reality of sabhava though, is it? In itself, it constitutes the characteristic which the dhamma has whether it is known by panna or not. And if those characteristics are all as simple as the "audibility" of an "audible object," then that is clear enough, but if there is something more of an "essence" being attributed to dhammas that they somehow carry, rather than it just being a natural feature of the way they are, then it might be more dicey. Just switching over to the three universal characteristics, we've had some discussion of anicca and anatta in the past. I can understand perfectly well that a dhamma has the chracteristic of anicca in that it goes through several stages of change, but when it is said that anicca is a characteristic that is part of the dhamma rather than a feature of how it behaves - change over time - I have more of a problem understanding how that works, and there is never a clear description. If anicca is the changeable nature of an object which makes it undependable and not-self, it's not a static characteristic but one that appears in the changes in the dhamma over the course of its sub-moments or phases. That is just an example of the two ways in which a characteristic might be looked at. How would you describe the way panna may know a characteristic, and how the characteristic appears? > In the case of audible object, for example, awareness/panna will directly know what is appearing to hearing consciousness as the element that is experienced by that particular consciousness. That is simple enough in the case of this kind of characteristic. It is not that different by analogy from someone hearing a sound and noticing that it is a sound and heard by the ear - awareness of the nature of that particular phenomenon. Is that all it is? > > =============== > > > J: Regarding <>, it's a characteristic in the sense of being an attribute, since only sound can be experienced by (i.e., be the object of) hearing consciousness. > > > > RE: I guess that can be seen as an attribute of the rupa, or it could be seen as an attribute of the nama which can only hear X but not Y. Is that the rupas fault if the nama is not designed to experience it? > > =============== > > J: The characteristic/attribute of hearing consciousness is that it experiences audible object that appears at the ear door. Right - sounds like the fix is in -- hearing consciousness is defined by matching up with audible object, and audible object is defined by being heard by hearing consciousness. I guess it's a match made in heaven. :-) I don't mean to make light of it, just to say that what makes something audible is that it is heard by definition. That is sort of self-referential is it not? I mean, it is a characteristic in the sense that it fits the definition. But is that really a characteristic of something if something else is able to apprehend it in one way or another? If a blind person is unable to see a particular object, does that make it still visible object or no longer visible object? Or is it only defined as such in context of being seen? > > =============== > > RE: If the nama were designed to hear "hardness" then that would become "audible" too, without any change on the part of the rupa. > > =============== > > J: Hypothetical :-)), but if you're saying that the conventional labels are immaterial, then, yes. I'm more like saying that the labels are self-defined and don't necessarily occur in nature. I'm not sure if they're immaterial or not, as they focus awareness on what the attribute of the object is, in one way or another. What would it mean to be fully aware of audible object, as opposed to merely hearing it? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130667 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 12:16 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: It shows that there are just dhammas. Of course there are reasons, conditions why there is thinking now about 'computer' and not 'armchair', for example. Each visible object at each moment is different, each hardness experienced through bodysense is different. This makes sense of how such things are differentiated. > Nonetheless, there never is an experience of 'computer' or 'armchair', only of rupas experienced through the senses and thinking about these in different ways. Do you think the Buddha's point in the simile of the chariot is that there is no chariot at all? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130668 From: "Christine" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 1:02 pm Subject: The Buddha and Bodhgaya christine_fo... Hello all, Could anyone provide any reference in the Pitakas which mentions that the Buddha revisited Bodhgaya after his enlightenment. (Not counting the time immediately post-enlightenment). with metta Chris #130669 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Dear Thanh Nguyen, You asked excellent questions. I'd just like to add a little bit more to Tam B's very helpful answers. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Thanh Nguyen wrote: > 1./ I hope you explain more about the practices of "seeing is just seeing". > 1a.) This practice can help you understand anatta, is it? How it help you > decline the craving for existence, which is lying deeply and subtle that > can't transform into thinking? Your practice is just thinking, and maybe, > understanding, how can it destroy the defilement which lying deeply than > your consciousness? ... As Tam stressed, there are only dhammas, no self to practice or do anything. Seeing is a dhamma, a dhamma that experiences visible object. Visible object itself cannot experience anything. Now there is seeing. There can be understanding of its nature when it appears to awareness, not by practising anything. Hearing more about dhammas (realities) such as seeing and visible object is the way that understanding of anatta will gradually develop, very naturally. ... > > 1b.) "Perceiving the seen as the seen, he conceives [things] about the > seen, he conceives [things] in the seen, he conceives [things] coming out > of the seen, he conceives the seen as 'mine,' he delights in the seen. Why > is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." > Mulapariyaya Sutta > As the 5 hindrances still in you, it's sure that your view is not pure, > and "perceive" is the thing that absolute. Just need to "perceive" and that > is the cause for all the thing the Buddha said. .... S: Just visible object or "the seen" which is experienced by seeing consciousness, no thing, no being at all. In ignorance there are ideas of people and things as having been seen. There are no hindrances "in you". Hindrances, like all other mental factors, just arise with the citta when there are conditions for them to do so and then fall away instantly. No "you", no "your view", ... > "Directly knowing the seen as the seen , let him not conceive things about > the seen , let him not conceive things in the seen , let him not conceive > things coming out of the seen , let him not conceive the seen as 'mine,' > let him not delight in the seen. Why is that? So that he may comprehend > it, I tell you." > Or "directly knowing the seen as the seen" is like "seeing is just seeing"? ... S: It's essential to clear understanding the distinction between seeing (that reality which experiences) and visible object, 'the seen' (that reality which doesn't experience anything). Without such an understanding, anatta can never be understood. When there is the idea that I see something, there is no understanding that there are just these realities. That's all. No self at all. ... > > 1c.) How can you keep out of not falling to nihilism? ... S: 'You' can't do anything. When there are conditions for any kinds of view to arise, they will arise. There can be understanding of such thinking when it arises. If ignorance and wrong view never arose, they could never be known or eradicated. .... > 3./ How do we restrain when doing literature (writing poems, novels, or > reading them....) and watching movies, news or learn a new knowledge? Or > best not doing at all? ... S: What for? Just live easily, reading, writing, watching movies or news as usual. Seeing now, 'the seen' now, is just like when reading or watching a movie. Understanding can arise anytime at all and then there's less and less idea of 'special practice', 'special time' or 'special activity'. Making rules is not the way to develop understanding. Metta Sarah ==== #130670 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit (& Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: >J: As you mentioned Vism XIV says that bhavana-maya-panna attains at the stage of full concentration (appana samadhi). But bhavana-maya-panna is one level of vipassana not sammatha. .... S: When right understanding of realities and insight (vipassana) develops, samatha also develops with it. So at the stages of insight, the concentration is of a degree of upacara samadhi and at enlightenment it is of a degree of appana samadhi. When mundane jhana is not the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is the equivalent of 1st jhana. If 2nd jhana is the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is equivalent to 2nd jhana (with no vitakka) and so on. So the texts refer to 2 kinds of jhana, arammanupanijhana and lakkhanupanijhana. The first one refers to mundane jhana whilst the second refers to lokuttara jhana. [see lots more under "jhana 16- two meanings" in 'useful posts', such as the quote from U Silananda here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/108819 ... >Therefore, there should be some clarification to this issue. And according to many suttas arahants attained their enlightenment right after listening to the Buddha's preaching not in the middle of meditation at all. This is again making me more curious on this issue. .... S: Yes, of course. See Jon's message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/116762 >In the Guide to paras 30 and 31 of Ch. VII of CMA (translation of the Abhidhammatta Sangaha), Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises the commentaries to these paras as follows: ************************ 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. ... For bare insight meditator and jhaana meditator alike, all path and fruition cittas are considered types of jhaana consciousness. They are so considered because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhaanas, and because they possess the jhaana factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane jhaanas. ************************ That is the passage that sets out the orthodox Theravada position. The Guide goes on to discuss how the concentration that accompanies a moment of path consciousness differs from the concentration of mundane jhana.< **** Metta Sarah ==== #130671 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:43 pm Subject: Re: Self-view is Clinging to Attabhava sarahprocter... Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > It might be good to sum up the important points about no-self/not-self/no-person we have discussed so far. Correct my miccha-ditthi, if you find it in the following message. > > The reason that dhamma-cakkhu can eliminate atta-ditthi has to be because both the conception of ego-identity ('atta') in each of the five aggregates and the conception of the five aggregates in 'attabhava' are caused by ignorance -- not knowing the truth: 'Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation'. ... S: Simply not understanding dhammas as they are, 'seeing as seeing', 'the seen as seen' and so on. .... > > Self-views and conceit come-to-be via the assumption 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' about the khandhas. The self-views and conceit are overcome by the wisdom: 'This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.'. ... S: Yes, again, understanding the dhammas, the khandhas as dhammas. ... > > The seeing and believing that there is someone, a person, is just what is concieved from the sensed data. Without conception, which is a mental formation, then no identity will be conceived. ... S: I would add, 'without conception with ignorance and wrong view...' ... >To my understanding the anatta-anupassana~naana (knowledge ) arises with the thought: 'rupa is anatta', 'cakkhu is anatta', ... 'mano is anatta', 'dhamma is anatta'. In that moment there is no self identity, hence 'no person' is "seen" by the eye of wisdom. ... S: No thought or repeating of a phrase, such as 'rupa is anatta'. Just understanding of what appears, such as 'the seen' or 'seeing' or any other reality. No time to think about it. ... > > For the one who has abandoned atta-ditthi there still is attabhava, but there is no clinging to it as 'my self'. ... S: What do you mean by attabhava (not a dictionary definition)? Of course, there continues to be the referring to different people, places and things. No illusion about what is real however. Metta Sarah ===== #130672 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all - > > > J: First, what is being described here is a dhamma, an impersonal element ("Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate"). The characteristic of that dhamma is "marshalling (driving)". This describes this dhamma's effect on, or function with regard to, other dhammas: it marshals or drives the other kusala dhammas. > > > T: Right, and it also drives restraint of non-arising akusala dhammas as well as abandons arisen akusala dhammas . > =============== J: Right. One dhamma driving another/others. > =============== > .......... > > J: So the text is not saying that viriya (the dhamma) is a matter of a person doing something, such as trying to have awareness. > > > T: Please don't be too quick to jump back to your mantra "there are only dhammas, but no do-ers", Jon. As stated by the great monk Buddhaghosa that "energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments", it unequivocally means the four noble attainments of ariya puggalas. > =============== J: I would assume that "all attainments" would include both mundane attainments and supramundane attainments. But the question we are considering in this thread is the meaning of "energy", and whether it refers to a particular kusala mental state and impersonal dhamma, or to a more conventional notion of energy and striving (such as, for example, pursuing a formal practice of some kind). (BTW, you are mistaken in attributing to me statements about "no doers"; I have not used that expression.) > =============== > .......... > > J: Secondly, it's easy to overlook the importance of the opening words "When *rightly* initiated" (and also the expression "When *rightly* activated" in the last sentence). It goes without saying that only effort that is itself kusala is right effort, and kusala effort is the effort that arises with kusala citta. Effort to have/do kusala, not itself being a kind of kusala, cannot be right effort. > > > T: Right effort of the path is dhamma of the Sekhas (see Sekha-patipada Sutta, for example). > =============== J: Agreed, the mental factor of right effort can arise with mundane consciousness. > =============== > .......... > >J: Thirdly, when the text says, "It is the state of one who is vigorous (viira)", this means that the person in whom the state is present is called a vigorous person. This is another case of the Buddha explaining how a commonly used term is to be understood in the Dhamma sense. > > > T: The text is clear; there is no need to explain "one who is vigorous", because it is one who is vigorous that abandons akusalas and attains the highest level of kusalas (such as samma-sati and samma samadhi). In many suttas the Buddha told his disciples to be diligent and talked about not to be lazy since there were "more to be done". Just search the Access-To-Insight, using key words "diligent" and "more to be done". > =============== J: Agreed that the Buddha in many suttas urged his followers to be diligent (or to strive with diligence), saying there was "more to be done". The question we're now discussing is whether that "being diligent" or "striving with diligence" was meant to refer to kusala consciousness accompanied by the mental factor of right-effort, or to following a formal practice of some kind, or to just generally trying harder to have awareness/insight. To my reading, the text you brought up in your original message tends to suggest the first of these - the mental factor of kusala viriya. > =============== > .......... > > J: You ask how it is how possible for knowledge to arise for the person who is not "vigorous and driving" to develop panna, and I suppose you mean a person who puts in effort in their 'practice'. I think the answer is that since knowledge (and its accompanying right effort) have been accumulated in the past, it can arise again at any time given the right conditions. Those conditions are, as the text says "a sense of urgency" or "grounds for the initiation of energy". These are mental states that in turn depend on a correct (intellectual or deeper) understanding of the teachings. > > > > It all comes back, as ever, to how well the teachings are understood, at an intellectual level initially, including the impersonal and conditioned nature of all dhammas and to how well is appreciated the importance of understanding dhammas that are arising now as we go about our daily life. > > > T: Well, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, Jon. I am not passing any judgment on that anymore. Good luck to you, and may you be successful in achieving your wholesome goal in your own way. > =============== J: I'm fine with not taking this any further, but would like to know whether you would agree with the assumption in my earlier message that knowledge (i.e., panna) and its accompanying right effort (kusala viriya) have been accumulated in the past (i.e., in past lives) and, accordingly, could arise again at any time in the present lifetime given the right conditions. I raised this in my message because you've made comments in the past that seemed to suggest otherwise, and I think it's an important point. Only if you're happy to pursue, of course. Jon #130673 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: In fact, there are only conditioned dhammas. The only dhamma study of any value is the understanding of such dhammas now, not by a self trying to do so. > > ... > >R: On the other hand, we only hear about such a possibility by hearing the teachings - another worldly activity, though a "special event" -- due to kusala? And most of us would think it was odd if someone talked about discerning dhammas now without having ever read a sutta or commentary. But perhaps you really are saying that all is needed is initial understanding of what a dhamma is, and then from there there is no need to study or try to do anything at all... ... S: And even now, whilst hearing or reading the Teachings, what are the realities? Actually, just moments of hearing sound/seeing visible object, thinking about what has been heard/seen and so on, either wisely or unwisely. So what I'm saying is that no matter how we may refer to a given situation, there are only ever passing cittas, cetasikas and rupas. It is the understanding now (beginning with intellectual right understanding) that there are only these dhammas, that leads to direct understanding. ... > > S: We think we are. In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. > >R: Well, if that is all it really is -- and sounds rather random the way you describe it above -- how is it that such arising and falling away of "thinking, speculating" cittas can lead to pariyatti and beyond? ... S: Accumulations of understanding and awareness. Just accumulations for thinking and speculating based on what's been heard doesn't lead to pariyatti. Think of Devadatta! ... >R: After all it is said here many times that intellectual understanding precedes direct experience of dhammas, but here you are saying that such intellectual moments for cittas are basically meaningless. It seems like there is somewhat of a contradiction there...? ... S: Like now - is it right intellectual understanding or wrong intellectual understanding? At any moment, during any activity, it's the nature of the citta, the nature of the accompanying factors that is important. The condition for more understanding is understanding now of what is true and real. It's not 'sitting in a quiet place', 'opening a Dhamma or cookery or any other book'. It's not any 'situation'. ... > > >S: When there is doubt and ideas of self, there are thoughts about "how can I develop?", and "what to do?". Such thinking, such doubt can be understood when it arises too. > >R: Well I have to say that this all still sounds very "zen" of you. Zen has a focus on non-intellectual immediate discernment in the moment, however flawed your view might be of their methodology. Are you sure that K. Sujin is not a secret zen Master...? :-) ... S: :-) If there is no clear understanding of distinct realities, such as seeing and visible object, then it's useless, however much one make talking about 'being in the moment':-) Metta Sarah ===== #130674 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Dear Bach Lang, I just made a mistake as addressing you wrongly. Grateful if you (and everyone else) would kindly sign your name at the end of each post to avoid confusion. Thanks Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Thanh Nguyen, > > You asked excellent questions. #130675 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 6:46 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Sarah (Jagkrit and others) - Without any question you are one of the most learnt moderators I've known. >[Sarah:] > So the texts refer to 2 kinds of jhana, arammanupanijhana and lakkhanupanijhana. ... > see lots more under "jhana 16- two meanings" in 'useful posts', such as the quote from U Silananda here ... > See Jon's message: ... > >In the Guide to paras 30 and 31 of Ch. VII of CMA (translation of the Abhidhammatta Sangaha), Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises the commentaries to these paras as follows ... > The Guide goes on to discuss how the concentration that accompanies a moment of > path consciousness differs from the concentration of mundane jhana. ... T: Depending on references and cross-referencing, and on more references that support the cross-referencing, does have a disadvantage: what if there are "holes" somewhere in the long chain of references after references ... after references? Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit (& Tep), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > >J: As you mentioned Vism XIV says that bhavana-maya-panna attains at the stage of full concentration (appana samadhi). But bhavana-maya-panna is one level of vipassana not sammatha. > .... > S: When right understanding of realities and insight (vipassana) develops, samatha also develops with it. So at the stages of insight, the concentration is of a degree of upacara samadhi and at enlightenment it is of a degree of appana samadhi. When mundane jhana is not the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is the equivalent of 1st jhana. If 2nd jhana is the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is equivalent to 2nd jhana (with no vitakka) and so on. > > ... > >Therefore, there should be some clarification to this issue. And according to many suttas arahants attained their enlightenment right after listening to the Buddha's preaching not in the middle of meditation at all. This is again making me more curious on this issue. > .... > S: Yes, of course. > #130676 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:12 pm Subject: Re: Self-view is Clinging to Attabhava t.sastri Hi Sarah, - > > T: For the one who has abandoned atta-ditthi there still is attabhava, but there is no clinging to it as 'my self'. > ... > S: What do you mean by attabhava (not a dictionary definition)? The most simple meaning of attabhava is the atta in 'attahi attano natho' but not in the sense of permanent ego-identiy or Self. To my understanding attabhava is an individual stream of fleeting khandhas that is the basis for developing kusalas and for abandoning akusalas. "No, friends, I do not say this 'I am' is the body,... consciousness, nor that it is other than the body,... consciousness. Yet with regard to the five groups of clinging, 'I am' comes to me, but I do not consider it (by way of wrong views) as 'This I am.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html#fn-2 Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > It might be good to sum up the important points about no-self/not-self/no-person we have discussed so far. Correct my miccha-ditthi, if you find it in the following message. > > .... > > Of course, there continues to be the referring to different people, places and things. No illusion about what is real however. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #130677 From: Tam Bach Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. tambach Dear Tep, In the last paragraph of that sutta, Buddha said "Tathagata can not be found even at the present", which reflects the meaning that Sarah wanted to convey when saying "there's no Nina". Saying "Tathagata doesn't exists" didn't prevent him from having the concept of Tathagata that he was using often conventionally. Similarly, I don't see anything wrong when Sarah gives update about Nina and still maintains that there's no Nina. It is always a helpful reminder on our deep-rooted attachment to a (un-existent) self. Isn't it the root of many problems? Regarding Sukin's post, I think being straightforward is his style. Personally I appreciate it very much, as well as the sharpness of his arguments. One time I mentioned something to which he commented "that's wrong view", and it was. Grateful that it had been pointed out that way, no bushing around. Metta, Tam B Dear Tam, others - [Please replace the previous message that had a few typos. Thanks.] Although I am familiar with this Anuradha Sutta (SN 44.2), I still am grateful that you've offered it. Is it a gentle approach to possibly kick-start another discussion/debate? Go ahead! I believe this is going to be more productive than Sukin's aggressive debate! One thing I am sure is that you'll never call me "silly" and release an angry Self Demon to scare me. :-) Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, Han Tun, Sukin, all > > May I offer you all a sutta? > > Metta, > > Tam B ... ... > "And so, Anuradha â€" when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present lifeâ€"is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata â€" the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment â€" being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > "No, lord." > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.002.than.html > #130678 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:07 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Hi Jon, all - You are also a very learnt moderator. But I appreciate a learnt knowledge only when it is not biased by a personal opinion. > > > .......... > > T: Please don't be too quick to jump back to your mantra "there are only dhammas, but no do-ers", Jon. As stated by the great monk Buddhaghosa that "energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments", it unequivocally means the four noble attainments of ariya puggalas. > > J: I would assume that "all attainments" would include both mundane attainments and supramundane attainments. But the question we are considering in this thread is the meaning of "energy", and whether it refers to a particular kusala mental state and impersonal dhamma, or to a more conventional notion of energy and striving (such as, for example, pursuing a formal practice of some kind). (BTW, you are mistaken in attributing to me statements about "no doers"; I have not used that expression.) T: It's never been a question to me what 'viriya' means. Elementary, Jon. The Vism and many suttas make it clear already. No need to discuss it again. It is never a question to me that all of the 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas are not-self and void of anything pertaining to Self. However, viriya arises as the cetasika in the khandhas and as samma-vayama it supports samma-sati to develop samma-samadhi. Without the eight magga dhammas, there will not be samma~nana and saama-vimutti for the cessation of dukkha in an Arahant (a puggala). See MN 117. By the way, I never discuss "formal practice" or any "formal meditation": such terms are not found in the Suttas and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. On the other hand, some excellent commentaries and excellent authors'/translators' comments are also appreciated. The problem with "excellent" is that the meaning varies from one peson to the next. :-) I'm sorry, Jon. I'll keep in mind that you are not in the no-doer camp. :-) ........... > > T: The text is clear; there is no need to explain "one who is vigorous", because it is one who is vigorous that abandons akusalas and attains the highest level of kusalas (such as samma-sati and samma samadhi). In many suttas the Buddha told his disciples to be diligent and talked about not to be lazy since there were "more to be done". Just search the Access-To-Insight, using key words "diligent" and "more to be done". > > =============== > J: Agreed that the Buddha in many suttas urged his followers to be diligent (or to strive with diligence), saying there was "more to be done". > T: I appreciate your fairness and willingness to agree when something is correct. > J: The question we're now discussing is whether that "being diligent" or "striving with diligence" was meant to refer to kusala consciousness accompanied by the mental factor of right-effort, or to following a formal practice of some kind, or to just generally trying harder to have awareness/insight. To my reading, the text you brought up in your original message tends to suggest the first of these - the mental factor of kusala viriya. T: It depends on your viewpoint. If you prefer to eliminate the human factor from consideration, and to consider only the dhamma theory, then we are not on the same plane of realities. All communications break down! .......... > > T: Well, you have the right to believe what you want to believe, Jon. I am not passing any judgment on that anymore. Good luck to you, and may you be successful in achieving your wholesome goal in your own way. > > =============== > J: I'm fine with not taking this any further, but would like to know whether you would agree with the assumption in my earlier message that knowledge (i.e., panna) and its accompanying right effort (kusala viriya) have been accumulated in the past (i.e., in past lives) and, accordingly, could arise again at any time in the present lifetime given the right conditions. T: Okay, Jon, since you insisted. In terms of kamma vipaka that supports an arising of kasala citta in the present moment, yes I agree. But it is not a perpetual machine that continues to generate more kusala cittas & cetasikas so that there is no need to develop new viriya, sati, and samadhi in this life. Well, an exception is Bahiya the bark-cloth-ascetic, of course. ........... > J: I raised this in my message because you've made comments in the past that seemed to suggest otherwise, and I think it's an important point. Only if you're happy to pursue, of course. T: Sure, I am moderately happy to discuss the Dhamma with you, Jon. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, all - > > > > > J: First, what is being described here is a dhamma, an impersonal element ("Energy (viriya) is included in the sankhara khandha (formations aggregate"). The characteristic of that dhamma is "marshalling (driving)". This describes this dhamma's effect on, or function with regard to, other dhammas: it marshals or drives the other kusala dhammas. > > > > > T: Right, and it also drives restraint of non-arising akusala dhammas as well as abandons arisen akusala dhammas . > > =============== > > > > J: You ask how it is how possible for knowledge to arise for the person who is not "vigorous and driving" to develop panna, and I suppose you mean a person who puts in effort in their 'practice'. I think the answer is that since knowledge (and its accompanying right effort) have been accumulated in the past, it can arise again at any time given the right conditions. Those conditions are, as the text says "a sense of urgency" or "grounds for the initiation of energy". These are mental states that in turn depend on a correct (intellectual or deeper) understanding of the teachings. > > > > > > It all comes back, as ever, to how well the teachings are understood, at an intellectual level initially, including the impersonal and conditioned nature of all dhammas and to how well is appreciated the importance of understanding dhammas that are arising now as we go about our daily life. > > > .... #130679 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Dear Tam, - You kindly gave this reply to my earlier comment: >Tam B: In the last paragraph of that sutta, Buddha said "Tathagata can not be found even at the present", which reflects the meaning that Sarah wanted to convey when saying "there's no Nina". Saying "Tathagata doesn't exists" didn't prevent him from having the concept of Tathagata that he was using often conventionally. Similarly, I don't see anything wrong when Sarah gives update about Nina and still maintains that there's no Nina. T: It is clear to me that you contradicted yourself by saying that the Buddha who did not exist could have said something to his disciple. I am confused! I don't think anyone can explain how a non-existent Buddha could have said something to a non-existent Anuradha. BTW if no Buddha existed in the past and taught the Dhamma then how come we have the existing Dhamma to guide our lives and to discuss it together in this DGS group? How could it be possible that a non-existent Nina was involved in a car-accident and was taken to a hospital? Is this hospital in a dream-land? How could a non-existent Tam Bach have written a message that I am answering right now? Contradiction! Only contradiction at the extreme! You can never win a court case with that kind of argument. You don't see anything wrong? Maybe it's because you don't see anything. Thanks for taking the time to write. We just exchanged our views; no winning or losing. It is not a game. I ask for your forgiveness if my reply above caused you a frustration. I told Sukin that I would not debate this dead issue anymore. Well, allow me to say that again now, for the last time. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > > Dear Tep, > It is always a helpful reminder on our deep-rooted attachment to a (un-existent) self. Isn't it the root of many problems? > > Regarding Sukin's post, I think being straightforward is his style. Personally I appreciate it very much, as well as the sharpness of his arguments. One time I mentioned something to which he commented "that's wrong view", and it was. Grateful that it had been pointed out that way, no bushing around. > > Metta, > > Tam B > #130680 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Tam & all) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Tam, - > > You kindly gave this reply to my earlier comment: > > >Tam B: In the last paragraph of that sutta, Buddha said "Tathagata can not be found even at the present", which reflects the meaning that Sarah wanted to convey when saying "there's no Nina". Saying "Tathagata doesn't exists" didn't prevent him from having the concept of Tathagata that he was using often conventionally. Similarly, I don't see anything wrong when Sarah gives update about Nina and still maintains that there's no Nina. > > T: It is clear to me that you contradicted yourself by saying that the Buddha who did not exist could have said something to his disciple. I am confused! I don't think anyone can explain how a non-existent Buddha could have said something to a non-existent Anuradha. BTW if no Buddha existed in the past and taught the Dhamma then how come we have the existing Dhamma to guide our lives and to discuss it together in this DGS group? How could it be possible that a non-existent Nina was involved in a car-accident and was taken to a hospital? Is this hospital in a dream-land? How could a non-existent Tam Bach have written a message that I am answering right now? Contradiction! Only contradiction at the extreme! You can never win a court case with that kind of argument. > > You don't see anything wrong? Maybe it's because you don't see anything. > > Thanks for taking the time to write. We just exchanged our views; no winning or losing. It is not a game. I ask for your forgiveness if my reply above caused you a frustration. I told Sukin that I would not debate this dead issue anymore. Well, allow me to say that again now, for the last time. > > Truly, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Tep, > > > It is always a helpful reminder on our deep-rooted attachment to a (un-existent) self. Isn't it the root of many problems? > > > > Regarding Sukin's post, I think being straightforward is his style. Personally I appreciate it very much, as well as the sharpness of his arguments. One time I mentioned something to which he commented "that's wrong view", and it was. Grateful that it had been pointed out that way, no bushing around. > > > > Metta, > > > > Tam B > > > =============================== I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this existence/nonexistence "person business". The matter is simple, it seems to me: What we CALL "a person" is a series of aggregations of interrelated selfless phenomena (i.e., namas and rupas)erroneoulsly viewed (quite often) as an individual. What more is there to say on this?? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #130681 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. nichiconn Hi Howard, All, > =============================== > I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this ... What more is there to say on this?? > Trim posts in replying? connie #130682 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:41 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! truth_aerator Dear Jon, Sarah, Sukin, all, The problem is that not only the suttas but even commentaries talk about formal practice, benefits of seclusion, etc. Even if one would say that such and such method is "mere samatha" and "not for us", then Why was it written? VsM describes type of character and meditation suitable for them. Some of the methods are suitable to all types. As for "it is merely samatha": If something is so useless (or even dangerous) than why was it written in the suttas or VsM and claimed to lead all the way to Nibbana? With best wishes, Alex #130683 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:55 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Hi Connie, - > connie: Trim posts in replying? > A disadvantage of trimming posts is information loss. A better solution : summarize the key points. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi Howard, All, > > > =============================== > > I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this ... What more is there to say on this?? #130684 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Hi Howard, (Connie)- You proposed a solution to end the grid-lock debate on "No-person! Only the dhammas exist.". >Howard: The matter is simple, it seems to me: What we CALL "a person" is a series of aggregations of interrelated selfless phenomena (i.e., namas and rupas)erroneoulsly viewed (quite often) as an individual. What more is there to say on this?? Someone may challenge you on the proposed "interrelated selfless phenomena" idea and the next round of debate may waste even more bandwidth ! (Look, Connie, I've trimmed the post!!) Regards, Tep === #130685 From: "mahesh_247989" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:47 pm Subject: Looking for meaning mahesh_247989 Hi Everybody, I have just joined this group and it was really great pleasure to read interesting discussion posts.Especially those concerned with the word 'pandaram'.I am seeking the meaning of the word 'vitthaaro',which appears in Pali text of Sammoha Vinodanni.Please refer to the reply/post by Nina (post no.113887).Kindly also give its meanings in different context,if it has so. Thanks and best regards Mahesh #130686 From: "azita" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 8:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. gazita2002 Hallo Howard, Tep, Tam and others, The matter is simple, if there is some understanding of the way the aggregates operate. I really believe that is why there is so much emphasis placed on right understanding from the very beginning of study of the dhamma. If there is clinging to a view that is incorrect according to dhamma then it will be very difficult to accept or even contemplate the implications of right view. That is why, IMO, right intellectual understanding must come first, pariyatti; understanding of what the aggregates/khandhas are, how conditions operate, and unless there is this right understanding from the beginning then how can it possibly grow into a power -somewhere down the samsara track!! patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Tam & all) - > =============================== > I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this existence/nonexistence "person business". The matter is simple, it seems to me: What we CALL "a person" is a series of aggregations of interrelated selfless phenomena (i.e., namas and rupas)erroneoulsly viewed (quite often) as an individual. What more is there to say on this?? > > With metta, > Howard #130687 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 8:46 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- > H: I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this existence/nonexistence "person business". The matter is simple, it seems to me: -------- KH: How many aeonbytes of bandwidth will be needed to change your mind?:-) --------------- > H: What we CALL "a person" is a series of aggregations of interrelated selfless phenomena (i.e., namas and rupas) erroneously viewed (quite often) as an individual. --------------- KH: There is no such thing as a series of namas and rupas. A series of namas and rupas is a mere concept created for teaching purposes. (It helps to explain how namas and rupas are conditioned.) ---------- > H: What more is there to say on this?? ---------- KH: When the Buddha used the word "person" he was referring to the five khandhas. The five khandhas arise and cease together in a single moment. Then they are gone, never to return. Therefore, when the Buddha used the word "person" was referring to something very different from a series. Ken H #130688 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Yes! LOL! With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi Howard, All, > > > =============================== > > I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this ... What more is there to say on this?? > > > > > Trim posts in replying? > connie > #130689 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:28 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > -------- > > H: I can't imagine how much bandwidth has been wasted on this > existence/nonexistence "person business". The matter is simple, it seems to me: > -------- > > KH: How many aeonbytes of bandwidth will be needed to change your mind?:-) > > --------------- > > H: What we CALL "a person" is a series of aggregations of interrelated selfless phenomena (i.e., namas and rupas) erroneously viewed (quite often) as an individual. > --------------- > > KH: There is no such thing as a series of namas and rupas. ----------------------------- HCW: You've read some Abhidhamma, Ken. Have you not heard of processes? ------------------------------- > > A series of namas and rupas is a mere concept created for teaching purposes. (It helps to explain how namas and rupas are conditioned.) > > ---------- > > H: What more is there to say on this?? > ---------- > > KH: When the Buddha used the word "person" he was referring to the five khandhas. The five khandhas arise and cease together in a single moment. Then they are gone, never to return. --------------------------- HCW: Put it on tape, Ken, for easy replaying. --------------------------- > > Therefore, when the Buddha used the word "person" was referring to something very different from a series. --------------------------- HCW: Nonsense! The Buddha taught of human beings and of their lives flowing like a river and not as single-momement things. -------------------------- > > Ken H > ================================ With metta, Howard /Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death./ (From AN 7.70) #130690 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:03 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the inevitable destiny for everyone. I wonder what difference it would make to have such a reminder if all it does is solidify the illusion of the body being real? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130691 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Hi Rob E. and Jon ( Attention: Alex, Tam, Sukin) - This is a good one! > > > J: As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the inevitable destiny for everyone. > > RE: I wonder what difference it would make to have such a reminder if all it does is solidify the illusion of the body being real? Thanks for being so observant, Robert. Truly, Tep === #130692 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, Jon, > > > As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a > conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. > The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the > inevitable destiny for everyone. > > I wonder what difference it would make to have such a reminder if all > it does is solidify the illusion of the body being real? > Thinking in terms of "self" and "other", including "my body" and theirs, can be not only with different kinds of akusala (and not all with self view), but also with kusala citta. This one about corpse and one's own inevitable death can be with aversion or it can be samatha. Metta, Sukin #130693 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > > > > > > > Is the seeing of a dwarf different from that of a giant? Is the > > > > attachment or aversion which follows the sense experiences any > less in > > > > the one as compared to the other? Is the aversion of someone with a > > > > birth defect greater than that of a normal person? > > > ----------------------------- > > > HCW: > > > While you're asking rhetorical questions: Is what you write above an > > > answer?? (Rupas, early on, are conditions for very much that > occurs in > > > the future, often for an entire lifetime.) > > > > > > > I thought that I was addressing your question. > > A two feet dwarf and the eight feet giant, what difference when it > comes > > to moment to moment experiences? By "rupas, early on" what particular > > kind are you referring to? Do any rupas last longer than 17 moments of > > citta? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > An example is any birth defect. You tell me - does this not bring a > lifetime of consequences within the namarupic stream of interrelated > dhammas we call "the person"? > As a story. Rupa are conditioned by kamma, by temperature, by citta and by nutrition. But no matter which one, all rupas rise and fall away in an instant. If a rupa is conditioned by kamma as a birth defect, this or another kamma would condition another rupa at another time. In the same way, the experiences through the five senses, each involve different kamma to condition it. In the case of the mental reaction to different vipaka, each arising of this accumulates as tendency, however when they do arise each time, this is by natural decisive support condition. There is no difference in the way vipaka and javana cittas arise during life in the case of a person with birth defect and one who is normal. They all arise by various conditions some in the present and some from the past and they all fall away instantly only to be followed by a different set of conditions. Why the need to particularly see some kind of relationship with the past in the case of the one with birth defect? And why look to the past when the causes and conditions to be known exists in the present. > > > > When it comes to reality, I know impermanence which I believe the > > > > "only-at-the-moment conditionality" best illustrates, but I don't > > > > understand change. Can you tell me what this "change" is? > > > ------------------------------------ > > > HCW: > > > No. > > > > > > > I must ask, why? > ------------------------------- > HCW > Because it must be experienced, not described in words. > There is reality now. And we are not talking about Nibbana. If "change" is a reality, no need to describe, but you can always direct my attention to it with reference to what is experienced in the moment. If not this, then you can point out which concept in the Buddha's teachings it corresponds with? > > > > It may be true, but you have not yet explained what this > > > > "interrelationship" is all about. Until then, the mental picture > that I > > > > presently have, does appear to be about "atta". > > > ------------------------------------ > > > HCW: > > > I find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with > interrelationships. > > > > > > > So you think that I was intentionally misleading you? > ----------------------------------------- > HCW: > No. I think you are simply enmeshed in theory and intellect instead of > direct experience. > You mean, if I didn't have the habit of always referring to the single-moment perspective, I'd see what this interrelationship is about? > > > HCW: > > > I said nothing along such lines. What you are asking is a > > > non-sequitur. Actually, it happens that I find much commonality > > > between Judaism and the Dhamma, but that is irrelevant to what I said > > > above. What I spoke about above is failure to distinguish, in thought > > > and speech, between believing and knowing. The Buddha csrtsinly > tsught > > > that one dedicated to truth distinguishes these. > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > > > > No you didn't say it. But had you considered the fact that I am coming > > from the Buddha's teachings, which unlike other teachings, is about > that > > which can be proven now, you'd not compare my statement with that of > > Moslems and Jews. > ------------------------------ > HCW: > I WOULD, because you speak as if you know when you merely believe. > Moslems and Jews have as their reference point the nama and rupa that rises and falls away as part of their experience "now"? If so, then I wouldn't consider wrong at all what their religion teaches, nor that their statements as mere "belief". Is there "seeing" now? If so, is it mere belief the acknowledgement? Metta, Sukin #130694 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: Looking for meaning sarahprocter... Hi Mahesh, Glad to welcome you to DSG! Let us know where you live and anything else you care to introduce about yourself and your interest in the Dhamma if you feel inclined to do so. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mahesh_247989" wrote: > I have just joined this group and it was really great pleasure to read interesting discussion posts.Especially those concerned with the word 'pandaram'. ... S: Do you understand 'pandara.m' as clear, pure? Sometimes it's used to refer to just kusala cittas and sometimes to all cittas. Lots in 'Useful Posts' in the files on this. ... >I am seeking the meaning of the word 'vitthaaro',which appears in Pali text of Sammoha Vinodanni.Please refer to the reply/post by Nina (post no.113887).Kindly also give its meanings in different context,if it has so. .. S: I understand it to refer to details, explanations. It's not so obvious in the passage you refer to. I think it refers to the detail given in the quote before "vitthaaro". English translation: "And this is said in detail". In others, such as Vism XVII, 219 it's more straight forward: "na ettha vitthaaro dassitoti": the detail is not given here. Or this one, #83077 "Ayamettha sa"nkhepo, vitthaaro pana he.t.thaa theragaathaasa.mva.n.nanaaya.m vuttanayeneva gahetabboti." "This is given here in brief. But the details are to be taken as already explained in the commentary on the Verses of the Theras." I'd like to hear why you are interested in these terms. Have you been reading all the archives? Metta Sarah ===== #130695 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Yes and it was made very clear that they had dangerous wrong >views. The Buddha never praised them as he did the noble disciples >who 'commentated' on what he had said, such as Maha Kaccayana: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A: The difference is that when the Buddha was alive, he could correct wrong views by the monks, and he could approve good teaching by monks such as Maha Kaccayana, etc. ... S: His noble disciples also knew what was right and what was wrong. As I mentioned, only arahats recited the Teachings at the Councils. No doubt at all about what was Buddha vacana. .... > > After the Buddha is gone... We don't have this. ... S: We have the Buddha vacana as preserved by his disciples. ... > > Furthermore... think... Why would there be a need for later commentators to comment on Buddha's teaching? Why couldn't sutta compilers do a good job which would not require further interpretation? Why are we sure that some monks living later could explain BETTER than the suttas? ... S: Just as the Buddha asked his disciples to elaborate on what he had said for those who needed more explanation. Many of these commentaries by his disciples are actually in the Sutta Pitaka themselves. Some of the commentaries such as the Maha Nidesa were recited in full from the outset along with the Sutta Nipata and other suttas. The Kathavatthu matika only was given by the Buddha. He knew that the time for the full recital of the text would only be appropriate after various other sects and schisms had formed. We need to hear a lot more detail than Sariputta and the Buddha in his wisdom knew this. Those Buddha sasana where less detail, less rules, less commentary was given didn't last as long as this one. ... > >S:We know from the descriptions of the early councils that they were >all arahats. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Just because someone is an Arhant, it doesn't mean that one is an expert at *teaching* Dhamma. It seems that some Arhats (such as Asajji) could teach 1000x less than many people here... ... S: Some arahats had greater powers and skills but all knew exactly what was right, what was Buddha vacana and what was not. All had fully realised the Truths and all defilements had been eradicated. ... > As for councils: Different schools have different opinions. There are two sides of any schism... ... S: As I've said, until the stage of sotapanna, doubt has not been eradicated. However, the more understanding there is of namas and rupas now such as seeing and visible object, the less questioning and concern of the kind you raise occurs. So listen to different teachings, read what other sects and religions have to say and test out what is real at this very moment! No one else can "tell' you or make you understand what is true. Only panna itself ever knows. Metta Sarah ====== #130696 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > The sutta can easily be interpreted as: "when one learns what to do, then one does it.". This would also fit with many other suttas, and with what Abhidhamma masters teach., ... S: If this is the way any sutta is interpreted, it definitely does not "fit with the Sutta Pitaka or the Abhidhamma". All the teachings are about anatta. No one to do anything. ... > > >S:No one to put in any effort. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Does this mean that Sarah would not swim when placed in deep water? ... S: It means that in the ultimate sense there is no Sarah, no Alex, no Being to do anything. Just dhammas that arise by conditions or causes and cease by conditions too. As Assaji said to Sariputta: "Of things that arise from a cause, their cause the Tathagatha has told and also their cessation, thus teaches the great monk" "Ye dhamma hetuppabhava tesm hetum tathagato aha tesanca yo nirodho evamvadi mahasamano" Metta Sarah ===== #130697 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > There are many texts left by Mahasi Sayadaw 'Bhaddanta Sobhna'.,...> > Even when he preached on abhidhamma he always led to meditation practice. > > Still there are many things in abhidhammatthasangaha that do not match what the Buddha actually taught. ... S: Really? I think there are many things in Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings which do not accord with what we read in the Abhidhammatthasangaha or other ancient Pali commentaries, but I've not read anything in the Abhidhammatthasangaha which does not accord with what the Buddha taught, as elaborated on by the ancient commentaries. In the old series you used to give, you followed these texts more closely as I recall. Metta Sarah ===== #130698 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > So, how possible for knowledge to arise without effort/exertion of the citta? ... S: How is it possible for right effort to arise without understanding? How can there be any knowing of what is right or wrong without understanding? ... >How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? ... S: How is it possible for for "One" to be vigorous or not vigorous, to develop panna or not develop panna? What is this "One"? Metta Sarah ==== #130699 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? ... S: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now? ... > Does the RAFT CLING TO THE STUDENT OR DOES THE STUDENT CLING TO THE RAFT? Who or what is doing THE CLINGING? ... S: No 'who' or 'what'. Clinging clings! Glad to read your questions:) Metta Sarah ===== #130700 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >Sarah (message #130635): What other conclusion does panna lead to? > > SN 22:86 (4) Anuraadha, Khandhasa.myutta (Bodhi transl) > > " 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard form as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - Do you regard feeling... perception... volitional formations... consciousness as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' > > 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as apart from form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as in feeling......perception...volitional formations....consciousness....?' - 'No, venerable sir.' > > > S: "just suffering", no Sufferer, no Tathaagata, no Phil, no Sarah, no Nina, no computer, no rose! > > T: The Buddha's teaching in this Sutta is about sakkaya (the 20 self identifications) that a real monk (mediatator) must relinquish (along with other fetters) in order to realize 'knowledge and vision' (yathabhuta~nana dassana). .... S: There is no Tathagata, no monk in volitional formations including panna (understanding), no monk apart from panna, no monk outside panna, no panna in the monk. So no monk that relinquishes fetters or realizes the Truths. It is panna and associated mental factors that leads to and realizes the goal. ... >Now, if there was no real-person Anuraaddha, then what would have been the purpose of such contemplation? If there were no Buddha, then how could there be the true Dhamma that has lasted over 2500 years for the real you and real me to enjoy? Of course, there is no good reason to assume a Self in anyone or assuming a person in the Self -- self views are just wrong assumption. Without self views there is no Self anywhere. ... S: Right - "without self views, there is no Self anywhere". There is no Tathagata, no monk, no Anuradha - only khandhas arising and falling away. The purpose of the Teaching was for the development of panna, for the understanding of true Dhamma that in truth and reality there is no atta anywhere to be found. Yes, as the Buddha said, the Teachings are very deep and profound. When we say it's Tep or Sarah who benefit from hearing the Teachings, in fact, it is only hearing which hears the sounds, thinking with panna which wisely considers. Of course the panna which arises in the stream of cittas we call 'Tep' is not the same as the panna which arises in the stream of cittas we call 'Sarah'. Likewise each kamma brings its own results, so what we refer to as 'your' seeing is not the same as what we refer to as 'my' seeing. In truth, however, only ever the present namas and rupas arising and falling away. At this instant, no stream, no Tep, no Sarah, just a conditioned citta accompanied by various cetasikas and rupas conditioned in various ways. ........... > T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital! ... S: I agree it seems like that. As we read in the Mulapariyaya Sutta MN1 about ignorant worldlings, "without regard for ariyans, unskilled in the Dhamma of the ariyans, undisciplined in the Dhamma of the ariyasn, who is without regard for the good men......he perceives beings as beings. having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings; he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) from beings; he conceives 'beings are mine'; he delights in beings...." "Like a madman his image in a glass, The fool takes the self to be real, And so too property of this self- These are his conceivings in terms of views. "This that we have called 'conceiving' Is the very subtle bondage of Maara, Flexible and difficult to break, By this the worldling is held in thrall. "Though struggling and striving with all his might, He does not escape the person-group, But circles on like a leash-bound dog Tied to a firmly planted post." Metta Sarah ===== #130701 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than contact. ... S: What is the feeling which is known now? Do you agree with Goenka's ideas about what feelings are? Metta Sarah ==== #130702 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 6:17 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: It seems that Venerable Aananda, who was only a > Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no > Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Otherwise, he would not have lamented as described > in the above paragraphs. Poor Venerable Aananda! ... S: There was no more wrong view or doubt about dhammas as dhammas at all. All vipallasa (perversions) concerning di.t.thi were eradicated: "Of the perversions, the following are eliminated by the 1st path-knowledge (sotaapatti): the perversions of perception, consciousness and views, that the impermanent is permanent and what is not a self is a self; further, the perversion of views that the painful is pleasant, and the impure is pure." (Nyt dict) However, attachment, aversion and ignorance have not been eradicated. Only an anagami has no more attachment or aversion to sense objects and no longer has perversion of perception and citta with regard to the impure as being pure. We know that even sakadagamis can die of grief from attachment to others, even though there is no wrong view about beings and people. Attachment is very deeply rooted. And only: "By the 4th path-knowledge (arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68)." (Nyt dict.) >... Friends, in this matter, that > which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of > decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and > disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility. Friends, the devas are > reproachful." > [Paragraph 6.11 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] ... > Han: I belong to the above monks who were not free from the > passions. To those persons of present-day, who are free from sensual passions and > who are like Venerable Arahant Anuruddha, I bow down three times most > respectfully. .... S: I doubt that anyone today is free from sensual passions like Anuruddha. However, it is so helpful to be reminded that: "that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility." It doesn't matter how long it takes for the Truths to be realised. At least we're so fortunate to hear about them. Let us be grateful for this. Metta Sarah ===== #130703 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah and Tep > S: When right understanding of realities and insight (vipassana) develops, samatha also develops with it. So at the stages of insight, the concentration is of a degree of upacara samadhi and at enlightenment it is of a degree of appana samadhi. When mundane jhana is not the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is the equivalent of 1st jhana. If 2nd jhana is the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is equivalent to 2nd jhana (with no vitakka) and so on. > > So the texts refer to 2 kinds of jhana, arammanupanijhana and lakkhanupanijhana. The first one refers to mundane jhana whilst the second refers to lokuttara jhana. JK: Upon your explanation and above posting, I understand more and this clarify my question about the stage of attaining magga citta and polla citta at each step where a person who develop vipassana-nana will attain lakkhanupanijhana even though he does not practice meditation. And can you explain more about 8 fold path which are classified into 2 categories: vipassana (samma dithi and samma sanggabba) and samatha (the rest of 6 path). Do this support that when 8 fold path arise, there will be both vipassana and samatha qualities. And I found some statement in AN 4.170 PTS: A ii 156 Yuganaddha Sutta: In Tandem translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: ************ On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!" "Yes, friend," the monks responded. Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever monk or nun declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four? "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Whoever monk or nun declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths." ********************** JK: In this sutta, there are 4 paths to attainment of arahantship. One path is "the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight." This means a monk who develops vipassana first will eventually receive samatha quality at the stage of attainment, isn't it? And this supports your quote about sukkhavipassaka below: > >In the Guide to paras 30 and 31 of Ch. VII of CMA (translation of the > Abhidhammatta Sangaha), Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises the commentaries to these paras > as follows: > ************************ > 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. ... > > For bare insight meditator and jhaana meditator alike, all path and fruition > cittas are considered types of jhaana consciousness. They are so considered > because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full > absorption, like the mundane jhaanas, and because they possess the jhaana > factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane > jhaanas. > ************************ > That is the passage that sets out the orthodox Theravada position. JK: Above sutta confirms that, regardless of meditation practice, one who develops vipassana or bare insight can attain arahantship. And this also clarifies my question that why Visaka Vikalamata, Anaata Bintika and King Pimpisan who were ordinary people and did not find any where about their meditation practices could attain sotapatipolla citta. Because they developed bare insight. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #130704 From: "anattaman" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) anattaman Hello Jagkrit & Sarah, - That was a good teamwork! Thank you both for the tutorial session. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Tep > > > S: When right understanding of realities and insight (vipassana) develops, samatha also develops with it. So at the stages of insight, the concentration is of a degree of upacara samadhi and at enlightenment it is of a degree of appana samadhi. When mundane jhana is not the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is the equivalent of 1st jhana. If 2nd jhana is the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is equivalent to 2nd jhana (with no vitakka) and so on. > > > > So the texts refer to 2 kinds of jhana, arammanupanijhana and lakkhanupanijhana. The first one refers to mundane jhana whilst the second refers to lokuttara jhana. > ... > JK: Above sutta confirms that, regardless of meditation practice, one who develops vipassana or bare insight can attain arahantship. > > And this also clarifies my question that why Visaka Vikalamata, Anaata Bintika and King Pimpisan who were ordinary people and did not find any where about their meditation practices could attain sotapatipolla citta. Because they developed bare insight. > > Thank you and anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #130705 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 10:00 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration anattaman Hi Sarah, - > T: According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than contact. ... S: What is the feeling which is known now? Do you agree with Goenka's ideas about what feelings are? T: Feeling that arises from any of the six kinds of contact is known any minute. I have not studied Mr. Goenka's teachings enough to answer the question, Sarah. Truly, Tep === #130706 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 10:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Colette & all) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? > ... > S: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now? =================================== In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only! With metta, Howard /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) #130707 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:32 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:His noble disciples also knew what was right and what was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At certain level, yes. Such as "don't kill, don't steal" etc. However, only the Buddha knew the Dhamma the best. Arhats don't need to know everything. From what I gather, some knew very little theory (but they had lots of practice instead). In the suttas, venerable Sariputta often asked the Buddha. So even he, being wise as he was, relied on the Buddha. >S: Just as the Buddha asked his disciples to elaborate on what he >had said for those who needed more explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes he was sick. He also couldn't physically teach all monks when the amount of monks grew. >S:The Kathavatthu matika only was given by the Buddha. There is no evidence for that. The evidence that we have is that it was a sectarian book written to reject what it perceived to be wrong views. I really wonder why there were so many different Abhidharmas and treatise... Maybe because specifics were not taught and were elaborated later on by disciples. When Sariputta had to ask the Buddha basic Dhamma questions, some smart monks could write elaborate treatise about ultimate/conventional realities, etc etc... With best wishes, A;ex #130708 From: han tun Date: Thu May 16, 2013 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Dear Sarah (& Tep), (1) > > Han: It seems that Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Otherwise, he would not have lamented as described in the above paragraphs. Poor Venerable Aananda! (1) > Sarah: There was no more wrong view or doubt about dhammas as dhammas at all. All vipallasa (perversions) concerning di.t.thi were eradicated: "Of the perversions, the following are eliminated by the 1st path-knowledge (sotaapatti): the perversions of perception, consciousness and views, that the impermanent is permanent and what is not a self is a self; further, the perversion of views that the painful is pleasant, and the impure is pure." (Nyt dict) However, attachment, aversion and ignorance have not been eradicated. Only an anagami has no more attachment or aversion to sense objects and no longer has perversion of perception and citta with regard to the impure as being pure. We know that even sakadagamis can die of grief from attachment to others, even though there is no wrong view about beings and people. Attachment is very deeply rooted. And only: "By the 4th path-knowledge (arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68)." (Nyt dict.) >... Friends, in this matter, that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility. Friends, the devas are reproachful." [Paragraph 6.11 of the Translation by Maurice Walshe] (1) Han: I appreciate your comments but I stick to my statement i.e. Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. I read the following excerpts from DN 16, translated by Maurice Walshe, again: 5.13. And the Venerable Aananda went into his lodging and stood lamenting, leaning on the door-post: 'Alas, I am still a learner with much to do! And the Teacher is passing away, who was so compassionate to me!' 6.1. And the Lord said to Aananda: 'Aananda, it may be that you will think: "The Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!" It should not be seen like this, Aananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.' Han: From the above paragraphs, it is very clear to me that Venerable Aananda was lamenting not just due to his attachment to the Lord, but he was lamenting for the impending loss of a Teacher who would guide him as he was only a learner; and the Buddha had to warn him that after his passing his Dhamma and discipline would be their Teacher. So for Aananda the Tathaagata existed and not "no Tathaagata,only Dhammas." -------------------- (2) > > Han: I belong to the above monks who were not free from the passions. To those persons of present-day, who are free from sensual passions and who are like Venerable Arahant Anuruddha, I bow down three times most respectfully. (2) > Sarah: I doubt that anyone today is free from sensual passions like Anuruddha. However, it is so helpful to be reminded that: "that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such possibility." (2) As you know very well, there are two levels of understanding. A puthujjana, like me, can understand a Dhamma passage only with intellectual understanding. But an Arahant understands the same Dhamma passage with pa.tivedha ~naa.na, the penetrative knowledge. For example, in SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, there is the following passage: It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases. Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, naa~n~na.m dukkhaa nirujjhatii"ti. Now, Bhikkhuni Vajiraa was an Arahant and she understood the above passage with penetrative knowledge. I, a puthujjana, can also learn the text by heart and understand it. But my understanding will only be intellectual understanding and it cannot be with the penetrative knowledge. I never mix up the two levels of understanding. -------------------- Han: This is my last message on this topic. I cannot write more. Even to write this much I am exhausted. The swelling of both my ankles is also preventing me from sitting at the computer for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. with metta and respect, Han #130709 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 8:23 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth anattaman Hi Sarah, others- >T: How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? ... S: How is it possible for for "One" to be vigorous or not vigorous, to develop panna or not develop panna? What is this "One"? T: It is the one in one's own selfhood (attabhava): one's own chain of rebirth. [SN 45.159:] A person unknowing: the actions performed by him, born of greed, born of aversion, & born of delusion, whether many or few, are experienced right here: no other ground is found.[1] Note 1. According to the Commentary, "right here" means within the stream of one's own "selfhood" (attabhava), i.e., one's own chain of rebirth. "No other ground is found" means that the fruit of the action is not experienced by any other person's chain of rebirth. ........... Be well, Tep === #130710 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 9:07 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun anattaman Poor Brother Han, - I pity you who, despite pains and discomfort, had to debate the stubborn issue of 'There is no Tathagata, only Dhammas' with Sarah! But she will never ever come to agree with you, no matter how many explanations and most-convincing references you may have produced. ......... >Han (to Sarah): I appreciate your comments but I stick to my statement i.e. Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. >Han(to Sarah): From the above paragraphs, it is very clear to me that Venerable Aananda was lamenting not just due to his attachment to the Lord, but he was lamenting for the impending loss of a Teacher who would guide him as he was only a learner; and the Buddha had to warn him that after his passing his Dhamma and discipline would be their Teacher. So for Aananda the Tathaagata existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas." T: Unfortunately, what is "very clear" to one person is never perceived the same by another who has totally, irreversibly different views. ........... >Han(to Sarah): As you know very well, there are two levels of understanding. A puthujjana, like me, can understand a Dhamma passage only with intellectual understanding. But an Arahant understands the same Dhamma passage with pa.tivedha ~naa.na, the penetrative knowledge. > I, a puthujjana, can also learn the text by heart and understand it. But my understanding will only be intellectual understanding and it cannot be with the penetrative knowledge. I never mix up the two levels of understanding. ... I cannot write more. Even to write this much I am exhausted. The swelling of both my ankles is also preventing me from sitting at the computer for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. T: But Sarah is NOT a puthujjana. I do not think she has mixed up the two levels of understanding; I think she is either already endowed with the penetrative knowledge or at least she believes that she is at that level. Of course, I might be wrong. With compassion & respect, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah (& Tep), > > (1) > > Han: It seems that Venerable Aananda, who was > only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was > no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. Otherwise, he would not have lamented as > described in the above paragraphs. Poor Venerable Aananda! > #130711 From: han tun Date: Thu May 16, 2013 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, I am very glad that you agree with me. Hundreds can disagree with me but your agreement is most rewarding for me. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:07 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun Poor Brother Han, - I pity you who, despite pains and discomfort, had to debate the stubborn issue of 'There is no Tathagata, only Dhammas' with Sarah! But she will never ever come to agree with you, no matter how many explanations and most-convincing references you may have produced. ......... >Han (to Sarah): I appreciate your comments but I stick to my statement i.e. Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. >Han(to Sarah): From the above paragraphs, it is very clear to me that Venerable Aananda was lamenting not just due to his attachment to the Lord, but he was lamenting for the impending loss of a Teacher who would guide him as he was only a learner; and the Buddha had to warn him that after his passing his Dhamma and discipline would be their Teacher. So for Aananda the Tathaagata existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas." T: Unfortunately, what is "very clear" to one person is never perceived the same by another who has totally, irreversibly different views. ........... >Han(to Sarah): As you know very well, there are two levels of understanding. A puthujjana, like me, can understand a Dhamma passage only with intellectual understanding. But an Arahant understands the same Dhamma passage with pa.tivedha ~naa.na, the penetrative knowledge. > I, a puthujjana, can also learn the text by heart and understand it. But my understanding will only be intellectual understanding and it cannot be with the penetrative knowledge. I never mix up the two levels of understanding. ... I cannot write more. Even to write this much I am exhausted. The swelling of both my ankles is also preventing me from sitting at the computer for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. T: But Sarah is NOT a puthujjana. I do not think she has mixed up the two levels of understanding; I think she is either already endowed with the penetrative knowledge or at least she believes that she is at that level. Of course, I might be wrong. With compassion & respect, Tep === #130712 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Rob E (and Tep) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, and Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the inevitable destiny for everyone. > > RE: I wonder what difference it would make to have such a reminder if all it does is solidify the illusion of the body being real? > =============== J: Yes, a good question. One could similarly ask what difference it would make if all the reminder does is induce aversion, or bring conceit (e.g., I'm still alive while he/she isn't), etc. There are any number of akusala mind-states that could arise when a person contemplates a corpse, even if doing so as part of a 'practice'. This is precisely why references in the suttas to conventional acts, both physical and mental, are actually to be taken as references to kusala citta only or, if you prefer, to such acts only to the extent that they are accompanied by kusala citta. If the teaching is taken as implying that the (mere) doing of the act -- i.e., in the present case, *seeing a corpse and then thinking about how I will one day be like this* -- is a kind of kusala and hence the development of the path, or must in some way conduce to a kusala mind-state, the point of the teaching is being missed, in my view. The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body, rather than the efficacy of a certain kind of 'practice' involving a specific contemplation. Jon #130713 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 3:58 pm Subject: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah and all I found the statement as following: "Some people say that Buddhist practice is to dissolve the self. They do not understand that there is no self to be dissolved. There is only the notion of self to be transcended." By Thich Nhat Hanh As far as I understand, this statement confirm the no self or not self. Self does not exist but the notion of self does exist. And what to be clarified is the notion of self. Whether this statement conform with the Buddha's teaching. And to which suttas explain on this issue. Thank you Jagkrit #130714 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 12:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun anattaman Dear Brother & Spiritual Friend Han, - Many thanks for the kind words you gave me, But people always differ in anything as far as I can see! Not only with regard to their Dhamma understanding, But also in their way of living! ..... "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; ... "Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. [The Road Not Taken (1916) by Robert Frost] And that "ever come back" applies to my debate here. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, > > I am very glad that you agree with me. > Hundreds can disagree with me but your agreement is most rewarding for me. > > with metta and respect, > Han > > > ________________________________ > From: Tep Sastri > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:07 AM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun > > > > > Poor Brother Han, - > > I pity you who, despite pains and discomfort, had to debate the stubborn issue of 'There is no Tathagata, only Dhammas' with Sarah! But she will never ever come to agree with you, no matter how many explanations and most-convincing references you may have produced. > ......... #130715 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 4:06 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Dear Sarah, Han , Tep and all, just to say hello with a brief comment . Nanatiloka's B.D.: puthujjana lit.: 'one of the many folk', 'worldling', ordinary man, is any layman or monk who is still possessed of all the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.) binding to the round of rebirths, and therefore has not yet reached any of the 4 stages of holiness (s. ariya-puggala). "Whoso is neither freed from the 3 fetters (personality-belief, sceptical doubt, attachment to mere rule and ritual), nor is on the way to lose these 3 things, such a one is called a worlding" (Pug. 9). According to Com. to M.9, a 'worlding' may be a.. (1) an outsider (a non-Buddhist) who, if he believed in moral causation, may be said to have right view to that extent; but he has not the 'knowledge conforming to the Truths' (saccanulomika-ana), as has b.. (2) the 'worldling inside the Buddha's Dispensation' (sasanika). A worlding who professes Buddhism, may be either a.. a 'blind worldling' (andha-p.) who has neither knowledge of, nor interest in the fundamental teaching (the Truths, groups, etc.); b.. or he is a 'noble worldling' (kalyana-p.), who has such knowledge and earnestly strives to understand and practise the Teaching. - See Atthasalini Tr. II, 451 (tr. by 'average man'); Com. to M.1, D.1. unquote I think we all are on the way and strive to understand and practise the Teaching .. and by that kalyana-puthajjanas...well, at least most of the time ;-) Han writes: I, a puthujjana, can also learn the text by heart and understand it. But my understanding will only be intellectual understanding and it cannot be with the penetrative knowledge. I never mix up the two levels of understanding D: Han, as I see it , the point of intellectual understanding is the pre-condition for penetrating the knowledge. The best example for penetration is given by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, i.e. contemplation of the 4 frames of mindfulness . And it is obvious that this contemplation needs effort to do it again and again until the ignorant/stubborn mind surrender to insight. DN 22 "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or - if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance - non-return.Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or - if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance - non-return.Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or - if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance - non-return." Do I myself practise this way ? Unfortunately not (seriously enough ), conjuring up excuses. There is this attitude of yes! ....but ...and always appears something else to be more important to do. One excuse : not having the capacity anymore to learn the sutta by heart .. However repeated reading is already a step forward, not to talk about (convenient) ways to listen to available MP3 recordings, or even better to record one's own voice reading the text for that purpose (no bigt deal: earphones with microphone plus free software) Will I do it ? I hope so ! ;-) with Metta Dieter #130716 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 5:27 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Hello friend Dieter, - Are you at this moment in Thailand, or back home? What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths? Be heedful , Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Han , Tep and all, > > just to say hello with a brief comment . > ... > b.. or he is a 'noble worldling' (kalyana-p.), who has such knowledge and earnestly strives to understand and practise the Teaching. - > .... > The best example for penetration is given by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, i.e. contemplation of the 4 frames of mindfulness . > And it is obvious that this contemplation needs effort to do it again and again until the ignorant/stubborn mind surrender to insight. ... > Do I myself practise this way ? Unfortunately not (seriously enough ), conjuring up excuses. > There is this attitude of yes! ....but ...and always appears something else to be more important to do. > One excuse : not having the capacity anymore to learn the sutta by heart .. > However repeated reading is already a step forward, not to talk about (convenient) ways to listen to available MP3 recordings, or even better to record one's own voice reading the text for that purpose (no bigt deal: earphones with microphone plus free software) > > Will I do it ? I hope so ! ;-) > > with Metta Dieter #130717 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 8:02 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Hi Dieter, You must have heard it was safe to come back. Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, and anatta has been declared off-topic. But DSG has had setbacks before, and the true Dhamma will continue to be studied here. Religious rites and rituals as will still be exposed for what they are. Ken H #130718 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 12:42 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: ...The only dhamma study of any value is the understanding of such dhammas now, not by a self trying to do so. > > > ... > > > >R: On the other hand, we only hear about such a possibility by hearing the teachings - another worldly activity, though a "special event" -- due to kusala? ... > S: And even now, whilst hearing or reading the Teachings, what are the realities? Actually, just moments of hearing sound/seeing visible object, thinking about what has been heard/seen and so on, either wisely or unwisely. What would thinking wisely consist of? Recognizing that we are only hearing sounds and that we are supplying the concepts? Still, certain sounds will trigger certain concepts. That's all wired in also isn't it? So familiar sentences will continue to have familiar meanings, either wise or unwise...? > So what I'm saying is that no matter how we may refer to a given situation, there are only ever passing cittas, cetasikas and rupas. It is the understanding now (beginning with intellectual right understanding) that there are only these dhammas, that leads to direct understanding. Intellectual right understanding is not the discerning of present dhammas, but only the acknowledgment that dhammas are all that is present. This is still conceptual, but because it is correct thinking, it is in the right direction...? > ... > > > > S: ... In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. > > > >R: Well, if that is all it really is -- and sounds rather random the way you describe it above -- how is it that such arising and falling away of "thinking, speculating" cittas can lead to pariyatti and beyond? > ... > S: Accumulations of understanding and awareness. Just accumulations for thinking and speculating based on what's been heard doesn't lead to pariyatti. Think of Devadatta! But correct thinking and intellectual understanding lead to direct discernment? How exactly are they connected? > >R: After all it is said here many times that intellectual understanding precedes direct experience of dhammas, but here you are saying that such intellectual moments for cittas are basically meaningless. It seems like there is somewhat of a contradiction there...? > ... > S: Like now - is it right intellectual understanding or wrong intellectual understanding? At any moment, during any activity, it's the nature of the citta, the nature of the accompanying factors that is important. But right intellectualunderstanding seems to have some relation to what is being thought about - the concept involved, no? ... > S: :-) If there is no clear understanding of distinct realities, such as seeing and visible object, then it's useless, however much one make talking about 'being in the moment':-) But the clear understanding can be clear intellectual comprehension of these realities as well? And that will lead to direct discernment? If so, the conceptual "objects" that are constructed by thought are not inconsequential at all. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130719 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Rob E, Jon, > > > > > > As regards the Kayagatasati Sutta, that's not a case of a > > conventional object (i.e., the body) being described as being anicca. > > The sight of a corpse is a taken as a reminder that this is the > > inevitable destiny for everyone. > > > > I wonder what difference it would make to have such a reminder if all > > it does is solidify the illusion of the body being real? > > > > Thinking in terms of "self" and "other", including "my body" and theirs, > can be not only with different kinds of akusala (and not all with self > view), but also with kusala citta. This one about corpse and one's own > inevitable death can be with aversion or it can be samatha. Sure, but it is a purely illusory exercise none-the-less. Why make up stories about a nonexistent body even with kusala that will therefore be unrelated to the path - since it deals with illusion and not with what is paramatha - knowing of realities? A waste of time? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #130721 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > Thinking in terms of "self" and "other", including "my body" and theirs, > > can be not only with different kinds of akusala (and not all with self > > view), but also with kusala citta. This one about corpse and one's own > > inevitable death can be with aversion or it can be samatha. > > Sure, but it is a purely illusory exercise none-the-less. Why make up stories about a nonexistent body even with kusala that will therefore be unrelated to the path - since it deals with illusion and not with what is paramatha - knowing of realities? A waste of time? You are saying as if there is a choice to think or not to think, or to think about one thing and not something else. Thinking is part and parcel of the citta process, be that of the human, animal or any other plane. Only the jhana expert has some understanding as to the nature of some of the mental factors such as vitakka and vicara and how to stop them from arising so as to not have sensuous thoughts. After all the understanding is not related the danger of ignorance but that of sensuous attachment. Thinking is not a problem at all. The problem is in the akusala roots. Indeed vitakka is the same mental factor as samma sankappa, which means that it is in fact an indispensable factor of the Path. Thinking in terms of "body", mine and others, is based on the experience through the five senses. These experience are accompanied by perception which marks the object. Therefore following from seeing, is it not inevitable that there will automatically be thinking about body based on those sense experiences and also on past thinking about the same? Can I choose to think about realities instead of people and things? No. It depends on accumulations and other conditions. Should I even prefer to think of the one and not the other? No. How can I function in the conventional world thinking in terms of paramattha dhammas instead of people, things and situations? Sukin #130722 From: han tun Date: Fri May 17, 2013 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, I like your post very much. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri Dear Brother & Spiritual Friend Han, - Many thanks for the kind words you gave me, But people always differ in anything as far as I can see! Not only with regard to their Dhamma understanding, But also in their way of living! ..... "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; ... "Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. [The Road Not Taken (1916) by Robert Frost] And that "ever come back" applies to my debate here. Sincerely, Tep === #130723 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 17, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: Nina & travels sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Good news - she expects to be home in about two weeks. Someone from the Rehab centre will visit her flat with her today to see what can be done to make things easier for her and her neighbours are also helping. She seems to be feeling stronger and able to organize everything else at home. The trip to Thailand/Vietnam is unlikely for her it seems. Meanwhile, Jon & I'll be travelling back to Hong Kong tomorrow, so there will be delays in replying to posts for the next few days. A dusty life? Just when the kilesa (defilements) arise which, of course, is most the day regardless of the activities! Anytime is the right time for understanding to grow - like now! Metta Sarah ==== #130724 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 7:49 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 15 jonoabb (With apologies to all for the delay since the last installment - Jon) By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Often we ask questions with "how can I..." and true, this is motivated by attachment, lobha. We were reminded by Acharn to keep in mind that all dhammas are non-self, anattaa, and that we, in that way, never will be lost by our own thinking or by wrong understanding. We cling to having progress in understanding and this is not effective. As Acharn often said, we cannot do anything. Realities arise because of their own conditions and nobody can cause their arising. Seeing arises when there are the appropriate conditions for its arising. Visible object and eyesense are ruupas that condition seeing. Visible object impinges on the eyesense and then there are conditions for seeing. Seeing is caused by kamma, it is vipaakacitta. Some cittas are results of akusala kamma and kusala kamma, they are vipaakacittas. Kamma is intention or volition. Unwholesome volition can motivate an unwholesome deed which can bring an unpleasant result later on, and wholesome volition can motivate a wholesome deed which can bring a pleasant result later on. Akusala kamma and kusala kamma are accumulated from one moment of citta to the next moment, and, thus, they can produce results later on. Kamma produces result in the form of rebirth-consciousness, or, in the course of life, in the form of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and the experience of tangible object through the bodysense. Vipaakacittas experience pleasant objects or unpleasant objects, depending on the kamma which produces them. Kamma also produces ruupas such as eyesense, earsense and the other sense organs. Without eyesense and without visible object there could not be seeing. #130725 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 7:54 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 16 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): There are several conditions for each dhamma that arises and this shows the nature of anattaa of dhammas. We cannot cause their arising. Evenso, nobody can cause the arising of sati, mindfulness, and pa~n~naa, understanding, however much we wish for their arising. They can only arise when there are the appropriate conditions. They are sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas that can only arise with sobhana citta and there are many levels of them. When we listen to the Dhamma and we learn about the realities that can be experienced through the six doorways, one at a time, and when we consider again and again what we hear, gradually intellectual understanding can develop. If the conditions are right, direct awareness of realities can sometimes arise so that direct understanding can develop. But this does not occur so long as we are wishing for it. Acharn reminded us all the time of clinging to sati and pa~n~naa that is deeply rooted and hard to detect. We tend to forget that sati and pa~n~naa are non-self, anattaa. The development of understanding leads to detachment, detachment from the idea of self. *********** End of Chapter 2 #130726 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters jonoabb 130600 Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Jon, all, > > > > A: Sati, Arittha, etc, were monks who studied under the Buddha - rather than monks living generations after the Buddha. > > ... > >S: Yes and it was made very clear that they had dangerous wrong >views. The Buddha never praised them as he did the noble disciples >who 'commentated' on what he had said, such as Maha Kaccayana: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: The difference is that when the Buddha was alive, he could correct wrong views by the monks, and he could approve good teaching by monks such as Maha Kaccayana, etc. > > After the Buddha is gone... We don't have this. > > Furthermore... think... Why would there be a need for later commentators to comment on Buddha's teaching? Why couldn't sutta compilers do a good job which would not require further interpretation? Why are we sure that some monks living later could explain BETTER than the suttas? > =============== J: The suttas contain the actual words spoken by the Buddha when explaining the Dhamma, the truths he had realised. The persons to whom those suttas were mainly directed were, for the most part, persons who were ready for enlightenment, either immediately on hearing the sutta or later in that same lifetime. This means the suttas were pitched at people who, because of panna that had been highly developed in past lives, needed relatively little in the way of detail. For people whose understanding is less developed than that of the listeners in the Buddha's time, however, a far more detailed explanation is needed, and this means that the suttas cannot be properly understood without some elaboration. The further away from the time of the Buddha, the greater the degree of elaboration needed. Jon #130727 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, In some aspects you are right. Certain people like Bahiya, were on "5 minutes till Arhatship" sort of level. Maybe because of this, Bahiya didn't need to work hard on sila or samadhi. Because of this, his instructions and other similar ones are simply not relevant for those who don't have sufficient sila & samadhi. So we should NOT misuse exceptional and rare cases as a general rule for all. While I think that there were Ugghatitannu or vipancitannu in Buddha's time, I think that vast majority could have been like us. However, there are suttas where it is said that one can achieve Arhatship in short amount of time *if* one works *hard* (and I'd add, smart). IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130728 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Sila->samadhi->panna truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, So the teaching is "don't cling". Ok. The breaches of ethics is due to gross level clinging, the unwholesome mental states are medium level of clinging The feeling of self are subtlest level of clinging. I don't think that for Awakening, sila and samadhi are some magic rituals. The reason can be more obvious. If one cannot let go of clinging to more visible, coarse things, then how can one let go of clinging to very subtle things? If one can't pass 1st class, then how can one graduate from 12th class? If wisdom keeps one from transgressing sila, then if one transgresses sila, one doesn't have enough wisdom. Same with samadhi which is more subtle when compared to sila. So perhaps in the beginning, the development of wisdom is on sila and then samadhi level. Only after that is mastered will bahiya and similar teachings be relevant. If one can't pass 1st grade, how can one pass 12th grade? Maybe this is the reason why Buddha wanted to teach Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta first. While they had wrong views, they had sufficient wisdom for sila and samadhi, thus with little help they could easily become arahants within minutes. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130729 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 10:18 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ... Let's Share Examples... anattaman Dear Connie, (Alex, Howard) - I like this constructive suggestion of yours! It should lead to a useful discussion (not a gridlocked debate) and it won't waste the bandwidth. > >connie: let's share examples when we come across things we doubt or wonder about. you do read the theravada commentaries, don't you? > > >Alex: I do read a bit of Visuddhimagga. I prefer to re read "mindfulness of death" chapter and sometimes read about other kayagatasati related passages found there. > Tell us more about the theravada commentaries besides the Visuddhimagga: are they all reliable and dependable? What kind of real-life "examples" do you have in mind that are useful to share? Give a few examples of them, please. Regards, Tep === #130731 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 11:05 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Dear Jagkrit, (Sarah, Alex )- [Please replace the previous message that contained an error.] Hope you may allow some questions just for clarification. 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? Regards, Tep === #130732 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 2:26 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Dear Tep > 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? Self is atta, atta does not exit. Because all dhammas are anatta or no self. > 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? Notion of self is wrong view (micha dithi) which does exist for sure. > 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? Develop panna to eradicate wrong view. > 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? Right view or samma dithi. Best wishes Jagkrit #130733 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 4:45 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Hi Tep, you wrote: Are you at this moment in Thailand, or back home? D: back since a couple of weeks T:What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths? D: the focus on different difficult tasks ? Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity . T: Be heedful , D: true ..but who is really satisfied with one's own performance.. ? ;-) with Metta Dieter #130734 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 5:57 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Hi Dieter, - It is good to know that you are back to be with the loved ones. > >T:What has made you too busy to even keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths? > > D: the focus on different difficult tasks ? > Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity . > T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture and movement during a given day. Also mindfulness in the in- & out- breathing helps reduce mental distraction and induces calm. .......... > >T: Be heedful , > > D: true ..but who is really satisfied with one's own performance.. ? ;-) > T: Not me either! Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > you wrote: > > Are you at this moment in Thailand, or back home? > > D: back since a couple of weeks > > #130735 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 6:02 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Dear Jagkrit, - > > 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? > Self is atta, atta does not exit. Because all dhammas are anatta or no self. > > 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? > Notion of self is wrong view (micha dithi) which does exist for sure. > > 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? > Develop panna to eradicate wrong view. > > 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? > Right view or samma dithi. > T: Thanks for the reply. It is good for me to understand what you understand. Be happy, Tep === #130736 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 8:50 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ... Let's Share Examples... nichiconn dear Tep, remind me when i am back from staying with the pig this month... or just be happy with my thinking the commentaries were originally not separate from the more canonical materials... so as much as we can rely on Buddha's word, thanks, connie > > > Tell us more about the theravada commentaries besides the Visuddhimagga: are they all reliable and dependable? What kind of real-life "examples" do you have in mind that are useful to share? Give a few examples of them, please. > > Regards, > Tep > === > #130737 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Dear Tep > > > 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? > > Self is atta, atta does not exit. Because all dhammas are anatta or no self. > > > 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? > > Notion of self is wrong view (micha dithi) which does exist for sure. > > > 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? > > Develop panna to eradicate wrong view. > > > 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? > > Right view or samma dithi. > > > T: Thanks for the reply. It is good for me to understand what you understand. JK: What is your thought? You would like to discuss more because dhamma is the most useful issue for anybody to discuss and consider. A little bit of understanding toward the realities is worth than any other treasure of all planets. Best wishes Jagkrit #130738 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 2:31 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body, rather than the efficacy of a certain kind of 'practice' involving a specific contemplation. The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? Not trying to be difficult, just wondering if you really see the corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept, and does not thereby promote real understanding of dhammas. My understanding is that your take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130739 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 18, 2013 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body, rather than the efficacy of a certain kind of 'practice' involving a specific contemplation. Rob E: The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? Not trying to be difficult, just wondering if you really see the corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept, and does not thereby promote real understanding of dhammas. ---------------- Htoo: Dear Jon and Rob E, concept is essential in the development of pa~n~naa (panna). Without concept panna cannot be developed. Pannaapetiiti pannatti. It causes understanding so it called concept. ---------------------- Rob E: My understanding is that your(Jon) take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. --------------- Htoo: When tipi.tka is surfed there are 38 kamma.t.thaana. All these support reaching nibbaana. Buddhaanussati: Even though start with concept this leads to nibbaana. And also other 37 kammatthaana help reaching nibbaana. ---------------- Rob E: Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your(Jon's) view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. --------------------------- Htoo: Literally seems true but actually not. ------------------ Rob E: So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = Htoo: There are two islands. One is puthujana island and another is ariyaa island. There is a bridge. The bridge is vipassanaa. That is true vipassanaa. At the other end of the bridge is bridgeal gate and islandal gate. Bridgeal gate is 'guttrabhuu naana'. Islandal gate is magga naana. Here-side on puthujana island there also is a gate. It is the gate of naama-ruupa-pariccheda naana or knowledge of naama-ruupa discrimination. As soon as that gate is passed then true vipassanaa arises and there is panna all over the bridge. Close to the gate is ascending path to that gate. That path can be any of 38 kammatthaana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #130740 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 18, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_007 (DT 894 ) --> Correction htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > After reaching the foot of vipassanaa-mountain one has to climb it steadily. Unlike other exercises this practice leads to bare if stop the self-training. > There are things ----- > One has to study the fore path before actually walk on the path. Magga is just a moment. It lasts only a moment. Before reaching sotapanna all beings are sotapanna. ---------------- Htoo: Forgive me. --Before reaching sotapanna all beings are puthujana.-- ------------------ As soon as magga-citta arises it disappears and immediately followed by phala-citta or fruition-consciousness. > This stage is ---- has to be recognised by meditating mind. This is followed by continuous noting on all objects that arise serially on mind mirror.This has to continue until falling asleep at night. > > May you be well and happy, > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing ----------- Htoo: Thanks. #130741 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile anattaman Hi Htoo, all - Your message #130739 gives a valuable perspective of the Dhamma. Since it is given in pieces and seems difficult to understand, I think it may not get an attention it deserves from casual readers. So, allow me to connect the important pieces together and add a little glue to them, hoping the result is a little-bit easier to understand: ........... Concept is essential in the development of pa~n~naa(panna). Without concepts panna cannot be developed. "Pannaapetiiti pannatti" means: 'it causes understanding, so it is called concept'. When the Tipi.taka is surfed there are 38 kammatthaana (subjects of meditation). All these concepts support reaching nibbaana. For example, one of these subjects of meditation is Buddhaanussati (Recollection of the Buddha); even though it starts as a concept, it leads to nibbaana. [Htoo's simile on how a puthujjana may become Ariyan:] There are two islands: one is puthujjana island, and another is ariyaa island. Here-side on the puthujjana island there is a gate. It is the gate of naama-ruupa-pariccheda naana or knowledge of naama-ruupa discrimination. Close to that gate is an ascending path to it. The path can be any of 38 kammatthaana. There is a bridge that connects the two islands: this bridge represents vipassanaa, the true vipassanaa. At the two opposite ends of the bridge are gates: bridgeal gate and islandal gate. The bridgeal gate at the puthujjana side represents the 'gotrabhuu naana' (Maturity-knowledge). The islandal gate at the ariyaa island represents the 'magga naana' (Path knowledge). As soon as the gate of naama-ruupa-pariccheda naana is passed (on the way to the bridgeal gate), the true vipassanaa arises and there is panna all over the bridge. ............ Thank you, Htoo, for the excellent simile. Tep == --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Hi Jon. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body, rather than the efficacy of a certain kind of 'practice' involving a specific contemplation. > > Rob E: The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? Not trying to be difficult, just wondering if you really see the corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept, and does not thereby promote real understanding of dhammas. > ---------------- ... ... > Rob E: > > My understanding is that your(Jon) take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. > --------------- ... > Rob E: > > Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your(Jon's) view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. > --------------------------- > Htoo: Literally seems true but actually not. > ------------------ > Rob E: > > So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. > > > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > = = = = = = = = = #130742 From: "azita" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self gazita2002 SawatdeeKha KhunJagkrit, Thank you so much for the reminders that the understanding of the realities are worth more than any other treasure - anywhere. may all beings be well and happy azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > > > > 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? > > > Self is atta, atta does not exit. Because all dhammas are anatta or no self. > > > > 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? > > > Notion of self is wrong view (micha dithi) which does exist for sure. > > > > 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? > > > Develop panna to eradicate wrong view. > > > > 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? > > > Right view or samma dithi. > > > > > T: Thanks for the reply. It is good for me to understand what you understand. > > JK: What is your thought? You would like to discuss more because dhamma is the most useful issue for anybody to discuss and consider. A little bit of understanding toward the realities is worth than any other treasure of all planets. > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit > #130743 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 8:26 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Dear Jagkrit, Azita, - Four questions were asked : > > > > 1. What is 'self ' and why does it not exist? > > > > 2. What is the 'notion of self' and why does it exist? > > > > 3. What does it take to transcend the notion of self ? > > > > 4. What remains after the notion of self has been transcended? > > > JK: Self is atta, atta does not exit. Because all dhammas are anatta or no self. Notion of self is wrong view (micha dithi) which does exist for sure. Develop panna to eradicate wrong view. Right view or samma dithi (remains after the the notion of self has been transcended). >>JK: What is your thought? You would like to discuss more because dhamma is the most useful issue for anybody to discuss and consider. A little bit of understanding toward the realities is worth than any other treasure of all planets. >Azita: Thank you so much for the reminders that the understanding of the realities are worth more than any other treasure - anywhere. ....... T: I think what-"understanding of/toward the realities"-really-is depends on whom it has been said. So far there have been different opinions on the true meaning(s) of that. However, without any question, I do like discussion but don't care about a debate that never reaches a conclusion. Warm regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > > SawatdeeKha KhunJagkrit, > #130744 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: "concepts" work too truth_aerator Hello RobE, Jon, all, IMHO, it is not the object of observation that is ultimately important, but the effects of observation. Corpse can be great thing to contemplate as: anicca, asubha, dukkha, and anatta. Ultimately one needs to develop dispassion and corpses are great for that. Corpse contemplation was included in sattipatthana sutta after all. Also, anicca-asubha-dukkha-anatta is not some secret password to Nibbana. It helps to develop dispassion. IMHO. With metta, Alex #130745 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Sawatdee Krub Khun Azita > Thank you so much for the reminders that the understanding of the realities are worth more than any other treasure - anywhere. JK: Yes, it Is the absolute truth. And it is very fortunate for us to have the opportunity to listen and study the interpretation of dhamma directly guiding us to understand the realities more than wording and thinking. I wish you doing well in Australia and looking forward to seeing you here in June. Anumodhana Jagkrit #130746 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 3:15 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Hi Ken H, (all) you wrote: You must have heard it was safe to come back. D: safe in which respect ? I never had the feeling to be unsafe on DSG .. tired some times, yes.. K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? K: and anatta has been declared off-topic. D: by whom and why ? As anatta is one of the 3 core elements of the teaching ,so it can hardly become an off-topic issue . The anatta doctrine has been and is still an issue of lively discussion , not to say disputes. That can not be avoided .. but I think one may stop at a certain point with the conclusion , no agreement has been reached so far .. perhaps another time.. As I see it , a delusion (atta) appears to be real until proven as such , reason alone provides no certainty for dropping the attachment. It needs penetration to know by heart in order to gain insight . K: But DSG has had setbacks before, and the true Dhamma will continue to be studied here. D: the true Dhamma is the Buddha Dhamma as laid down by the Pali Tipitaka (at least for Theravadins) K:Religious rites and rituals as will still be exposed for what they are. D: Ken , please specify what you mean by 'rites and rituals ' , not disregarding the stated 2 kinds of right understanding/view (the mundane and the super-mundane ). The puthajjana or wordling , denying the former , misconstrues his/her own reality, doesn't he/she?. with Metta Dieter #130747 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Sure, but it is a purely illusory exercise none-the-less. Why make up stories about a nonexistent body even with kusala that will therefore be unrelated to the path - since it deals with illusion and not with what is paramatha - knowing of realities? A waste of time? > > You are saying as if there is a choice to think or not to think, or to > think about one thing and not something else. Um.....I think you are skillfully changing the subject there, Sukin. My statement was not about whether we have a choice to think or not, or should stop thinking, it was about whether it makes sense for the Buddha to talk about contemplating the body, and whether it makes sense for you and others to say that it the Buddha talked about this exercise so that we could see the temporary nature of the body, when you are contending that the body itself is not real and has nothing to do with the path, that anicca does not apply to the body, that the body is a conceptual construct and an illusion and we should not pay any attention to it at all as far as the path is concerned, because the path is only about direct discernment of dhammas, not the "body" or a "person" or ordinary activities. Does it make sense to make a statement about the temporary nature of the body instead of saying "don't worry about this body it's just a conceptual illusion, pay attention to dhammas instead." Instead, you defend the discussion of the temporary nature of the body through the corpse contemplation as a "reminder that the body is temporary" while at the same time saying that the body is illusory and has no relation to the path. Which is it? Those two points are totally contradictory. And if you defend the Buddha's statement your point about the body and its contemplation having nothing to do with the path is wrong. If you say the body is not part of the path and its temporariness is an illusion having nothing to do with anicca, then the reminder that "the body is temporary" is not only off the path, but is also a dangerous piece of misinformation that the Buddha is giving to followers. Shouldn't He have said that the "body is an illusion - keep an eye out for dhammas when panna and conditions are right," rather than a reminder that "the body is temporary" and thus the implication is that it is real but changing and will eventually die? > Thinking is part and parcel of the citta process, be that of the > human, animal or any other plane. Only the jhana expert has some > understanding as to the nature of some of the mental factors such as > vitakka and vicara and how to stop them from arising so as to not have > sensuous thoughts. That is lovely but has nothing to do with the Buddha's reminder via the corpose contemplation, an exercise that is "off the path" for you and others who believe only dhammas are relevant. > After all the understanding is not related the danger > of ignorance but that of sensuous attachment. Is it not a mistake to teach sensuous detachment from the body if the body is an illusion? Shouldn't we simply see it as a concept and move on? > Thinking is not a problem at all. The problem is in the akusala roots. > Indeed vitakka is the same mental factor as samma sankappa, which means > that it is in fact an indispensable factor of the Path. Still not the point. > Thinking in terms of "body", mine and others, is based on the experience > through the five senses. These experience are accompanied by perception > which marks the object. Therefore following from seeing, is it not > inevitable that there will automatically be thinking about body based on > those sense experiences and also on past thinking about the same? Yes, but it is not inevitable that the Buddha will teach contemplation of a dead illusion - namely the corpse. Why would he propose a useless exercise as a false reminder of something that is not actual? > Can I choose to think about realities instead of people and things? No. > It depends on accumulations and other conditions. > Should I even prefer to think of the one and not the other? No. How can > I function in the conventional world thinking in terms of paramattha > dhammas instead of people, things and situations? Why did the Buddha promote false thoughts about an illusory body instead of saying it was an illusion? Instead he used it to teach about anicca, as though it were real. Was he confused? Or perhaps you are confused about what he was up to? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #130748 From: Kenneth Elder Date: Sun May 19, 2013 7:40 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation txbodhi Its clear from quite a few Sutta that the Buddha described the Faith-followers and Dhamma-followers Ariya who have attained the First Path of Stream-entry as distinct attainments sometimes separate in time from the attainment of the Fruition stage of the Stream-enterer. How can the Faith-follower and Dhamma-follower be described as different categories of merit if this designation only lasts a micro-micro second? To the monk who refused to quit eating after noon Buddha talked about the deep faith of the Ariya who would be willing to lay in a puddle of water so that the Buddha could walk over and not get wet. He lists the Faith-Follower and Dhamma-follower and then the other seven categories of Ariya as willing to do this. There are various words and phrases in the Sutta that have been remembered incorrectly but the beauty of the Sutta is that the basic teachings are repeated again and again so a few words remembered incorrectly do not change the message. But Abhidhamma Burmese folk claim that every word in the Abidhamma is correct with no mistakes. This is a fundamentalist attitude. Its that Confucian attitude in the far East that one should not question the teacher. Sri Lanka like India has the tradition of more question and answer sessions and debate format. I agree with my first Dhamma teacher Sri Lankan Bhante Gunaratana that some attain the Path of Stream-entry and later the Fruit attainment. I know people to whom this has happened. U Pandita has said that some attain just a momentary experience of Nibbana and then by learning to string them together later attain the ability have a long series of mind moments of Nibbana. That's agreeing with Bhante Gunaratna on this issue from a teacher who has led many to Path and Fruit. The Abhidhamma is very valuable but where it differs from the Sutta, take the Sutta as the standard. By the way I do attend Abidhamma class at the Sitagu Vihara here in Austin Texas. Peace, Kenneth Elder #130749 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 8:44 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Good to see you back! Look forward to more discussion later. Now, just off a flight from Aus. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: >K: You must have heard it was safe to come back. > > > D: safe in which respect ? I never had the feeling to be unsafe on DSG .. tired some times, yes.. ... S: Ha, ha.... if one feels "unsafe" or "tired"....all in the mind anyway! ... > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? ... S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! ... > K: and anatta has been declared off-topic. > > D: by whom and why ? As anatta is one of the 3 core elements of the teaching ,so it can hardly become an off-topic issue . .... S: Agree.... will always be the core of the Teachings so will never be off-topic. Metta Sarah ===== #130750 From: han tun Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Dear Sarah and Friends, If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly apologized. Sarah and Jon are my Great Friends. They are always worried about my health and the wellbeing of not only me but also my entire family. When I was sick they always kept in touch. When I was healthier I always went to their hotel whenever they visited Bangkok. And they offered me the most delicious breakfast on earth, which I still cherish to this day. Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we never insult each other. Sarah knows very well that I am a rebel by nature. But she always forgives me. By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed towards him or to another person! with metta, Han ________________________________ From: sarah > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? ... S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! #130751 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:43 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Hi Dieter, Thanks for your reply; I was beginning to think I was invisible. :-) ----------- <. . .> > D: safe in which respect ? I never had the feeling to be unsafe on DSG .. tired some times, yes.. ----------- KH: Safe was the wrong word. "The right time to come back" might have been better. In my idle fantasy I imagine a battle at DSG between the middle way and the two extremes. Mostly the middle way prevails here, but lately the eternal-atta extreme has prevailed. I apologise for labelling you as an eternal-atta believer, but there is only one middle way and you and I have different impressions of it. Only one of us can be right. If I am right then you must be an eternal-atta believer, and if you are right then I must be annihilated-atta believer. ------------------ >> KH: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? ------------------ KH: You tell me, Dieter, what would be the worst allegation to make against a true Dhamma student? To say that she believed herself to be an arahant must undoubtedly be the worst, mustn't it? ------------------------- >> KH: and anatta has been declared off-topic. > D: by whom and why ? As anatta is one of the 3 core elements of the teaching ,so it can hardly become an off-topic issue . The anatta doctrine has been and is still an issue of lively discussion , not to say disputes. That can not be avoided .. but I think one may stop at a certain point with the conclusion , no agreement has been reached so far .. perhaps another time.. ------------------------- KH: That is what Tep has been suggesting. But there can be no Dhamma discussion until the question of `self or no self' has been cleared up. Otherwise we would be talking about two completely different teachings while pretending to be talking about the same teaching. ------------------ > D: As I see it , a delusion (atta) appears to be real until proven as such , reason alone provides no certainty for dropping the attachment. It needs penetration to know by heart in order to gain insight . ------------------ KH: I hope you will forgive me for labelling that as doubletalk. It is just a collection of words with no clear meaning. As is the case with all doubletalk, the listener is required to infer a meaning. Doubletalk is the medium of all wrong paths. Only the true Dhamma can be expressed in plain words with complete, logical consistency. ------------------- K: But DSG has had setbacks before, and the true Dhamma will continue to be studied here. D: the true Dhamma is the Buddha Dhamma as laid down by the Pali Tipitaka (at least for Theravadins) ------------------- KH: But not exclusively. Commentaries (ancient and modern) also can contain the true Dhamma. The test is that they are consistent with the Tipitaka as a whole. --------------------------- >> KH: Religious rites and rituals as will still be exposed for what they are. > D: Ken , please specify what you mean by 'rites and rituals', ---------------------------- KH: Ultimately, the entire universe is contained in the presently arisen paramattha dhammas -- over which there is no control. When people deny that ultimate reality they invent an alternative reality. They teach about people, places and things to do. They misrepresent the Middle Way as being (for example) a person going to a quiet place and engaging in a meditation activity. --------------- >> D: not disregarding the stated 2 kinds of right understanding/view (the mundane and the super-mundane ). The puthajjana or wordling , denying the former , misconstrues his/her own reality, doesn't he/she?. --------------- KH: According to the Tipitaka, "mundane right understanding" is satipatthana right understanding of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. Supramundane right understanding is Path consciousness right understanding of Nibbana. Some modern commentators, like yourself, insist mundane right understanding is an understanding of people, places and things to do. But that is not taught in the Tipitaka. Anyway, thanks again for your reply, Dieter. Perhaps you might tell Htoo I have been trying to get his attention. :-) Ken H #130752 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly > apologized. ... S: Never! Let's drop this talk of "insulting Sarah!" :-)) Metta Sarah ==== #130753 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Dear Han, - > >Sarah: All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! >Han: If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly apologized. T: Brother Han, believe her that there was no Sarah who told you that there had been "no Sarah to be insulted". [A little confusing, isn't it?] Don't be confused, though; just switch off the real world of ultimate hallucination and switch on the ultimate reality! In the ultimate-reality world, there are no Sarah, no Han, no apology, and no debts to pay. What a relief it is! Truly, Tep == --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Friends, >... ... > Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we > never insult each other. Sarah knows very well that I am a rebel by nature. But > she always forgives me. > > By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely > believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed > towards him or to another person! #130754 From: han tun Date: Sun May 19, 2013 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Dear Brother Tep, I take Sarah's kind advice: Let's drop this talk of "insulting Sarah!" :-)) So, the case is closed. -------------------- Dear brother, I want to tell you one Myanmar saying which has nothing to do with this topic. It says: "A person knows how to accuse another of stealing, if he himself knows how to steal." Maybe, you have a similar saying in Thai. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Tep Sastri Dear Han, - > >Sarah: All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! >Han: If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly apologized. T: Brother Han, believe her that there was no Sarah who told you that there had been "no Sarah to be insulted". [A little confusing, isn't it?] Don't be confused, though; just switch off the real world of ultimate hallucination and switch on the ultimate reality! In the ultimate-reality world, there are no Sarah, no Han, no apology, and no debts to pay. What a relief it is! Truly, Tep == #130755 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 19, 2013 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, Sorry I missed your point, and thank you for taking time to explain further. You may have to do this many more times in the future, given my particular accumulations. ;-) What I now think you are saying, is that if the basic message of the Buddha is "understanding realities", why did he not talk only about this all the time (as we do here on DSG)? Why did he bother to talk about conventional practices such as body contemplation? I think what I wrote in my last post contains the answer. But I will explain further. Thinking in terms of self and other is inevitable. Even the Buddha, who has more than anyone else, experienced the world of paramattha dhammas, must think about his own body and that of others, and identifying which is which. Upon the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness, or bodily painful feeling by body consciousness, associations based on past experience must automatically arise, (even when in between, there is insight into different paramattha dhammas), giving rise to perception and thinking in terms of my body, other people and situations. This is by natural decisive support condition. Now since thinking in terms of self and other is done either with kusala, such as metta, sila, dana, or with akusala, such as attachment, aversion and conceit, should not one then encourage the one over the other? And since within kusala itself, there are many degrees, should not higher levels be encouraged? Therefore when you wrote: Quote: "If you say the body is not part of the path and its temporariness is an illusion having nothing to do with anicca, then the reminder that "the body is temporary" is not only off the path, but is also a dangerous piece of misinformation that the Buddha is giving to followers." If it is thinking with kusala, can it be dangerous? As I said, the concepts themselves are not a problem; it should not therefore be seen as "misinformation". Misinformation is when there is wrong view. The concept of body being "temporary" is a fact based on conventional thinking. If you must think in terms of my body, then it is right to think that this body is temporary. Of course the conventional idea is not the actual characteristic of anicca, but the reason there is such conventional idea is because of the different characteristics of ultimate realities. But this is not the point. The point is that thinking must arise and think in terms of my body and conventional death for example. This is done with either kusala or akusala cittas, and insight into the nature of ultimate realities can't arise all the time, not even for the Buddha. Why not therefore encourage kusala over akusala and within kusala, why not higher levels? So it is not that kusala is part of the Path, but rather that the Path won't arise all the time, therefore during the rest of the time, kusala is preferable. Does it now make sense or do I appear as confused as before? ;-) Metta, Sukin > > Hi Sukin. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , "sukinderpal narula" > wrote: > > > > Sure, but it is a purely illusory exercise none-the-less. Why make > up stories about a nonexistent body even with kusala that will > therefore be unrelated to the path - since it deals with illusion and > not with what is paramatha - knowing of realities? A waste of time? > > > > You are saying as if there is a choice to think or not to think, or to > > think about one thing and not something else. > > Um.....I think you are skillfully changing the subject there, Sukin. > My statement was not about whether we have a choice to think or not, > or should stop thinking, it was about whether it makes sense for the > Buddha to talk about contemplating the body, and whether it makes > sense for you and others to say that it the Buddha talked about this > exercise so that we could see the temporary nature of the body, when > you are contending that the body itself is not real and has nothing to > do with the path, that anicca does not apply to the body, that the > body is a conceptual construct and an illusion and we should not pay > any attention to it at all as far as the path is concerned, because > the path is only about direct discernment of dhammas, not the "body" > or a "person" or ordinary activities. > #130756 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Hi Howard, /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) colette: OUCH, that is a hot one! Excessively accurate and potent, as though a bija were planted in dirt as an acorn. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah (and Colette & all) - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Hi Colette, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > > > Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? > > ... > > S: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now? > > > =================================== > In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only! > > With metta, > Howard > > /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ > > (From the Sankhata Sutta) > #130757 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Vattaka Jataka : Uttarasetthiputta yawares1 Dear Members, I love love this story, a young man descended from the Brahma world and had no desire for women...well, I think I'll let you all read how the story end. ************* Vattaka Jataka [Wisdom Library] The Bodhisatta was once born as a quail, and was caught by a fowler who sold birds after fattening them. The Bodhisatta, knowing this, starved himself, and when the fowler took him out of the cage to examine his condition the quail flew away and rejoined his companions. The story was told in reference to a young man of Savatthi called Uttarasetthiputta. He had descended from the Brahma world and had no desire for women. Once, during the Kattika festival, his friends sent him a gaily decked woman to entice him, but he gave her some money and sent her away. As she came out of his house, a nobleman saw her and took her with him. When she failed to return, her mother complained to the king, and the setthiputta was told to restore her. On failing to do so, he was taken off for execution. He resolved that if by any means he could escape execution he would become a monk. The girl noticed the crowd following the young man, and on learning the reason she revealed her identity and he was set free. He, thereupon, joined the Order and soon after became an arahant. ******** Love Buddhas, yawares/sirikanya #130758 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 10:42 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. anattaman Hi Colette, Howard, Sarah - Here's a good example of random discussion (anything goes; i.e., I don't have to listen to you, I'll say what I want!!). > > > >Colette: Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? > > >Sarah: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now? > >Howard: In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only! ................ Howard's quote: /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ >Colette : OUCH, that is a hot one! Excessively accurate and potent, as though a bija were planted in dirt as an acorn. --------------- T: A raft is not supposed to be carried -- it carries you to the other shore, given that you make an earnest effort to help yourself (in the conditioned attabhava sense). Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Sarah (and Colette & all) - > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Colette, > > > .... #130759 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:19 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Hi Tep, you wrote: D: the focus on different difficult tasks ? > Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity . > T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture and movement during a given day. Also mindfulness in the in- & out- breathing helps reduce mental distraction and induces calm. D: yes, attention to the breath it is a mean to induce the calm necessary for development of mindfulness. Possibly I misunderstood your comment 'What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths?' I think we agree that sati means to be mindful about what one is busy with in the here-and-now. with Metta Dieter #130760 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:41 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Hi Sarah , you wrote: Good to see you back! Look forward to more discussion later. Now, just off a flight from Aus. D: thanks Sarah. I suppose , travelling must be meanwhile same routine for you as other people go to the supermarket .. (?) >K: You must have heard it was safe to come back. > D: safe in which respect ? I never had the feeling to be unsafe on DSG .. tired some times, yes.. ... S: Ha, ha.... if one feels "unsafe" or "tired"....all in the mind anyway! D: yes.. and wondering what is not ;-) ... > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible,> > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? ... S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! D: glad to dismiss my worst expectations ;-) > K: and anatta has been declared off-topic. > > D: by whom and why ? As anatta is one of the 3 core elements of the teaching ,so it can hardly become an off-topic issue . .... S: Agree.... will always be the core of the Teachings so will never be off-topic. D: and it provides the stuff which keeps the discussion alive with Metta Dieter #130761 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:32 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body, rather than the efficacy of a certain kind of 'practice' involving a specific contemplation. > > RE: The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? Not trying to be difficult, just wondering if you really see the corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept, and does not thereby promote real understanding of dhammas. > =============== J: Regarding "the death of what? The clung-to body?", what is conventionally called `death' is the end of a lifespan. In absolute terms, this is the cuti citta, the final citta of a lifespan in a particular stream of cittas. Regarding, "corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept", agreed that corpse is a concept. However, as we have seen in other contexts, the Buddha often used conventional language when speaking about dhammas. The same passage in the Satipatthana Sutta is explained by the commentary in the following terms: ***************************** So imameva kayam upasamharati ayampi kho kayo evam dhammo evam bhavi evam anatitoti = "He thinks of his own body thus: 'This body of mine, too, is of the same nature as that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past the condition of becoming like that body.'" This has been stated: By the existence of these three: life [ayu], warmth [usma], consciousness [vi~n~nanam], this body can endure to stand, to walk, and do other things; by the separation of these three however this body is indeed a thing like that corpse, is possessed of the nature of corruption, is going to become like that, will become swollen, blue and festering and cannot escape the state of being like that, cannot transcend the condition of swelling up, become blue and festering. ***************************** To my understanding, the 3 factors mentioned here are the dhammas of jivitindriya ("life [ayu]"), temperature ("warmth [usma]"), and citta ("consciousness [vi~n~nanam]"), and what is being described by the Buddha in this passage is the development of awareness/insight with these 3 dhammas in particular as object. > =============== > RE: My understanding is that your take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. > =============== J: Yes, path development occurs when panna knows something about the true nature of dhammas. But for the person developing the path any kind of kusala supports that development. The Buddha encouraged the development of those other forms of kusala, but he did so as part of the development of the path, rather than for their own sake alone. Also, some of those other forms of kusala (for example samatha bhavana) were already being developed to a very high degree at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment, and for such people the Buddha showed how awareness/insight could be developed at the same time. Regarding, "why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities", concepts themselves are neither "false" nor "true"; rather, the case is that people conceptualise with or without wrong view depending on the accompanying mind state. So, yes it's possible -- as you and I are discussing in another thread -- that a person with wrong view hearing the Dhamma could come away with his wrong view reinforced; but that would be because of the strength and degree of his accumulated tendency in that regard, rather than anything said by the speaker. > =============== > RE: Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. > =============== J: Kusala that is not of the level of awareness/insight is not itself the development of the path. However for the person developing the path such kusala supports, and is in turn purified by, the kusala that is the development of the path. Jon #130762 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:59 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > In some aspects you are right. Certain people like Bahiya, were on > "5 minutes till Arhatship" sort of level. > =============== J: Right. Panna had been developed to a very high degree in previous lifetimes (during the dispensation of previous Buddhas). But as we know, it is still necessary for the Dhamma to be heard again in each new life in order for the development of insight to resume. > =============== > However, there are suttas where it is said that one can achieve Arhatship in short amount of time *if* one works *hard* (and I'd add, smart). > =============== J: I don't think it's a matter of `working hard and smart'. What the Satipatthana Sutta actually says is: "should any person maintain the Four Arousings of Mindfulness in this manner for seven years, for a week, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge (arahantship) here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning (the Third Stage of Supramundane Fulfillment)." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html) Maintaining the Four Arousings of Mindfulness "in this manner" is of course a reference to what has been mentioned in the preceding part of the sutta. Jon #130763 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:48 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Hi Dieter, - > D: yes, attention to the breath it is a mean to induce the calm necessary for development of mindfulness. Possibly I misunderstood your comment 'What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths?' > T: I am asking whether you have been too busy with works and meetings and other things in life such that you are forgetful about mindfulness in the body postures or the breaths. > D: I think we agree that sati means to be mindful about what one is busy with in the here-and-now. T: It depends on what thing you are busy with. When you are busy with any thing that's not one of the four foundations of mindfulness, you cannot put away greed and distress "with reference to the world". .... "And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness." [MN 10] ..... I don't have any idea why we disagree on the Satipatthana! Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > you wrote: > > > D: the focus on different difficult tasks ? > > Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity . > > > T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture and movement during a given day. Also mindfulness in the in- & out- breathing helps reduce mental distraction and induces calm. > #130764 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Htoo. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body... > > Rob E: The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? ... > ---------------- > Htoo: Dear Jon and Rob E, concept is essential in the development of pa~n~naa (panna). Without concept panna cannot be developed. > > Pannaapetiiti pannatti. It causes understanding so it called concept. I am a little confused about concept as object of panna. I think I recall it being weak panna, or something like that...? Still I do recall conceptual right understanding giving accumulations of right understanding towards direct understanding, so I guess there is something there. But it's a bit mixed up in my mind. I think there is a distinction between understanding Dhamma concepts and understanding a concept such as a body or self. I don't think panna is supposed to arise in relation to a being or other illusory construct, unless, I guess, if they were rightly regarded as concept only, not as a reality. To see the body as a reality is said to be wrong understanding. If you can explain the kind of concept you believe will lead to development of panna, I would appreciate it. > ---------------------- > Rob E: > > My understanding is that your(Jon) take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. > --------------- > Htoo: When tipi.tka is surfed there are 38 kamma.t.thaana. All these support reaching nibbaana. > > Buddhaanussati: Even though start with concept this leads to nibbaana. And also other 37 kammatthaana help reaching nibbaana. Is there a handy link for a list of the 37 kammathana? Is it through contemplation of the kammathana that panna begins to develop? > ---------------- > Rob E: > > Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your(Jon's) view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. > --------------------------- > Htoo: Literally seems true but actually not. Can you explain a bit more how this works? > ------------------ > Rob E: > > So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. > Htoo: > > There are two islands. One is puthujana island and another is ariyaa island. There is a bridge. The bridge is vipassanaa. That is true vipassanaa. At the other end of the bridge is bridgeal gate and islandal gate. Bridgeal gate is 'guttrabhuu naana'. Islandal gate is magga naana. > > Here-side on puthujana island there also is a gate. It is the gate of naama-ruupa-pariccheda naana or knowledge of naama-ruupa discrimination. As soon as that gate is passed then true vipassanaa arises and there is panna all over the bridge. > > Close to the gate is ascending path to that gate. That path can be any of 38 kammatthaana. If you can explain a bit more about the nature of the kammathana, and how they lead to the distinction between nama and rupa, the first big vipassana-nana, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #130765 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:46 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Hi Ken H..... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Hi Dieter, > > Thanks for your reply; I was beginning to think I was invisible. :-) I can see you - can you see me waving? :-) > ----------- > In my idle fantasy I imagine a battle at DSG between the middle way and the two extremes. Mostly the middle way prevails here, but lately the eternal-atta extreme has prevailed. Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on earth did you invent that idea from? A quote please...? > I apologise for labelling you as an eternal-atta believer, but there is only one middle way and you and I have different impressions of it. Only one of us can be right. If I am right then you must be an eternal-atta believer, and if you are right then I must be annihilated-atta believer. How about if both of your beliefs have no relation to what the other believes at all? And there is very little chance that a worldling will have 100% right view no matter what you believe. Just being able to say what you think is the right sentence doesn't give you right view. > ------------------ > >> KH: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? > ------------------ > > KH: You tell me, Dieter, what would be the worst allegation to make against a true Dhamma student? To say that she believed herself to be an arahant must undoubtedly be the worst, mustn't it? Who said that Sarah believed she was an arahant? I must have missed that. BTW, it's okay to be an arahant, just not to state that you are one, is it not? I have no opinion on whether anyone is an arahant or not, since I'm not qualified to judge. > ------------------------- > >> KH: and anatta has been declared off-topic. > > > D: by whom and why ? ... > > KH: That is what Tep has been suggesting. When did Tep ever suggest that? I must have missed that too. > But there can be no Dhamma discussion until the question of `self or no self' has been cleared up. Everyone agrees that anatta is a reality - what is the dispute about in your view? > Otherwise we would be talking about two completely different teachings while pretending to be talking about the same teaching. No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that: a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self; b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire; c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self. I think that if anyone says that the "ordinary everyday self" is "real but temporary," what they mean by that is that the khandas which are taken for self are actual but temporary and not-self. If anyone thinks that the personal self is real, and by that they mean the entity known as Ken H. or Rob E, they may not be discerning what that supposed entity consists of, that is a series of impersonal kandhas that are taken for self. That's my view in any case. Whether the body and other structural components of the human organism are real or illusory however is a subject of dispute, and as that is a fairly complex topic I think there is plenty of room for disagreement and misunderstanding. I think it would require a very patient discussion to really spell out what that is all about, and why we continue to recognize familiar people that we "know" in various ways. > ------------------ > > D: As I see it, a delusion (atta) appears to be real until proven as such, reason alone provides no certainty for dropping the attachment. It needs penetration to know by heart in order to gain insight . > ------------------ > > KH: I hope you will forgive me for labeling that as doubletalk. It is just a collection of words with no clear meaning. As is the case with all doubletalk, the listener is required to infer a meaning. > > Doubletalk is the medium of all wrong paths. Only the true Dhamma can be expressed in plain words with complete, logical consistency. What Dieter said there was quite clear - it is not doubletalk at all, and I don't particularly forgive you for jumping to conclusions like that every time someone uses slightly different terminology than you are used to in your limited understanding. You should stop doing that. To translate, Dieter was saying that intellectual knowledge by itself will not get rid of clinging to delusory forms, such as self-view. One has to directly understand the falseness of illusions that are clung to before they can be released. If you think that's double-talk, it just means you have little understanding of the real content of the Dhamma. > ------------------- > K: But DSG has had setbacks before, and the true Dhamma will continue to be studied here. > > > D: the true Dhamma is the Buddha Dhamma as laid down by the Pali Tipitaka (at least for Theravadins) > ------------------- > > KH: But not exclusively. Commentaries (ancient and modern) also can contain the true Dhamma. The test is that they are consistent with the Tipitaka as a whole. Have you ever seen a "whole?" The whole point of dhamma theory is that there is no whole, just individual moments of experience. The Dhamma that you are calling the "whole" is nothing but the understanding that is gotten from its parts. If you misinterpret the suttas because of your own false interpretation of the commentaries, then you will be more deluded than if you had never read them at all. > --------------------------- > >> KH: Religious rites and rituals as will still be exposed for what they are. > > > > D: Ken , please specify what you mean by 'rites and rituals', > ---------------------------- > > KH: Ultimately, the entire universe is contained in the presently arisen paramattha dhammas -- over which there is no control. When people deny that ultimate reality they invent an alternative reality. They teach about people, places and things to do. They misrepresent the Middle Way as being (for example) a person going to a quiet place and engaging in a meditation activity. If the Buddha hadn't taught about all those things you object to so extensively, we would not be having this problem. It is your view which dismisses most of the actual material of the suttas which is extreme. It's not annihilationist against beings; it's annihilationist against the actual words of the Buddha and the terms he spoke in every day for forty years. > --------------- > >> D: not disregarding the stated 2 kinds of right understanding/view (the mundane and the super-mundane ). The puthajjana or wordling , denying the former , misconstrues his/her own reality, doesn't he/she?. > --------------- > > KH: According to the Tipitaka, "mundane right understanding" is satipatthana right understanding of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. Supramundane right understanding is Path consciousness right understanding of Nibbana. Please give a quote regarding "mundane right understanding" so I can see where it appears in the Tipitaka. > Some modern commentators, like yourself, insist mundane right understanding is an understanding of people, places and things to do. But that is not taught in the Tipitaka. Show where that is denied or contradicted in the Tipitaka. In all these years, you have still failed to do so. It doesn't mean you are not right about dhammas - it just means you are not right about the role of ordinary activities and people and how they are related to dhammas and the Dhamma. The Buddha spoke about them for a reason, even though they are not "ultimate." > Anyway, thanks again for your reply, Dieter. Perhaps you might tell Htoo I have been trying to get his attention. :-) When you're invisible you're invisible. When you're not you're not. You got my attention anyway - akusala kamma....? :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #130766 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly > apologized.... > Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we > never insult each other. ... > By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely > believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed > towards him or to another person! Han, I wouldn't worry too much. As you can see, Sarah is not upset at all. Only Ken H. seems upset by imagined insults. I'm sure we can all forgive him. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _________________________________ > From: sarah > > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > > > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? > ... > S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! --------------------------------- #130767 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 3:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Sorry I missed your point, and thank you for taking time to explain > further. Well it's just a question of looking at different things and in a different way. > What I now think you are saying, is that if the basic message of the > Buddha is "understanding realities", why did he not talk only about this > all the time (as we do here on DSG)? Why did he bother to talk about > conventional practices such as body contemplation? Up to here, our understanding is unified - yes, that is the subject. But after this point you go off into what I believe is another direction. You don't really answer why the Buddha would *teach* on subjects that are not actual or ultimate. Instead you say that "thinking in terms of self and other is inevitable," even for the Buddha. That may be true but once again I believe it is beside the point, because the *Buddha* who was the most skillful and understanding ofhow to teach the Dhamma, spoke about these ordinary things all the time, and instructed others to *do* things about them. He said not to drink alcohol, not to eat meat that was killed for one's benefit, not to engage in illicit sexual activity, etc. It is not that he just spoke this way naturally from time to time as you are implying. He taught about these things constantly and instructed others about them for 40 years. He also spoke about detailed meditation techniques over and over again, and he *also* spoke about kandhas and the components of reality, and the conceptual nature of the way we thought about people and things. So he covered a large range of understanding, both of everyday life and of ultimate realities. *You* will only accept the latter, but *He* spoke about the former with conviction, not just casually. And the Buddha would not teach about something by accident that he really didn't mean to talk about. So I leave it to you to explain why he would discuss such things in great detail and instruct others to do this and not do that, to behave this way and not that way. It has to be accounted for, and frankly, you have no way of actually accounting for this. ... > Now since thinking in terms of self and other is done either with > kusala, such as metta, sila, dana, or with akusala, such as attachment, > aversion and conceit, should not one then encourage the one over the > other? And since within kusala itself, there are many degrees, should > not higher levels be encouraged? Do metta, sila, dana and such kusala lead to the path, or not? If not, why praise them? I don't think there is an adequate justification for this in your philosophy. Why encourage non-path kusala? It does not make any sense. The Buddha was a world-teacher, not a do-gooder. > Therefore when you wrote: > > Quote: > > "If you say the body is not part of the path and its temporariness is an > illusion having nothing to do with anicca, then the reminder that "the > body is temporary" is not only off the path, but is also a dangerous > piece of misinformation that the Buddha is giving to followers." > > If it is thinking with kusala, can it be dangerous? Of course it is still dangerous, because according to you, it is leading people off the path! What could be more dangerous than to make people confuse the "general good" with the path? Nothing more dangerous! The *only* way it is not dangerous is if you are wrong about it, and it is path information. So are you right or wrong? If you are right, then the Buddha is wrong. > As I said, the concepts themselves are not a problem; it should not > therefore be seen as "misinformation". Misinformation is when there is > wrong view. The concept of body being "temporary" is a fact based on > conventional thinking. If you must think in terms of my body, then it is > right to think that this body is temporary. Of course the conventional > idea is not the actual characteristic of anicca, but the reason there is > such conventional idea is because of the different characteristics of > ultimate realities. It is fine for you and I to have this kind of understanding, but not for the Buddha, the World Teacher, to teach about such nonsense as if it is real. I don't believe he would do this if it weren't related to the path, which you deny. > But this is not the point. The point is that thinking must arise and > think in terms of my body and conventional death for example. But the Buddha does not have to teach in such terms. There's no way out of it - that is misleading! It has lead to the misunderstanding that we have between us right now! If the Buddha was not mistaken in teaching about this, then you are confused in thinking it is not part of the path. > This is > done with either kusala or akusala cittas, and insight into the nature > of ultimate realities can't arise all the time, not even for the Buddha. > Why not therefore encourage kusala over akusala and within kusala, why > not higher levels? Why should you? Was the Buddha the head of the 4-H club? Was he a Good Samaritan? Did he appear on the Earth to encourage people to be a little nicer and follow some rules to make life more tidy for everyone? Or was he here to end suffering by showing the path to enlightenment? You can't have it both ways. > So it is not that kusala is part of the Path, but rather that the Path > won't arise all the time, therefore during the rest of the time, kusala > is preferable. So the Buddha was a politician? If he couldn't teach on Enlightenment for a particular group, he'd teach them to be nice to others and be kind to animals instead? What a nice Guy! > Does it now make sense or do I appear as confused as before? ;-) My opinion is that you are trying to make sense of the Buddha's teachings without having to acknowledge what he actually taught, and you are denying why he taught about conventional topics. My view is that everything he taught was the path and we are responsible to understand why, not ignore his teachings. He taught that conventional behavior and activities were part of the path, and he did so throughout his entire career. Now it's up to you to make sense of why he did this and how that really relates to paramatha dhammas. Remember the Buddha said "I teach nothing but suffering and the end of suffering." That's it, 100%, no side-topics at all. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130768 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana philofillet Dear Group I am briefly rejoining to defend Ken H on this issue of insulting, and then will leave again. In the post Ken is referring to, Sarah was accused of believing herself to be of advanced understanding. The post in question was written with a tone that I am familiar with since I have often used it myself. It was a silly attempt at sarcastic humor used in order to be dismissive not only of Sarah but all who express an appreciation of developing understanding of realities in daily life. The person in question has used that tone repeatedly since rejoining the group, in a kind of ridiculing of the basic understanding that was/ is ***behind the formation of the Bangkok group some 40 years ago and this internet group some 15 years ago.*** It just shows a typical willful (it seems to me to be willful) misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what Ajahn Sujin and her students say, nobody is claiming advanced understanding. I feel it shows bad manners for a visitor to make dismissive comments of a group he is visiting, basic bad manners. (And of course I am not saying I am above such manners.) The most relevant point is not so much that some visitors are rude but that extended discussion between people who are not on the same page is pointless. But never mind that. I would just like to back Ken H up, although it would be nice if a more reputable member scolded the person in question. I think he is being coddled because of political correctness (which drove Scott away) and I suppose it is a Buddhist ideal to constantly turn the other cheek, but there are limits, and yes, sure, those limits are probably set by kilesas and self-view. Well, I guess Sarah is just SO advanced that she is above being insulted!!! Er, wait a minute.... Anyways, I find DSG to be very sad these days because of the lack of references to our teacher (the wisest Dhamma friend) but I am constantly drawn back towards it, which is doubly depressing... I will keep trying to get away but for now I just wanted to stand with Ken H. Yes, there have been insults. Of course that is nothing new. I'm very good at it myself. I just think people who are not students of Ajahn Sujin should remember when and why this group was formed. It seems to me that the entire context of DSG has become debating in order to satisfy the needs of people whose understanding opposes that of Ajahn Sujin and her students. Perhaps people would rather not identify themselves as students of Ajahn Sujin and will deny that the general dynamic of DSG has become opposition to her explanation of Dhamma. If that is the case, I will say (as the bad mannered person once said to Sarah) "be realistic." Ok, once this has been posted by the moderators I will get out of here until the next javana implulses that pull me back. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Han. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly > > apologized.... > > > Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we > > never insult each other. ... >  > > By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely > > believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed > > towards him or to another person! > http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/b1 > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > _________________________________ > > > From: sarah > >  > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible, > > > > > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ? > > ... > > S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted! > > --------------------------------- > #130769 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >S: If there is any idea of doing anything first, such as developing right concentration, right effort or right mindfulness first, it is not right understanding of the reality which appears now. > > T: You might have forgotten that right effort is integrated and supported by virtues; sila and right behavior come first as the support for samma-samadhi and pannaa. But it does not mean that a Bhikkhu's sila must be perfected first before he can develop samadhi! Bhikkhu bodhi also explains the relationship of sila as support for samadhi and panna in his book: The Noble Eightfold Path > The Way to the End of Suffering. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html > > This is a very useful Sutta to study, Sarah: [Sekhapatipada Sutta is another good one! www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html] > > "Bhikkhus, be virtuous, observe the higher code of rules, conduct yourselves with the right behaviour, seeing fear in the slightest fault. Bhikkhus, when the bhikkhu is virtuous, observing the higher code of rules, conducting himself with the right behaviour, seeing fear in the slightest fault, what further has he to do? ... S: This is adhi-siila (higher morality) that is being referred to, i.e. the morality which is associated with the development of right understanding, satipatthana. The sotapanna only fulfills adhi-siila because only the ariyan disciple has eradicated wrong view of self and thereby the gross kilesa which lead worldlings to transgress the precepts. Without such understanding, how can "the slightest faults" ever be known? For those who had not heard the Buddha's Teachings, even though they had attained the highest jhanas, adhi-siila had not been accomplished. Defilements were merely suppressed temporarily. Why? No understanding of dhammas as anatta. ... Metta Sarah ==== #130770 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >R: I wish I had the sutta at hand - one day I must learn to keep track of what I read - but there is a nice one where the Buddha talks about the different orders in which some of the factors can be developed -- that some develop samatha first as a way towards vipassana, that others develop sati first and that this leads to concentration. Some develop both at the same time,.... > > .... > > S: You are thinking of the The Yuganaddha Sutta (In Tandem sutta), AN IV.170, or similar. > > > > We are reading about different accumulations, different kinds of cittas arising by conditions. There is never anyone to develop any factors or to choose what kind of cittas arise in what order. > > > > Just like now - who can choose whether metta arises next, or lobha, or seeing or right understanding of visible object? > > > > The Buddha knew all the different natures, dispositions, the 'asaya anusaya' (tendencies) of different cittas and pointed out all the various possibilities. > > > > However, only one way - that of satipatthana - to reach the goal. .. >R: I think that being aware of these different orders of develop can help our understanding of what different individuals may need to do to satisfy the requirements of their particular accumulations and tendencies, in order for the path to arise. ... S: If we start thinking of "what different individuals may need to do to satisfy the requirements of their particular accumulations and tendencies", we are stuck again with the idea of Self doing something, taking some particular action instead of understanding conditioned realities at this very moment, no matter the accumulations. ... R:> By showing interest in such things, I don't mean to imply there is any control, but there is an interest in understanding so that we don't mistake the patterns the path can take in different people. Some people may have a propensity to develop samatha which will lead them to the path by that means; and some people may develop sati in everyday life or some may develop satipatthana or jhana in a meditative environment, as was surely the case with the ancient monks. I think that such a sutta makes clear that we should not pre-judge the pattern of development that one or another individual goes through. ... S: In truth, no one or individual to follow any pattern. Regardless of the tendencies or accumulations, there is only one path - that of the development of satipatthana in daily life through the understanding of dhammas as anatta. This is regardless of whether anger, jhana citta, seeing or visible object appears as object of sati and panna at this moment. Right understanding develops with detachment - detachment from the object of satipatthana. ... R:> For instance, those who advocate dry insight seem to look askance at the development of jhana, or at least think it is either unnecessary or highly unlikely. ... S: We have no idea of past accumulations or future accumulations. So any dhamma may arise anytime, any dhamma can be the object of understanding now. So as far as the path is concerned, it makes no difference whether the object is jhana citta or any other reality. if we mind or want to have specific states arise, such as jhana cittas, it's wrong practice. ... >R: But what if that is exactly the predilection of someone, even today, for instance a modern monk who has the accumulations for this, and may be destined to develop satipatthana using jhana as object? ... S: Is there detachment now or are they wishing/trying to attain certain states? The understanding of dhammas as anatta is most important. ... R:>There are Theravin monks like Ajahn Brahmavamso, whatever one may think of him otherwise, who is still alive today and who has cultivated and taught insight within jhana for decades. ... S: How do you know? Metta Sarah ===== #130771 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. sarahprocter... Dear Tep & Tadao, Thank you for sharing the sutta and inserting the Pali: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Once again, my Good Brother Tep has brought up a very useful sutta. > Saadhu! Saadhu! Saadhu! > I inserted Paa.li text in support of his efforts. > > AN 4.1 Anubuddha Sutta: Understanding > <...> > "Catunna.m, bhikkhave, dhammaana.m ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. Katamesa.m catunna.m? > > The Blessed One said: "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating four things that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. Which four? > ---------- > (1) "Ariyassa, bhikkhave, siilassa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. > > (1) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble virtue that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. ... S: This is just the point I was making. It is "noble" virtue that is being referred to. This is adhi-siila, (higher siila) that can only develop and become noble with the development of right understanding and associated path factors. Without the development of satipatthana, it will never be noble virtue. Metta Sarah ===== #130772 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:15 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > In the commentary to this sutta (Ud-a, translated by Peter Masefield), about how Bahiya > > had first heard the Dhamma a hundred thousand kalpas in the past under the > > Buddha, Padumuttara and in that life had performed great meritorious > > deeds. <...> <...> > Great story - thanks for filling in the history of Bahiya. I am still interested in clarifying what conditions allow for dry insight. I think we have talked about it before, but I am not too clear. ... S: Do we know what kind of citta will arise next? Will it be seeing or hearing or thinking wisely or unwisely or a moment with great calm perhaps? The point is that there is no control at all as to what kind of citta will arise at any time at all. It just depends entirely on conditions. This is not only so in our cases, but was also so for the Buddha and those who listened to his Teachings. Did Bahiya know what cittas would arise when he met the Buddha? Did he know whether jhana cittas would arise immediately before becoming an arahat or whether it would be seeing, hearing, anger or anything else? As I recall when Sariputta heard the famous lines about conditions and became a sotapanna, there were no jhana cittas arising as basis for that enlightenment at that very time. So "dry insight" (sukkha vipassika) just refers to the kind of enlightenment, to what kind of cittas arise immediately prior to enlightenment by conditions. No selection, no choice and in terms of eradicating defilements, of no consequence. Metta Sarah ===== #130773 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > So "dry insight" (sukkha vipassika) just refers to the kind of enlightenment, to what kind of cittas arise immediately prior to enlightenment by conditions. No selection, no choice and in terms of eradicating defilements, of no consequence. .... S: I also believe it's a real hindrance if one has the idea of attaining jhana first or desiring a particular state. Even greater a hindrance is if there is the idea of having attained jhana or any other states in error - this is so whether one is a famous monk, a student of A.Sujin or anyone else. Metta Sarah ==== #130774 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:37 pm Subject: Another Nina update sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Just had a quick call with Nina. Each time I call, she sounds more lively and in good humour. She finds the progress very slow - still many things she can't manage on her own (after 5 wks in rehab), but expects to be home in 2-3 wks. Fortunately, she's very practical and only minor changes need to be made, such as getting rid of her lovely carpets. We agreed it was much better to talk about Dhamma and share reminders than to talk about carpets! Being alone with the citta from moment to moment, no matter the circumstances. Dhamma is always the best medicine. Another friend had called a few days ago and Nina read out from Perfections to her rather than talk more on carpets, she said:) She'll need help at home but is really looking forward to being reunited with her computer and in touch with everyone here again! Our chat was very brief because her sister arrived to visit her. I was very glad to hear that. Metta Sarah ===== #130775 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Q & A sprlrt Hi, just a couple of Ajahn's answers to Lukas, from Hua Hin's audio, 7th Jan, breakfast - Alberto ************* L: Lobha can be understood, right? TA: Certainly, but not as lobha yet, as a reality. L: As a reality? TA: That's why people try to know this and that, but actually it's not the beginning of knowing a reality, like now, you don't have to say that it's hard, but just... a reality, and you don't have to call it a reality, a reality appears and is gone. L: So, something now but we can't say what it is... TA: Not yet, not yet, even the names, words like nama and rupa shouldn't come in between, because you see, at this moment there's the understanding of that which experiences, which is not that which is seen, but you don't need to use *any* word because pa~n~na develops on hearing, not on repeating, at moments of repeating there is not the understanding of that characteristic, because it thinks, and that can't understand that special characteristic, that particular one. #130776 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > S: When right understanding of realities and insight (vipassana) develops, samatha also develops with it. So at the stages of insight, the concentration is of a degree of upacara samadhi and at enlightenment it is of a degree of appana samadhi. When mundane jhana is not the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is the equivalent of 1st jhana. If 2nd jhana is the basis for enlightenment, the appana samadhi is equivalent to 2nd jhana (with no vitakka) and so on. > > > > So the texts refer to 2 kinds of jhana, arammanupanijhana and lakkhanupanijhana. The first one refers to mundane jhana whilst the second refers to lokuttara jhana. > > > JK: Upon your explanation and above posting, I understand more and this clarify my question about the stage of attaining magga citta and polla citta at each step where a person who develop vipassana-nana will attain lakkhanupanijhana even though he does not practice meditation. ... S: What do you mean by "practice meditation"? .... > >JK: And can you explain more about 8 fold path which are classified into 2 categories: vipassana (samma dithi and samma sanggabba) and samatha (the rest of 6 path). Do this support that when 8 fold path arise, there will be both vipassana and samatha qualities. .... S: When right understanding of the path arises, in addition to samma sankappa, there must be the arising of samma vayama (right effort), samma sati (right awareness) and samma samadhi (right concentration). These last 3 factors are referred to as the samadhi factors of the path, but they cannot arise or develop without samma ditthi, the "forerunner" of the path. So we see that whenever samma ditthi arises, there is right effort and right concentration at such a time without anyone doing anything or practising anything. If there is an idea of "practice meditation", it sounds like an idea of Self doing something. Calmness is actually passaddhi cetasika. Whenever the citta is kusala, passaddhi arises. So there is calm arising with each kusala moment. When the path factors arise, calm is developing with right understanding of realities. ..... > And I found some statement in AN 4.170 PTS: A ii 156 Yuganaddha Sutta: In Tandem translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > ************ <...> > JK: In this sutta, there are 4 paths to attainment of arahantship. One path is "the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight." This means a monk who develops vipassana first will eventually receive samatha quality at the stage of attainment, isn't it? ... S: As I understand it, this refers to the one who develops insight first and jhana afterwards. Again it shows the anattaness of realities and accumulations. Just checked Jon's old message on this sutta: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/7821 For this second case, it says: The commentary reads: "This refers to one who by his natural bent first attains to insight and then, based on insight produces concentration (samadhi)." The sub-com reads: "This is one who makes insight the vehicle (vipassanaa-yaanika)." See more in "useful posts" under "Yuganadha Sutta" ... >JK: And this supports your quote about sukkhavipassaka below: ... S: Yes. > > > >In the Guide to paras 30 and 31 of Ch. VII of CMA (translation of the > > Abhidhammatta Sangaha), Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises the commentaries to these paras > > as follows: > > ************************ > > 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. ... > > > > For bare insight meditator and jhaana meditator alike, all path and fruition > > cittas are considered types of jhaana consciousness. They are so considered > > because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full > > absorption, like the mundane jhaanas, and because they possess the jhaana > > factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane > > jhaanas. > > ************************ > > That is the passage that sets out the orthodox Theravada position. > > > JK: Above sutta confirms that, regardless of meditation practice, one who develops vipassana or bare insight can attain arahantship. ... S: Yes. I would put it that "regardless of prior attainment of jhanas or jhana as basis for attainment, the development of vipassana can lead to arahantship. ... > > And this also clarifies my question that why Visaka Vikalamata, Anaata Bintika and King Pimpisan who were ordinary people and did not find any where about their meditation practices could attain sotapatipolla citta. Because they developed bare insight. ... S: Because there was the right understanding of realities as anatta. Metta Sarah ==== #130777 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> > RE: I can see you - can you see me waving? :-) --------- KH: Don't look now . . . oh, too late!:-) ------------- <. . .> > RE: Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on earth did you invent that idea from? A quote please...? ------------- KH: For Pete's sake, haven't you been reading the posts? :-) How many times have we been told `Of course there are people, cars and trees,' `Of course there is a Sarah saying there is no Sarah,' etc etc etc? What you should be asking is how do people have the temerity to say such things in a Dhamma discussion group? How do they have the audacity to tell a group of serious students that the Buddha believed in atta? There is only one reason we are seeing such outrageous behaviour, and that is the web site, Access To Insight. It brazenly tells its readers the Buddha did not teach "no self." It brazenly says `Of course there is a self; if there wasn't a self to inherit the results of its deeds there could be no law of kamma and vipakka,' etc. ATI has singlehandedly made Eternal-life Buddhism mainstream. ---------------------- <. . .> > RE: I think we probably all agree that: a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self; b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire; c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self. > I think that if anyone says that the "ordinary everyday self" is "real but temporary," what they mean by that is that the khandas which are taken for self are actual but temporary and not-self. ---------------------- KH: If we all agreed on that sort of thing we could make progress together discussing it honestly and trying to understand it more deeply. I could be wrong, but I believe some of us have no intention of understanding it. Some of us (and I could be wrong) are interested only in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy. --------------------------------- <. . .> > RE: If you misinterpret the suttas because of your own false interpretation of the commentaries, then you will be more deluded than if you had never read them at all. --------------------------------- KH: I can almost understand your rejection of the no control Dhamma interpretation. (I say "almost" because in my case I took to it like a duck to water, but I had been a meditator before that. And so I *almost* understand your opposition.) But while you are getting such strong support from the Thanissaro camp, you are unlikely to change your stance. You are unlikely to give up your wrong understanding. There are still a lot of people following wrong interpretations of the Tipitaka who could potentially see the right interpretation that is found in the ancient commentaries. However, while they are infiltrated by undercover Thanissaro missionaries, there is not so much hope for them. So I am genuinely concerned for your welfare. Ken H #130778 From: han tun Date: Mon May 20, 2013 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Dear Rob E, Thank you very much for your kind words and your kind understanding. with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Robert E Hi Han. Han, I wouldn't worry too much. As you can see, Sarah is not upset at all. Only Ken H. seems upset by imagined insults. I'm sure we can all forgive him. :-) Best, Rob E. #130779 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Well, I guess Sarah is just SO advanced that she is above being insulted!!! > > Er, wait a minute.... ... S: Ha, ha! I liked a comment I heard on a tape today to the effect that whenever there is the remembering of no self, the problem's already solved. All so ordinary, so "dhammada" - just different dhammas arising and falling away. Just thinking, dreaming, about what's been seen and heard all day long - usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance. Metta Sarah ====== #130780 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:33 pm Subject: Re: Q & A sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, Thanks for sharing the good extract! I also heard her replying to Lukas along similar lines in an afternoon discussion on 16th. Just some notes I jotted down from it earlier: TA: Do we have to mind too much at that moment whether it's kusala or akusala? later: TA: ...just waiting to know whether it's kusala or akusala? At that moment of thinking about kusala or akusala it's only thinking - not the direct understanding of the reality right then. later: TA:...pondering whether it's kusala or akusala with how many cetasikas and so on....Can there be understanding of that reality as kusala or akusala or just of a reality, because it arises and falls away so rapidly? Before one can know reality as not self, there is the idea of whether it is kusala or akusala, so it's not the direct understanding of that which appears. **** S: When you come to this part (not yet uploaded), you may wish to make a fuller transcript to add to your other good one. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi, just a couple of Ajahn's answers to Lukas, from Hua Hin's audio, 7th Jan, breakfast - Alberto > > ************* > > L: Lobha can be understood, right? > TA: Certainly, but not as lobha yet, as a reality. #130781 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Buddha's Verses yawares1 Dear Members, I'm pretty much into these verses..I picked/chose beautiful flowers from my garden for my Buddhas-shrine..and I'm still so much attached to sensual pleasures..and I'll be overpowered by Death...don't know when will I reach Nibbana??!! ************* Buddha's Verses [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, M.A.] 46. One who knows that this body is impermanent like froth, and comprehends that it is insubstantial as a mirage, will cut the flowers of Mara (i.e., the three kinds of vatta or rounds), and pass out of sight of the King of Death. 47. Like one who picks and chooses flowers, a man who has his mind attached to sensual pleasures is carried away by Death, just as a great flood sweeps away a sleeping village. 48. Like one who picks and chooses flowers, a man who has his mind attached to sensual pleasures and is insatiate in them is overpowered by Death. ******* Love Buddhas, yawares/sirikanya #130782 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding anattaman Hi Sarah, Htoo - Thanks for the reply. We are discussing AN 4.12 Siila sutta : > > "Bhikkhus, be virtuous, observe the higher code of rules, conduct yourselves with the right behaviour, seeing fear in the slightest fault. Bhikkhus, when the bhikkhu is virtuous, observing the higher code of rules, conducting himself with the right behaviour, seeing fear in the slightest fault, what further has he to do?" T: Let me add the Pali text: [Sampannasiilaa, bhikkhave, viharatha sampannapaatimokkhaa, paatimokkhasa s.amvarasa.mvutaa viharatha aacaaragocarasampannaa, a.numattesu vajjesu bhayadassaavino samaadaaya sikkhatha sikkhaapadesu. Sampannasiilaana.m vo, bhikkhave, viharata.m sampannapaatimokkhaana.m paatimokkhasa.mvarasa.mvutaana.m viharata.m aacaaragocarasampannaana.m a.numattesu vajjesu bhayadassaaviina.m samaadaaya sikkhata.m sikkhaapadesu, kimassa uttari kara.niiya.m?] Note that sampanna : [pp. of sampajjati] = succeeded; prospered; happened; become. Samaadana = taking; observance; acceptance. Samaadaaya = having accepted. ........... > S: This is adhi-siila (higher morality) that is being referred to, i.e. the morality which is associated with the development of right understanding, satipatthana. The sotapanna only fulfills adhi-siila because only the ariyan disciple has eradicated wrong view of self and thereby the gross kilesa which lead worldlings to transgress the precepts. Without such understanding, how can "the slightest faults" ever be known? > T: The slightest faults in the Vinaya must be understood by all good monks, new or experienced monks, otherwise they cannot succeed. But that "understanding" is at the puthujjana level before satipatthana and panna. The Pali text of this Sutta shows that the Sila here is Patimokha Rules that every monk must follow. Once he is "virtuous" --having passed the Patimokha tests-- satipatthana in the four body postures is the next thing right after "what further has he to do?". Here is the proof: " ... when the bhikkhu is virtuous, observing the higher code of rules, conducting himself with the right behaviour, seeing fear in the slightest fault, what further has he to do? "Even when walking he dispels his covetousness, aversion, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry and doubts and his efforts are actively aroused, unconfused mindfulness is established, the body appeased without anger, the mind concentrated in one point. Even when walking, if he is active and scrupulous, it is said that he is forever with aroused effort to dispel ... Even when standing, ... re ... or sitting, ... re ... or lying if he is awake, he dispels his covetousness, aversion, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry and doubts and his efforts are actively aroused, unconfused mindfulness is established, the body appeased without anger, the mind concentrated in one point. Even when lying, if he is active and scrupulous, it is said that he is forever with aroused effort to dispel. ... ..." T: Clearly, after having practiced the "higher code of rules" (sampannapaatimokkhaana.m) the virtuous bhikkhu arouses effort to dispel the five hindrances, and his mindfulness is established in the body; then his mind is concentrated. At this stage of development of Sati and Samadhi in the virtuous Bhikkhu is practicing just the first effort of the four 'sammappadhana'; it is equivalent to indriyasamvara. More to go!! Don't be too eager to jump to No Self , No Nina, too soon. .......... Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > >S: If there is any idea of doing anything first, such as developing right concentration, right effort or right mindfulness first, it is not right understanding of the reality which appears now. > > > > T: You might have forgotten that right effort is integrated and supported by virtues; sila and right behavior come first as the support for samma-samadhi and pannaa. But it does not mean that a Bhikkhu's sila must be perfected first before he can develop samadhi! Bhikkhu bodhi also explains the relationship of sila as support for samadhi and panna in his book: The Noble Eightfold Path > > The Way to the End of Suffering. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html > > ... ... > For those who had not heard the Buddha's Teachings, even though they had attained the highest jhanas, adhi-siila had not been accomplished. Defilements were merely suppressed temporarily. Why? No understanding of dhammas as anatta. > ... > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > #130783 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 2:13 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding .. Small Typo... anattaman Hi Sarah, Htoo - Sentence with a small typo: At this stage of development of Sati and Samadhi in the virtuous Bhikkhu is practicing just the first effort of the four 'sammappadhana'; it is equivalent to indriyasamvara. To be corrected to : At this stage of development of Sati and Samadhi in the virtuous Bhikkhu, he is practicing just the first effort of the four 'sammappadhana'; it is equivalent to indriyasamvara. Thanks. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > ... > > T: Clearly, after having practiced the "higher code of rules" (sampannapaatimokkhaana.m) the virtuous bhikkhu arouses effort to dispel the five hindrances, and his mindfulness is established in the body; then his mind is concentrated. At this stage of development of Sati and Samadhi in the virtuous Bhikkhu is practicing just the first effort of the four 'sammappadhana'; it is equivalent to indriyasamvara. More to go!! Don't be too eager to jump to No Self , No Nina, too soon. > .......... > > Be well, > Tep > === #130784 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 2:44 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way moellerdieter Hi Ken H, I picked up only one issue because of its importance : >you wrote KH: Safe was the wrong word. "The right time to come back" might have been better. In my idle fantasy I imagine a battle at DSG between the middle way and the two extremes. Mostly the middle way prevails here, but lately the eternal-atta extreme has prevailed. I apologise for labelling you as an eternal-atta believer, but there is only one middle way and you and I have different impressions of it. Only one of us can be right. If I am right then you must be an eternal-atta believer, and if you are right then I must be annihilated-atta believer. D: my understanding of the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism refers to the Law of Dependent Origination.. As I don't expect that you follow my view , I like to quote from a couple of sources below, wondering whether any of those meet your impression. with Metta Dieter -To understand the principle of Dependent Origination is said to be Right View (sammaditthi). This Right View is a very balanced kind of view, one which does not tend to extremes. Thus the principle of Dependent Origination is a law which teaches the truth in a median and unbiased way, known as the Middle Teaching. The 'median-ness' of this truth is more clearly understood when it is compared with other teachings. In order to show how the principle of Dependent Origination differs from these extreme views, I will now present some of them, arranged in pairs, using the Buddha's words as explanation and keeping further commentary to a minimum. First Pair: 1. Atthikavada: The school which upholds that all things really exist (extreme realism). 2. Natthikavada: The school which upholds that all things do not exist (nihilism). "Venerable Sir, it is said 'Right View, Right View.' To what extent is view said to be right?" "Herein, Venerable Kaccana, this world generally tends towards two extreme views -- atthita (being) andnatthita (not being). Seeing the cause of the world as it is, with right understanding, there is no 'not being' therein. Seeing the cessation of this world as it is with right understanding, there is no 'being' therein. The world clings to systems and is bound by dogmas, but the noble disciple does not search for, delight in or attach to systems, dogmas or the conceit 'I am.' He doubts not that it is only suffering that arises, and only suffering that ceases. When that noble disciple clearly perceives this independently of others, this is called Right View. "Kaccana! To say 'all things exist' is one extreme. To say 'all things do not exist' is another. The Tathagata proclaims a teaching that is balanced, avoiding these extremes, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...'" [S.II.16-17, 76; S.III.134] * * * A Brahmin approached the Buddha and asked, "Venerable Gotama, do all things exist?" The Buddha replied, "The view that all things exist is one extreme materialistic view." Question: Then all things do not exist? Answer: The view that all things do not exist is the second materialistic view. Question: Are all things, then, one? Answer: The view that all things are one is the third materialistic view. Question: Are all things, then, a plurality? Answer: The view that all things are a plurality is the fourth materialistic view. "Brahmin! The Tathagata proclaims a teaching that is balanced, avoiding these extremes, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...'" [S.II.77] (see http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.h\ tm ) -"Dependent Origination (Pratityasamutpada) describes the existence of objects and phenomena as the result of causes. When one of these causes changes or disappears, the resulting object or phenomena will also change or disappear, as will the objects or phenomena depending on the changing object or phenomena. Thus, there is nothing with an eternal self or atman, only mutually dependent origination and existence. But the absence of an eternal atman does not mean there is no-thing at all. Early Buddhism adheres to a realistic approach which does not deny existence as such, but denies the existence of eternal and independent substances. This view is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism: The understanding that sees a 'person' as subsisting in the causal connectedness of dependent arising is often presented in Buddhist thought as 'the middle' (madhyama/majjhima) between the views of 'eternalism' (sasvata-/sassata-vada) and 'annihilationism' (uccheda-vada)." ( see http://www.templenews.org/2013/02/19/the-middle-path-why-are-some-buddhists-so-s\ tubborn-and-not-listening-to-the-buddha/ ) -when teaching the ultimate truth, the Buddha spoke as if sentient beings, persons, even the Tathagata himself, did not exist. There are only those interdependent events which arise for a moment and then pass away. Each of those events is called paticca-samup-panna-dhamma (events which arise by reason of the law of conditionally) and are called Paticcasamuppada when they are connected together in a chain or string of events. There is no way to say "who" or "self" in any of those moments, even the present one, so there is no one born and no one to die and receive the results of past deeds (karma), as in the case of the theory of eternalism. Moreover, it is not a matter of dying and disappearing altogether, as in the theory of annihilationism (uccheda-dilthi), because there is no one to be annihilated after this moment. Being here now is Dependent Origination of the middle way of ultimate truth, and it goes together with the noble eightfold path-the middle way which can be used even in matters of morality. ( see http://vipassati.ch/?q=ebooks/paticcasamuppada/1-paticcasamuppada-dependent-orig\ ination ) -there are three types of teachers, the first one teaches that the ego or the self is real now as well as in the future (here and hereafter); the second one teaches that the ego is real only in this life, not in the future; the third one teaches that the concept of an ego is an illusion: it is not real either in this life or in the hereafter. The first one is the eternalist (sassatavaadi); the second one is the annihilationist (ucchedavaadi); the third one is the Buddha who teaches the middle way of avoiding the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism." ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence ) -Several suttas hold up dependent origination as a "teaching by the middle" (majjhena tahagato dhammam deseti). It is a "teaching by the middle" because it transcends two extremes that polarize philosophical reflection on the human condition. One extreme, the metaphysical thesis of eternalism (sassatavada), asserts that the core of human identity is an indestructible and eternal self, whether individual or universal. It also asserts that the world is created and maintained by a permanent entity, a God or some other metaphysical reality. The other extreme, annihilationism (ucchedavada), holds that at death the person is utterly annihilated. There is no spiritual dimension to human existence and thus no personal survival of any sort. For the Buddha, both extremes pose insuperable problems. Eternalism encourages an obstinate clinging to the five aggregates, which are really impermanent and devoid of substantial self; annihilationism threatens to undermine ethics and to make suffering the product of chance. Dependent origination offers a radically different perspective that transcends the two extremes. It shows that individual existence is constituted by a current of conditioned phenomena devoid of metaphysical self yet continuing on from birth to birth as long as the causes that sustain it remain effective. Dependent origination thereby offers a cogent explanation of the problem of suffering that on the one hand avoids the philosophical dilemmas posed by the hypothesis of a permanent self, and on the other avoids the dangers of ethical anarchy to which annihilationism eventually leads. As long as ignorance and craving remain, the process of rebirth continues; kamma yields its pleasant and painful fruit, and the great mass of suffering accumulates. When ignorance and craving are destroyed, the inner mechanism of karmic causation is deactivated, and one reaches the end of suffering in samsara. Perhaps the most elegant exposition of dependent origination as the "middle teaching" is the famous Kaccanogotta sutta. (see Comments by Bhikkhu Bodhi from In the Buddha's Words. ) -in his answer [in the Kaccaayanagotto Suttasutta], the Buddha first points out that the worldlings mostly base themselves on a duality, the two conflicting views of existence and non-existence, or `is' and `is not'. They would either hold on to the dogmatic view of eternalism, or would cling to nihilism. Now as to the right view of the noble disci- ple, it takes into account the process of arising as well as the process of cessation, and thereby avoids both extremes. This is the insight that illuminates the middle path. ... It is clear from this declaration that in this context the law of dependent arising itself is called the middle path. Some prefer to call this the Buddha's metaphysical middle path, as it avoids both extremes of `is' and `is not'. The philosophical implica- tions of the above passage lead to the conclusion that the law of dependent arising enshrines a certain pragmatic principle, which dissolves the antinomian conflict in the world. (see: Bhikkhu Nanananda: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11269&p=170881&hilit=middle+way#p170881 ) . #130785 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 8:54 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------- <. . .> > D: my understanding of the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism refers to the Law of Dependent Origination. ------- KH: That's a good start; we all agree on those words, but how do we understand them? --------------- > D: As I don't expect that you follow my view , I like to quote from a couple of sources below, wondering whether any of those meet your impression. ---------------- KH: My impression of the essays you have quoted (e.g., The Middle Path: Why Are Some Buddhists So Stubborn and Not Listening to the Buddha?) is that they were written by people who claimed to follow Theravada but who actually had strong leanings towards Mahayana. You will notice they quote selectively. They quote Pali texts that deny "everything exists" and "everything does not exist" but they avoid the burning question "Does that mean *conditioned dhammas* neither exist nor do not exist?" That *is* the burning question. Mahayana teaches that conditioned dhammas ultimately do not exist any more than concepts exist. Theravada teaches that dhammas ultimately *do* exist and concepts do not exist. So the essays continue on without pointing to the true Dhamma. They point away from it, towards wrong view. Ken H #130786 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 9:54 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous > Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than > contact. > ... > S: What is the feeling which is known now? Do you agree with Goenka's ideas > about what feelings are? > > T: Feeling that arises from any of the six kinds of contact is known any minute. > I have not studied Mr. Goenka's teachings enough to answer the question, Sarah. ... S: Do you agree that feelings (vedana) are namas - pleasant, unpleasant or neutral 'tastings' of the object. Vedana arises with every single citta, experiencing the same object. What Mr Goenka refers to as feelings or sensations experienced all over the body are not vedana at all. Metta Sarah ====== #130787 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > >C: Can anybody tell me exactly HOW HEAVY THAT RAFT IS TO CARRY now that it has gotten you across the river? > > ... > > S: How heavy is attachment or grasping now? How heavy is aversion or anger now? How heavy is ignorance now? > > > =================================== >H: In several posts you (correctly) ask "Who is this 'one'?" I would like to ask *you* "What is this 'now' you speak of?" and "Can you show me 'now' (or any 'now')? Not findable is such a thing in reality - it is a perfect example, IMO, of somthing that is concept-only! <...> > /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ > > (From the Sankhata Sutta) .... S: What is conditioned is only at this moment, now! Yes, when we refer to "seeing now", these are concepts, but they are concepts about the present reality. On the contrary, when friends suggest that "one" can/should take action or make a special effort, the "one" suggests an idea that there is a Self in reality. Nothing wrong with using concepts at all. The problem is not the words, but the idea or view that Atta exists. Metta Sarah ===== #130788 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:06 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > >S:His noble disciples also knew what was right and what was wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > At certain level, yes. Such as "don't kill, don't steal" etc. ... S: No more wrong views at all. .... > > However, only the Buddha knew the Dhamma the best. Arhats don't need to know everything. From what I gather, some knew very little theory (but they had lots of practice instead). ... S: They had all completely realized the 4 NT and eradicated all defilements. What do you mean by theory and practice? ..... > In the suttas, venerable Sariputta often asked the Buddha. So even he, being wise as he was, relied on the Buddha. ... S: Only the Buddha thoroughly knew all asaya anusaya (all latent tendencies) of all beings. Sariputta had unimaginable wisdom. ... > >S: Just as the Buddha asked his disciples to elaborate on what he >had said for those who needed more explanation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Sometimes he was sick. He also couldn't physically teach all monks when the amount of monks grew. ... S: What these monks said was completely true - they were arahats. Metta Sarah ===== #130789 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > (1) Han: I appreciate your comments but I stick to my > statement i.e. Venerable Aananda, who was only a Sotaapanna before the Lord > passed away, did not realize that there was no Tathaagata but only Dhammas. ... S: As I understand, at the stage of sotapatti magga, all wrong views, all sakkaya ditthi is completely eradicated. This does not mean there is no more clinging to family, teachers and computers! ... > >H: I read the following excerpts from DN 16, translated by > Maurice Walshe, again: > > 5.13. And the Venerable Aananda went into his lodging and > stood lamenting, leaning on the door-post: 'Alas, > I am still a learner with much to do! And the Teacher is passing away, who was > so compassionate to me!' > > 6.1. And the Lord said to Aananda: 'Aananda, > it may be that you will think: "The > Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have > no teacher!" It should not be seen like > this, Aananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and > discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.' > > Han: From the above paragraphs, it is very clear to me that > Venerable Aananda was lamenting not just due to his attachment to the Lord, but > he was lamenting for the impending loss of a Teacher who would guide him as he > was only a learner; and the Buddha had to warn him that after his passing his > Dhamma and discipline would be their Teacher. So for Aananda the Tathaagata existed > and not "no Tathaagata,only Dhammas." .... S: I understand that Ananda was lamenting the loss of the Teacher because of attachment and because the task was not completed. I don't read anything to suggest any wrong view about dhammas as being atta. Attachment to people and teachers is very deeply rooted. A sakadagami might well still grieve in the same way. ... > (2) > Sarah: I doubt that anyone today is free from > sensual passions like Anuruddha. However, it is so helpful to be reminded that: > "that which has the nature of arising, of appearing, of > being compounded, and of decay and dissolution, how can the wish that it should > not disintegrate and disappear be realized? There can be no such > possibility." > >H: (2) As you know very well, there are two levels of > understanding. A puthujjana, like me, can understand a Dhamma passage only with > intellectual understanding. But an Arahant understands the same Dhamma passage with > pa.tivedha ~naa.na, the penetrative knowledge. .... S: Even when it's just a little intellectual right undersanding, it's so helpful. The understanding has to grow. It's a glimmer of light in a dark tunnel. ... > >H: For example, in SN 5.10 Vajiraa > sutta, there is the following passage: > > It's only suffering that comes to > be, > Suffering that stands and falls > away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases. > > Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, > dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; > Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, > naa~n~na.m dukkhaa > nirujjhatii"ti. > > Now, Bhikkhuni Vajiraa was an Arahant and she understood the > above passage with penetrative knowledge. I, a puthujjana, can also learn the > text by heart and understand it. But my understanding will only be intellectual > understanding and it cannot be with the penetrative knowledge. > > I never mix up the two levels of understanding. ... S: That's right. And when an understanding begins to grow of what is real now, such as seeing or visible object, the words become more and more meaningful. It becomes clearer, even if only intellectually, that really there are just dhammas which arise and fall away. These are all dukkha. You wouldn't quote and reflect on these words if they didn't make good sense. .... > -------------------- > > Han: This is my last message on this topic. I cannot write > more. Even to write this much I am exhausted. The swelling of both my ankles is > also preventing me from sitting at the computer for more than 5-10 minutes at a > time. ... S: Thank you for taking so much trouble. Wishing you good rest and recovery in your various ailments. Pls don't ever feel you need to reply to any messages. With respect, dear Partner Han! Metta Sarah ====== #130790 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:14 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >T: How possible is it for one who is not vigorous and driving to develop panna? > ... > S: How is it possible for for "One" to be vigorous or not vigorous, to develop panna or not develop panna? What is this "One"? > > T: It is the one in one's own selfhood (attabhava): one's own chain of rebirth. > > [SN 45.159:] > > A person unknowing: > the actions performed by him, > born of greed, born of aversion, > & born of delusion, > whether many or few, > are experienced right here: > no other ground is found.[1] > > Note 1. According to the Commentary, "right here" means within the stream of one's own "selfhood" (attabhava), i.e., one's own chain of rebirth. "No other ground is found" means that the fruit of the action is not experienced by any other person's chain of rebirth. ... S: Could you check your reference and translator. When I look at SN 45:159, it is "The Guest House" (Bodhi transl), not the above. Attabhava may refer to the concept of a stream of life to distinguish from another. No person or stream that is vigorous or develops panna, however! No "selfhood". Metta Sarah ====== #130791 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:32 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > I found the statement as following: > > "Some people say that Buddhist practice is to dissolve the self. > They do not understand that there is no self to be dissolved. > There is only the notion of self to be transcended." > > By Thich Nhat Hanh ... S: Yes....I'd just change the last line to: "There is only the notion of self to be eradicated". ... > > As far as I understand, this statement confirm the no self or not self. Self does not exist but the notion of self does exist. And what to be clarified is the notion of self. > > Whether this statement conform with the Buddha's teaching. And to which suttas explain on this issue. ... S: The entire Tipitaka is describing all dhammas as anatta. I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. Perhaps you can elaborate. Metta Sarah ====== #130792 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:56 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 17 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' We read in the "Sutta Nipata" (vs. 547-590)[5]: "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die. Having reached old age, there is death. This is the natural course for a living being. With ripe fruits there is the constant danger that they will fall. In the same way, for those born and subject to death, there is always the fear of dying. Just as the pots made by a potter all end by being broken, so death is (the breaking up) of life. "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter. "In this manner the world is afflicted by death and decay. But the wise do not grieve, having realized the nature of the world. You do not know the path by which they came or departed. Not seeing either end you lament in vain. If any benefit is gained by lamenting, the wise would do it. Only a fool would harm himself. Yet through weeping and sorrowing the mind does not become calm, but still more suffering is produced, the body is harmed and one becomes lean and pale, one merely hurts oneself. One cannot protect a departed one (peta) by that means. To grieve is in vain." As we read, we do not know the path by which a person came into this world or departed from it. We do not know his past life nor his future life. We are in this world for a very short time and since we still have the opportunity to hear the Dhamma and to develop right understanding of all that appears through the senses and the mind-door, we should not waste our life away. The understanding of Dhamma makes our life worth living. Understanding is more precious than any kind of possession. [5] Translated by John D. Ireland (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). #130793 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 12:20 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth anattaman Hi Sarah, - Thank you for asking for a verification of SN 45.159. It is an error and I apologize. I have found that the right Sutta is instead AN 3.33 Nidana Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.033.than.html Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > ... ... > S: Could you check your reference and translator. When I look at SN 45:159, it is "The Guest House" (Bodhi transl), not the above. > > Attabhava may refer to the concept of a stream of life to distinguish from another. No person or stream that is vigorous or develops panna, however! No "selfhood". > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #130794 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 21, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > > What I now think you are saying, is that if the basic message of the > > Buddha is "understanding realities", why did he not talk only about > this > > all the time (as we do here on DSG)? Why did he bother to talk about > > conventional practices such as body contemplation? > > Up to here, our understanding is unified - yes, that is the subject. > But after this point you go off into what I believe is another > direction. You don't really answer why the Buddha would *teach* on > subjects that are not actual or ultimate. Instead you say that > "thinking in terms of self and other is inevitable," even for the Buddha. > > That may be true but once again I believe it is beside the point, > because the *Buddha* who was the most skillful and understanding ofhow > to teach the Dhamma, spoke about these ordinary things all the time, > and instructed others to *do* things about them. He said not to drink > alcohol, not to eat meat that was killed for one's benefit, not to > engage in illicit sexual activity, etc. I'm not sure if I can do better. Maybe I'm confused and I don't know it. But I'll try again. That thinking in terms of self and other is inevitable; the implication is that no matter how much we understand the world of paramattha dhammas, conventional thinking will continue as before. The difference between say, a sotapanna and a worldling, is that in the case of the former, there will not be any thinking with wrong view, jealousy, miserliness or doubt and there will be more kusala thinking. Since no matter how much panna one has, there will still be thinking in terms of other beings, and since kusala is kusala and akusala is akusala, why would panna not tend toward kusala thinking and away from akusala? When a person in grief approaches the Buddha, would he not experience compassion towards that person? Is compassion not the appropriate response during such times and should it not therefore be encouraged? Similarly with metta, sila, dana and so on, are these not appropriate responses given particular situations? You are suggesting that these are good only when understood as being part of the Path. But conventional thinking and behavior continues as before and it is the panna that comes in between to know different dhammas as dhamma, including all those kusala dhammas. And you are saying that to be consistent with the particular view, kusala must be seen only as impersonal dhammas and not anything else. But are not dana, sila and metta kusala as well as anicca, dukkha and anatta? Should panna overlook the one kind of knowledge since this has nothing to do with the development of the Path? > It is not that he just spoke this way naturally from time to time as > you are implying. He taught about these things constantly and > instructed others about them for 40 years. I was not pointing to the idea that the Buddha spoke naturally, but that he taught about the value of particular kusala dhammas given that for everyone, other beings are object of their thinking during much of the day. I'll add here though, that when the Buddha taught about other kinds of kusala, it should not be assumed that those listening to him did not already understand these very kusala dhammas as conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. And if they needed to be reminded about this, the Buddha did just that at some point in his discourse, which means in fact, that he was distinguishing the one kind of kusala development from the other. > > He also spoke about detailed meditation techniques over and over > again, and he *also* spoke about kandhas and the components of > reality, and the conceptual nature of the way we thought about people > and things. So he covered a large range of understanding, both of > everyday life and of ultimate realities. *You* will only accept the > latter, but *He* spoke about the former with conviction, not just > casually. I am telling you that kusala is kusala and akusala is akusala and not all kusala is the Path, but you want me to believe that they are. I say that for something to be kusala and therefore encouraged does not make it part of the Path, the reason being that the Path is a particular set of dhammas lead by wisdom and only this one reality performs the particular function of understanding. That this wisdom requires the support of other realities such as effort, concentration, mindfulness and so on, is a matter of dhammas being conditioned by other dhammas each performing their specific functions, no different as in the case of any akusala dhamma arising. Can you tell me how exactly for example, "body contemplation" functions as part of the Path? > And the Buddha would not teach about something by accident that he > really didn't mean to talk about. Who suggested anything along the lines? I say that for him to teach about all kinds of kusala is inevitable. Only that this would not be without also teaching that in fact they are all impersonal and conditioned phenomena. > > So I leave it to you to explain why he would discuss such things in > great detail and instruct others to do this and not do that, to behave > this way and not that way. It has to be accounted for, and frankly, > you have no way of actually accounting for this. What do you think, those of us who have come to the conclusion that in reality there are only namas and rupas, we have no reason to remind each other about the value of dana, sila, metta, karuna and so on, and if we do, it is encouraging self-view? > Do metta, sila, dana and such kusala lead to the path, or not? If not, > why praise them? I don't think there is an adequate justification for > this in your philosophy. Why encourage non-path kusala? It does not > make any sense. The Buddha was a world-teacher, not a do-gooder. You are saying that kusala should not be encouraged unless seen as part of the Path. What do you think happens when panna arises to see the kusala nature of metta and the akusala nature of dosa, but not their impermanent and no-self characteristic? Does that understanding not accumulate and thereby the kusala is encouraged and akusala discouraged? Would it then be wrong to reflect on the particular experience and come to a conclusion about it? And how does this have anything to do with the Path? > > If it is thinking with kusala, can it be dangerous? > > Of course it is still dangerous, because according to you, it is > leading people off the path! When did I or anyone else here have suggested that kusala leads people off the Path? > What could be more dangerous than to make people confuse the "general > good" with the path? Nothing more dangerous! Well, is it not you who is doing just that, suggesting that kusala such as body contemplation, is part of the Path? > The *only* way it is not dangerous is if you are wrong about it, and > it is path information. So are you right or wrong? If you are right, > then the Buddha is wrong. The Buddha is right and I know intellectually, why and how. You don't. > > As I said, the concepts themselves are not a problem; it should not > > therefore be seen as "misinformation". Misinformation is when there is > > wrong view. The concept of body being "temporary" is a fact based on > > conventional thinking. If you must think in terms of my body, then > it is > > right to think that this body is temporary. Of course the conventional > > idea is not the actual characteristic of anicca, but the reason > there is > > such conventional idea is because of the different characteristics of > > ultimate realities. > > It is fine for you and I to have this kind of understanding, but not > for the Buddha, the World Teacher, to teach about such nonsense as if > it is real. I don't believe he would do this if it weren't related to > the path, which you deny. How does dana, sila and samatha bhavana not being part of the Path make it equivalent to nonsense? Giving and being kind are nonsense unless seen as part of the Path? People who don't know the Dhamma have no chance but to be reborn in a low plane of existence? > > But this is not the point. The point is that thinking must arise and > > think in terms of my body and conventional death for example. > > But the Buddha does not have to teach in such terms. There's no way > out of it - that is misleading! It has lead to the misunderstanding > that we have between us right now! If the Buddha was not mistaken in > teaching about this, then you are confused in thinking it is not part > of the path. What the Buddha dismissed upon his enlightenment was wrong view and wrong practices, not other kinds of kusala. He dismissed Jhana as being the Path, not the Jhana itself. Similarly he would dismiss what you are suggesting. > > > This is > > done with either kusala or akusala cittas, and insight into the nature > > of ultimate realities can't arise all the time, not even for the > Buddha. > > Why not therefore encourage kusala over akusala and within kusala, why > > not higher levels? > > Why should you? Was the Buddha the head of the 4-H club? Was he a Good > Samaritan? Did he appear on the Earth to encourage people to be a > little nicer and follow some rules to make life more tidy for > everyone? Or was he here to end suffering by showing the path to > enlightenment? You can't have it both ways. Yes, he was here to end suffering and that is why he taught about the Path. If he taught dana, sila and samatha bhavana regardless of whether the listener will take these for "self", he'd have not done his duty. But this was not the case. The Buddha rightly taught about the value of all kinds of kusala, because he also made it clear that these are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. > > > So it is not that kusala is part of the Path, but rather that the Path > > won't arise all the time, therefore during the rest of the time, kusala > > is preferable. > > So the Buddha was a politician? If he couldn't teach on Enlightenment > for a particular group, he'd teach them to be nice to others and be > kind to animals instead? What a nice Guy! You are projecting. The Buddha would not teach other kinds of kusala at the expense of Right View. What do you think, would he talk about the Brahmaviharas to his enlightened disciples or not? > > > Does it now make sense or do I appear as confused as before? ;-) > > My opinion is that you are trying to make sense of the Buddha's > teachings without having to acknowledge what he actually taught, and > you are denying why he taught about conventional topics. My view is > that everything he taught was the path and we are responsible to > understand why, not ignore his teachings. He taught that conventional > behavior and activities were part of the path, and he did so > throughout his entire career. Now it's up to you to make sense of why > he did this and how that really relates to paramatha dhammas. Remember > the Buddha said "I teach nothing but suffering and the end of > suffering." That's it, 100%, no side-topics at all. Right, no side topics, hence why at the end of some of his discourses after giving conventional descriptions, the Buddha pointed out that in truth and reality, there are just the Five Aggregates. Some of us suggest that the Noble Eightfold Path is a reference to different cetasikas accompanying a particular kind of citta. Others say that each of the factors are separate practices to be followed. Yours is something quite different. You are suggesting that dana, sila, body contemplation, kasina and breath concentration, metta, karuna, mudita, uppekha, are all part of the Path. Please explain your position. Metta, Sukin #130795 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 3:25 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: The message of the passage is the inevitability of death and of the eventual destruction of the much clung-to body... > > > > RE: The inevitability of the death of what? The clung-to body? I thought the body was not real, and that clinging only applies to dhammas? ... > > =============== > > J: Regarding "the death of what? The clung-to body?", what is conventionally called `death' is the end of a lifespan. In absolute terms, this is the cuti citta, the final citta of a lifespan in a particular stream of cittas. Well once cuti citta has taken place, what is the corpse, and of what importance is the corpse? Does one learn anything about the reality of cuti citta by contemplating a corpse? A corpse is a mental image of a dead body - a concept. Why contemplate it and see the body as real and subject to death. Is there a body that is subject to death? What is contemplated then when a corpse is contemplated? > Regarding, "corpse observation as a contributor to the path even if accompanied by kusala, as it is still dealing with a concept", agreed that corpse is a concept. However, as we have seen in other contexts, the Buddha often used conventional language when speaking about dhammas. What dhammas are referred to by the concept of 'a corpse?' Cuti citta only takes a moment and has nothing to do with the ongoing reality and degradation of a dead body, does it? What is the contemplation about then, in terms of dhammas? What was the Buddha referring to or teaching with such a contemplation? > The same passage in the Satipatthana Sutta is explained by the commentary in the following terms: > > ***************************** > So imameva kayam upasamharati ayampi kho kayo evam dhammo evam bhavi evam anatitoti = "He thinks of his own body thus: 'This body of mine, too, is of the same nature as that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past the condition of becoming like that body.'" > > This has been stated: By the existence of these three: life [ayu], warmth [usma], consciousness [vi~n~nanam], this body can endure to stand, to walk, and do other things; Okay, well according to this commentary there is a body that endures to do things such as standing, walking etc. You disagree with this, don't you? So you disagree with the basic premise of the commentary. The commentary says that these qualities of ayu and usma etc. make the body do things, so there is a body doing things, not just a concept. How does it work - do you need a second or third commentary on the first commentary to explain what *it* "really means" too? Or do you accept the words of the commentary and accept a body that walks? > by the separation of these three however this body is indeed a thing like that corpse, is possessed of the nature of corruption, is going to become like that, will become swollen, blue and festering Again, the commentary is clearly talking about a real and actual body that festers and becomes swollen and blue, and swells up. so what do you make of that? Do you have another interpretation of all this talk about the body festering and swelling? > ***************************** > > To my understanding, the 3 factors mentioned here are the dhammas of jivitindriya ("life [ayu]"), temperature ("warmth [usma]"), and citta ("consciousness [vi~n~nanam]"), and what is being described by the Buddha in this passage is the development of awareness/insight with these 3 dhammas in particular as object. So it's fine to dismiss the corpse contemplation of the Buddha and the festering, swelling and turning blue of the commentary and say that only the 3 factors are of import. But that is cutting a small portion out of the scriptures and disregarding what they are saying - not only the sutta, but the commentary too. So you are picking and choosing the part that is agreeable and discarding the rest. > > =============== > > RE: My understanding is that your take on this would be that only the arising of panna allows for path development. If so, then why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities -- eg, person, corpse, body, etc. > > =============== > > J: Yes, path development occurs when panna knows something about the true nature of dhammas. But for the person developing the path any kind of kusala supports that development. Please explain to me how these other forms of kusala support the development of the path. I have been looking for that information for a long time, and usually I hear that it does not have anything to do with path development. > The Buddha encouraged the development of those other forms of kusala, but he did so as part of the development of the path, rather than for their own sake alone. I have no problem with understanding that, if they do indeed help develop the path. How do they do so? > Also, some of those other forms of kusala (for example samatha bhavana) were already being developed to a very high degree at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment, and for such people the Buddha showed how awareness/insight could be developed at the same time. > > Regarding, "why would the Buddha even mention corpse contemplation, metta for 'beings' or anything else of this sort, as they seem to confirm false concepts as actualities", concepts themselves are neither "false" nor "true"; rather, the case is that people conceptualise with or without wrong view depending on the accompanying mind state. That does not explain why he would promote corpse contemplation in order to understand the temporary nature of the body. > So, yes it's possible -- as you and I are discussing in another thread -- that a person with wrong view hearing the Dhamma could come away with his wrong view reinforced; but that would be because of the strength and degree of his accumulated tendency in that regard, rather than anything said by the speaker. Why would the speaker say such a thing in the first place? The Buddha didn't just spin his wheels for people to either interpret rightly or wrongly if what he says is not pertinent to the path. Telling people to contemplate a nonexistent corpse would be leading them down the wrong path. > > =============== > > RE: Even if kusala arises such as metta, my understanding is that your view of this is that metta, sila etc. have no direct relation to the path at all. So they are kusala - so what? It seems to me that you either have to acknowledge the Buddha's inclusion of such things as part of the path, or else dismiss them altogether, and the Buddha's suggestions about them along with them. > > =============== > > J: Kusala that is not of the level of awareness/insight is not itself the development of the path. However for the person developing the path such kusala supports, and is in turn purified by, the kusala that is the development of the path. If you could give me a little more detail or references for this, I would appreciate it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #130796 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue May 21, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Q & A sprlrt Dear Sarah (Jon), > S: When you come to this part (not yet uploaded), you may wish to make a fuller transcript to add to your other good one. Sure, I'll try anyway, and thank you both in advance for the next installment. Alberto #130797 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration anattaman Hi Sarah,- > > S: What is the feeling which is known now? Do you agree with Goenka's ideas > > about what feelings are? > > > > T: Feeling that arises from any of the six kinds of contact is known any minute. > > I have not studied Mr. Goenka's teachings enough to answer the question, Sarah. > ... > S: Do you agree that feelings (vedana) are namas - pleasant, unpleasant or neutral 'tastings' of the object. Vedana arises with every single citta, experiencing the same object. ..... T: That's what I have seen in books and articles. No disagreement. Not interested. The following is what I am interested: "Pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, having the nature of wasting, vanishing, fading and ceasing. The painful feeling and the neutral feeling, too, are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, having the nature of wasting, vanishing, fading and ceasing. "When a well-taught disciple perceives this, he becomes dispassionate towards pleasant feelings, dispassionate toward painful feelings and dispassionate toward neutral feelings. Being dispassionate, his lust fades away, and with the fading away of lust, he is liberated." MN 74 PTS: M i 497. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > T: According to my experience in living every day too (besides the famous > > Goenka's teachings) that I find feeling easier, much easier to know than > > contact. > > ... > > What Mr Goenka refers to as feelings or sensations experienced all over the body are not vedana at all. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #130798 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah > > "Some people say that Buddhist practice is to dissolve the self. > > They do not understand that there is no self to be dissolved. > > There is only the notion of self to be transcended." > > > > By Thich Nhat Hanh > ... > S: Yes....I'd just change the last line to: > "There is only the notion of self to be eradicated". > > Whether this statement conform with the Buddha's teaching. And to which suttas explain on this issue. > ... > S: The entire Tipitaka is describing all dhammas as anatta. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. Perhaps you can elaborate. JK: I'm looking for particular suttas or commentaries that point out the meaning of self and no self. Thank you Jagkrit #130799 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. anattaman Hi Saraha, Brother Han - > Sarah: > Dear Tep & Tadao, > > Thank you for sharing the sutta and inserting the Pali: > T: It was Brother Han, Sarah, not I, who inserted the Pali text. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > Once again, my Good Brother Tep has brought up a very useful sutta. > > Saadhu! Saadhu! Saadhu! > > I inserted Paa.li text in support of his efforts. > > > > AN 4.1 Anubuddha Sutta: Understanding > > > <...> ... ... > > (1) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble virtue that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. > ... > S: This is just the point I was making. It is "noble" virtue that is being referred to. This is adhi-siila, (higher siila) that can only develop and become noble with the development of right understanding and associated path factors. > > Without the development of satipatthana, it will never be noble virtue. > ...... T: Adhi-siila-sikkha is deveoped by Sekha puggalas on the Path (magga). I agree with you that noble Sila is developed along with lokuttara samma-ditthi and the path factors samma-vayama plus samma-sati [See MN 117]. But what we discussed earlier in the DSG message #130782 (5/20/2013) is Patimokha siila and indriya-samvara: The slightest faults in the Vinaya must be understood by all good monks, new or experienced monks, otherwise they cannot succeed. But that "understanding" is at the puthujjana level before satipatthana and panna. The Pali text of this Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya, catukkanipata caravaggo, Siilasuttam found at the metta.lk Web site) shows that Sila here is Patimokha Rules that every monk must follow. Once he is "virtuous" --having passed the Patimokha tests-- satipatthana in the four body postures is the next thing right after "what further has he to do?". Be well, Tep ===