#130000 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:52 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep Thank you for the citation of the passage. Obviously, the passage refers only to those who have developed the highest level of pannaa; all these noble elements would have to be accompanied when such individuals penetrate the three characteristics of realities. It concerns with the supermundane realm, which is beyond my grasp. In a more mundane level, I would rather do my best to develop sati/pannaa to start seeing the true nature of realities. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Thomas & Tadao, (Attention: Sarah, Alex) - > > Your conversation on samsaara is interesting! > > >Tadao: When we say that sansaara is dukkha without knowing the true characteristics of this moment, it's tantamount to a mere speculation or, worse, to the proclaim made based merely on pessimism. Repeating billion or zillion times that sansaara is dukkha would not help us see the dukkha-ish nature of this moment. > > >Thomas: Therefore, either 'samsara is dukkha' or 'samsara is linked to dukkha', is not found in SN 56.11, SN 35.21,27, SN 15.3, and the whole collection, SN 15. Anamatagga Samyutta. > ---------- > > T: Trying to match, word by word, the phrase 'samsara is dukkha' to the Suttas might lead to disappointment, I think. Repeating or chanting 'samsara is dukkha' is not going to be fruitful either! In my sincere opinion, a careful reading of the following Buddha's words is going to be fruitful for sure: "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. But when noble virtue is understood & penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood & penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving & attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming." > [AN 4.1, Anubuddha Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.001.than.html > > May I humbly note that the noble developments that end at noble release(from samsaara) begin with noble virtue? > > Be wise, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > > > Hi Tadao, > > > > "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > To me, the phrase of "Sansaara is dukkha" sounds very odd. > > > > > > Arising and falling away of each moment is dukkha. > > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130001 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:38 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tadao, - I should simply be glad to know if you also understand That the quoted passage nicely lays out the foundation Of the Dhamma for escaping from the samsaara! [Regardless of whether that is one's long-term, or short-term goal.] It is a great & unforgetable message given by the Buddha. Sincerely, Tep ==== > > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130002 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep To be honest, escaping from the round of births and deaths is not a strong motivation of mine for the development of sati/pannaa, but the eradication of defilements is. Take care, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Tadao, - > > I should simply be glad to know if you also understand > That the quoted passage nicely lays out the foundation > Of the Dhamma for escaping from the samsaara! > [Regardless of whether that is one's long-term, or short-term goal.] > > It is a great & unforgetable message given by the Buddha. > > Sincerely, > Tep > ==== > > > > > > > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130003 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:19 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao, - >Tadao: To be honest, escaping from the round of births and deaths is not a strong motivation of mine for the development of sati/pannaa, but the eradication of defilements is. > T: I see. But isn't escape the consequence of (complete) eradication of (all) defilements? Regards, Tep === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Tadao, - > > > > I should simply be glad to know if you also understand > > That the quoted passage nicely lays out the foundation > > Of the Dhamma for escaping from the samsaara! > > [Regardless of whether that is one's long-term, or short-term goal.] > > > > It is a great & unforgetable message given by the Buddha. > > > > Sincerely, > > Tep > > ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130004 From: "Nina van Gorkom" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:03 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident nilovg Send Email Send Email Emailadres: cammelbeeck@... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > [Bas Camelbeeck, thank you for informing us about your aunt - very helpful.] > > Jon and I have just made a quick call to Nina at the hospital. She sounds in good spirits in spite of a lot of pain following the surgery which seems to have gone well. > > Apparently she'd been visiting Lodewijk's grave site and was walking to the tramway when she fell. People helped and an ambulance took her to hospital. After a few days in hospital, she will go to a rehabilitation centre, probably for a few weeks. She's already started the exercises they've given her. I'm sure she's having excellent treatment and care. > > She told us how she's already told everyone at the hospital that she's going to Thailand and Vietnam in August! Very determined about this. > > We also exchanged a few words about 'this moment', understanding now and how we never know what will happen next. What's happening now will be yesterday tomorrow.... Just different experiences through different sense doors with lots of thinking in between. > > She asked us to send her best wishes to everyone. She may not have computer access for quite some time. > > [As it happens, Jon had quite a nasty fall last week, cut his head and hurt his arm - couldn't move. Fortunately, no bones were broken in his case. We never know what kamma has in store!] > > Metta > > Sarah > > > This is to inform you that my aunt Nina broke her hip Thursday and has been operated yesterday. She Will stay in bronovo hospital in THE Hague for the next few days. > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130005 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:36 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob E (& Tep), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Meanwhile if that subject comes up it doesn't have any credibility here. My point is just that all these orders of development and aspects of path development laid out by the Buddha should be honored, and that the Buddha took careful and full acknowledgment of these different possibilities, and how they are intertwined or ordered for a given individual in the arising of their cittas. I think we should be correspondingly flexible in our understanding. Of course, in the final analysis, only satipatthana will satisfy the requirements of the path, but how that comes to develop for a given person can be played out in several different ways. Why is this not equally important to the final fact of satipatthana? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130006 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep (and Tadao), 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 Eva.m me suta.m eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa vajjiisu viharati bha.n.dagaame. Tatra kho bhagavaa bhikkhuu aamantesi "bhikkhavo"ti. "Bhadante"ti te bhikkhuu bhagavato paccassosu.m. Bhagavaa etadavoca I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Vajjians at Bhanda Village. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. ---------- "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. ---------- (2) "Ariyassa, bhikkhave, samaadhissa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. (2) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble concentration that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. ---------- (3) "Ariyaaya, bhikkhave, pa~n~naaya ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca . (3) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble discernment that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. ---------- (4) "Ariyaaya, bhikkhave, vimuttiyaa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. (4) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. ---------- "Tayida.m, bhikkhave, ariya.m siila.m anubuddha.m pa.tividdha.m, ariyo samaadhi anubuddho pa.tividdho, ariyaa pa~n~naa anubuddhaa pa.tividdhaa, ariyaa vimutti anubuddhaa pa.tividdhaa, ucchinnaa bhavata.nhaa, khii.naa bhavanetti, natthi daani punabbhavo"ti. "But when noble virtue is understood and penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood and penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving and attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming." ----------- Idamavoca bhagavaa. Ida.m vatvaana sugato athaapara.m etadavoca satthaa "Siila.m samaadhi pa~n~naa ca, vimutti ca anuttaraa; Anubuddhaa ime dhammaa, gotamena yasassinaa. Iti buddho abhi~n~naaya, dhammamakkhaasi bhikkhuna.m; Dukkhassantakaro satthaa, cakkhumaa parinibbuto"ti. That is what the Blessed One said. When the One Well-gone had said that, he--the Teacher--said further: "Unexcelled virtue, concentration, discernment, and release: have been understood by Gotama of glorious stature. Having known them directly, he taught the Dhamma to the monks the Awakened One the Teacher who has put an end to suffering and stress, the One with vision totally unbound." with metta and respect, Han From: Tep Sastri T: Trying to match, word by word, the phrase 'samsara is dukkha' to the Suttas might lead to disappointment, I think. Repeating or chanting 'samsara is dukkha' is not going to be fruitful either! In my sincere opinion, a careful reading of the following Buddha's words is going to be fruitful for sure: "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. But when noble virtue is understood & penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood & penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving & attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming." [AN 4.1, Anubuddha Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.001.than.html May I humbly note that the noble developments that end at noble release(from samsaara) begin with noble virtue? Be wise, Tep === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130007 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:16 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" 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. He had `gone forth' under Buddha Kassapa and had lives in deva > realms with `morality completely fulfilled'. In fact he had spent one > entire Buddha sasana in the devaloka. > > Even so, in the present life, when he became highly respected by people > after he was shipwrecked and wandered around with only garments made from > bark, he mistakenly assumed he was an arahant because he was treated as > one. In fact he had not achieved any level of attainment at all and was > completely misguided, deceiving those who supported him and paid him > respect. It took a visit by Great Brahma, a former deva companion and an > anagami (non-returner)who took pity on him, to shock him to his senses. > Great Brahma tells him: "You now, though being no arahant, roam about > wearing the guise of a religious in the belief that you are an arahant. > You Bahiya are certainly no arahant. Renounce this evil resorting to > views." > > Hence, we see how even for those who have heard the Dhamma from Buddhas, > have had kalpas of rebirths as devas with wise companions, and have > attained all jhanas, they can still succomb badly to wrong views about > self if they haven't reached the first stage of enlightenment. We read in > the Ud-a about how the conceit of arahantship arose in him because of > being used to `wanting little, contentment and effacement' for a long time > and misjudging these states or because of having attained jhanas and > therefore not experiencing defilements `as a result of abandoning in the > form of suppression'. In other words, wrong views about attainments as a > result of not experiencing defilements for a long time can be very > dangerous. > > Urged by Great Brahma, he went to see the Buddha. As we read in the sutta, > it was only on a third occasion that the Buddha agreed to teach him the > Dhamma. In the Ud-a, we read that he was rejected twice because the Buddha > knew "the thrill of that joy is too powerful - even if he hears Dhamma he > will not, as yet, be able to pierce it. So let him wait until balance and > equanimity reasert themselves."< 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. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130008 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:29 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Han (& Tadao, et al.) - Thank you very much for the 3 Sadhus and, especially, for the Pali text of the Anubuddha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya 4. Slowly deciphering the tough Pali text, word by word, is not a pain when the sutta is so good that it conditions gladness (paamojja) in the mind. Maybe "I " was a Burmese who knew a little Pali in a previous life; that's way it has gladdened me, but I still have much difficulties understanding it in this life. Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years! Be brave & happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep (and Tadao), > > 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 > > Eva.m me suta.m eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa vajjiisu viharati bha.n.dagaame. Tatra kho bhagavaa bhikkhuu aamantesi "bhikkhavo"ti. "Bhadante"ti te bhikkhuu bhagavato paccassosu.m. Bhagavaa etadavoca > > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Vajjians at Bhanda Village. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" > "Yes, lord," the monks responded. > ---------- > "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. > ---------- > (2) "Ariyassa, bhikkhave, samaadhissa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. > > (2) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble concentration that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. > ---------- > (3) "Ariyaaya, bhikkhave, pa~n~naaya ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca . > > (3) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble discernment that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. > ---------- > (4) "Ariyaaya, bhikkhave, vimuttiyaa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka~nca. > > (4) "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered and transmigrated on such a long, long time, you and I. > ---------- > "Tayida.m, bhikkhave, ariya.m siila.m anubuddha.m pa.tividdha.m, ariyo samaadhi anubuddho pa.tividdho, ariyaa pa~n~naa anubuddhaa pa.tividdhaa, ariyaa vimutti anubuddhaa pa.tividdhaa, ucchinnaa bhavata.nhaa, khii.naa bhavanetti, natthi daani punabbhavo"ti. > > "But when noble virtue is understood and penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood and penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving and attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming." > ----------- > Idamavoca bhagavaa. Ida.m vatvaana sugato athaapara.m etadavoca satthaa > > "Siila.m samaadhi pa~n~naa ca, vimutti ca anuttaraa; > Anubuddhaa ime dhammaa, gotamena yasassinaa. > Iti buddho abhi~n~naaya, dhammamakkhaasi bhikkhuna.m; > Dukkhassantakaro satthaa, cakkhumaa parinibbuto"ti. > > That is what the Blessed One said. When the One Well-gone had said that, he--the Teacher--said further: > > "Unexcelled virtue, concentration, > discernment, and release: > have been understood by Gotama of glorious stature. > Having known them directly, > he taught the Dhamma to the monks > the Awakened One > the Teacher who has put an end to suffering and stress, > the One with vision > totally unbound." > > with metta and respect, > Han > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130009 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep, Thank you very much for your best wishes. Yes, I will have to be brave. To live a long life is not always a blessing, if it is not free from illnesses. But no one can get away from jaraa and vyaadhi until the mara.na catches us! One can only look at the positive aspect. One more day means one more day for meditation and meritorious deeds even if plagued with illnesses. with metta and respect, Han From: Tep Sastri indriyabala@... Dear Brother Han (& Tadao, et al.) - Thank you very much for the 3 Sadhus and, especially, for the Pali text of the Anubuddha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya 4. Slowly deciphering the tough Pali text, word by word, is not a pain when the sutta is so good that it conditions gladness (paamojja) in the mind. Maybe "I " was a Burmese who knew a little Pali in a previous life; that's way it has gladdened me, but I still have much difficulties understanding it in this life. Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years! Be brave & happy, Tep === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130010 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Han We are all blessed with the fact that we were able to encounter the Buddha's teaching in this life. At this advanced stage of my life, I would not have been able to cope with my life without Dhamma. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, >  > Thank you very much for your best wishes. > Yes, I will have to be brave. > To live a long life is not always a blessing, if it is not free from illnesses. > But no one can get away from jaraa and vyaadhi until the mara.na catches us! > One can only look at the positive aspect. > One more day means one more day for meditation and meritorious deeds even if plagued with illnesses. >  > with metta and respect, > Han >  >  > From: Tep Sastri indriyabala@... > >  > Dear Brother Han (& Tadao, et al.) - > > Thank you very much for the 3 Sadhus and, especially, for the Pali text of the Anubuddha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya 4. Slowly deciphering the tough Pali text, word by word, is not a pain when the sutta is so good that it conditions gladness (paamojja) in the mind. > Maybe "I " was a Burmese who knew a little Pali in a previous life; that's way it has gladdened me, but I still have much difficulties understanding it in this life. > > Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years! > > Be brave & happy, > Tep > === > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130011 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han, I just saw Tep's detail and your note. Thank you, Tep, for informing us. Han, so sorry to hear you need operations and will be in hospital. Like Tep, we wish you a successful and healthy outcome and many more years to share the Dhamma with us. Please ask your nephew or niece to send a message to the list or to my email account or Tep's to let us know how you are doing. As you say, no one can escape old age and sickenss before death. Wishing you courage to face each moment as it comes with understanding and equanimity. It's good that you realise the value of all kinds of meritorious deeds while there are opportunities. Thank you, Tadao and Tep for sharing some excellent and appropriate suttas. I particularly appreciated the reminders about samsara - endless tears and house-building until the Truths are realised. Best wishes, dear Partner! Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, > > Thank you very much for your best wishes. > Yes, I will have to be brave. > To live a long life is not always a blessing, if it is not free from illnesses. > But no one can get away from jaraa and vyaadhi until the mara.na catches us! > One can only look at the positive aspect. > One more day means one more day for meditation and meritorious deeds even if plagued with illnesses. <...> > From: Tep Sastri indriyabala@... > Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years! .... Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130012 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:20 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > If you are able to speak to Nina again, please send her my best wishes for her quick recovery. I hope she will indeed be able to go to Thailand. I am also sorry to hear about Jon's fall and injuries. I hope everyone will be well in the near future! ... S: I will be sending everyone's best wishes to Nina as soon as I have a chance. I'm trying to establish communication with her nephew, as you'll have seen. I do hope it'll be possible for her to use a computer in the rehab centre. Lovely that she had so many birthday wishes so recently from so many friends. It meant a lot to her. Jon's fine - just a small problem with his arm now. His head healed well, so send him lots of challenging posts! .... > > I am not sure why so many things are happening at this time, but I just had a car crash myself, a few days ago -- no injuries at all, just a few scrapes on my hands -- but the car will probably have to be replaced. I hope that this will be the end of the dsg run of accidents for now! ... S: So sorry to hear about your car crash, Rob. As I recall, your wife had a nasty one last year. Kusala and akusala kamma all the time. Very fortunate, no injuries. Seems the cars have the worst kamma, ha ha!! There will always be sicknesses and accidents whilst we're in samsara, but like you, I wish everyone here a good run of good health and avoidance of accidents! Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130013 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Tadao, Thank you very much for your best wishes. I really appreciate it. with metta and respect, Han From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." professortadaomiyamoto@... Dear Han We are all blessed with the fact that we were able to encounter the Buddha's teaching in this life. At this advanced stage of my life, I would not have been able to cope with my life without Dhamma. Best wishes, tadao [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130014 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah and Partner, Thank you very much for your best wishes. The operation is a simple one. I will be in the hospital for only two days and one night. But it may take quite some time to recover, at this age with diminished immune system. I will let my friends know as soon as I can sit and work on my computer after the operation. with metta and respect, Han p.s. I am also worried about Nina. I pray for her speedy recovery. From: sarah Dear Han, I just saw Tep's detail and your note. Thank you, Tep, for informing us. Han, so sorry to hear you need operations and will be in hospital. Like Tep, we wish you a successful and healthy outcome and many more years to share the Dhamma with us. Please ask your nephew or niece to send a message to the list or to my email account or Tep's to let us know how you are doing. As you say, no one can escape old age and sickenss before death. Wishing you courage to face each moment as it comes with understanding and equanimity. It's good that you realise the value of all kinds of meritorious deeds while there are opportunities. Thank you, Tadao and Tep for sharing some excellent and appropriate suttas. I particularly appreciated the reminders about samsara - endless tears and house-building until the Truths are realised. Best wishes, dear Partner! Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130015 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:47 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Nina and Jon Hoping both of you get recovery as soon as possible and see you in Bangkok soon. Those who are perfect in virtue and insight. Are established in the Dharma; who speak the truth and fulfill their own duties Them do people hold dear. 217 (from The Dhammapada, translation by Sathienpong Wannapok) Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130016 From: "connie" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:48 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear friend, Tep asked: How well have "you" been? I would have to answer: The usual more unwell than not. Short on virtues, long on unintended consequences, but what can we do? "Strive with diligence"... not "do" (diligence or whatnot) but "due" - there's one difficulty - we are always getting in our own way, not the Lord's. Rest assured, I always wish you better, friend - c [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130017 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:05 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Han Please take a good care of yourself. tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Partner, >  > Thank you very much for your best wishes. >  > The operation is a simple one. I will be in the hospital for only two days and one night. > But it may take quite some time to recover, at this age with diminished immune system. >  > I will let my friends know as soon as I can sit and work on my computer after the operation. >  > with metta and respect, > Han > p.s. I am also worried about Nina. I pray for her speedy recovery. > > From: sarah > > Dear Han, > > I just saw Tep's detail and your note. Thank you, Tep, for informing us. > > Han, so sorry to hear you need operations and will be in hospital. Like Tep, we wish you a successful and healthy outcome and many more years to share the Dhamma with us. Please ask your nephew or niece to send a message to the list or to my email account or Tep's to let us know how you are doing. > > As you say, no one can escape old age and sickenss before death. Wishing you courage to face each moment as it comes with understanding and equanimity. It's good that you realise the value of all kinds of meritorious deeds while there are opportunities. > > Thank you, Tadao and Tep for sharing some excellent and appropriate suttas. I particularly appreciated the reminders about samsara - endless tears and house-building until the Truths are realised. > > Best wishes, dear Partner! > > Sarah > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130018 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:20 am Subject: Sa.msaara: To Tep, Sarah, Tadao. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep, Partner Sarah, and Tadao, I have written that sa.msaara is linked not only with dukkha ariya sacca, the first Noble Truth, but also with dukkhasamudaya ariya sacca, the second Noble Truth. I will now expand the scope of sa.msaara and say that it is also linked with forward order of Dependent Origination (pa.ticcasamuppaada.m anuloma.m) from [avijjaapaccayaa sa"nkhaaraa] up to [bhavapaccayaa jaati, jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.na.m sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupaayaasaa sambhavanti]. As long as we cannot break this forward order of Dependent Origination we will be roaming endlessly in the sa.msaara. Only when we can realize the reverse order of Dependent Origination (pa.ticcasamuppaada.m pa.tiloma.m) from [avijjaanirodhaa sa"nkhaaranirodho] up to [bhavanirodhaa jaatinirodho, jaatinirodhaa jaraamara.na.m sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupaayaasaa nirujjhanti] we can be liberated from the sa.msaara. with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130019 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:22 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - Thank you very much for writing me a friendly note that is surprisingly longer than any you ever wrote in the past. I also appreciate your wish --a not-self wholesome intention-- that I be "better". You are right about "striving with diligence": it is the right exertion, or making effort to dispel the kilesas that we all need with "due" diligence. :-) May you be healthy and free from all kinds of trouble, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear friend, > Tep asked: How well have "you" been? > I would have to answer: The usual more unwell than not. Short on virtues, long on unintended consequences, but what can we do? "Strive with diligence"... not "do" (diligence or whatnot) but "due" - there's one difficulty - we are always getting in our own way, not the Lord's. > Rest assured, I always wish you better, friend - > c > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130020 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:31 am Subject: Re: Sa.msaara: To Tep, Sarah, Tadao. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Han, (Sarah, Tadao) - The short note you wrote about the 1st noble truth and 2nd noble truth is the best summary I've seen lately. Sadhu! x 3 for the kind sharing of this knowledge & understanding. Indeed, you summed it very well : "as long as we cannot break this forward order of Dependent Origination we will be roaming endlessly in the sa.msaara". With appreciation, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep, Partner Sarah, and Tadao, > > I have written that sa.msaara is linked not only with dukkha ariya sacca, the first Noble Truth, but also with dukkhasamudaya ariya sacca, the second Noble Truth. > > I will now expand the scope of sa.msaara and say that it is also linked with forward order of Dependent Origination (pa.ticcasamuppaada.m anuloma.m) from [avijjaapaccayaa sa"nkhaaraa] up to [bhavapaccayaa jaati, jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.na.m sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupaayaasaa sambhavanti]. > > As long as we cannot break this forward order of Dependent Origination we will be roaming endlessly in the sa.msaara. > > Only when we can realize the reverse order of Dependent Origination (pa.ticcasamuppaada.m pa.tiloma.m) from [avijjaanirodhaa sa"nkhaaranirodho] up to [bhavanirodhaa jaatinirodho, jaatinirodhaa jaraamara.na.m sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupaayaasaa nirujjhanti] we can be liberated from the sa.msaara. > > with metta and respect, > Han > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130021 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:57 am Subject: Sarah's Admirable Communication Skill t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, - You wrote two nice posts. >Sarah (#130011): Han, so sorry to hear you need operations and will be in hospital. ... Wishing you courage to face each moment as it comes with understanding and equanimity. It's good that you realise the value of all kinds of meritorious deeds while there are opportunities. >Sarah (#130012): I'm trying to establish communication with her nephew, as you'll have seen. I do hope it'll be possible for her to use a computer in the rehab centre. ... Jon's fine - just a small problem with his arm now. His head healed well, so send him lots of challenging posts! ... So sorry to hear about your car crash, Rob. As I recall, your wife had a nasty one last year. There will always be sicknesses and accidents whilst we're in samsara, but like you, I wish everyone here a good run of good health and avoidance of accidents! T: I appreciate your communicating about what happened lately and am impressed by the sincere wishes that you have shown towards the suffered members of our group. Warm regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > > I am not sure why so many things are happening at this time, but I just had a car crash myself, a few days ago -- no injuries at all, just a few scrapes on my hands -- but the car will probably have to be replaced. I hope that this will be the end of the dsg run of accidents for now! > ... > There will always be sicknesses and accidents whilst we're in samsara, but like you, I wish everyone here a good run of good health and avoidance of accidents! > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130022 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sa.msaara: To Tep, Sarah, Tadao. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep, Thank you very much for your appreciation. with metta and respect, Han From: Tep Sastri Dear Han, (Sarah, Tadao) - The short note you wrote about the 1st noble truth and 2nd noble truth is the best summary I've seen lately. Sadhu! x 3 for the kind sharing of this knowledge & understanding. Indeed, you summed it very well : "as long as we cannot break this forward order of Dependent Origination we will be roaming endlessly in the sa.msaara". With appreciation, Tep === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130023 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:27 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Jon's fine - just a small problem with his arm now. His head healed well, so send him lots of challenging posts! :-) Okay - I'll tell him you sent me after him! > .... > S: So sorry to hear about your car crash, Rob. As I recall, your wife had a nasty one last year. Kusala and akusala kamma all the time. Very fortunate, no injuries. Seems the cars have the worst kamma, ha ha!! Yes, that's pretty lucky! Thanks to the cars for taking most of the impact. > There will always be sicknesses and accidents whilst we're in samsara, but like you, I wish everyone here a good run of good health and avoidance of accidents! For some reason it's always surprising when bad things happen. Remembering that this reality is deeply associated with dukkha is probably a good idea... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130024 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Han I just know from Khun Tep that: > > Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years. I also wish you have success operation and get recovery very soon. And back to give us valuable suttas in DSG to enjoy and learn again. He who imbibes the Dharma Lives happily with the mind at rest. The wise man ever delights In the Dharma revealed by the Noble. 79 (From The Dhammapada a translation by Sathienpong Wannapok) Best wish Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130025 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Jagkrit,  Thank you very much. I will be okay and I hope I can continue my posts once I am up and about.  with metta and respect, Han   From: jagkrit2012 Dear Khun Han I also wish you have success operation and get recovery very soon. And back to give us valuable suttas in DSG to enjoy and learn again. He who imbibes the Dharma Lives happily with the mind at rest. The wise man ever delights In the Dharma revealed by the Noble. 79 (From The Dhammapada a translation by Sathienpong Wannapok) Best wish Jagkrit [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130026 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:32 pm Subject: Annie & friends in Hanoi sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Annie & Vietnamese friends, Thanks for adding the lively pics of Annie on the bike with Lan & Mai in Hanoi to the DSG meetings album. Pls do add a few more of the lovely ones of you all together, like the one with Tam Bach over lunch and all of you sitting on the floor eating together! How about some very brief summaries of the discussion topics and encounters too? Look forward to hearing anything any of you care to share. So glad to see how welcoming and helpful you've all been to Annie. I knew you would be. Metta Sarah ==== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130027 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:58 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E. This is not an Abhidhammaic description at all, but when we have a positive attitude to our life, our kamma wouldn't inflict us too much pain. Even at a bad situation, our own invisible hand(s) would guide us to escape from such a situation without much difficulties. (Sorry, probably, ignoring Dhamma, I'm too optimistic.) Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > Jon's fine - just a small problem with his arm now. His head healed well, so send him lots of challenging posts! > > :-) Okay - I'll tell him you sent me after him! > > > .... > > > S: So sorry to hear about your car crash, Rob. As I recall, your wife had a nasty one last year. Kusala and akusala kamma all the time. Very fortunate, no injuries. Seems the cars have the worst kamma, ha ha!! > > Yes, that's pretty lucky! Thanks to the cars for taking most of the impact. > > > There will always be sicknesses and accidents whilst we're in samsara, but like you, I wish everyone here a good run of good health and avoidance of accidents! > > For some reason it's always surprising when bad things happen. Remembering that this reality is deeply associated with dukkha is probably a good idea... > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130028 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:19 pm Subject: audio uploaded, Hua Hin, Jan 2013 sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tony, Vietnamese friends, Lukas & all, We've completed the upload of (edited) discussions from Hua Hin, Jan 2013: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/dsgAudio.html They are in the first section under "editing in progress". We'll continue with the other sets after a little break as we're travelling on Sat. For those who find them helpful - please consider transcribing any short extracts you like and posting them here for others to read and consider. We especially appreciate everyone's support while Nina is unable to post. Metta Sarah ==== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130029 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:50 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tom & Bev, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nsdragonman" wrote: > > Please give her our regards too! We were correcting the draft of ADL and sent her some questions. Usually she replies so promptly so I decided to see if she was posting here! .... S: I'll mention this when we next establish contact. We just tried calling the hospital again, but now she's moved already to the Rehabilitation Centre. I'm hoping she may have the use of a computer there. We'll see. Hope you're both doing well. Are you back in the States? As you'll have seen, I just sent a note to say the Hua Hin discussions have been uploaded. Metta Sarah ====== #130030 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina Broke Her Hip! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Kanchana, I'm so glad to see you posting here. Your English has always been very good, so don't worry at all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kanchana Chuathong wrote: > Dear Nina and Jon, >  Wish both of you get well soon, and may your deep understanding in kamma help you through this difficult time since it must be you, nobody else. Every moment passes away completely and never be back, just once in your life (just like mine 22 years ago). ... S: This is so true - the understanding of kamma helps a lot in difficulties. The result cannot be any other way. Just as it's conditioned now. Even when having an accident like Nina or a very serious one like you had all those years ago, the results are actually just the vipaka cittas and rupas conditioned by kamma. There isn't pain all the time ....just such very brief moments of vipaka cittas, followed by lots of thinking, usually with aversion or attachment. As you say, each moment passes completely and never comes back. There can be understanding and patience at any time at all. You may like to listen to some of the recent recordings we've uploaded too. Metta Sarah p.s. We'll be visiting Bkk in June. Look forward to seeing you then. ============= Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130031 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: Why is Human life Precious? sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Nitesh & Tep, Good to see you, Nitesh! Long time.....are you still living in Nepal? Do re-introduce yourself to those who won't remember you, if you have time. ... > >Nitesh: Why is our life precious? >Tep: Let me guess. Life is precious only because there is clinging. .... S: A good answer - usually we find it precious because of clinging for sure. We can also learn to find it precious as an opportunity for developing understanding and helping others to develop it too. We've all read how rare the human life is and the opportunity for hearing and considering the Buddha's Teachings. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130032 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:22 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. jonoabb Send Email Send Email Dear Han --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Brother Han > ... > Your scheduled surgery operations are on April 17 --just less than 48 hours away. May the operations be a great success, painless, and extend your life span to 100 years! > > Be brave & happy, > Tep > === J: Thinking of you and wishing you a speedy recovery from the operation. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130033 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Jagkrit, Tep, Sukin, Tam, Rob E, Azita, Kanchana, Howard and anyone else I may have missed ... Thanks all for your good wishes. I'm making a steady recovery, thanks to intensive physiotherapy on my arm (and also to a thick skull that absorbed much of the fall!!) I hope to be fully operational again in time to hit the water when we get to Sydney this coming weekend :-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Nina and Jon > > Hoping both of you get recovery as soon as possible and see you in Bangkok soon. > > Those who are perfect in virtue and insight. > Are established in the Dharma; > who speak the truth and fulfill their own duties > Them do people hold dear. 217 > > (from The Dhammapada, translation by Sathienpong Wannapok) > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit J: Many thanks for the inspiring verse. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130034 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Jon,  Thank you very much. With the best wishes from my dear friends I am confident that everything will be alright.  with metta and respect, Han  From: jonoabb jonabbott@... Dear Han J: Thinking of you and wishing you a speedy recovery from the operation. Jon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130035 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >J: Thanks for this extract from Ven. Soma's Introduction to the sutta translation. While it may sound good, the real test is whether or not it accords with the Buddha's teaching. > > T: Yes, the real test of a good pudding is in its taste. > =============== J: In the case of a pudding, yes :-)) But taste preferences are purely subjective, and depend on likes and dislikes accumulated in the past. What tastes good to one person may not be the least bit appealing to another. However, the question of whether or not a proposed `practice' accords with the Buddha's teaching is not a subjective one, and can only be determined by careful analysis (based on a correct intellectual understanding -- or of course on direct understanding -- of the teachings). > =============== > >J: In the passage you've quoted the Ven. talks about selecting one of the 4 objects of mindfulness and making it the "preliminary object of contemplation" (an expression he mentions a dozen times or more in his Introduction). I am not aware of any reference in the Pali Canon to such an idea (are you?). > > T: No, I am not either. But, as you know, every vipassana teacher has his/her unique way of teaching. Again, the real test is whether what he/she has taught works in practice for the student. > =============== J: This is an argument used by meditation teachers – "just try this technique and you'll see that it works". I don't think the Buddha ever endorsed such an approach; indeed, he cautioned against it. Given a choice between a translator's personal views and the Tipitaka text being translated, I suggest going with the text :-)) ! Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130036 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, As Connie suggested, it is the realities, paramattha dhammas that have specific characteristics that can be known, and it is the concepts which are abstract notions. Whatever we read about under kaya-anupassana refers to the understanding of rupas so commonly taken for those abstract notions, such as 'bod', 'hair' and so on. So whilst reflecting on hair, teeth, nails and skin, for example, there can be awareness and understanding that in reality only hardness or temperature is touched, only visible object is seen and so on. ... > >Sarah: When the Buddha taught "sabbe sankhara anicca", sankhara refers to conditioned realities, i.e. namas and rupas or the 5 khandhas. Sankhara does not refer to concepts or ideas, such as people, diamonds and rainbows. Please let me know if you disagree with this. > > T: Yes and no. In the Suttas, using the conventional language, it is clear that a conditioned dhamma --sankhata dhamma, either internal or external, is sankhara. Thus people, roses, diamonds, rainbows, and all natural objects (e.g. mountains, oceans) or man-made objects are sankhara dhamma, although they are not sankhara khandha (mental formation). .... S: Yes, sankhata dhamma are sankhara, whether internal or external. However, these only refer to conditioned elements, ayatanas or khandhas, however classified. For example, Vism XIV: "As to neither less nor more: but why are five aggregates (khandhas), neither less nor more, mentioned by the Blessed One? (a) Because all formed (sankhata) things (dhammaa) that resemble each other fall into these groups, (b) because that is the widest limit as the basis for the assumption of self and what pertains to self, and c) because of the inclusion by them of the other sorts of aggregates. "When the numerous categories of formed (sankhata) states are grouped together according to similarity, materiality forms one aggregate through being grouped together according to similarity consisting in materiality; feeling....... and so with perception and the other two. So they are stated as five because similar formed things fall into groups...." In the following chapters we also read about how all sankhata dhammas are included in the ayatanas and dhatus. All these categories refer to paramattha dhammas only. .... > In MN 10 the Buddha teaches dhamma-anupassana of rupa as follows: > 'Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away'. > ['Iti ruupa.m, iti ruupassa samudayo, iti ruupassa attha"ngamo'.] > > It is not clear to me how to contemplate a rupa --as an ultimate reality-- through the dhamma-anupassana, Sarah. Can you show me how? ... S: It's never a question of 'how?', but a question about the understanding of what is meant. Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately. There has to be very clear understanding of what visible object is and how it is distinct from seeing consciousness. There also has to be clear understanding of many other rupas and namas appearing in a day. Without such understanding, there will never be the very highly developed understanding which understands the arising and falling away of realities. A very firm intellectual right understanding about realities, sankhara dhammas, as anatta has to be developed first. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130037 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep (& Tadao), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >Tep: By the way, any conditioned dhamma is sankhara (all sankhata dhammas are sankhara!). > > >S: So what are dhamma? > T: A research finding about what 'dhamma' means is given below. ... S: Yes, there are many meanings of 'dhamma'. In 'Useful Posts' there is an entire section under "dhamma - meanings". In this context of 'sankhata dhamma', however and in the context of understanding dhammas, it is the khandhas or conditioned dhatus that are referred to. ... > > >S: Are sunrises, diamonds, roses and people 'dhamma' or are they concepts, ideas about what is seen, heard and touched? > > T: They are concepts in the Abhidhamma sense; yet, each of them is legitimate mind object (external ayatana). ... S: Whether in 'the Abhidhamma sense' or the 'Sutta sense', they are concepts about what is seen, heard and touched. They are not external ayatana. The ayatana only refer to dhammas. Dhammayatana includes cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana only. You may be thinking of external arammana (object) of thinking. ... >As such they are dhamma in the looser sense of something known or thought of. They also possessed of the three characteristics that can be contemplated. ... S: I agree that sunrises and roses are thought about - dhammarammana, but not ayatanas. Not sankhara dhammas. They are not real so they cannot be said to have the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of paramattha dhammas. They can never be directly understood because they are only thought about. ........... S: Many thanks for all your research findings. As Tadao mentioned in another message, it all comes back to what can be known at this very moment. When touching the keyboard, is a keyboard experienced or is it only hardness? Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130038 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:33 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > S: So what are dhamma? Are sunrises, diamonds, roses and people 'dhamma' or are they concepts, ideas about what is seen, heard and touched? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > "Sunrises, diamonds, roses and people" are mental constructs,for sure. But they are perceived and not just randomly thought of. ... S: They are thought of because there are conditions for thinking, perception and other mental factors to arise according to tendencies (and specifically to natural decisive support condition). .... >We can and do, and properly so, distinguish among them, and that is not a random matter but is based on the complexly interrelated 5-sense-door qualities/dhammas that are their basis. To say that they are (just) ideas is, IMO, to underestimate part of the reason that they have such a hold on us. (My opinion.) > ------------------------------ S: Appreciated. Yes, no kind of thinking or memory is 'random'. There are conditions to remember that what is touched and seen now is called a keyboard or a person. Usually, because of a perversion of thinking and perception and view, such ideas are taken for being the realities. What the Buddha taught us was that, in fact, there are only experiences of rupas through the sense doors and there is a lot of thinking and imagining and naming of such through the mind door. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130039 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:51 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - I am glad to know that you are in such a good spirit and steadily recovering from the accident. I also hope that you will recuperate the bodily strength needed to enjoy the coming weekend. I did not know that a thick skull could be a blessing. :-) Be lucky, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jagkrit, Tep, Sukin, Tam, Rob E, Azita, Kanchana, Howard and anyone else I may have missed ... > > Thanks all for your good wishes. I'm making a steady recovery, thanks to intensive physiotherapy on my arm (and also to a thick skull that absorbed much of the fall!!) I hope to be fully operational again in time to hit the water when we get to Sydney this coming weekend :-)) > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130040 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:24 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - You must be a superman to come back and be so active quickly after the accident! >J: What tastes good to one person may not be the least bit appealing to another. T: Yes, you reminded me of Durian, the tasty oriental fruit with a uniquely horrible smell. ............. >J: However, the question of whether or not a proposed `practice' accords with the Buddha's teaching is not a subjective one, and can only be determined by careful analysis (based on a correct intellectual understanding -- or of course on direct understanding -- of the teachings). T: The goal of Dhamma practice (meditation: bhavana --'calling into existence, producing'-- or patipada --path, progress; I like both) is to develop a certain qualities that did not arise or previously were weak. It is true, as you have said, direct understanding (direct knowing) is valuable as a tool to test one's real progess. [What one thinks one sees progress, it may be just an illusion.] ............. >J: This is an argument used by meditation teachers – "just try this technique and you'll see that it works". I don't think the Buddha ever endorsed such an approach; indeed, he cautioned against it. T: Very well said, Jon. >J: Given a choice between a translator's personal views and the Tipitaka text being translated, I suggest going with the text :-)) ! T: Again, not surprisingly, I agree with you. There are good exceptions, though. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130041 From: "annieaqua" Date: Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:34 pm Subject: Hanoi Dhamma Friends annieaqua Send Email Send Email Dear All I was most fortunate to have been introduced through Sarah to the Dhamma group in Hanoi on the weekend. The hospitality shown to me by my new friends was most humbling and I am so grateful for the experience to be part of the group for a full weekend of discussion. We had discussion on Saturday afternoon and Sunday all day. Tam read translating from english to vietnamese on the go..most impressive. We read the chapters "The Perfection of Determination; of Loving kindness & of Equanimity. We had discussion after about what we read and Tam was most helpful in her explanations of the text. The discussions I also had with other members of the group in an informal way over the delicious food served over the weekend was very beneficial. To be introduced to the teachings in a setting like this was a real highlight for me on my travels. I will cherish the friendships and time I had in Hanoi and look forward to meeting them again in the future. In loving kindness, Annie Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130042 From: "connie" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:22 am Subject: Re: Sarah's Admirable Communication Skill nichiconn Send Email Send Email hahaha, Sarah... no more bad car-ma jokes, please! it's bad vipaka the vehicles undergo when driven by past kamma that proves ruinatious, conventionally speaking, of course. connie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130043 From: "kanchuu2003" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:31 am Subject: Re: Why is Human life Precious? kanchuu2003 Send Email Send Email Hello Sarah and Tep! Thank you very much for your response. Let me reintroduce myself. I am Nitesh Dhakal from Nepal. I wanted to know about how rare is a human life and how did we get it. Regards, Nitesh --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Nitesh & Tep, > > Good to see you, Nitesh! Long time.....are you still living in Nepal? Do re-introduce yourself to those who won't remember you, if you have time. > ... > > >Nitesh: Why is our life precious? > > >Tep: Let me guess. Life is precious only because there is clinging. > .... > S: A good answer - usually we find it precious because of clinging for sure. > > We can also learn to find it precious as an opportunity for developing understanding and helping others to develop it too. We've all read how rare the human life is and the opportunity for hearing and considering the Buddha's Teachings. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130044 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:42 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Jon (and Tep)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, - > > > > >J: Thanks for this extract from Ven. Soma's Introduction to the sutta translation. While it may sound good, the real test is whether or not it accords with the Buddha's teaching. > > > > T: Yes, the real test of a good pudding is in its taste. > > =============== > > J: In the case of a pudding, yes :-)) > > But taste preferences are purely subjective, and depend on likes and dislikes accumulated in the past. What tastes good to one person may not be the least bit appealing to another. > > However, the question of whether or not a proposed `practice' accords with the Buddha's teaching is not a subjective one, and can only be determined by careful analysis (based on a correct intellectual understanding -- or of course on direct understanding -- of the teachings). > > > =============== > > >J: In the passage you've quoted the Ven. talks about selecting one of the 4 objects of mindfulness and making it the "preliminary object of contemplation" (an expression he mentions a dozen times or more in his Introduction). I am not aware of any reference in the Pali Canon to such an idea (are you?). > > > > T: No, I am not either. But, as you know, every vipassana teacher has his/her unique way of teaching. Again, the real test is whether what he/she has taught works in practice for the student. > > =============== > > J: This is an argument used by meditation teachers – "just try this technique and you'll see that it works". I don't think the Buddha ever endorsed such an approach; indeed, he cautioned against it. ----------------------------- HCW: Hmmm - don't try, but take merely on faith? Remember "ehipassiko," Jon? :-) ---------------------------- > > Given a choice between a translator's personal views and the Tipitaka text being translated, I suggest going with the text :-)) ! > > Jon > ============================== With metta, Howard Ehipassiko /Well proclaimed by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, realizable here and now, possessed of immediate result, bidding you come and see, accessible and knowable individually by the wise./ (From MN 7) Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130045 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:01 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah (& Connie), - I understand that a paramattha dhamma has identifiable basic or inherent features (sabhava), while a concept(pa~n~natti) does not. But "those abstract notions, such as 'body', 'hair' and so on" are not rubbish; they are very valuable for kammatthana bhavana such as kayagata-sati and kaya-anupassana (the first of the four kinds of anupassana that are called Satipatthana meditation), without any doubt. The Vism has one chapter on foulness as meditation subject and also discuss kayagatasati ; VIII, 42 - VIII, 145. >S: So whilst reflecting on hair, teeth, nails and skin, for example, there can be awareness and understanding that in reality only hardness or temperature is touched, only visible object is seen and so on. T: It depends on each individual's preference. The value of an anupassana or "reflection" is measured by the real (versus perceived) benefit to be realized by the individual, I think. >S: Yes, sankhata dhamma are sankhara, whether internal or external. However, these only refer to conditioned elements, ayatanas or khandhas, however classified. T: And you kindly gave a quoted passage from Vism XIV to say all sankhata dhammas "fall into" the five aggregates. Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? However, we have to be careful about (unintentionally) mixing up inherent features (sabhava) of a dhamma with the 'sammuti sacca'. This danger arises when a speaker (unintentionally?) switches back-and-forth between the ultimates and the conventionals! ............ > >T: It is not clear to me how to contemplate a rupa --as an ultimate reality-- through the dhamma-anupassana, Sarah. Can you show me how? >S: It's never a question of 'how?', but a question about the understanding of what is meant. Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately. T: It is clear by reasoning, not by realizing through direct knowing, that "visible object appears - it is seen" and that "it's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place". But it is not possible without 'yathabhutam pajanati' to directly know that sankhata dhamma arises and falls away immediately. It is easier imo to directly know when an in-breath or an out-breath arises and falls away. A breath isn't a paramattha dhamma, yet the Buddha strongly recommends Anapanasati as a major meditation method. >S: A very firm intellectual right understanding about realities, sankhara dhammas, as anatta has to be developed first. T: Thanks! I absolutely agree with that. The question is : when direct knowing must be developed through appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana, if not now. Be happy, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130046 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:38 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah (& Tadao), - I appreciate your energy and enthusisam. 1. >S: In this context of 'sankhata dhamma', however and in the context of understanding dhammas, it is the khandhas or conditioned dhatus that are referred to. The ayatana only refer to dhammas. Dhammayatana includes cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana only. T: Okay. I'll keep such Abhidhamma definitions in mind for our future communication. 2. >S: I agree that sunrises and roses are thought about - dhammarammana, but not ayatanas. Not sankhara dhammas. They are not real so they cannot be said to have the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of paramattha dhammas. They can never be directly understood because they are only thought about. T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category. "As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html 3. >S: When touching the keyboard, is a keyboard experienced or is it only hardness? T: I remember having seen this kind of question so many times before. :-) If you close your eyes, yes. Be tolerant, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130047 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:06 am Subject: Conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, all, >S:So whilst reflecting on hair, teeth, nails and skin, for example, >there can be awareness and understanding that in reality only >hardness or temperature is touched, only visible object is seen and >so on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a rough question: If a person kills a man, then it is bad kamma. If that man happens to be one's father, then it is not just bad kamma, it is heinous kamma. Big difference. If only paramattha dhammas have characteristics, and if only paramattha dhammas exist - then: Question 1: what paramattha dhamma is "one's father"? Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130048 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:24 am Subject: Re: Conventional still matters kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Alex and Sarah, --- > >S:So whilst reflecting on hair, teeth, nails and skin, for example, >there can be awareness and understanding that in reality only >hardness or temperature is touched, only visible object is seen and >so on. > A: I have a rough question: > If a person kills a man, then it is bad kamma. > If that man happens to be one's father, then it is not just bad kamma, it is heinous kamma. Big difference. > > If only paramattha dhammas have characteristics, and if only paramattha dhammas exist - then: > > Question 1: what paramattha dhamma is "one's father"? > > Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? ---- KH: I'd like to jump in here because this is one of my weak points. This how I think the answer might go: To paraphrase the Vism: `Mere killing exists; no killer is found and no person is killed.' The killing that `exists' is a strongly akusala cetana-cetasika, arising in a strongly akusala citta. There does, however, need to be a *concept* of a person to be killed. There needs to be a concept of a murderous activity, and there needs to be a concept of the victim's resulting death. That sort of akusala cetana can arise only when there are those sorts of concept. So a murder will involve many moments of akusala citta, with many concepts being conceived. The same applies to the question of murdering one's father. In reality there is nothing more than strong (exceptionally strong) akusala citta. In this case, however, there needs to be the concept of a person who can be killed *only by exceptionally strong akusala.* Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130049 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:46 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Rob E. > > This is not an Abhidhammaic description at all, but when we have a positive attitude to our life, our kamma wouldn't inflict us too much pain. > > Even at a bad situation, our own invisible hand(s) would guide us to escape from such a situation without much difficulties. > > (Sorry, probably, ignoring Dhamma, I'm too optimistic.) > > Best wishes, > > tadao Thanks much for your optimistic thoughts! :-) I appreciate them, and I think that like you whenever one cultivates a positive attitude, it may not change the vipaka, but the view of it can maybe be lighter. I think this corresponds to one of my favorite metaphors in Dhamma, the Buddha's "second arrow." Psychospiritual suffering - the way we react to things - is a different order of dukkha than the initial experience, even if it is unpleasant. Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130050 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:25 am Subject: Re: Conventional still matters upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Ken (and Alex & Sarah) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Alex and Sarah, > > --- > > >S:So whilst reflecting on hair, teeth, nails and skin, for example, >there can be awareness and understanding that in reality only >hardness or temperature is touched, only visible object is seen and >so on. > > > > A: I have a rough question: > > If a person kills a man, then it is bad kamma. > > If that man happens to be one's father, then it is not just bad kamma, it is heinous kamma. Big difference. > > > > If only paramattha dhammas have characteristics, and if only paramattha dhammas exist - then: > > > > Question 1: what paramattha dhamma is "one's father"? > > > > Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? > ---- > > KH: I'd like to jump in here because this is one of my weak points. This how I think the answer might go: > > To paraphrase the Vism: `Mere killing exists; no killer is found and no person is killed.' > > The killing that `exists' is a strongly akusala cetana-cetasika, arising in a strongly akusala citta. > > There does, however, need to be a *concept* of a person to be killed. There needs to be a concept of a murderous activity, and there needs to be a concept of the victim's resulting death. That sort of akusala cetana can arise only when there are those sorts of concept. > > So a murder will involve many moments of akusala citta, with many concepts being conceived. > > The same applies to the question of murdering one's father. In reality there is nothing more than strong (exceptionally strong) akusala citta. In this case, however, there needs to be the concept of a person who can be killed *only by exceptionally strong akusala.* > > Ken H > ================================ There also needs to be specific rupas that constitute the killing, a.k.a. "the actions" and also called the kamma-patha. Without this, there is only thinking and intending, i.e., there is only incompleted kamma. With metta, Howard Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130051 From: Tam Bach Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hanoi Dhamma Friends tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Annie, You forgot to mention the bike. Wasn't it a fun part? A: I was most fortunate to have been introduced through Sarah to the Dhamma group in Hanoi on the weekend. ---------- Tam B:  It was lovely to have you with us all that time, Annie ! A: We had discussion on Saturday afternoon and Sunday all day.... ------------ Tam B:  Beside discussing the texts, we also talked about the unsatisfactoriness of pleasant feeling that we all run after. We discussed about wholesomeness and unwholesomeness - how widespread this subject is misunderstood. We also talked about non-control - realities arising by its own condition, and about how right understanding conditions all kind of wholesomeness - the natural way. There was also mentioning of seeing now, touching now, liking now...to be understood as it is. Annie also helped us to understand some difficult English words. A: To be introduced to the teachings in a setting like this was a real highlight for me on my travels. --------------------- Tam B: We appreciated so much your openness and investigative quality. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Dhamma that way, and we do hope you will keep on considering about it. A:  I will cherish the friendships and time I had in Hanoi and look forward to meeting them again in the future. -------------------- Tam B: So do we! With loving kindness, too Tam B and friends [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130052 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: Hanoi Dhamma Friends sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Annie, Thank you for finding the time to give your lovely update here. It sounds as though our friends in Hanoi really gave you a wonderful time with lots of useful discussion too. We also cherish their friendship. Like you say, Tam's translation and simultaneous interpreter skills are most impressive as is her friendly way of sharing the Dhamma. Remember, whether with friends or travelling alone, in fact the mind consciousness (citta) is always alone. Born alone, die alone and in between, see alone, hear alone, think alone! Usually, there's always searching for craving as the mate, but for the wise, there is living alone with whatever consciousness arises with equanimity. Please keep sharing your reflections and questions. Metta Sarah p.s your biking adventures remind me of when Jon and I used to bike around Phuket and other Thai islands. In those days, we didn't wear helmets, but there was hardly any traffic either. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "annieaqua" wrote: > > Dear All > > I was most fortunate to have been introduced through Sarah to the Dhamma group in Hanoi on the weekend. > > The hospitality shown to me by my new friends was most humbling and I am so grateful for the experience to be part of the group for a full weekend of discussion. <....> Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130053 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: I'd like to jump in here because this is one of my weak points. This how I think the answer might go: > > To paraphrase the Vism: `Mere killing exists; no killer is found and no person is killed.' > > The killing that `exists' is a strongly akusala cetana-cetasika, arising in a strongly akusala citta. > > There does, however, need to be a *concept* of a person to be killed. There needs to be a concept of a murderous activity, and there needs to be a concept of the victim's resulting death. That sort of akusala cetana can arise only when there are those sorts of concept. > > So a murder will involve many moments of akusala citta, with many concepts being conceived. > > The same applies to the question of murdering one's father. In reality there is nothing more than strong (exceptionally strong) akusala citta. In this case, however, there needs to be the concept of a person who can be killed *only by exceptionally strong akusala.* Although I am sure it will terrify you, I am in accord with your description and think it is very clear. Certain concepts will excite very powerful cetana, such as the cultural image of father and mother. I say "cultural" because the meaning of such concepts will vary in ways from one culture to another. Likewise, the hatred of such a concept, and esp. hatred that is so strong that it moves to kill such an image, such as killing of a revered figure - a father or mother - must necessarily involve an intense level of akusala cetana, and this explains the greater kamma that accrues. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130054 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:28 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, and Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > The same applies to the question of murdering one's father. In reality there is nothing more than strong (exceptionally strong) akusala citta. In this case, however, there needs to be the concept of a person who can be killed *only by exceptionally strong akusala.* > > > > Ken H > > > ================================ > There also needs to be specific rupas that constitute the killing, a.k.a. "the actions" and also called the kamma-patha. Without this, there is only thinking and intending, i.e., there is only incompleted kamma. This is true - there have been two explanations for this. The "cetana-only" explanation is that only intense enough cetana to cause the action to take place will cause those rupas of killing to arise; and that it is this super-intense cetana that causes the kamma. The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. I would say roughly that Sarah and Ken H. and others would be in the "cetana-only" group, and that you would be in the "rupa-inclusive" group. I am probably in the rupa-inclusive group too - have been in the past - but now a little uncertain. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130055 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:33 pm Subject: Nina update sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, Just spoke very briefly to Nina at the Rehabilitation Centre she's been moved to. She said it's difficult - a big test of patience. She's still bed-ridden and long waits for assistance, physio etc. Lots of patients, not enough staff. I asked if she was considering having a laptop Lodewijk used to use brought in, but she thought it was too difficult. She'd wanted her nephew to send me her series from Thailand, but I've not received anything. In any case, it can wait until her return. The call was cut very short when someone came to attend to her, so I just quickly sent everyone's best wishes. Metta Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130056 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Nina update jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah Thank you very much for the update news of Nina. I have my fingers cross that this difficult time of Nina pasess away as soon as possible. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130057 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:16 pm Subject: Re: Nina update tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah Thank you for the update. She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Just spoke very briefly to Nina at the Rehabilitation Centre she's been moved to. She said it's difficult - a big test of patience. She's still bed-ridden and long waits for assistance, physio etc. Lots of patients, not enough staff. I asked if she was considering having a laptop Lodewijk used to use brought in, but she thought it was too difficult. > > She'd wanted her nephew to send me her series from Thailand, but I've not received anything. In any case, it can wait until her return. > > The call was cut very short when someone came to attend to her, so I just quickly sent everyone's best wishes. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130058 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:25 pm Subject: Re: Nina update tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Sorry, I made a mistake with my English spelling: "winning"; please replace it with "difficult." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Sarah > > Thank you for the update. > > She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that > the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. > > tadao > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > Just spoke very briefly to Nina at the Rehabilitation Centre she's been moved to. She said it's difficult - a big test of patience. She's still bed-ridden and long waits for assistance, physio etc. Lots of patients, not enough staff. I asked if she was considering having a laptop Lodewijk used to use brought in, but she thought it was too difficult. > > > > She'd wanted her nephew to send me her series from Thailand, but I've not received anything. In any case, it can wait until her return. > > > > The call was cut very short when someone came to attend to her, so I just quickly sent everyone's best wishes. > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ===== > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130059 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:46 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E. Most of the times, we hart our selves with our own defilements. This is rather a personal matter, but after coming back from Bangkok, I've found out that one guy had defrauded me; hence, I've lost a fair amount of money. Initially, there was a large amount of dosa. But I've learnt that all I have to do was cut my food bills. Even though the amount of my food bills was cut by almost 80%, the intake of my nutritional values have not changed at all. (Basically less indulgence to food.) The point is that it's just vipaaka, I cannot negotiate with my own vipaaka; all I can do is be positive and develop sati/paanaa with a fair dose of yoniso-manasikaara. There is no reason to hurt myself with the second/third/fourth arrows. Take care, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tadao. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob E. > > > > This is not an Abhidhammaic description at all, but when we have a positive attitude to our life, our kamma wouldn't inflict us too much pain. > > > > Even at a bad situation, our own invisible hand(s) would guide us to escape from such a situation without much difficulties. > > > > (Sorry, probably, ignoring Dhamma, I'm too optimistic.) > > > > Best wishes, > > > > tadao > > Thanks much for your optimistic thoughts! :-) I appreciate them, and I think that like you whenever one cultivates a positive attitude, it may not change the vipaka, but the view of it can maybe be lighter. I think this corresponds to one of my favorite metaphors in Dhamma, the Buddha's "second arrow." Psychospiritual suffering - the way we react to things - is a different order of dukkha than the initial experience, even if it is unpleasant. > > Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = > #130060 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:28 pm Subject: Vipassanaa_006 (DT 893 ) htoonaing... Send Email Send Email Dear Dhamma Friends, Vipassanaa is a practice that needs a lot of energy in the form of viiriya. Viiriya is the core dhamma for sammaa-vaayaama. It appears in the name of sammappadhaana. Without effort or energy vipassanaa will not be a true one. Examples are fancy-thinkings of those who digested abhidhamma which they never encounter with their own panna-eye. Viriiya also works as iddhipaada, which is a bodhipakkhiya dhamma. Iddhi means accomplishment. Paada means 'cause' 'foot'. So without viiriya there will not be iddhipaada and also there will not be bala, indriya, bojjhanga and magganga. Viiriya is necessary for vipassanaa. Viiriya alone is not effective to arise vipassanaa. Sati or mondfulness is required in this case. Sati also appears in many sections of factors of enlightenment or bojjhanga (bodhi + anga). When there is viiriya and sati then there arises samaadhi. Samaadhi has different levels. There is even samaadhi of dismerit or akusala. It is micchaa-samaadhi. After exclusion of micchaa-samaadhi there are different levels of samaadhi. Vipassanaa samaadhi is almost equal to magga-samaadhi even though vipassanaa is not powerful enough to cut off anusaya or potential kilesa. Viriiya, sati, and samaadhi are part of working-magganga. These 3 maggangas are led by samma-sa`nkappa and sammaa-di.t.thi. All these 5 are called karaka-magganga or workers-path-components. When in vipassanaa there always are these 5 dhammas. If not then the practice is not vipassanaa. Although these 5 are described 3 virati-dhammas have to be foregoing. They are sammaa-vaacaa, samma-kammanta, and sammaa-aajiiva. Even though they are not powerful enough as in magga citta these have to go before vipassanaa. With described 5 magganga there will arise naama-ruupa-pariccheda naana. It is also called naamaa-ruupa-vavatthaana naana. This is 'va'. If there is 'va' then there is possible for 'vi' or 'vipassanaa' to arise. If someone ever sees naamaa or ruupa with their own pannaa-eye then he or she has reached the foot of the mountain and ready to climb vipassanaa-mountain. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing Reply | Messages in this Topic (142) #130061 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:41 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah and Jon, Thanks for your replies and corrections on samatha objects and practice. I still can't quite make sense of one thing, though I'm not sure I can quite form the question - why can't there be an "ordinary daily life moment" of awareness with samatha kind of panna which is unrelated to actual samatha objects? What I mean is a moment of samatha bhavana (so not dana and not sila and not vipassana), which is unconnected to official samatha development objects that Jon mentioned with reference to Vsm. What I mean is perhaps like a moment when something is seen and perceived in daily life, like (a concept of) a cake for example, but there's no attachment to such concept, in other words there's a sort of kusala "calm awareness" of the fact that it's a perception/concept, so with samatha sort of panna (which I guess makes it samatha bhavana), but the object is not a kasina, nor a dhamma (as we're not talking about vipassana here), nor a ... well, it's clear its a perception/concept, but it's not clung to. This is probably not making much sense. Anyway, my point being that this sort of ordinary moments would be a precursor to actual samatha bhavana with an official object for samatha later on. I mean, I assume nobody can jump straight into fullon samatha bhavana with actual official objects until at least some sort of "ordinary" moments of samatha bhavana happened (like my cake thing) and it became clear what is a moment with sati as opposed to a moment without sati (still speaking samatha-related only like outside a sasana)? Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130062 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:45 am Subject: Singala : The Lucky Brahman yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear members, This Wednesday morning..I've an amazing story to share with you all: Please click: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=16232 Miss you all, yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130063 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: Nina update epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Just spoke very briefly to Nina at the Rehabilitation Centre she's been moved to. She said it's difficult - a big test of patience. She's still bed-ridden and long waits for assistance, physio etc. Lots of patients, not enough staff. I asked if she was considering having a laptop Lodewijk used to use brought in, but she thought it was too difficult. > > She'd wanted her nephew to send me her series from Thailand, but I've not received anything. In any case, it can wait until her return. > > The call was cut very short when someone came to attend to her, so I just quickly sent everyone's best wishes. Thanks Sarah - sounds like it is difficult but that Nina is doing pretty well, all things considered - I am glad to hear that! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130064 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:51 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Rob E. > > Most of the times, we hart our selves with our own defilements. > > This is rather a personal matter, but after coming back from Bangkok, > I've found out that one guy had defrauded me; hence, I've lost a > fair amount of money. Initially, there was a large amount of dosa. > > But I've learnt that all I have to do was cut my food bills. > Even though the amount of my food bills was cut by almost 80%, > the intake of my nutritional values have not changed at all. > (Basically less indulgence to food.) > > The point is that it's just vipaaka, I cannot negotiate with my own vipaaka; > all I can do is be positive and develop sati/paanaa with a fair dose of > yoniso-manasikaara. There is no reason to hurt myself with the second/third/fourth arrows. Thanks for your good example and positive attitude! Still, I am sorry you had this difficulty. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130065 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:25 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Rob: I do not treat my current situation a difficulty. I've been rather enjoying the simpler way of life. The point I wanted to make with my previous posting was that vipaakas are vipaakas. We cannot change them in the way we like. If it is the case, then, it's better not upset ourselves with these. To be better yet is to be aware of the moments of vipaaka and the moments of akusala (and kusala) since the awareness would tell us that everything is a mere story. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tadao. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob E. > > > > Most of the times, we hart our selves with our own defilements. > > > > This is rather a personal matter, but after coming back from Bangkok, > > I've found out that one guy had defrauded me; hence, I've lost a > > fair amount of money. Initially, there was a large amount of dosa. > > > > But I've learnt that all I have to do was cut my food bills. > > Even though the amount of my food bills was cut by almost 80%, > > the intake of my nutritional values have not changed at all. > > (Basically less indulgence to food.) > > > > The point is that it's just vipaaka, I cannot negotiate with my own vipaaka; > > all I can do is be positive and develop sati/paanaa with a fair dose of > > yoniso-manasikaara. There is no reason to hurt myself with the second/third/fourth arrows. > > Thanks for your good example and positive attitude! Still, I am sorry you had this difficulty. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130066 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:01 am Subject: spot the similarity :once someone believes an action , procedure works rjkjp1 Send Email Send Email they will not give it up. and will invest huge resources in it. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130067 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:35 am Subject: Re: Conventional still matters kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, -------- >> RE: - there have been two explanations for this. The "cetana-only" explanation is that only intense enough cetana to cause the action to take place will cause those rupas of killing to arise; and that it is this super-intense cetana that causes the kamma. --------- KH: I wonder if you could remind me of the previous "cetana only" explanation. This is a genuine request, not a rhetorical one. :-) Were the "rupas of killing" that you refer to bodily intimation rupas? You imply that the kamma lies in rupas that are caused by cetana. I think you are mistaken there. I am sure the kamma (the action) is entirely cetana. --------------- > RE: The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. --------------- KH: I had assumed that all theories of physicalization were based on a belief in sentient beings. I assumed you were trying to link conditioned reality with conventional reality (showing how bodies and guns etc., were made of rupas). Was I wrong? Are you simply linking cetana with bodily-intimation rupas? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130068 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:00 am Subject: Re: spot the similarity :once someone believes an action , procedure works t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi RobertK, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > they will not give it up. and will invest huge resources in it. http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum > They even invest huger resources in the weapons and space systems. Please also look at the gigantic national deficits, exponentially increasing year after year!! Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130069 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:10 am Subject: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear friend, Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? Expositor: The three Pi.takas are respectively spoken of as teachings of authority, of popular philosophy, and of metaphysical truths; or as instruction according to misconduct, according to circumstance, and according to states; or again, as discourses of trivial or serious restraint, of the refutation of heretical views, and of the distinction between mind and matter. And herein the Vinaya-Pi.taka, taught generally with authority by the Blessed One who was fit to give authority, is said to be a teaching of authority; the Sutta-Pi.taka, taught generally concerning popular ethics, is called teachings of regular philosophy; and the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, taught generally concerning things in their ultimate sense by the Blessed One, who was skilled in ultimate truths, is called teaching in ultimate truths. Likewise, the first, i.e., Vinaya, instructs grave offenders according to their respective misdeeds, and is called instruction given concerning such; the second, i.e., Sutta-Pi.taka, is adapted to various wishes, latent tendencies, traits of character, resolutions, and is called instruction adapted to circumstance; and the third, i.e., Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, instructs, according to states, those persons who imagine a self in the ultimate sense in mere collocations of things, saying, 'This is I; that is mine,' and is called instruction given in accordance with states. Similarly, the first is called a discourse of restraint and control, because therein are given discourses on grave or trivial restraint as opposed to transgression. 'Restraint and control' mean restraint big and small,^1 like acts big and small; fruits big and small. The second is called a discourse on the refutation of heretical views, because therein is unrolled the coil of the sixty-two heresies. {see Dialogues i, first Suttanta} The third is called a discourse on the distinction between mind and matter, because therein is discourse of that distinction in its ethical connection, etc. And in the three Pi.takas, the threefold training, the threefold riddance and the fourfold profundity are to be understood: morality treated specially in the Vinaya-Pi.taka is the unique training in virtue; consciousness treated specially in the Suttanta-Pi.taka is the unique higher training in higher mental training; philosophy treated specially in the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka is the unique training in higher or metaphysical understanding. In the Vinaya-Pi.taka [22] the riddance of transgression due to the corruptions is meant, because morality is opposed to transgressions; in the Suttanta-Pi.taka the riddance of the tyranny of the corruptions is meant, because concentration of thought is inimical to such tyranny; in the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka the riddance of latent bias is meant because understanding is opposed to it. In the first Pi.taka there is a temporary riddance of the corruptions (by means of various factors of morality); in the others their riddance is of the nature of discarding and extirpating by the Path. In the first Pi.taka the riddance is of the corruption of misconduct; in the others it is of the corruption of craving and wrong views. And in each of them, the fourfold profundity, viz., of the doctrine, of the meaning, of the exposition, and of intuition, should be understood. {p27 n1: 'Big' restraint includes the Paaraajika's and Sa"nghaadisesa's of the Vinaya (vol.iii); the rest are 'small.' -Tr.} peace, connie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130070 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:46 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Rob: > > I do not treat my current situation a difficulty. I've been rather enjoying > the simpler way of life. > > The point I wanted to make with my previous posting was that vipaakas are vipaakas. > We cannot change them in the way we like. If it is the case, then, it's better not upset > ourselves with these. To be better yet is to be aware of the moments of vipaaka and the moments of akusala (and kusala) since the awareness would tell us that everything > is a mere story. > > Best wishes, > tadao Very good Tadao - thanks for your wise thoughts. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130071 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:05 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > >> RE: - there have been two explanations for this. The "cetana-only" > explanation is that only intense enough cetana to cause the action to take place will cause those rupas of killing to arise; and that it is this super-intense cetana that causes the kamma. > --------- > > KH: I wonder if you could remind me of the previous "cetana only" explanation. This is a genuine request, not a rhetorical one. :-) When I was discussing kamma-patha with Sarah and others a while back, she indicated that the greater kamma/worse vipaka that results from killing does not occur because of the physical act, but because of the akusala cetana, which must be much stronger to "kill someone." I do assume that when someone is experiencing "killing someone" what is really happening is that they are causing certain rupas to arise and they are experiencing certain accompanying concepts. When the cittas of what we call the "other person" experiences "being killed" they are experiencing some rupas arising and some cittas as well, culminating in the "death citta." But I don't know much more about it beyond that - I have been trying to get a more detailed understanding of how kamma-patha occurs, but don't have a great sense of the details so far. What I do know from scriptural material is that the three levels of kamma-patha are successively more severe, as it moves from mental activity to verbal activity to physical action. The point of the "cetana-only" argument is that in these successively more severe kammas, the reason for the severity is the greater akusala of the cetana, *not* the fact that they are spoken or physical per se. But the idea is that it takes greater akusala to cause speech rupas or physical action rupas to arise. I hope that all makes some sense... > Were the "rupas of killing" that you refer to bodily intimation rupas? I am not smart enough to know whether those rupas are involved. I am assuming that what we call a physical act is a concept that overlays the real physical rupas that are arising. It's not the "murder breaks down into rupas." It's more like "what we mistakenly conceptualize as murder" has a real sequence of rupas arising that we cannot perceive. Instead we are perceiving the concept. > You imply that the kamma lies in rupas that are caused by cetana. No, I am saying that in this version of kamma the opposite is the case. In this version of kamma all the kamma is caused by the degree of akusala cetana. It is just that a higher degree of kusala is associated with the physical realization of the kamma-patha. I think you are mistaken there. I am sure the kamma (the action) is entirely cetana. That is what I said you would believe, along with Sarah and others. I am still a little confused myself, but I am at least partially tending in this direction. However, I still have some questions and confusions about this. > --------------- > > RE: The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. > --------------- > > KH: I had assumed that all theories of physicalization were based on a belief in sentient beings. Well it is true that the concept of being involved does bring out the different degrees of akusala kamma-patha in negative acts, such as the murder of an ant versus the murder of a human, versus the murder of one's father or mother, versus the murder of an arahant. In each case, the more highly revered concept entails a much higher degree of akusala in order to not only *want* to kill that "person" but to actually "carry out the act." You may interpret "carrying out the act" as a concept too if you like, though I currently see it as the arising of associated rupas along with the experience of "killing" but in any case physical kamma-patha is defined in the "killing of a being," even though that is a concept, and that killing of a being entails the very worst kamma, because the killing of a being entails the greatest cetana. > I assumed you were trying to link conditioned reality with conventional reality (showing how bodies and guns etc., were made of rupas). Was I wrong? Are you simply linking cetana with bodily-intimation rupas? I'm not too familiar with bodily-intimation rupas, so perhaps I'm not clear enough to know what I am exactly implying. My understanding is not too detailed so far, so the above description I have given represents it the best I can at present. I am not seeing the concept of "a person" as being real, but I am seeing "the concept of killing the concept of a person" as a thought-process that entails extremely akusala cetana, extremely akusala kamma. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130072 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:25 pm Subject: accident szmicio Send Email Send Email Hi all, On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. Lukas Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130073 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:46 pm Subject: Re: accident jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi all, > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. > > Lukas > J: Join the club (Nina and me, and Rob E's car)! Seriously, sorry to hear this news, but glad to hear you're on the road to recovery. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130074 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:19 pm Subject: Re: accident t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Lukas, (Jon)- I join Jon to sympathize with your suffering. The hallucination is moha; it is a kamma-vipaka and it will pass away. Be well soon, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi all, > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. > > Lukas > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130076 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie (Sarah, Rob E.) - > Connie: Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? > > Expositor: > ... ... "In the Vinaya-Pi.taka the riddance of transgression due to the corruptions is meant, because morality is opposed to transgressions; in the Suttanta-Pi.taka the riddance of the tyranny of the corruptions is meant, because concentration of thought is inimical to such tyranny; in the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka the riddance of latent bias is meant because understanding is opposed to it. ... And in each of them, the fourfold profundity, viz., of the doctrine, of the meaning, of the exposition, and of intuition, should be understood." ...... What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear friend, > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130077 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: Re: accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Lukas, Also very sorry to hear about your collapse and akusala vipaka. 2 days is quite a long time to be unconscious and there are always side-effects from this. IBe patient and get plenty of rest. Nothing lasts. As we've been saying a lot recently, we never know what will come next. We're all so very fortunate to have heard and considered so much about the Teachings and to appreciate that all such dhammas that come are anatta. Incredible how many accidents amongst us there've been recently! Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi all, > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130078 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:47 pm Subject: Re: accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Lukas I'm sorry to hear about your accident. It must be a terrifying experience to be unconscious for almost two days. As Sarah said, please take a plenty of rest with sati and pannaa, which have a lot of calming effect. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi all, > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. > > Lukas > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130079 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah and Lucas As we've been getting older, we ought to pay attention to the notion of "risk-management", which I think is a type of yoniso-manasikaara. The word, "risk-management" had not been in my vocabulary until two years ago when the Big Earth Quake and Tsunami hit the region where I lived. We do not know when we have to leave this world, but it is imperative to make the best use of the time left for us. In that sense, (even though we cannot negotiate with our own vipaakas,) we should take care of ourselves with a great dose of yoniso-manasikaara coupled with sati/pannaa so that we would not unnecessarily put ourselves in risky situations Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Lukas, > > Also very sorry to hear about your collapse and akusala vipaka. > > 2 days is quite a long time to be unconscious and there are always side-effects from this. IBe patient and get plenty of rest. Nothing lasts. > > As we've been saying a lot recently, we never know what will come next. We're all so very fortunate to have heard and considered so much about the Teachings and to appreciate that all such dhammas that come are anatta. > > Incredible how many accidents amongst us there've been recently! > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me by night. everything is weird. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130080 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E. Thank you. With Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tadao. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob: > > > > I do not treat my current situation a difficulty. I've been rather enjoying > > the simpler way of life. > > > > The point I wanted to make with my previous posting was that vipaakas are vipaakas. > > We cannot change them in the way we like. If it is the case, then, it's better not upset > > ourselves with these. To be better yet is to be aware of the moments of vipaaka and the moments of akusala (and kusala) since the awareness would tell us that everything > > is a mere story. > > > > Best wishes, > > tadao > > Very good Tadao - thanks for your wise thoughts. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130081 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accident sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Lukas, Sorry to hear about your accident. Hope you did a thorough test of the brain and get back to normal soon. Actually when I read about your hallucinations, I thought, "well, without getting my head hit, I'm hallucinating all the time," and I also thought about A. Sujin's "delirious thinking" which again is something that happens all day. So really, there is very little difference. But the good thing is that we both understand intellectually at least, that at any given moment, there is only one experience of one object through the five senses or the mind. Sukin On 4/18/2013 5:25 PM, Lukas wrote: > > Hi all, > On Saturday I collapsed, and hit head on concret stairs. I was > unconscious almost two days, and now I am not myself anymore. I see > things, that not exist. Hearing voices all the time. Devil comes to me > by night. everything is weird. > > Lukas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130082 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am Subject: Re: accident jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Lukas So sorry to hear about your accidence. Hopefully, you get well very soon. It is frightened that there is some hallucination due to you head wreck. Please consult the doctor for this condition. May be you need some medicine to control the situation. Spend more time listen to dhamma to keep your hallucination at bay. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130083 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:36 am Subject: Re: accident truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Lukas, Take omega-3, fish oils, highest quality coconut oil as much as you can. They are good for the brain. Please remember that voices in your head are NOT real. Satan doesn't exist. Don't listen to those voices. I hope you get better. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130084 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:17 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Tep: What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? connie: The full Expositor quote remains my answer, Summarizer! But picking only one point: Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, instructs, according to states, those persons who imagine a self in the ultimate sense in mere collocations of things, saying, 'This is I; that is mine,' and is called instruction given in accordance with states. that, my dear, would be yours truly, c [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130085 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:03 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - > Tep: What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? > connie: The full Expositor quote remains my answer, Summarizer! But picking only one point: Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, instructs, according to states, those persons who imagine a self in the ultimate sense in mere collocations of things, saying, 'This is I; that is mine,' and is called instruction given in accordance with states. > that, my dear, would be yours truly, > c .................. Thank you for kindly reply to my asking! But I am still lost since I cannot make sense of your above reply with regard to Alex's Question2 (i.e., why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta?) Sincerely, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130086 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:14 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Tep, generally speaking, two baskets are taught "conventionally" while the 3rd is taught "in accordance with states" or "ultimately". What part of the question remains untouched? It seems more than covered to me! here's a rhetorical question: What is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing"? peace, connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130087 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:42 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all, >generally speaking, two baskets are taught "conventionally" while the >3rd is taught "in accordance with states" or "ultimately". What part >of the question remains untouched? It seems more than covered to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is puggalapannatti book in Abhidhamma Pitaka conventional or ultimate? Where in the Abhidhamma PITAKA itself does it clearly distinguish that "Buddha taught two truths, conventional is this and ultimate is that" ? :) As far as I know, nowhere in Tipitaka. The two truths is later addition, and different Buddhist schools had different take on two truths... With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130088 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:11 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, is there a problem with speaking according to convention? is there a problem with speaking "in terms of states"? there are four truths. let's read puggalapannatti together and see. connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130089 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:28 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all >C:is there a problem with speaking according to convention? >is there a problem with speaking "in terms of states"? >there are four truths. >let's read puggalapannatti together and see. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no problem as long as we don't mix the two different perspectives together in order to create an idea not taught in the suttas. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130090 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:51 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie (& Alex), - Alex's Question2: "Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta?" Connie's Answer (quoting the Expositior) : "Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, instructs, according to states, those persons who imagine a self in the ultimate sense in mere collocations of things, saying, 'This is I; that is mine,' and is called instruction given in accordance with states.". T: But that "indirect" reply had confused me, so you gave another one: >C: "Generally speaking, two baskets are taught 'conventionally' while the 3rd is taught "in accordance with states" or 'ultimately'. What part of the question remains untouched? It seems more than covered to me! " T: So you say that the conventional language is the majority (two-third) of the three baskets. However, it does not answer Alex's question the way I see it. Connie: Here's a rhetorical question: What is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing"? T: The Dhamma is, of course. Be happy, Tep === P.S. If most of the English teachers in my schools (when I was young) were like you, I would not be able to pass any exam. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Tep, > #130091 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:09 am Subject: Re: What atta is denied? epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah - a little late replying... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (& Ken H), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I take the Buddha at his word. When he describes a situation I accept it as a description. When he speaks in clear imperative terms, I take it as an instruction. I think that is a sane way to understand what someone has said. > ... > > S: Regardless - whatever is spoken of refers to conditioned dhammas. Agree so far... :-) > So even when an imperative is given as in "don't be heedless!", we know that the Buddha was referring to the urgency and importance of the development of the path, not to an imagined Self that can do anything to realise nibbana. I agree with this, but the implications of this can be taken two different ways, and I think we look at them slightly differently. The first way assumes that any "reaction" to an imperative such as "don't be heedless" is an example of self-view and will give the illusion that there is someone to do something. That view will thus say that if you understand the imperative correctly, one should more or less ignore it, because the "dhammas will do all the work" and any thought of doing something is incorrect. That I think is pretty much the dsg view. To summarize that view [as I understand it:] when you hear a Dhamma command, you should "hurry up and not do anything" so you don't fall into wrong view. The second way of looking at it, which is how I look at it and is why I think meditation is a legit part of the path, is that when you hear a Dhamma command such as "don't be heedless, develop the path now or you'll be sorry later" [which is a pretty good paraphrase of what the Buddha said:] the correct way to take it is to let it have it's effect. For instance, if "don't be heedless" makes you start wanting to observe dhammas now and see their true nature, that doesn't mean necessarily that there is a "self doing it." It may be that this statement of the Buddha's may be exciting correct volition to develop satipatthana on the part of the cittas arising at that moment, after hearing such a command. If that is the case then I would want to "let those cittas do" whatever they are doing and not quash them with a "counter command" that is going against what the Buddha said, such as "Better not try to act on that because you will be developing self-view." I think that this is exactly what the Buddha meant to do, to get those kusala cittas rolling along when he gave such a command, so why not let it do its work? There's no self doing it, but there is a Buddha rolling the wheel of the Dhamma and letting those cittas be affected. So in my view we should get out of the way and let the cittas go for it without intereference from mis-applied Dhamma concepts. > So it all comes down to the understanding when we hear such words. > ... And understanding correctly. Sometimes Dhamma concepts can get in the way just as much as other concepts. I think it's worth asking why the Buddha said things like that. My answer is that he knew they would have certain affects and he wanted that to happen. > >....The source of your understanding that there is no instruction in the Buddha's teaching does not come from the scriptures. It comes from the modern dsg interpretation of the scriptures and it is not backed up by the commentaries. If I am wrong, prove it. > ... > S: Whatever is read has to be read in the light of the Teachings about the khandhas, about the elements, about especially, such dhammas as anatta. > ... I agree, but I don't always accept the idea that this takes away the value of all thoughts and actions that naturally occur. Sometimes we do things in response to Dhamma ideas and commands that are not a result of self-view, but are the result of natural cittas and rupas that arise in response. > > Meanwhile I am waiting for a quote [for over a decade now] that gives scriptural authority to the view that meditation is an expression of self-view and is not part of the path, and that the Noble eight-fold path has nothing to do with how one conducts themselves in everyday life. I am happy to see any quote from the ancient commentaries that will support these views - and I don't mean some oblong quote that has to be re-interpreted to suggest that. > ... > S: See a collection from a decade of posts under the following headings in Useful Posts: > > "Meditation in the texts - see also 'Satipatthana & formal sitting', 'Bhavana' & 'Samatha & Vipassana Bhavana', 'Jhana - two meanings', 'Jhana & Nibbana', 'Practice'" > > Lots and lots of detail about what "meditation in the texts" really is. None of the Teachings are about how "one" does anything in actuality, mere dhammas rolling on. Still and all, that does not mean that formal meditation is synonymous with self-view, or that it is an obstacle rather than an aid to bhavana. Many monks -- most of them in fact, if not all -- meditated and utilized the techniques outlined by the Buddha in anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, and within that setting developed satipatthana and reached enlightenment. If that were not the case, the Buddha would not have happily presided over a large Buddhist community doing exactly that in Buddhist monasteries, as Buddhists, overseen by the Buddha himself. I will try to look at some of the UPs on this subject - thanks! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (158) #130092 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:17 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Answer Alex yourself, Tep. It is ok. connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130093 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:20 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep and Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Connie (Sarah, Rob E.) - > > > Connie: Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? > > > > Expositor: > > > ... ... > "In the Vinaya-Pi.taka the riddance of transgression due to the corruptions is meant, because morality is opposed to transgressions; in the Suttanta-Pi.taka the riddance of the tyranny of the corruptions is meant, because concentration of thought is inimical to such tyranny; in the Abhidhamma-Pi.taka the riddance of latent bias is meant because understanding is opposed to it. ... And in each of them, the fourfold profundity, viz., of the doctrine, of the meaning, of the > exposition, and of intuition, should be understood." > ...... > > What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? Since you included me - thanks for that - I am jumping in as this is one of my areas of great interest and concern. I am not well-read enough in the commentaries to understand all the specifics above, but it has always been my feeling - rightly or wrongly - that the Buddha would not keep talking about conventional objects and activities, such as murder, eating, alms-giving, meditation, monks, death, etc., just for the sake of convenience, but that he must have believed that the responses that are given to those who hear those terms actually has some effect on dhammas and thus has a corresponding relation to the development of the path. How exactly that works is still a little bit of a mystery. I have tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear a conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their response still has some effect on dhammas. In other words, let's say a person has the thought "I will not eat animal flesh that has been killed for my benefit" because the Buddha has said not to do this, that this positive thought of wanting to do "good" will arouse kusala cittas and thus lead to some small development in the kusala needed for the path. And that is just one example. Let's say a person refrains from saying something mean because they do not want to engage in "wrong speech." They have the cetana at that moment to "do good" and not do harm through speech. So at that moment I believe that kusala mental factors are aroused and that this also leads to a kusala accumulation for the path. There are some who would say that such conventional reactions and efforts have nothing to do with the path because there is no right understanding that "only dhammas exist" at that moment, but I think that the kusala that is aroused by such conventional efforts still has some kusala dhammas and some kusala understanding aroused. This could be incorrect, but in any case that's my sense of it. So for conventionally-minded Buddhists, the Buddha would talk about all these conventional subjects and the reactions this would excite would create genuine kusala. I wonder if you would agree with this? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130094 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:31 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Tep: What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? > connie: The full Expositor quote remains my answer, Summarizer! But picking only one point: Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, instructs, according to states, those persons who imagine a self in the ultimate sense in mere collocations of things, saying, 'This is I; that is mine,' and is called instruction given in accordance with states. > that, my dear, would be yours truly, As I am busy jumping in, may I bother you a little bit too? I think I understand the above, but does it really explain why the Buddha spoke in such terms? The only reason I can think of is that he was trying to communicate with people who thought in conventional terms, and thought he must be doing some good by speaking in that way. If those he spoke to understood him in conventional terms, and yet he thought it was worth talking to them that way, what would be the positive result that could be hoped for from such conventional talk? And if he was speaking to those who understood dhammas, why speak in conventional terms at such a time at all? Why not speak directly of the operation of the dhammas involved? Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130095 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:04 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email > Tep: ... it does not answer Alex's question the way I see it. > connie: You might consider answering Alex yourself rather than challenging me to answer the way you see, Tep! What does it matter? If you don't like what Expositor says, I can only think (in my clumsy way) that it is not the fault of the water if the horse will only eat hay... something like that. Better I stick to quotes. c Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130096 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: accident nichiconn Send Email Send Email The Discourse about Moonlight http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Udana/4-Meghiyavagg\ o-04.htm enjoy, lukas and all! alex, would you say this is a conventional or the other kind of teaching? the devil makes me ask, connie > J: Join the club (Nina and me, and Rob E's car)! > > Seriously, sorry to hear this news, but glad to hear you're on the road to recovery. > ps. ditto c Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130097 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:56 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Hi RobE, in one term, "why the Buddha spoke" at all: compassion. what does 'conventional' mean, anyway? connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130098 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:12 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., (Connie, Alex) - Thank you very much for joining in the discussion. >Rob E.: > I have tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear a conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their response still has some effect on dhammas. ... So for conventionally-minded Buddhists, the Buddha would talk about all these conventional subjects and the reactions this would excite would create genuine kusala. I wonder if you would agree with this? T: Yes, the first kusala dhamma to be induced by listening to the true Dhamma is conviction(faith, 'saddha') that is the supporting condition for practicing in accordance with the Dhamma (Pa.tipajjati = to enter upon a path) and importantly, the consequence of the right entering upon the path is experiential knowing and seeing the noble truths. Magandiya in the following story was a wanderer. [MN 75, Magandiya Sutta:] When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma (saddhamma), you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma (dhammaanudhamma.m pa.tipajjissasi). When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." ............. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Connie. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Connie (Sarah, Rob E.) - > > > > > Connie: Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130099 From: "connie" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:24 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Sorry, Tep! Didn’t mean to tell you to answer Alex yourself twice. bully for me, connie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130100 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:27 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., (Connie, Alex) - >Rob E. : If those he spoke to understood him in conventional terms, and yet he thought it was worth talking to them that way, what would be the positive result that could be hoped for from such conventional talk? And if he was speaking to those who understood dhammas, why speak in conventional terms at such a time at all? Why not speak directly of the operation of the dhammas involved? T: Indeed, great teachers and skillful speakers know their audiences. Example: The Buddha taught the bark-cloth ascetic using the ultimate-reality language [Bahiya Sutta] : "When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." But he used the conventional language to talk to the monks: "Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana." In my opinion when the ultimate-reality language is used to replace the conventional language, the ordinary listener (who is not an ariyan) will be inevitably confused. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Connie. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > Tep: What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130101 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:49 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie (Rob E., Alex, Han) - > > Tep: ... it does not answer Alex's question the way I see it. > Connie: You might consider answering Alex yourself rather than challenging me to answer the way you see, Tep! What does it matter? If you don't like what Expositor says, I can only think (in my clumsy way) that it is not the fault of the water if the horse will only eat hay... something like that. Better I stick to quotes. >C: Sorry, Tep! Didn't mean to tell you to answer Alex yourself twice. T: You can say it three times, I will not mind at all. I apologize for carelessly using unpleasant wordings. Sometimes my poking questions may offend others. So I will have to be mindful next time. Be kind, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Sorry, Tep! Didn’t mean to tell you to answer Alex yourself twice. > bully for me, > connie > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130102 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:09 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > in one term, "why the Buddha spoke" at all: compassion. > what does 'conventional' mean, anyway? Well, conventional means that the actual terms that are spoke of are what are thought of as concepts in Abdhidhamma-based understanding, rather than direct talk of dhammas. And if there is nothing but dhammas, and concepts have no import or weight of any kind, one would one speak of them? It only adds to the confusion that such things really exist, does it not, for those who might not see them as merely conceptual? If the Buddha speaks about 'right speech' in terms of what is said, rather than the namas and rupas involved, it appears to just be causing confusion, or else it must have some purpose. What does "conventional" mean, anyway? Good question - if there is no division between conventional and paramatha, then the whole idea of paramatha falls apart, doesn't it? So is there a distinction, or not? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130103 From: Sukinder Narula Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, Connie, Quote: "Since you included me - thanks for that - I am jumping in as this is one of my areas of great interest and concern. I am not well-read enough in the commentaries to understand all the specifics above, but it has always been my feeling - rightly or wrongly - that the Buddha would not keep talking about conventional objects and activities, such as murder, eating, alms-giving, meditation, monks, death, etc., just for the sake of convenience, but that he must have believed that the responses that are given to those who hear those terms actually has some effect on dhammas and thus has a corresponding relation to the development of the path." We may have had this conversation before. But I think you've got this backwards. Conventional speech is the norm, ultimate speech is for those of us who otherwise are likely to take conventional referents for real. This is what I think Connie was trying to convey with her quotes from the commentary. Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130104 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:42 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., (Connie, Alex) - > > Thank you very much for joining in the discussion. > > >Rob E.: > > I have tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear a > conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their response still has some effect on dhammas. ... So for conventionally-minded Buddhists, the Buddha would talk about all these conventional subjects and the reactions this would excite would create genuine kusala. I wonder if you would agree with this? > > T: Yes, the first kusala dhamma to be induced by listening to the true Dhamma is conviction(faith, 'saddha') that is the supporting condition for practicing in accordance with the Dhamma (Pa.tipajjati = to enter upon a path) and importantly, the consequence of the right entering upon the path is experiential knowing and seeing the noble truths. Thanks for outlining this sequence. Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130105 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:49 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: Indeed, great teachers and skillful speakers know their audiences. I would agree. > Example: > The Buddha taught the bark-cloth ascetic using the ultimate-reality language [Bahiya Sutta] : > "When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > > But he used the conventional language to talk to the monks: > "Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana." > > In my opinion when the ultimate-reality language is used to replace the conventional language, the ordinary listener (who is not an ariyan) will be inevitably confused. I agree with your point and appreciate the distinction between the speech to those two audiences. BTW, love that sutta. "In the seen there will be nothing but the seen" or "merely the seen," etc., is most profound in its simplicity. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130106 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder Narula wrote: > > Hi Rob E, Connie, > > Quote: > "Since you included me - thanks for that - I am jumping in as this is one of my areas of great interest and concern. I am not well-read enough in the commentaries to understand all the specifics above, but it has always been my feeling - rightly or wrongly - that the Buddha would not keep talking about conventional objects and activities, such as murder, eating, alms-giving, meditation, monks, death, etc., just for the sake of convenience, but that he must have believed that the responses that are given to those who hear those terms actually has some effect on dhammas and thus has a corresponding relation to the development of the path." > > We may have had this conversation before. But I think you've got this backwards. > > Conventional speech is the norm, It may be the norm, but that does not settle what it means, what effect it has, what purpose it has. Conventional speech is designed and evolved to discuss conceptual items in social and physical life as we know them through the mind - deluded cittas in other words. So why and how it is used to talk about that which is ultimate seems to be of some concern. It is natural to question this, but unfortunately there is hardly ever a specific answer as to how pannati are able to stand in for dhammas in the conventional speech of one who teaches about dhammas - the Buddha. The Buddha is only there to teach the way to end suffering through the path, so when he uses conventional speech he must have a purpose. To say it is the norm is fine, but it doesn't address the purpose in my view. > ultimate speech is for those of us who otherwise are likely to take conventional referents for real. This seems a little inverted to me. It is the norm to take conventional speech to stand for conventional referents, and it is the norm to take them as real. It is only someone who has seen that experiential moments are more real than the concepts woven from them who can see beyond conventional references. Ultimate speech is designed to describe those realities to those who can understand them and want to understand them better, but this does not account for the use of conventional speech by a world teacher. > This is what I think Connie was trying to convey with her quotes from the commentary. I think you are right about that. It is the presumption of those who take dhammas as their point of reference, that conventional speech of a Buddha is only talking about dhammas. So far I have not seen the evidence of this, except for the philosophical predisposition of those who assume it to be the case. That is a self-referential philosophy - it does not get into the details of why or how such speech operates. Generally, pannati are dismissed as useless and delusory, even though they are close cousins to nimittas and concepts that may stand in for things that are actual. I think the way in which they are used in Dhamma is worth more than an assumption that they are merely referencing dhammas and have no other purpose. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130107 From: Thanh Nguyen Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:03 pm Subject: A couple of question: restrain senses. bostight257 Send Email Send Email Hello, I have a couple of questions about restrain senses. " There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. "... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.033.than.html 1) What is "does not grasp at any theme or details"? Would you like to explain the Pali words of that phrase? What the commentary said about it? People say that does not grasp at theme means not grasping the general of object, and not grasp at details means not grasping detail of it. I find it has nothing to do with dukkha, anicca, anatta. Is grasping at theme means grasping of the idea unskillful like it's me, myself, mine in general, not clear, and at details when that idea become clear? 2) Restrain the intellect faculty? How do we do it? Does it lead to ignorance? When we cognize an new idea, at least there is doubt. 3) Restrain the faculty, and enjoy the moment, seem contradict with each other? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130108 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:26 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tiny Tam, Good to hear your excellent qus! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Thanh Nguyen wrote: > I have a couple of questions about restrain senses. > " There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not > grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without > restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as > greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards > the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of > the eye. "... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.033.than.html > 1) What is "does not grasp at any theme or details"? Would you like to > explain the Pali words of that phrase? What the commentary said about it? .... S: When there is awareness and understanding, there is 'restraint', guarding of the faculties with no attachment to signs and details (nimmita anubya~njana). Here is a quote from A.Sujin's book, "Survey" referring to the Atthasalini, the commentary to the first Abhidhamma text: "The Atthasalini (II, Book II, Part II, 400) explains about being unguarded as to the "controlling faculties", the indriyas. Here the indriyas of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind are referred to. We read: "Grasps the general appearance i.e., grasps by way of lusting desire a sign such as is of the male, or female, pleasant, etc, and which is the basis of corruption." "When we cling to the general appearance of male or female, it shows that the object is not a paramattha dhamma. When we know that we see a man or woman, we don't just know the reality which appears through the eyes, but we have an image (nimitta), a concept on account of what appears through the eyes. The image of the general appearance of a man or woman is the foundation of defilements. Through the power of desire (chanda raga) we take that image for something attractive. When we like a concept such as a belt, it shows that the belt is an attractive image. One is attached to it, one is ruled by desire. If the belt is not beautiful, if it is not an attractive nimitta (image), one does not like it. On account of colours which appear through the eyes, there can be different nimittas, attractive or unattractive. We read further on in the Atthasalini: "Grasps the details (anuvyanjana), "i.e. takes the various modes of hands and feet, of smiling, laughing, speaking, looking straight ahead, looking askance, which have earned the name of "details", they manifest, reveal the defilements." [Lots more detail in "Useful Posts" in the files under "shapes and forms"] .... > People say that does not grasp at theme means not grasping the general of > object, and not grasp at details means not grasping detail of it. > I find it has nothing to do with dukkha, anicca, anatta. > Is grasping at theme means grasping of the idea unskillful like it's me, > myself, mine in general, not clear, and at details when that idea become > clear? .... S: When there is clinging to the signs (nimitta) and details (anubya~njana) of what is seen, the perversions (vipallasa) are at work - there is the taking what is dukkha for sukkha, what is anicca for nicca and, often, what is anatta for atta. It really seems at such times that there is a beautiful rainbow seen, a delicious meal eaten and so on. .... > 2) Restrain the intellect faculty? How do we do it? Does it lead to > ignorance? When we cognize an new idea, at least there is doubt. ... S: No 'we' to restrain anything. It's the function of awareness (and understanding) at such times. Sati has the function of guarding, restraining from akusala whenever it arises, like the guard at the door. Ignorance now, leads to more ignorance. Sati now leads to more sati, more guarding from akusala. At moments of kusala guarding, no doubt at all. Doubt only arises when there is ignorance. .... > 3) Restrain the faculty, and enjoy the moment, seem contradict with each > other? ... S: Yes. Restraint of 'the faculty' with sati arises with detachment. Enjoyment of the moment with attachment is the opposite. This doesn't mean trying not to enjoy the moment - that would just be more attachment with wrong view of self that can control what arises. The development of understanding and awareness has to be very natural, not forced at all, otherwise it's the wrong path completely! Only an anagami doesn't enjoy sense objects. It's a long, long path. Pls ask for any further clarifications. (There will be a delay in my replies as we're travelling.) Metta Sarah p.s Please sign off with your name as you'd like friends to address you! ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130109 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:07 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Tiny Tam and Sarah In March, I learnt from Kun Sujin that guarding of five senses is not only for monks but also for lay-followers. Hence, even though in the ultimate sense it is the issue of sati and pannaa, even lay-followers ought to be rather careful not pay too much attentions to desirable objects. (As an ex-monk, I used to think that the guarding of the five senses applies mostly to monks. But Kun Sujin has rectified such a misunderstanding of mine.) With Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tiny Tam, > > Good to hear your excellent qus! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Thanh Nguyen wrote: > > > I have a couple of questions about restrain senses. > > " There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not > > grasp at any theme or details by which  if he were to dwell without > > restraint over the faculty of the eye  evil, unskillful qualities such as > > greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards > > the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of > > the eye. "... > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.033.than.html > > 1) What is "does not grasp at any theme or details"? Would you like to > > explain the Pali words of that phrase? What the commentary said about it? > .... > S: When there is awareness and understanding, there is 'restraint', guarding of the faculties with no attachment to signs and details (nimmita anubya~njana). > > Here is a quote from A.Sujin's book, "Survey" referring to the Atthasalini, the commentary to the first Abhidhamma text: > > "The Atthasalini (II, Book II, Part II, 400) explains about being > unguarded as to the "controlling faculties", the indriyas. Here the > indriyas of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind are referred > to. We read: "Grasps the general appearance i.e., grasps by way of > lusting desire a sign such as is of the male, or female, pleasant, > etc, and which is the basis of corruption." > > "When we cling to the general appearance of male or female, > it shows that the object is not a paramattha dhamma. When we know > that we see a man or woman, we don't just know the reality which > appears through the eyes, but we have an image (nimitta), a concept > on account of what appears through the eyes. The image of the general > appearance of a man or woman is the foundation of defilements. > Through the power of desire (chanda raga) we take that image for > something attractive. When we like a concept such as a belt, it shows > that the belt is an attractive image. One is attached to it, one is > ruled by desire. If the belt is not beautiful, if it is not an > attractive nimitta (image), one does not like it. On account of > colours which appear through the eyes, there can be different > nimittas, attractive or unattractive. We read further on in the > Atthasalini: > > "Grasps the details (anuvyanjana), "i.e. takes the various > modes of hands and feet, of smiling, laughing, speaking, looking > straight ahead, looking askance, which have earned the name of > "details", they manifest, reveal the defilements." > > [Lots more detail in "Useful Posts" in the files under "shapes and forms"] > .... > > People say that does not grasp at theme means not grasping the general of > > object, and not grasp at details means not grasping detail of it. > > I find it has nothing to do with dukkha, anicca, anatta. > > Is grasping at theme means grasping of the idea unskillful like it's me, > > myself, mine in general, not clear, and at details when that idea become > > clear? > .... > S: When there is clinging to the signs (nimitta) and details (anubya~njana) of what is seen, the perversions (vipallasa) are at work - there is the taking what is dukkha for sukkha, what is anicca for nicca and, often, what is anatta for atta. It really seems at such times that there is a beautiful rainbow seen, a delicious meal eaten and so on. > .... > > 2) Restrain the intellect faculty? How do we do it? Does it lead to > > ignorance? When we cognize an new idea, at least there is doubt. > ... > S: No 'we' to restrain anything. It's the function of awareness (and understanding) at such times. Sati has the function of guarding, restraining from akusala whenever it arises, like the guard at the door. Ignorance now, leads to more ignorance. Sati now leads to more sati, more guarding from akusala. At moments of kusala guarding, no doubt at all. Doubt only arises when there is ignorance. > .... > > 3) Restrain the faculty, and enjoy the moment, seem contradict with each > > other? > ... > S: Yes. Restraint of 'the faculty' with sati arises with detachment. Enjoyment of the moment with attachment is the opposite. > > This doesn't mean trying not to enjoy the moment - that would just be more attachment with wrong view of self that can control what arises. The development of understanding and awareness has to be very natural, not forced at all, otherwise it's the wrong path completely! Only an anagami doesn't enjoy sense objects. It's a long, long path. > > Pls ask for any further clarifications. > > (There will be a delay in my replies as we're travelling.) > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s Please sign off with your name as you'd like friends to address you! > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130110 From: "Thanh" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:41 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. bostight257 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: When there is awareness and understanding, there is 'restraint', guarding of the faculties with no attachment to signs and details (nimmita anubya~njana). > We read: "Grasps the general appearance i.e., grasps by way of > lusting desire a sign such as is of the male, or female, pleasant, > etc, and which is the basis of corruption." > > "When we cling to the general appearance of male or female, > it shows that the object is not a paramattha dhamma. When we know > that we see a man or woman, we don't just know the reality which > appears through the eyes, but we have an image (nimitta), a concept > on account of what appears through the eyes. The image of the general > appearance of a man or woman is the foundation of defilements. > Through the power of desire (chanda raga) we take that image for > something attractive. When we like a concept such as a belt, it shows > that the belt is an attractive image. One is attached to it, one is > ruled by desire. If the belt is not beautiful, if it is not an > attractive nimitta (image), one does not like it. On account of > colours which appear through the eyes, there can be different > nimittas, attractive or unattractive. We read further on in the > Atthasalini: > > "Grasps the details (anuvyanjana), "i.e. takes the various > modes of hands and feet, of smiling, laughing, speaking, looking > straight ahead, looking askance, which have earned the name of > "details", they manifest, reveal the defilements." > 1)Is restrain means not attach to the concept (human, man, woman,...) or even to realize there is no such concept in reality? 2)How to avoid such denying state like there is no father, no teacher,....? > .... > S: When there is clinging to the signs (nimitta) and details >(anubya~njana) of what is seen, the perversions (vipallasa) are at >work - there is the taking what is dukkha for sukkha, what is anicca >for nicca and, often, what is anatta for atta. It really seems at >such times that there is a beautiful rainbow seen, a delicious meal >eaten and so on. I think you mean sukkha for dukkha, nicca for anicca, atta for anatta? > .... > S: No 'we' to restrain anything. It's the function of awareness >(and understanding) at such times. Sati has the function of >guarding, restraining from akusala whenever it arises, like the >guard at the door. Ignorance now, leads to more ignorance. Sati now >leads to more sati, more guarding from akusala. At moments of kusala >guarding, no doubt at all. Doubt only arises when there is ignorance. > .... 3)I'm lay man, so when reading a new book, watching news, movies, learning new knowledge,.... how to guarding intellect faculty? How to guarding to ideas? Even it's the Theravada Nikayas, we're encourage to doubt it, to check if it's true? > > 3) Restrain the faculty, and enjoy the moment, seem contradict with each > > other? > ... > S: Yes. Restraint of 'the faculty' with sati arises with detachment. Enjoyment of the moment with attachment is the opposite. > > This doesn't mean trying not to enjoy the moment - that would just >be more attachment with wrong view of self that can control what >arises. The development of understanding and awareness has to be >very natural, not forced at all, otherwise it's the wrong path >completely! Only an anagami doesn't enjoy sense objects. It's a >long, long path. > 4)I heard somebody said that enjoy the moment is to realize there is no self and you're one with the universe.... That's completely irrelevant to Buddhism, is that it? 5) So,how to keep enjoy objects without increasing attachment to it? Or we just accept that? >In March, I learnt from Kun Sujin that guarding of five senses is >not only for monks >but also for lay-followers. >Hence, even though in the ultimate sense it is the issue of sati and >pannaa, >even lay-followers ought to be rather careful not pay too much attentions to desirable objects. > >(As an ex-monk, I used to think that the guarding of the five senses >applies mostly to >monks. But Kun Sujin has rectified such a misunderstanding of mine.) In my view, concentration's very important. And without guarding the 6 senses, it is impossible to develop it. ====== Regards, Bach Lang Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130111 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E. (Sukin, others) - >Rob E : >It is the norm to take conventional speech to stand for conventional referents, and it is the norm to take them as real. It is only someone who has seen that experiential moments are more real than the concepts woven from them who can see beyond conventional references. Ultimate speech is designed to describe those realities to those who can understand them and want to understand them better, but this does not account for the use of conventional speech by a world teacher. >Generally, pannati are dismissed as useless and delusory, even though they are close cousins to nimittas and concepts that may stand in for things that are actual. I think the way in which they are used in Dhamma is worth more than an assumption that they are merely referencing dhammas and have no other purpose. T: Thank you for this good summary! Definitely, conventional speech is used by a world teacher who teaches the masses. Before a Dhamma student is matured in the Dhamma understanding to the point that he/she truly knows the essence (sabhava) of a conventional reality, it is premature to discard it. One can leave the Raft behind only when she/he has reached "the other shore". Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sukin. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder Narula wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E, Connie, > > ... > > We may have had this conversation before. But I think you've got this backwards. > > > > Conventional speech is the norm, > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130112 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:33 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello RobertE, all, >RE:How exactly that works is still a little bit of a mystery. I have >tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear >a conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their >response still has some effect on dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, we need to keep in mind the *purpose* for which the Buddha taught what he taught. Don't lose the forest among the trees. When Buddha taught about ayatana-s, etc, it was for specific context. When Buddha talked about "do this, do that" it also had a specific context. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130113 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all, >connie:The full Expositor quote remains my answer, Summarizer! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the Expositor and other commentaries are not Abhidhamma Pitaka and it came later. Different Buddhist philosophers had different take on philosophical issues. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130114 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:45 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., - >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? Be calm & cool, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > > >Rob E.: > > > I have tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear a > > conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their response still has some effect on dhammas. ... So for conventionally-minded Buddhists, the Buddha would talk about all these conventional subjects and the reactions this would excite would create genuine kusala. I wonder if you would agree with this? > > > > T: Yes, the first kusala dhamma to be induced by listening to the true Dhamma is conviction(faith, 'saddha') that is the supporting condition for practicing in accordance with the Dhamma (Pa.tipajjati = to enter upon a path) and importantly, the consequence of the right entering upon the path is experiential knowing and seeing the noble truths. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130115 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah,  S: Dear Tiny Tam, Tam B:  I know it is confusing, Bach Lang's email has the same last and middle name than Tiny Tam's.... Bach Lang is from Saigon.  Dear Bach Lang, Tiny Tam is another member from Hanoi, she sometimes posts here, signed off as Jr Tam. Glad to see you join the discussions! Metta, Tam B Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)             Recent Activity: * New Members 2 * New Photos 4 * New Files 1 Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE ________________________________ ________________________________ Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130116 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Back Lang & Tiny Tam, Sorry for the mix up. When Bach Lang sent her follow-up, I realised the mistake. They both raise excellent Dhamma points! Bach Lang, hope to meet you in Saigon - and now you'll see why we ask for a 'sign-off' name:-)) I'm impressed by your keen ad careful study. > Tam B: I know it is confusing, Bach Lang's email has the same last and middle name than Tiny Tam's.... > Bach Lang is from Saigon. .... Tam B, thanks for clarifying. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130117 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:46 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Bach Lang, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Thanh" wrote: > > S: When there is awareness and understanding, there is 'restraint', guarding of the faculties with no attachment to signs and details (nimmita anubya~njana). > > We read: "Grasps the general appearance i.e., grasps by way of > > lusting desire a sign such as is of the male, or female, pleasant, > > etc, and which is the basis of corruption." > > > > "When we cling to the general appearance of male or female, > > it shows that the object is not a paramattha dhamma.<...> >BL: 1)Is restrain means not attach to the concept (human, man, woman,...) or even to realize there is no such concept in reality? .... S: There is restraint, guarding of the sense doors whenever the citta is wholesome. At such times, there is no attachment to any thing - there is detachment. It is through the understanding of realities that very gradually there is less clinging to ideas of humans and things as actually existing. There is more understanding that what is actually experienced through the 5 sense doors are only visible objects, sounds and so on. This leads to less clinging to the stories about people and things imagined on account of such experiences. It doesn't mean that for the wise, there is no more thinking about concepts! The Buddha still knew the names of different people - but no illusion that in truth, anything arises other than elements or khandhas. ,,, >BL: 2)How to avoid such denying state like there is no father, no teacher,....? ... S: The purpose of the path is not to 'do' anything or 'deny anything'. The purpose is to understand the reality experienced now. When you think you look at your father or teacher, what is actually seen? ... >BL: 3)I'm lay man, so when reading a new book, watching news, movies, learning new knowledge,.... how to guarding intellect faculty? How to guarding to ideas? Even it's the Theravada Nikayas, we're encourage to doubt it, to check if it's true? ... S: Whenever there's an idea of doing something like "guarding intellect faculty", it indicates there's the idea of self that can do it. In truth, there's no 'me' or 'you' to guard. So it's not a matter of 'how to?' but of understanding what the reality is now. Sati (awareness) and panna (understanding) work there way. By considering more about what is real now, there is the beginning of guarding the faculties. The realities which don't experience anything, such as sound and visible object, and the realities which experience an object, such as hearing and seeing. Checking whether what we read is true of not is done by understanding what is experienced now, not by doubt, a form of ignorance. >BL: 4)I heard somebody said that enjoy the moment is to realize there is no self and you're one with the universe.... That's completely irrelevant to Buddhism, is that it? ... S: Meaningless fantasy! How can attachment lead to any realization and what does it mean to be "one with the universe"? Just more attachment. ... >BL: 5) So,how to keep enjoy objects without increasing attachment to it? Or we just accept that? ... S: The aim of the teachings is to understand whatever appears. Never mind whether it's attachment or kindness or seeing or hardness. Just conditioned dhammas, not anatta. If there's minding or concern about increasing attachment, it's just more attachment. .... S: Excellent questions and helpful for us all to consider. Please continue to ask more, but others may have to respond for the next few days until I'm settled in Australia. Bach Lang, please also introduce a little more about yourself if you have time and how you've come to have such a good interest in (Theravada) Dhamma. Very glad to read your contributions. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130118 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:09 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > Be calm & cool, > Tep :-) Thanks, Tep - yes, that is a good question. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130119 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:11 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Connie, all, > > > >connie:The full Expositor quote remains my answer, Summarizer! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > But, the Expositor and other commentaries are not Abhidhamma Pitaka and it came later. > > Different Buddhist philosophers had different take on philosophical issues. That is an interesting point that we haven't mentioned much, that the commentaries are not part of the Tipitaka. While they have excellent value, they perhaps should not be regarded as fully authoritative as the Abhidhamma itself. I wonder if there are any competing commentaries that we do not ordinarily hear about...? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130120 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:31 pm Subject: Ratthapala:The Faith Etadagga/Litta Jataka yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, This lovely Friday...I have 2 great stories to share with you all: Please click: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13099&p=196414#p196414 Miss you all, yawares #130121 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:34 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? .... S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! ... > :-) Thanks, Tep - yes, that is a good question. .... S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130122 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Ratthapala:The Faith Etadagga/Litta Jataka sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Yawares, Would it be possible for you to post the extracts from the stories here as you used to do, a page or two max at a time, rather than just giving a link? Many of us will read the extracts but never open the links, especially if we print out posts, receive them in digest form or read in the archives, for example. Thanks in advance. Metta Sarah ====== > This lovely Friday...I have 2 great stories to share with you all: > > Please click: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13099&p=196414#p196414 Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130123 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:35 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, Rob E., Alex, and anyone - The following conversation reveals an important issue that may not be resolvable. Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? .... S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! ... Rob E. :-) Thanks, Tep - yes, that is a good question. .... S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? T: I find myself back to square one again. Lookin' back on how it was In years gone by ... the good & bad times that I had Makes today seem rather sad Not much has changed! ................ Be well, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130124 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:43 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello RobertE, all, >I wonder if there are any competing commentaries that we do not >ordinarily hear about...? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty. Such as Vimuttimagga which came before Visuddhimagga. As for two truths: There is sarvastivadin, sutrantika, cittamatra, and two (or more?) madhymaka, and perhaps more takes on "two truths". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/ Now, think about this: Why are there so many different takes on two truths? Why one Abhidhamma has 72 dhammas, another 75 and another 100? Think... Because the suttas don't explicitly talk about "ultimate realities", Buddha in the suttas doesn't even say "ultimate reality". Abhidhamma Pitaka does not yet have classification of 72 dhammas, classification came later. Centuries, if I am not mistaken. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130125 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > > Quote: > > "Since you included me - thanks for that - I am jumping in as this > is one of my areas of great interest and concern. I am not well-read > enough in the commentaries to understand all the specifics above, but > it has always been my feeling - rightly or wrongly - that the Buddha > would not keep talking about conventional objects and activities, such > as murder, eating, alms-giving, meditation, monks, death, etc., just > for the sake of convenience, but that he must have believed that the > responses that are given to those who hear those terms actually has > some effect on dhammas and thus has a corresponding relation to the > development of the path." > > > > We may have had this conversation before. But I think you've got > this backwards. > > > > Conventional speech is the norm, > > It may be the norm, but that does not settle what it means, what > effect it has, what purpose it has. Conventional speech is designed > and evolved to discuss conceptual items in social and physical life as > we know them through the mind - deluded cittas in other words. So why > and how it is used to talk about that which is ultimate seems to be of > some concern. > This is from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." The above is conventional speech isn't it? And what it points to are ultimate realities, is it not? Were the audience deluded or were they close to enlightenment? All of them got enlightened before the Sutta was over. > It is natural to question this, but unfortunately there is hardly ever > a specific answer as to how pannati are able to stand in for dhammas > in the conventional speech of one who teaches about dhammas - the Buddha. > You are unnecessarily complicating things. With or without the Dhamma we are always referring to our experiences and that which is experienced and convey this to other people. For example we say, "when I touched that pan, my hand got burnt and it was very painful". Touch, heat, body and pain are referred to. Without the Dhamma these are taken for "self", but after hearing the Dhamma we can come to understand that they are in fact impersonal elements. And do we need to change to ultimate speech when for example we want to remind each other that these are impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self? Not if the understanding is great. It is the understanding and not the speech that is important. But understanding what? Some of us say that it is characteristic of nama and rupa, whereas you and some others think that conventional objects and actions are to be objects of the development of wisdom. We say that we don't understand, therefore need to hear more about paramattha dhammas. You say that you do not understand, therefore need to work with conventional reality. Does not ours rather than yours, conforms with the process of straightening of view? Now I do not say, that all conventional referents are the product of the deluded mind, and therefore can keep using them, only at the same time understand that they are not real. You on the other hand, are saying that "conceptual items in social and physical life as we know them through the mind - deluded cittas" and suggest at the same time, that they be objects of the development of understanding, why? > The Buddha is only there to teach the way to end suffering through the > path, so when he uses conventional speech he must have a purpose. To > say it is the norm is fine, but it doesn't address the purpose in my view. > The purpose of using conventional speech by the Buddha is the same as that of you, I or Jesus Christ, namely to convey what one thinks / understands. The Buddha communicated Right View, and it is this which leads to the end of Dukkha, whereas Jesus Christ communicated Wrong View which lead to more Dukkha / samsara. > > ultimate speech is for those of us who otherwise are likely to take > conventional referents for real. > > This seems a little inverted to me. It is the norm to take > conventional speech to stand for conventional referents, and it is the > norm to take them as real. > It is the norm to take them for real *before* hearing the Dhamma. But even then, not all thinking / expressions are motivated by wrong view. Ignorance mostly yes, and sometimes, attachment, sometimes aversion, sometimes conceit, and also kindness, compassion etc. so really, wrong view is in fact rare compared. But again, if you think that they are all the time taken for real, why suggest that they be worked with as part of Dhamma practice? > It is only someone who has seen that experiential moments are more > real than the concepts woven from them who can see beyond conventional > references. Ultimate speech is designed to describe those realities to > those who can understand them and want to understand them better, but > this does not account for the use of conventional speech by a world > teacher. > So you are saying that an Ariyan understands that paramattha dhammas are "more real" than the concepts? So tell me, in what sense is a "car" real, and by what is "more" distinguished from "less" real? The person who truly understands, any concept can be used, he will not be fooled. On the other hand, the person with no wisdom, no matter how much you analyze experience in terms of paramattha dhammas for him, he will not understand. > > This is what I think Connie was trying to convey with her quotes > from the commentary. > > I think you are right about that. It is the presumption of those who > take dhammas as their point of reference, that conventional speech of > a Buddha is only talking about dhammas. > It is the understanding that the Dhamma is about better understanding dhammas starting with distinguishing reality from concepts, which leads to the conclusion that even when conventional objects and situations are referred to, what needs to be understood are the dhammas. Your insisting that conventional objects be objects of study therefore reflects the fact that you have not really understood the distinction between reality and concepts. > So far I have not seen the evidence of this, except for the > philosophical predisposition of those who assume it to be the case. > That is a self-referential philosophy - it does not get into the > details of why or how such speech operates. > How speech communicates ideas is one discussion. Why the Buddha used conventional speech is another discussion. Let us stick with the latter only. > Generally, pannati are dismissed as useless and delusory, even though > they are close cousins to nimittas and concepts that may stand in for > things that are actual. I think the way in which they are used in > Dhamma is worth more than an assumption that they are merely > referencing dhammas and have no other purpose. > Of course pannatis are useful. Without concepts, the Buddha could not teach and we could not learn about dhammas. Indeed without concepts we can't function at all, not even move a finger. However that concepts are part of our lives, this does not somehow elevate it to a status of reality. What you should be considering instead, is whether any concept could be conceived of without paramattha dhammas rising and falling away and performing specific functions, such as thinking, attention, memory, concentration and also seeing / visible object, hearing / sound and so on. And does not it follow then that it is these that need to be understood? Metta, Sukin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130126 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:48 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Everyone: I'm not sure if I should jump into the debate. But I would like to point out that as we all know, there are two types of truth: one is absolute and the other is conventional. As long as we do not mix up these, nothing wrong with juggling these two types of truth. Even the Buddha and all the arahatta do so when they use their own languages. Also, it's possible to say that the conventional truth concerns with the level of cognition, while the absolute truth concerns with the level of sensation. At the level of cognition, we perceive people/things, but at the level of sensation, which is the main concern of the Buddhism, what takes place are all the phenomena of seeing, hearing etc. Even an arahatta does not live in the world of sensation all the time; memories and concepts emerge naturally from what he has perceived through the five sense doors. An import thing is, however, that he has a clear understanding that what he experiences directly at the level of sensation are totally different from what he conceives at the level of cognition. He knows that the concepts emerged are merely created but what he experiences directly are not. tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > Be calm & cool, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep. > > > > > >Rob E.: > > > > I have tried to propose at times that when "conventionally-minded people" hear a > > > conventionally-phrased Dhamma pronouncement or command, that their response still has some effect on dhammas. ... So for conventionally-minded Buddhists, the Buddha would talk about all these conventional subjects and the reactions this would excite would create genuine kusala. I wonder if you would agree with this? > > > > > > T: Yes, the first kusala dhamma to be induced by listening to the true Dhamma is conviction(faith, 'saddha') that is the supporting condition for practicing in accordance with the Dhamma (Pa.tipajjati = to enter upon a path) and importantly, the consequence of the right entering upon the path is experiential knowing and seeing the noble truths. > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130127 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello Sukinder, >The above is conventional speech isn't it? The question has wrong implications. The Buddha, as recorded in the suttas, didn't teach two truths. Even Abhidhamma Pitaka did not. The two truths doctrine came later. Don't attempt to read the suttas with the ideas that were not meant by the speaker or the listeners at that time. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130128 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >The above is conventional speech isn't it? > > The question has wrong implications. The Buddha, as recorded in the suttas, didn't teach two truths. Even Abhidhamma Pitaka did not. > > The two truths doctrine came later. Don't attempt to read the suttas with the ideas that were not meant by the speaker or the listeners at that time. Sorry, where did I refer to the idea of "two truths"? Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130129 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello Sukinder, >Sukinder:Sorry, where did I refer to the idea of "two truths"? You implied it by saying: "The above is conventional speech isn't it? And what it points to are ultimate realities, is it not? " "Now I do not say, that all conventional referents are the product of the deluded mind, and therefore can keep using them, only at the same time understand that they are not real. " etc. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130130 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >Sukinder:Sorry, where did I refer to the idea of "two truths"? > > You implied it by saying: > > "The above is conventional speech isn't it? And what it points to are > ultimate realities, is it not? " > > "Now I do not say, that all conventional referents are the product of > the deluded mind, and therefore can keep using them, only at the same > time understand that they are not real. " > A car is a car, not a hammer. This is conventional truth. But I also say that all convention is concept, therefore unreal. And the discussion in this thread is about whether concepts can be object of the development of wisdom. I say not and you say yes. But I've just had a thought. You've heard the story about man who mistakes the rope for a snake, I presume? Do you think there is some important Dhamma lesson in this? If so, what is it? Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130131 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:47 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Tep, > The Buddha taught the bark-cloth ascetic using the ultimate-reality language [Bahiya Sutta] : > "When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > connie: please say more about this as an example of ultimate-reality language... thanks, c > > > > > > Tep: What is your answer to Question 2, may I ask? > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130132 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all >A car is a car, not a hammer. This is conventional truth. But I also >say that all convention is concept, therefore unreal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean "unreal"? How can you hurt your finger with an unreal hammer? How can car accident occur if car is "unreal"? Why do we use the knife to cut food and spoon to eat the soup? We can't eat soup with a knife, because different objects have different uses. >And the discussion in this thread is about whether concepts can be >object of the development of wisdom. I say not and you say yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suttas say yes. Of course you have the right for your own idea. >But I've just had a thought. You've heard the story about man who >mistakes the rope for a snake, I presume? Do you think there is some >important Dhamma lesson in this? If so, what is it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you mistake salt for sugar, the taste will not be sweet. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130133 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:28 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao, (Rob E., Alex, Connie and Sarah of course) - You mentioned 'jumping into debate'! Debating implies there are two opposing views and the two persons (one on each side) disagree. I do not follow why you use the word "sensation" with regard to Absolute Truth (paramattha). Why does the Abhidhamma concern only with sensation? Other than that I agree with everything you have said. So there is no debate here. Summary (based on Tadao's message:) 1. There are two kinds of truth: absolute & conventional. 2. The conventional truth concerns with the level of cognition, while the absolute truth concerns with the level of sensation. 3. At the level of cognition we perceive people/things. At the level of sensation what takes place are all the phenomena of seeing, hearing, etc. 4. The Arahant does not perceive only paramattha dhammas, he/she also perceives concepts (conventional realities), and a clear understanding that experiences at the level of sensation are totally different from those at the level of cognition. He/she knows that the concepts emerged are merely created. Be happy, The Summarizer ......... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Everyone: > > I'm not sure if I should jump into the debate. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130134 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:51 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Hi Rob e, > > What does "conventional" mean, anyway? Good question - if there is no division between conventional and paramatha, then the whole idea of paramatha falls apart, doesn't it? So is there a distinction, or not? > connie: convention, the norm, way of the average man, the commoner sense... the ways and means of going along, long, long. what we pretty much take for granted - evidently without giving it much thought! so, what is un-conventional understanding? c Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130135 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:04 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email Alex, we ourselves are later than the Commentators! I guess that means we have nothing to say. peace c Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130136 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:19 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all, >Alex, we ourselves are later than the Commentators! I guess that means >we have nothing to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we know that commentators (and which ones?) didn't make any mistakes? Even during Buddha's time there were monks (Arittha, Sati, Devadatta) with mistaken views. The thing is that when the Buddha was alive, he could have said "this and that is incorrect", but without Him - how do we know that commentators are not making mistakes? IMHO, With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130137 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:24 am Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. nichiconn Send Email Send Email hi Sarah, > S: The aim of the teachings is to understand whatever appears. Never mind whether it's attachment or kindness or seeing or hardness. Just conditioned dhammas, not anatta. If there's minding or concern about increasing attachment, it's just more attachment. > .... connie: pretty sure you didn't mean NOT anatta! c Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130138 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:26 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - Let's keep our communication channel open! Thanks for the asking. > > T: The Buddha taught the bark-cloth ascetic using the ultimate-reality language [Bahiya Sutta] : > > "When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." > > > > connie: please say more about this as an example of ultimate-reality language... thanks, This is what I understand: the Buddha teaches Bahiya that with reference to the sensing phenomenon he should perceive 'anatta' in it. With no clinging, it is the end of dukkha. Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130139 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:03 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Alex, > > how do we know that commentators are not making mistakes? > connie: let's share examples when we come across things we doubt or wonder about. you do read the theravada commentaries, don't you? c Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130140 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:29 am Subject: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Khun Phil, I thank you all very much for your best wishes. By the power of your best wishes the operation is safely over, and I am now recovering at home. But I still cannot sit down to work on my computer for more than a few minutes at a time. -------------------- My own body parts which have become a potential murderer (vadhaka) have been removed. But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). [I have been inspired by the passages from SN 35.238 Aasiivisopama sutta to write the above two sentences.] with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130141 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:40 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all, >connie: let's share examples when we come across things we doubt or >wonder about. you do read the theravada commentaries, don't you? >>>>>>>>> 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. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130142 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:20 am Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi All, Thanks Guard of the Doorways! NOT ATTA! Ok, that just caught my eye - 5.00 a.m. and closing down as we head for the airport shortly. Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > S: The aim of the teachings is to understand whatever appears. Never mind whether it's attachment or kindness or seeing or hardness. Just conditioned dhammas, not anatta. If there's minding or concern about increasing attachment, it's just more attachment. > > .... > > connie: pretty sure you didn't mean NOT anatta! Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130143 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:21 am Subject: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi everyone, - Thanks to all who lately participated in the series of discussion on the Abhidhamma and the Sutta methods, the conventional and the ultimate realities. I think there are mainly eight questions : Q. 1. Why is the Abhidhamma Pitaka so great? Q. 2. In brief what is the Abhidhamma? Q. 3. What is the dhamma theory? Q. 4. Why are the dhammas the only reality? Q. 5. Do the teachings of the Suttas exclude ultimate reality? Q. 6. What is the primary concern of the Abhidhamma? Q. 7. In what ways are the Abhidhamma different than the Suttas? Q. 8. How do the Abhidhamma and the Suttas methods relate? Probably, there more more questions in your mind. If that's the case, then help me expand the list! I found answers to the above questions from the e-book: "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha" General editor, Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html .................. ANSWERS: 1. "The Abhidhamma treatises are attempting nothing less than to articulate a comprehensive vision of the totality of experienced reality, a vision marked by extensiveness of range, systematic completeness, and analytical precision. From the standpoint of Theravada orthodoxy the system that they expound is not a figment of speculative thought, not a mosaic put together out of metaphysical hypotheses, but a disclosure of the true nature of existence as apprehended by a mind that has penetrated the totality of things both in depth and in the finest detail. 2. "The Theravada tradition regards the Abhidhamma as the most perfect expression possible of the Buddha's unimpeded omniscient knowledge (sabbaññuta-ñana). It is his statement of the way things appear to the mind of a Fully Enlightened One, ordered in accordance with the two poles of his teaching: suffering and the cessation of suffering. The Abhidhamma may be described as a philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a perspective on the nature of the real. This perspective has been designated the "dhamma theory" (dhammavada). 3. "Briefly, the dhamma theory maintains that ultimate reality consists of a multiplicity of elementary constituents called dhammas. The dhammas are not noumena hidden behind phenomena, not "things in themselves" as opposed to "mere appearances," but the fundamental components of actuality. The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience. 4. "The familiar world of substantial objects and enduring persons is, according to the dhamma theory, a conceptual construct fashioned by the mind out of the raw data provided by the dhammas. The entities of our everyday frame of reference possess merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. 5. No. The conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha's disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc., but it remains there tacitly in the background as the underpinning to the more pragmatically formulated teachings of the Suttas. Even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself the dhamma theory is not yet expressed as an explicit philosophical tenet; this comes only later, in the Commentaries. 6. "The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience. 7. "In contrast to the Suttas, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is intended to divulge as starkly and directly as possible the totalistic system that underlies the Suttanta expositions and upon which the individual discourses draw. The Abhidhamma takes no account of the personal inclinations and cognitive capacities of the listeners; it makes no concessions to particular pragmatic requirements. It reveals the architectonics of actuality in an abstract, formalistic manner utterly devoid of literary embellishments and pedagogical expedients. Thus the Abhidhamma method is described as the nippariyaya-dhammadesana, the literal or unembellished discourse on the Dhamma. "This difference in technique between the two methods also influences their respective terminologies. In the Suttas the Buddha regularly makes use of conventional language (voharavacana) and accepts conventional truth (sammutisacca), truth expressed in terms of entities that do not possess ontological ultimacy but can still be legitimately referred to them. Thus in the Suttas the Buddha speaks of "I" and "you," of "man" and "woman," of living beings, persons, and even self as though they were concrete realities. The Abhidhamma method of exposition, however, rigorously restricts itself to terms that are valid from the standpoint of ultimate truth (paramatthasacca): dhammas, their characteristics, their functions, and their relations. Thus in the Abhidhamma all such conceptual entities provisionally accepted in the Suttas for purposes of meaningful communication are resolved into their ontological ultimates, into bare mental and material phenomena that are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen, empty of any abiding self or substance. 8. "When a distinction is drawn between the two methods, this should be understood to be based on what is most characteristic of each Pitaka and should not be interpreted as an absolute dichotomy. To some degree the two methods overlap and interpenetrate. Thus in the Sutta Pitaka we find discourses that employ the strictly philosophical terminology of aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc., and thus come within the bounds of the Abhidhamma method. Again, within the Abhidhamma Pitaka we find sections, even a whole book (the Puggalapaññatti), that depart from the rigorous manner of expression and employ conventional terminology, thus coming within the range of the Suttanta method. ............ Be well, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130144 From: Thanh Nguyen Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. bostight257 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Thanks for your respond. The practice of seeing senses experience as the elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a shock. Let me introduce myself. I'm Bach Lang, from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. I'm come to Theravada as I find it the most realistic and most possible way of getting out of suffering: a clear and realistic way of practice. Nice to meet you all. Regards, Bach Lang. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM, sarah wrote: > S: There is restraint, guarding of the sense doors whenever the citta is > wholesome. At such times, there is no attachment to any thing - there is > detachment. <...> Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130145 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:29 am Subject: Re: Thank you very much t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Han, - Lucky you! It is a great news for me today. So, rest well and don't worry about using your computer for a week. May the new body parts work harmoniously with the old body! Be well & happier, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Khun Phil, > > I thank you all very much for your best wishes. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130146 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:54 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Tepster, (Alex, RobE, You,) If good people quarrel they should quickly be reconciled and form a bond that long endures. Like useless cracked or broken pots, only fools do not seek reconciliation. One who understands this, who considers this teaching, does what's hard to do and is a worthy brother. He who bears the abuse of others is fit to be a conciliator. -- Ja.III,38 connie: that's the Digital Pali Reader quote of the day today - just peeking at the commentary to puggala... which of course i cannot read! i'll be back! c > > 8. "When a distinction is drawn between the two methods, this should be understood to be based on what is most characteristic of each Pitaka and should not be interpreted as an absolute dichotomy. To some degree the two methods overlap and interpenetrate. Thus in the Sutta Pitaka we find discourses that employ the strictly philosophical terminology of aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc., and thus come within the bounds of the Abhidhamma method. Again, within the Abhidhamma Pitaka we find sections, even a whole book (the Puggalapaññatti), that depart from the rigorous manner of expression and employ conventional terminology, thus coming within the range of the Suttanta method. > ............ > > Be well, > Tep > === > Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130147 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:12 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. > > > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > .... > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? > ... > > > :-) Thanks, Tep - yes, that is a good question. > .... > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130148 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Tep, Thank you very much once again. with metta and respect, Han From: Tep Sastri indriyabala@... Dear Brother Han, - Lucky you! It is a great news for me today. So, rest well and don't worry about using your computer for a week. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130149 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:10 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear friends, > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? connie: to take the easy route, i quote our beloved, ADL: Death is due to four causes, namely: Expiry of life-span The cessation of kammic forces Combination of the above two Untimely death due to an interrupting kammic force, upacchedaka kamma. < end quote, ADL. c Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130150 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:22 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Tep)- > > > J: This is an argument used by meditation teachers – "just try this technique and you'll see that it works". I don't think the Buddha ever endorsed such an approach; indeed, he cautioned against it. > ----------------------------- > HCW: > Hmmm - don't try, but take merely on faith? Remember "ehipassiko," Jon? :-) > ---------------------------- J: Yes, let's talk about "ehipassiko". It was a term used by the Buddha in describing the attributes of the Dhamma. It means "inviting to inspect" or "worthy of inspection". The reasons are obvious to us here. My discussion with Tep, however, is about supposed practice methods offered by others, such as the Ven. Soma's `preliminary object of contemplation' and `wholetime mindfulness'. I am suggesting that these should be evaluated by first considering them against the teachings of the Buddha as we find and understand them. I don't see any contradiction with the description of the teaching as being `ehipassiko'. Jon #130151 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E. I'm not sure if I do understand the point of your question. But concerning "action", let me express my idea. Most of the systems we rely on (e.g., language) have both the components of "comprehension" and "production." However, when we model such systems, generally, we prefer comprehension models, which could be much much simpler to formulate, to "production models." For instance, most of the models proposed in Psychology are comprehension models. Production models are very hard to construct since they involve various variables which are hard to control. The Buddhism/Abhidhamma is also a compression model, dealing with what we directly/actually experience through the six doors. Then, how can we describe "action", which seems to involve self/self-control. Here again, the focus is on "comprehension." Regardless of what kind of action we take, we only perceive the action through the door ways. That is, even though it seems to be a self engaging an action, from the viewpoint of comprehension, such an action would be boiled down to the realities at the level of sensation. Hence, Kun Sukin, Kun Nina, Sarah, Jon etc. all say that whatever we do (i.e., production), pay attention to the realities which appear (i.e., comprehension) (with sati and pannaa). tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > > >Rob E. : Experiential knowing may be few and far between for a while, but it is worthwhile to be ready to acknowledge it when it comes. > > > > > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > .... > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > > I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. > > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? > > > ... > > > > > :-) Thanks, Tep - yes, that is a good question. > > .... > > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? > > It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130152 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - Your message is, again, a puzzle. >connie: that's the Digital Pali Reader quote of the day today - just peeking at the commentary to puggala... which of course i cannot read! >i'll be back! Please be back and tell me what you had in mind. Be clear, Tep(ster) === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Tepster, (Alex, RobE, You,) > > If good people quarrel they should quickly be reconciled and form a bond that long endures. Like useless cracked or broken pots, only fools do not seek reconciliation. One who understands this, who considers this teaching, does what's hard to do and is a worthy brother. He who bears the abuse of others is fit to be a conciliator. > > -- Ja.III,38 > > connie: that's the Digital Pali Reader quote of the day today - just peeking at the commentary to puggala... which of course i cannot read! > > i'll be back! > c > > > > > 8. "When a distinction is drawn between the two methods, this should be understood to be based on what is most characteristic of each Pitaka and should not be interpreted as an absolute dichotomy. To some degree the two methods overlap and interpenetrate. Thus in the Sutta Pitaka we find discourses that employ the strictly philosophical terminology of aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc., and thus come within the bounds of the Abhidhamma method. Again, within the Abhidhamma Pitaka we find sections, even a whole book (the Puggalapaññatti), that depart from the rigorous manner of expression and employ conventional terminology, thus coming within the range of the Suttanta method. > > ............ > > > > Be well, > > Tep > > === > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130153 From: "connie" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers nichiconn Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, > > Your message is, again, a puzzle. > connie: nothing important; you're not missing anything. c Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130154 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear friends, > > > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? > > connie: to take the easy route, i quote our beloved, ADL: > > Death is due to four causes, namely: > Expiry of life-span > The cessation of kammic forces > Combination of the above two > Untimely death due to an interrupting kammic force, upacchedaka kamma. > > < end quote, ADL. > -------- KH: That's the easy route, all right, and it's the Abhidhamma route. The other, much harder, route is that of the conventional-language suttas. That's where we have to be very careful not to get caught out. To unskilled ears some suttas seem to be explaining conventional reality. So they seem to be answering Tep's question: "When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality?" But don't be fooled, they are not answering that question at all; they are actually explaining ultimate reality. A cuti citta can be described as like the death of a being, and an akusala cetana-cetasika like the murder of a being. But not the other way around; the Dhamma does not explain conventional reality. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130155 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:07 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep Since I'm (slightly) dyslexic, I often rely on images to grasp important concepts. (One tell-tell sign of dyslexia is left-right agnosia; I'm one of those who cannot tell which is left and which is right.) Given my way of thinking, I will briefly explain why I say that the Abhidhamma deals mostly with the level of sensation; this concerns with my view that the Abhidhamma is what I call a "bottle-neck model". We (i.e., those who do not understand the Dhamma) think that there is the so-called "outside world". We think that our cognition of the outside world accurately reflects such a world. However, these two are not directly linked; they are linked by the bottle-neck, a highly narrow sensory passages. Because of the very limited information processing capacity of our sensation, we cannot take in the outside world as it is or as a whole; the information load has to be "radically" reduced at the level of sensation. Such highly impoverished pieces of sensory information are then processed at the level of perception/cognition to reconstruct the so-called outside world. A good example is seeing, what appears on the retina is highly impoverished two-dimentional visual object; remarkably, however, our brain converts such an image into three dimensional (original) visual object. (Mathematics cannot solve such a problem.) In this sense, we (i.e., those who do not understand the Dhamma) think that there is the outside world, which consists of people/things. However, these are, to a large part, those which are merely reconstructed by our brain. The Buddhism says "don't pay attention to these two ends (i.e., the outside world and our cognition of the outside world) but pay attention to the sensory world. At this level, everything is mere phenomenon: no thing, no person, and none of the phenomena can be treated as a self, being permanent or worth clinging to. (In the above sense, I call the Buddhism, especially, Abhidhamma, as a bottle-neck model.) A question obviously arises to what extent our cognition reflects the outside world. The answer would be that we CANNOT tell since we have NO means to compare these two worlds with each other. Other than perceiving the outside world through the bottle-neck or very narrow sensory passages, we have no other means to perceive it; hence, we are not in the position of accurately comparing these two worlds. In the Theravada tradition, it is claimed that the outside world does not exist; and our cognition of it is mere mirage. But I myself would say that it's something we cannot prove. What we can prove is that what we actually "experience" is not a person, not a thing; what we can actually experience are simply highly impoverished pieces of sensory information. Other than these, there are nothings which can be directly experienced. Hence, from the practitioners' viewpoint, it is not really important to argue if the outside world exists or not or what we think we've perceived are mere mirage or not. Then why do we have to see the sensory world as it is; it is a means/method to eradicate our defilements. In other words, seeing the sensory world as it is not an aim but a means. By doing so, we can become disenchanted with the so-called outside world. In this sense, it's important to see seeing as seeing, a visual object as a visual object etc. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Tadao, (Rob E., Alex, Connie and Sarah of course) - > > You mentioned 'jumping into debate'! Debating implies there are two opposing views and the two persons (one on each side) disagree. I do not follow why you use the word "sensation" with regard to Absolute Truth (paramattha). Why does the Abhidhamma concern only with sensation? Other than that I agree with everything you have said. So there is no debate here. > > Summary (based on Tadao's message:) > 1. There are two kinds of truth: absolute & conventional. > 2. The conventional truth concerns with the level of cognition, while the absolute truth concerns with the level of sensation. > 3. At the level of cognition we perceive people/things. At the level of sensation what takes place are all the phenomena of seeing, hearing, etc. > 4. The Arahant does not perceive only paramattha dhammas, he/she also perceives concepts (conventional realities), and a clear understanding that experiences at the level of sensation are totally different from those at the level of cognition. He/she knows that the concepts emerged are merely created. > > Be happy, > The Summarizer > ......... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone: > > > > I'm not sure if I should jump into the debate. > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130156 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:25 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon (and Tep)- > > > > > J: This is an argument used by meditation teachers – "just try this technique and you'll see that it works". I don't think the Buddha ever endorsed such an approach; indeed, he cautioned against it. > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > Hmmm - don't try, but take merely on faith? Remember "ehipassiko," Jon? :-) > > ---------------------------- > > J: Yes, let's talk about "ehipassiko". It was a term used by the Buddha in describing the attributes of the Dhamma. It means "inviting to inspect" or "worthy of inspection". The reasons are obvious to us here. > > My discussion with Tep, however, is about supposed practice methods offered by others, such as the Ven. Soma's `preliminary object of contemplation' and `wholetime mindfulness'. I am suggesting that these should be evaluated by first considering them against the teachings of the Buddha as we find and understand them. ----------------------------- HCW: I definitely agree with you on that. ----------------------------- I don't see any contradiction with the description of the teaching as being `ehipassiko'. ----------------------------- HCW: Okay. ---------------------------- > > Jon > ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130157 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters colette_aube Send Email Send Email A "crafty one", isn't he, Alex? It's not often I get to see an actual member of the Sangha EXPERIENCE a moment of "enlightenment", but in this case I enjoyed it, somewhat. In my "practice", I AM FOCUSED WITH AN UNBELIEVABLE CONCENTRATION on "the flow of prana", at the moment. Been this way for more than several weeks now. Anyway, I thought I'd allow you to DECEIVE yourselves through my action of imitating the proverbial "fly in the ointment" This way, once you realize that you're lost, I can say/sing "c'mon take a little walk with me baby and tell me who do ya love." But that is my playful side peaking out around the corners of my life and viewing this thing called REALITY. Isn't that cool how Sukinder played around with your assessment? Yes, by all means, I see no problems with using THE SYMMETRIC PROPERTY OF EQUALITY. Isn't that interesting how the word "convention" and "conventional" are blinding words that exude blinding concepts? So, then, isn't it true that to say "convention" or "conventional" is the same as saying THE NORM, the "status quo" but I want to equal Suinder's craftiness, so why can't the words "convention" and "conventional" mean CATHOLIC since we can put into EQUALITY the same behaviors of those who established the BUDDHIST DOCTRINE (which then created THERAVADA) TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ESTABLISHED THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (which then created CATHOLIC): the Buddhist monks set up shop in a cave and used, applied, DISCRIMINATION as to who can and who cannot decide what is to be THERAVADAN just as the Romans, in Constantinople, decided to decide who can and who cannot decide on what shall come out of the FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA and the NICENE CREED. One is Buddhist and the other is Christian but they both employed the same behavior to establish themselves. Come now, lets get a handle on that BREATHING and that HEART RATE. Speed will generate heat and I am not about to BOIL BLOOD at this time, working a TANTRA system that is a bit new to me BUT DAMN IS IT SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH! I'd rather you apply the IDA a little more so that we can maintain the Sushumna. Love it, though! Thanx for letting me have a little fun and mix it up a little. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > >Sukinder:Sorry, where did I refer to the idea of "two truths"? > > > > You implied it by saying: > > > > "The above is conventional speech isn't it? And what it points to are > > ultimate realities, is it not? " > > > > "Now I do not say, that all conventional referents are the product of > > the deluded mind, and therefore can keep using them, only at the same > > time understand that they are not real. " > > > > A car is a car, not a hammer. This is conventional truth. But I also say > that all convention is concept, therefore unreal. And the discussion in > this thread is about whether concepts can be object of the development > of wisdom. I say not and you say yes. > But I've just had a thought. You've heard the story about man who > mistakes the rope for a snake, I presume? Do you think there is some > important Dhamma lesson in this? If so, what is it? > > Sukin > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130158 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conventional still matters sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >A car is a car, not a hammer. This is conventional truth. But I also > >say that all convention is concept, therefore unreal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > What do you mean "unreal"? > Something that is thought about and therefore not a reality. Something that has no characteristics. > How can you hurt your finger with an unreal hammer? > If you believe that finger is real, then you will believe that a hammer is also real. If you understand that there is in fact no finger but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena, then you will also understand that there is no hammer, but only primary and derived rupas. > How can car accident occur if car is "unreal"? > Accident is a concept from thinking about car, driving, crashing etc. When elements are understood as elements, then you can see that sometimes, one element affect another element, no car, no crashing, no accident. > Why do we use the knife to cut food and spoon to eat the soup? We > can't eat soup with a knife, because different objects have different > uses. > Ideas about this and that arises as a result of experiences through the five senses and the mind. What makes up spoon are experience of rupas different from that of a knife. A knife has one use and a spoon has another, but this is all thinking about concepts. Hardness is hardness, heat is heat, knife or spoon, it is the thinking conditioned by memory which makes this particular distinction. > >And the discussion in this thread is about whether concepts can be > >object of the development of wisdom. I say not and you say yes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Suttas say yes. Of course you have the right for your own idea. > What is the basis for the belief? Please tell me how a "spoon" is understood for what it is? > >But I've just had a thought. You've heard the story about man who > >mistakes the rope for a snake, I presume? Do you think there is some > >important Dhamma lesson in this? If so, what is it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If you mistake salt for sugar, the taste will not be sweet. > I have a particular reason for asking the above question. So please give a direct answer. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130159 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao, (Sarah, Rob E., Nina) - >Tadao: I will briefly explain why I say that the Abhidhamma deals mostly with the level of sensation ... this concerns with my view that the Abhidhamma is what I call a "bottle-neck model" : those who do not understand the Dhamma think there is the so-called "outside world" ... our cognition of the outside world accurately reflects such a world . However, these two are not directly linked; they are linked by the bottle-neck, a highly narrow sensory passages. >Tadao: Such highly impoverished pieces of sensory information are then processed at the level of perception/cognition to reconstruct the so-called outside world. ...[for example] what appears on the retina is highly impoverished two-dimentional visual object; remarkably, however, our brain converts such an image into three dimensional (original) visual object. T: I like this vivid example of the mapping of 2-D images into 3-D visual objects in the brain. But what about the citta --how does it "see" the original 3-D object through the "sense-door"? The Abhidhamma does not even mention the brain. As to the Sutta teaching, it does not care at all about such mapping or how the citta processes visual data; the concern is clear knowing and seeing of 'rupas' as anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta that leads to abandoning craving and ignorance. ............ >Tadao: The Buddhism says "don't pay attention to these two ends (i.e., the outside world and our cognition of the outside world) but pay attention to the sensory world. At this level, everything is mere phenomenon: no thing, no person, and none of the phenomena can be treated as a self, being permanent or worth clinging to. T: Thank you for explaining well. Now I understand why you have said that "the Abhidhamma concerns only with sensation". ............ >Tadao: What we can prove is that what we actually "experience" is not a person, not a thing; what we can actually experience are simply highly impoverished pieces of sensory information. Other than these, there are nothings which can be directly experienced. Hence, from the practitioners' viewpoint, it is not really important to argue if the outside world exists or not or what we think we've perceived are mere mirage or not. Then why do we have to see the sensory world as it is; it is a means/method to eradicate our defilements. In other words, seeing the sensory world as it is not an aim but a means. By doing so, we can become disenchanted with the so-called outside world. T: Although --without any doubt-- yathabhuta.m pajanati is a means to disenchantment (Nibbida), but how does such truly seeing & knowing --as a path-- arise without an aim/purpose (chanda.m janeti) of samma-vayama? Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Tep > ... > > We (i.e., those who do not understand the Dhamma) think that there is > the so-called "outside world". > > We think that our cognition of the outside world accurately reflects > such a world. > > However, these two are not directly linked; they are linked by the bottle-neck, a highly narrow sensory passages. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130160 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:01 am Subject: Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello Sukin, all, >...If you understand that there is in fact no >?>finger but only >particular primary elements experienced by some >mental phenomena, >then you will also understand that there is no >hammer, but only >primary and derived rupas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer! If food doesn't exist, and neither the body - does this mean that one can not starve to death? Why eat? When you walk from a room, why do you try to walk through the door rather than attempting to walk through the wall? What is the use of this purely mental philosophy where you believe one thing and act contrary to it? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130161 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:34 am Subject: Re: Ratthapala:The Faith Etadagga/Litta Jataka....SARAH yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Do you know? I found out that 26 DSG members click to read this RATTHAPALA story...@ DhammaWheel when viewers click to read the story the number will add up each time. And 31 members clicked to read the story/Nina's birthday. I'm pretty busy posting @SD/JTN/DhammaWheel/DharmaWheel that's why I just copy the links and posted here..think members here might enjoy reading my stories with beautiful pictures. Miss you/Nina, yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Yawares, > > Would it be possible for you to post the extracts from the stories here as you used to do, a page or two max at a time, rather than just giving a link? Many of us will read the extracts but never open the links, especially if we print out posts, receive them in digest form or read in the archives, for example. > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > > > This lovely Friday...I have 2 great stories to share with you all: > > > > Please click: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13099&p=196414#p196414 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130162 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:55 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (Sukin), - Allow me to comment on this very interesting dialog: >>Sukin: ...If you understand that there is in fact no finger but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena, then you will also understand that there is no hammer, but only primary and derived rupas. >Alex: If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer! T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it? I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena". It is like the viewpoint of an atomic physicist who sees nothing but the atoms. ................... The Abhidhamma may be described as a philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a perspective on the nature of the real. This perspective has been designated the dhamma theory (dhammavada). The familiar world of substantial objects and enduring persons is, according to the dhamma theory, a conceptual construct fashioned by the mind out of the raw data provided by the dhammas. In the Suttas the Buddha speaks of "I" and "you," of "man" and "woman," of living beings, persons, and even self as though they were concrete realities. The Abhidhamma method of exposition, however, rigorously restricts itself to terms that are valid from the standpoint of ultimate truth (paramatthasacca): dhammas, their characteristics, their functions, and their relations. Thus in the Abhidhamma all such conceptual entities provisionally accepted in the Suttas for purposes of meaningful communication are resolved into their ontological ultimates, into bare mental and material phenomena that are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen, empty of any abiding self or substance. Reference: "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha" General editor, Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html .............. Be wise, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130163 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:34 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, Sukin, all, I believe that anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta characteristic is more powerful for dispassion than speculating about existence/non-existence. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130164 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:55 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi Rob e, > > > > What does "conventional" mean, anyway? Good question - if there is no division between conventional and paramatha, then the whole idea of paramatha falls apart, doesn't it? So is there a distinction, or not? > > > > connie: convention, the norm, way of the average man, the commoner sense... the ways and means of going along, long, long. what we pretty much take for granted - evidently without giving it much thought! > so, what is un-conventional understanding? dhamma, dhamma, dhamma, dhamma. Best, the dhammas formerly known as Robert ===================== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130165 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:44 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, Tadao, - > >Tadao: What we can prove is that what we actually "experience" is not a person, not a thing; what we can actually experience are simply highly impoverished pieces of sensory information. Other than these, there are nothings which can be directly experienced. >Alex: I believe that anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta characteristic is more powerful for dispassion than speculating about existence/non-existence. > What-one-cannot-experience may or may not exist, is also a speculation by a non-ariyan. Be peaceful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sukin, all, > > > > IMHO. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130166 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:42 pm Subject: Re: Thank you very much jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Han I'm glad that everything went well and you will be recovered very soon. I'm interested to you quote > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). "Nandi-raaga" seems to have vast meaning. If you have time, would you like to elaborate more on this. Thank you and best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130167 From: han tun Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Jagkrit,  Thank you very much. I am not yet 100 per cent fit. When I am fit I will write about Nandi-raaga to the best of my ability.  with metta and respect, Han From: jagkrit2012 Dear Khun Han I'm glad that everything went well and you will be recovered very soon. I'm interested to you quote > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). "Nandi-raaga" seems to have vast meaning. If you have time, would you like to elaborate more on this. Thank you and best wishes Jagkrit [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130168 From: Chan Kin Sung Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. chankinsung Send Email Send Email Hi, Thanh Nguyen and all, I find that Bhikkhu Analayo gives an excellent description of what nimitta means. Here is the link and hope it helps. http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/Nimitta.pdf On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Thanh Nguyen wrote: > ** > > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your respond. The practice of seeing senses experience as the > elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time > with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a > shock. > Let me introduce myself. > I'm Bach Lang, from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. > I'm come to Theravada as I find it the most realistic and most possible way > of getting out of suffering: a clear and realistic way of practice. > Nice to meet you all. > > Regards, > Bach Lang. > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM, sarah >wrote: > > > > S: There is restraint, guarding of the sense doors whenever the citta is > > wholesome. At such times, there is no attachment to any thing - there is > > detachment. > <...> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130169 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >...If you understand that there is in fact no >?>finger but only > >particular primary elements experienced by some >mental phenomena, > >then you will also understand that there is no >hammer, but only > >primary and derived rupas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: > Hit your finger with a hammer! If I believe that finger and hammer don't exist, why ask me to hit my finger with a hammer? But of course you are thinking that I'm contradicting myself. There is no finger or hammer, but there is thinking about finger and hammer. In thinking about finger and hammer, there is also the idea that if the one strikes the other, there will be pain and damage. So why would I then "think" to follow your suggestion? The finger and hammer are not real, but the pain and the memory of the pain are. The hardness of the hammer is real and the heat generated when striking the finger is also real. > > If food doesn't exist, and neither the body - does this mean that one > can not starve to death? Why eat? Food or nutrition exists of course, but not as fruit, vegetable or meat, but as a particular kind of rupa. The body too exists, but not as something with a head, two arms and two legs, but as fleeting rupas conditioned some by kamma, some by heat and some by nutrition. But of course your question really is, if fruits, vegetables and meat don't exist, why think to eat them, right? The answer is as in the above with regard to finger and hammer. There is thinking, memory, other namas and several rupas. That there is reaching out to eat something is due to bodily intimation conditioned by citta, no 'me', 'chicken', 'plate' nor 'fork'. > > When you walk from a room, why do you try to walk through the door > rather than attempting to walk through the wall? Space is real, and the space surrounding the rupas which make up what we call "air" is different from that which we call "wall". The former allows for rupas which make up body to pass through, whereas the one constituting wall will only result in the earth element striking earth element, one of which is accompanied with the rupa called body-sense. And this latter when contacted by unpleasant earth or fire element, is accompanied by unpleasant feeling. Of course I don't need to think all this, but only in terms of wall and open door is enough to avoid one and go through the other. > > What is the use of this purely mental philosophy where you believe one > thing and act contrary to it? The idea that finger, hammer and chicken do not exist, to you this means that nothing at all exists. To me however it means that only nama and rupas exist, therefore no contradiction here. It is the meditator who is contradicting himself. He agrees that the Buddha taught about the Five Khandhas and that these have the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Yet his attitude towards practice is based clearly on the perception and view of "self" which he keeps defending endlessly. Sukin. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130170 From: "willthlong" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:29 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. willthlong Send Email Send Email Hi Bach Lang, The 'restrain' here doesn't necessarily mean you force yourself to be indifferent to what you come in contact with, so it's not like you can't enjoy sense objects. The way I understand it is that you "don't add stuffs" (mostly ideas) to what there is. So for example, when you watch a movie and there's a part that you enjoy, a pleasant feeling arises. Once you are aware of it, you can just let it be, and then you don't try to create ideas/fantasize things around what you experience (e.g. seeing yourself in the role, being all over a character/things you see and suddenly desire). That's when you don't grasp at what comes to your sense doors, at least at the 'macro' level. I imagine that at a subtler level, in the movie case, you'd see whatever is in there as they are, with no feelings attached. A is just a set of pictures streaming before your eyes - so when you see it, it's just seeing. Why do you have to work yourself up and add all sorts of things around it, which leads to unnecessary emotions and attachments? But well, it's not that easy to let go of our habitual ways. -Tung Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130171 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Thank you very much jonoabb Send Email Send Email Dear Han Very glad to see you back, albeit at less than full strength, so soon. You have obviously made a strong initial recovery! Looking forward to seeing more of you one the list as you recover further. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Jagkrit, >  > Thank you very much. > I am not yet 100 per cent fit. > When I am fit I will write about Nandi-raaga to the best of my ability. >  > with metta and respect, > Han > > From: jagkrit2012 > > Dear Khun Han > I'm glad that everything went well and you will be recovered very soon. > I'm interested to you quote > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). > "Nandi-raaga" seems to have vast meaning. If you have time, would you like to elaborate more on this. > Thank you and best wishes > Jagkrit > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130172 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Jon, > > Thanks for your replies and corrections on samatha objects and practice. I still can't quite make sense of one thing, though I'm not sure I can quite form the question - why can't there be an "ordinary daily life moment" of awareness with samatha kind of panna which is unrelated to actual samatha objects? > > What I mean is a moment of samatha bhavana (so not dana and not sila and not vipassana), which is unconnected to official samatha development objects that Jon mentioned with reference to Vsm. What I mean is perhaps like a moment when something is seen and perceived in daily life, like (a concept of) a cake for example, but there's no attachment to such concept, in other words there's a sort of kusala "calm awareness" of the fact that it's a perception/concept, so with samatha sort of panna (which I guess makes it samatha bhavana), but the object is not a kasina, nor a dhamma (as we're not talking about vipassana here), nor a ... well, it's clear its a perception/concept, but it's not clung to. This is probably not making much sense. > =============== J: In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha. The significance of the 'official' objects of samatha is that their contemplation can support the development of samatha to a particularly high degree. If panna arises with, say, a kasina as object it does so not because the object is a kasina, nor because there is concentration with a kasina as object, but because of the way the (notion of) kasina is being contemplated (and obviously the same could not be said of, say, a cake :-)) > =============== > pt: Anyway, my point being that this sort of ordinary moments would be a precursor to actual samatha bhavana with an official object for samatha later on. I mean, I assume nobody can jump straight into fullon samatha bhavana with actual official objects until at least some sort of "ordinary" moments of samatha bhavana happened (like my cake thing) and it became clear what is a moment with sati as opposed to a moment without sati (still speaking samatha-related only like outside a sasana)? > =============== J: To my understanding, the development of samatha as described in Part II of the Vism is the development of samatha at its higher levels, meaning that what is spoken of there is applicable to the person for whom samatha has already become well developed in daily life. As I have suggested above, that development would be the understanding of kusala, of whatever kind and whenever arising, as kusala. Hoping this helps answer your question/s. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130173 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:06 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep I will withdraw my bottle neck model since the Abhidhamma deals not only the five sense doors but also the mind door. I will come up with a better visual model. hahaha. With Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Tadao, (Sarah, Rob E., Nina) - > > >Tadao: I will briefly explain why I say that the Abhidhamma deals mostly with the level of sensation ... this concerns with my view that the Abhidhamma is what I call a "bottle-neck model" : > those who do not understand the Dhamma think there is the so-called "outside world" ... our cognition of the outside world accurately reflects such a world . However, these two are not directly linked; they are linked by the bottle-neck, a highly narrow sensory passages. > > >Tadao: Such highly impoverished pieces of sensory information are then processed at the > level of perception/cognition to reconstruct the so-called outside world. ...[for example] what appears on the retina is highly impoverished two-dimentional visual object; remarkably, however, our brain converts such an image into three dimensional (original) visual object. > > T: I like this vivid example of the mapping of 2-D images into 3-D visual objects in the brain. But what about the citta --how does it "see" the original 3-D object through the "sense-door"? The Abhidhamma does not even mention the brain. As to the Sutta teaching, it does not care at all about such mapping or how the citta processes visual data; the concern is clear knowing and seeing of 'rupas' as anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta that leads to abandoning craving and ignorance. > ............ > > >Tadao: The Buddhism says "don't pay attention to these two ends (i.e., the outside world and our cognition of the outside world) but pay attention to the sensory world. At this level, everything is mere phenomenon: no thing, no person, and none of the phenomena can be treated as a self, being permanent or worth clinging to. > > T: Thank you for explaining well. Now I understand why you have said that "the Abhidhamma concerns only with sensation". > ............ > > >Tadao: What we can prove is that what we actually "experience" is not a person, not a thing; what we can actually experience are simply highly impoverished pieces of sensory information. Other than these, there are nothings which can be directly experienced. > > Hence, from the practitioners' viewpoint, it is not really important to argue if the outside world exists or not or what we think we've perceived are mere mirage or not. Then why do we have to see the sensory world as it is; it is a means/method to eradicate our defilements. In other words, seeing the sensory world as it is not an aim but a means. By doing so, we can become disenchanted with the so-called outside world. > > T: Although --without any doubt-- yathabhuta.m pajanati is a means to disenchantment (Nibbida), but how does such truly seeing & knowing --as a path-- arise without an aim/purpose (chanda.m janeti) of samma-vayama? > > Truly, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep > > > ... > > > > We (i.e., those who do not understand the Dhamma) think that there is > > the so-called "outside world". > > > > We think that our cognition of the outside world accurately reflects > > such a world. > > > > However, these two are not directly linked; they are linked by the bottle-neck, a highly narrow sensory passages. > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130174 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:39 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao, - >Tadao: I will come up with a better visual model. hahaha. I like the relaxed, detached disposition that you have shown! :-) Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Tep > > I will withdraw my bottle neck model since > the Abhidhamma deals not only the five sense doors but also > the mind door. > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130175 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:58 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep Thank you for your compliment. Basically, I'm a simpleton. Hence, the Abhidhamma is a bit hard to chew. Mettaaya. tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Tadao, - > > >Tadao: I will come up with a better visual model. hahaha. > > I like the relaxed, detached disposition that you have shown! :-) > > Truly, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep > > > > I will withdraw my bottle neck model since > > the Abhidhamma deals not only the five sense doors but also > > the mind door. > > > > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130176 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:06 am Subject: Re: Thank you very much tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Han It's nice to hear that you've been getting stronger. I look forward to reading your thought on Nandi-raaga, which is to a certain degree under my control. Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear Han > > Very glad to see you back, albeit at less than full strength, so soon. You have obviously made a strong initial recovery! > > Looking forward to seeing more of you one the list as you recover further. > > Jon > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > > Dear Khun Jagkrit, > >  > > Thank you very much. > > I am not yet 100 per cent fit. > > When I am fit I will write about Nandi-raaga to the best of my ability. > >  > > with metta and respect, > > Han > > > > From: jagkrit2012 > > > > Dear Khun Han > > I'm glad that everything went well and you will be recovered very soon. > > I'm interested to you quote > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). > > "Nandi-raaga" seems to have vast meaning. If you have time, would you like to elaborate more on this. > > Thank you and best wishes > > Jagkrit > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130177 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Chan Kin Sung Thank you for copying the text, which is quite thorough in describing what nimitta is. With Mettaa, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Chan Kin Sung wrote: > > Hi, Thanh Nguyen and all, > > I find that Bhikkhu Analayo gives an excellent description of what nimitta > means. Here is the link and hope it helps. > > http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/Nimitta.pdf > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Thanh Nguyen wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your respond. The practice of seeing senses experience as the > > elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time > > with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a > > shock. > > Let me introduce myself. > > I'm Bach Lang, from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. > > I'm come to Theravada as I find it the most realistic and most possible way > > of getting out of suffering: a clear and realistic way of practice. > > Nice to meet you all. > > > > Regards, > > Bach Lang. > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM, sarah > >wrote: > > > > > > > S: There is restraint, guarding of the sense doors whenever the citta is > > > wholesome. At such times, there is no attachment to any thing - there is > > > detachment. > > <...> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130178 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:53 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hello Tadao, (Rob E., others) - "According to tradition, the essence of the Abhidhamma was formulated by the Buddha during the fourth week after his Enlightenment. Seven years later he is said to have spent three consecutive months preaching it in its entirety in one of the deva realms, before an audience of thousands of devas (including his late mother, the former Queen Maya), each day briefly commuting back to the human realm to convey to Ven. Sariputta the essence of what he had just taught. Arahant Sariputta mastered the Abhidhamma and codified it into roughly its present form. Although parts of the Abhidhamma were recited at the earlier Buddhist Councils, it wasn't until the Third Council (ca. 250 BCE) that it became fixed into its present form as the third and final Pitaka of the canon." [Abhidhamma Pitaka: The Basket of Abhidhamma. Editor, Access To Insight] T: The Buddha did not teach the Abhidhamma essence to any other monks beside Arahant Sariputta, whose wisdom is second only to the Buddha himself. So I'm not surprised to know that you too find it "hard to chew". :-) Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Tep > > Thank you for your compliment. Basically, I'm a simpleton. > Hence, the Abhidhamma is a bit hard to chew. > > Mettaaya. > > tadao > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130179 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:29 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep Have you studied Panini's Grammar? It's sophistication is in the realm of Super Computers. (Being exposed to the Grammar was my initial interest in Linguistics.) The same with the Abhidhamma, whose sophistication can only be appreciated by those with highly developed left brains. My interest in what Kun Suin has been preaching originated in my study of (Rinzai) Zen. These two schools perfectly match. In Zen, there are hardly any words or explanations of nama and rupa, but it still pinpoints where one can find the essence of Buddhism, i.e., "here and now." The point is that (many) Japanese prefer a simple/simpler teaching to the highly elaborated description of the teaching; and I am one of them and I cannot help. Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hello Tadao, (Rob E., others) - > > "According to tradition, the essence of the Abhidhamma was formulated by the Buddha during the fourth week after his Enlightenment. Seven years later he is said to have spent three consecutive months preaching it in its entirety in one of the deva realms, before an audience of thousands of devas (including his late mother, the former Queen Maya), each day briefly commuting back to the human realm to convey to Ven. Sariputta the essence of what he had just taught. Arahant Sariputta mastered the Abhidhamma and codified it into roughly its present form. Although parts of the Abhidhamma were recited at the earlier Buddhist Councils, it wasn't until the Third Council (ca. 250 BCE) that it became fixed into its present form as the third and final Pitaka of the canon." [Abhidhamma Pitaka: The Basket of Abhidhamma. Editor, Access To Insight] > > T: The Buddha did not teach the Abhidhamma essence to any other monks beside Arahant Sariputta, whose wisdom is second only to the Buddha himself. So I'm not surprised to know that you too find it "hard to chew". :-) > > Be happy, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep > > > > Thank you for your compliment. Basically, I'm a simpleton. > > Hence, the Abhidhamma is a bit hard to chew. > > > > Mettaaya. > > > > tadao > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130180 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:02 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, Alex and other friends The question of whether a hammer or hand exists or not is the so-called "ill-posed problem" in the sense that we have no "means to prove" if it does or does not. (Only we can say is that we cannot "experience" a hammer or hand.) If we were a Supernatural Being, who could look at our processing mechanism totally beyond and above it and could compare our cognition of such an object and the seemingly existing object, we would be confidently able to say such an object exist or dose not exist. But we perceive the seemingly existing object only through our sensory doors, so we are not in any position of providing a solid answer to the question. Given that it's an ill-posed question, such a debate does not bring any merit. If you are interested in, could you please read the following passage? It is taken from Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. (2010). The Grand Design, p. 39. London: Bantam Press. To me it's a pure dhamma. A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measurefs sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfishfs picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real? Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Sukin, all, > > >...If you understand that there is in fact no >?>finger but only >particular primary elements experienced by some >mental phenomena, >then you will also understand that there is no >hammer, but only >primary and derived rupas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: > Hit your finger with a hammer! > > If food doesn't exist, and neither the body - does this mean that one can not starve to death? Why eat? > > When you walk from a room, why do you try to walk through the door rather than attempting to walk through the wall? > > What is the use of this purely mental philosophy where you believe one thing and act contrary to it? > > With best wishes, > Alex > #130181 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Jon,  Thank you very much for your kind concern.  I will be alright, but the only thing is that the recovery from any illness or surgery at my age is slow because of diminished immune system in my body.  with metta and respect, Han  ________________________________ From: jonoabb  Dear Han Very glad to see you back, albeit at less than full strength, so soon. You have obviously made a strong initial recovery! Looking forward to seeing more of you one the list as you recover further. Jon > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130182 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Tadao,  Thank you very much once again. I will write more when I am fit.  with metta and respect, Han  ________________________________ From: "tadaomiyamoto@..."  Dear Han It's nice to hear that you've been getting stronger. I look forward to reading your thought on Nandi-raaga, which is to a certain degree under my control. Mettaaya, tadao > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130183 From: "azita" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:26 am Subject: Re: Program from Saigon to Da Lat gazita2002 Send Email Send Email hallo Dang, thank you, but I will not be going on to Da Lat. metta, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kanchana Chuathong wrote: > > Dear Azita, > This is the program from Saigon to Da Lat. > Dang. > > > > ________________________________ > From: azita > <....> > Hallo Nina and Jon, > > May you both have a speedy recovery. > dear Nina, take it easy and don't push too hard, allow the healing to do 'its thing'. > thinking of you. > > Live for understanding > azita > Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130184 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:46 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hello Tadao, - >Tadao: Have you studied Panini's Grammar? It's sophistication is in the realm of Super Computers. T: I did not know that term! The Wickipedia shows that it is the classical Sanskrit. Maybe the Wickipedia is inaccurate. >Tadao: My interest in what Kun Sujin has been preaching originated in my study of (Rinzai) Zen. These two schools perfectly match. In Zen, there are hardly any words or explanations of nama and rupa, but it still pinpoints where one can find the essence of Buddhism, i.e., "here and now." T: The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. ["Among the methods it practices are shouts (katsu) or blows delivered by the master on the disciple, question-and-answer sessions (mondo), and meditation on paradoxical statements (koan), all intended to accelerate a breakthrough of the normal boundaries of consciousness and to awaken insight that transcends logical distinctions."] >Tadao: The point is that (many) Japanese prefer a simple/simpler teaching to the highly elaborated description of the teaching; and I am one of them and I cannot help. T: I see your point now. Simple teachings are found in the Itivuttaka too. For example, Iti 2.2: "Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life --untroubled, undistressed, & unfeverish-- and at the break-up of the body, after death, a good destination can be expected. Which two? A guarding of the doors of the sense faculties, and knowing moderation in food." .......... Knowing moderation in food (and drinks) alone results in good health and freedom from several diseases. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > > > (Being exposed to the Grammar was my initial interest in Linguistics.) > > The same with the Abhidhamma, whose sophistication can only be appreciated by > those with highly developed left brains. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130185 From: Tam Bach Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Bach Lang, I appreciate your line of enquiry.  BL:  The practice of seeing senses experience as the elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a shock. ----------------------- Tam B:  I will share with you my understanding on the subject as I could have learnt from reading Buddhist texts, from listening to Achaan Sujin  (importantly) and from other dhamma friends. As you might have read in several posts by DSG members, where it is stated that the Buddha's teaching is rather descriptive than prescriptive. Through his enlightenment, the Buddha has awakened to the realities that he taught to us. What we usually take for being something or someone are in realities only visible objects, sound....experienced by the corresponding consciousness arising at relevant sense-doors. There's thinking afterwards about what have seen, heard etc...as something or someone. They are concepts that have been learnt. This is the description of the truth that can condition the understanding of what appears now as just that: only elements. At first, it is only intellectual understanding, it arises thanks to wise consideration of what is heard. When the intellectual understanding is firm enough, it can condition the moment of direct understanding. It can be a very long process... This development is therefore "hard" in the sense that the truth is deep and it takes time for understanding to be cultivated. It is also surely a shock, because it challenges our attachment to all pleasant objects, such as our ideas of loved ones and life experiences, that same attachment that binds us in samsara. So it is a most beneficial shock, as it provides the chance to be awakened to the truth, which is the real way out of suffering. There might be the idea of someone who tries to practice that "seeing is just seeing" and therefore it seems impossible.  And it is indeed impossible as long as there's the idea of "someone" who can try to experience something in a certain way. As we've learnt through the teaching, all realities arise by conditions, therefore only understanding can be said to actually "practice", not ignorance or attachment. The conditions for understanding to arise are hearing (reading) the right teaching and wise considering of what is heard, and a repetition of that same thing again and again, it doesn't happen overnight. If there is no clear, thorough understanding now, there's no condition for further understanding to arise in the future.  We usually look for other ways (such as "doing" meditation or whatever), thinking that they will lead us to the point where direct understanding will arise by it-self. But conditions are what they are. Only the right causes lead to right effects.  Even the practice of samatha bhavana (tranquility) is also entirely based on understanding, although this kind of understanding can be developed at time there's no Buddha's teaching. I am most grateful to have learnt from Achaan Sujin about the conditions for understanding, which turn out to be confirmed by the texts, as well as can be verified with our own considering. However, this has been widely dismissed today in the Buddhist environment most of us are exposed to. Hope this helps, Metta, Tam B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130186 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tam B and friends I very much appreciate your excellent debrief of how to understand dhamma which is, as you mentioned, very difficult to apprehend due to dhamma's profoundity and its contradiction to all conventional senses. ================ > TB: If there is no clear, thorough understanding now, there's no condition for further understanding to arise in the future. We usually look for other ways (such as "doing" meditation or whatever), thinking that they will lead us to the point where direct understanding will arise by it-self. But conditions are what they are. Only the right causes lead to right effects. Even the practice of samatha bhavana (tranquility) is also entirely based on understanding, although this kind of understanding can be developed at time there's no Buddha's teaching. JJ: This is the very crucial point. Getting the right start. Like button up the shirt, if you button up the right button at the beginning, you never redo it again at the end. Same as understanding right view about attaa and anattaa at the very beginning, no worry about right result at the end of the day. ================== > TB: I am most grateful to have learnt from Achaan Sujin about the conditions for understanding, which turn out to be confirmed by the texts, as well as can be verified with our own considering. However, this has been widely dismissed today in the Buddhist environment most of us are exposed to. JJ: You see ! How lucky we are with paggatupa-nissaya-paccaya. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130187 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > It is the meditator who is contradicting himself. He agrees that the > Buddha taught about the Five Khandhas and that these have the > characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Yet his attitude towards > practice is based clearly on the perception and view of "self" which he > keeps defending endlessly. This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with meditation without indulging self-view. This has been assumed by many dsg members such as yourself, but has never been logically demonstrated. It is stated over and over that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, but that is not necessarily the case, any more than reading Abhidhamma must be an expression of self-view. I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators are deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong view about meditation and meditators. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130188 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Thank you very much epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Khun Phil, > > I thank you all very much for your best wishes. > > By the power of your best wishes the operation is safely over, and I am now recovering at home. I'm a little late but would like to add my best wishes for you as well, and am glad that you are home and in recovery. I missed some of the earlier messages so will have to go back to see what was happening. Be well, and hope you are back to full strength soon. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130189 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E,  Thank you very much for your kind concern. I will write more when I am fit.  with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Robert E  I'm a little late but would like to add my best wishes for you as well, and am glad that you are home and in recovery. I missed some of the earlier messages so will have to go back to see what was happening. Be well, and hope you are back to full strength soon. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130190 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello Sukin, Robert E, all, >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can even lead to Dhamma wisdom. Being perfect in order to reach perfection seems like "God's grace" or something like that. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130191 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hello Tadao, Good to see you posting here. > The question of whether a hammer or hand exists or not is the > so-called "ill-posed problem" in the sense that we have no "means to > prove" if it does or does not. > (Only we can say is that we cannot "experience" a hammer or hand.) Does not the Abhidhamma tell us what does exist, namely, citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana? Does not the Dhamma make the distinction between paramatthadhamma and pannatti and is not hammer a pannatti? Even if we don't label or even recognize it as "something", being that it is not a nimitta of a reality, it must be pannatti, no? > If we were a Supernatural Being, who could look at our processing > mechanism > totally beyond and above it and could compare our cognition of such an > object > and the seemingly existing object, we would be confidently able to say > such an object exist or dose not exist. But the Buddha was enlightened and he knew didn't he? He made it clear to us that conditioned existence must have the characteristic of rise and fall, only nibbana does not rise and fall away. That unknown object out there which you are not sure whether it exists or not, would it be something that rises and falls away or something presumed to be solid and lasting in time? > But we perceive the seemingly existing object only through our sensory > doors, > so we are not in any position of providing a solid answer to the question. What we perceive through our senses is only seven of the twenty eight rupas which the Buddha pointed out. Do you think that the Buddha's enlightenment was limited? > Given that it's an ill-posed question, such a debate does not bring > any merit. It is an ill posed question when there is no Dhamma to refer to. The Dhamma covers all dhammas. And the important thing is that it can be proven "now". > If you are interested in, could you please read the following passage? > It is taken from Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. (2010). The > Grand Design, p. 39. London: Bantam Press. > > To me it's a pure dhamma. > > A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners > from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measurefs sponsor > explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a > fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would > have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, > undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside > some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous > lens? The goldfishfs picture of reality is different from ours, but > can we be sure it is less real? A similar idea was expressed hundreds of years ago by the Taoist Chuang Tzu when referring to the man dreaming he is a butterfly. My impression in that case was that this is simply an expression of doubt due to not knowing / understanding the Dhamma. When the Buddha's teachings is not known / understood, people can't help having doubt and speculating. Metta, Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130192 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > > It is the meditator who is contradicting himself. He agrees that the > > Buddha taught about the Five Khandhas and that these have the > > characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Yet his attitude towards > > practice is based clearly on the perception and view of "self" which he > > keeps defending endlessly. > > This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, > and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with > meditation without indulging self-view. This has been assumed by many > dsg members such as yourself, but has never been logically > demonstrated. It is stated over and over that "formal meditation" is > an expression of self-view and control, but that is not necessarily > the case, any more than reading Abhidhamma must be an expression of > self-view. I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators are > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong > view about meditation and meditators. > You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so. From where I stand, its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm right. Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has been reason for confidence rather than any wavering. I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice do so as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will agree with the idea of formal meditation. You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how this is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do. In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is the result of wrong view. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130193 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:19 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > I am glad to know that you are in such a good spirit and steadily recovering from the accident. I also hope that you will recuperate the bodily strength needed to enjoy the coming weekend. > > I did not know that a thick skull could be a blessing. :-) > =============== J: I am very blessed in that regard :-)) > =============== > T: The goal of Dhamma practice (meditation: bhavana --'calling into existence, producing'-- or patipada --path, progress; I like both) is to develop a certain qualities that did not arise or previously were weak. It is true, as you have said, direct understanding (direct knowing) is valuable as a tool to test one's real progess. [What one thinks one sees progress, it may be just an illusion.] > =============== J: Yes, I agree that our ideas of what is 'progress in the teachings' may well be mistaken. To my understanding, real progress only occurs when there is awareness of a currently arising dhamma. And that is also 'the practice of the teachings/path'. There is no actual distinction between the two. > =============== > >J: Given a choice between a translator's personal views and the Tipitaka text being > translated, I suggest going with the text :-)) ! > > T: Again, not surprisingly, I agree with you. There are good exceptions, though. > =============== J: Then we don't actually agree :-)) But perhaps we should leave it there for now. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130194 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:34 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - >Jon: To my understanding, real progress only occurs when there is awareness of a currently arising dhamma. And that is also 'the practice of the teachings/path'. There is no actual distinction between the two. T: It's obvious that the chicken looks different from the egg. ......... >>T: ... There are good exceptions, though. >Jon: Then we don't actually agree :-)) But perhaps we should leave it there for now. T: Okay, let's not worry about which translator's personal views are good. But by declaring that none of them is good, isn't it probably wrong? Be forgiving, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > ... > > T: The goal of Dhamma practice (meditation: bhavana --'calling into existence, producing'-- or patipada --path, progress; I like both) is to develop a certain qualities that did not arise or previously were weak. It is true, as you have said, direct understanding (direct knowing) is valuable as a tool to test one's real progess. [What one thinks one sees progress, it may be just an illusion.] > > =============== > > J: Yes, I agree that our ideas of what is 'progress in the teachings' may well be mistaken. To my understanding, real progress only occurs when there is awareness of a currently arising dhamma. And that is also 'the practice of the teachings/path'. There is no actual distinction between the two. > > > =============== > > >J: Given a choice between a translator's personal views and the Tipitaka text being > > translated, I suggest going with the text :-)) ! > > > > T: Again, not surprisingly, I agree with you. There are good exceptions, though. > > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130195 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:58 am Subject: Meditation and Right View t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin (Rob E., Alex, Tadao) - >S: It is not possible that Right View will agree with the idea of formal meditation. T: The on-going discussion you currently have with Rob E., Alex and Tadao is thought-provoking. Thank you all! Now, allow me as a bystander to ask few questions for clarification. 1. Is "formal meditation" the same as samatha-vipassana? Please elaborate a little. 2. Is this Right View you are talking about same as described in Vism XVI, 76? If not, what is it? Vism XVI, 76: "Briefly (see Ch. XXII, 31 for details), when a meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right seeing as its characteristics. Its function is to reveal elements. It is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance." Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > It is the meditator who is contradicting himself. He agrees that the > > > Buddha taught about the Five Khandhas and that these have the > > > characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Yet his attitude towards > > > practice is based clearly on the perception and view of "self" which he > > > keeps defending endlessly. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130196 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >Jon: To my understanding, real progress only occurs when there is awareness of a currently arising dhamma. And that is also 'the practice of the teachings/path'. There is no actual distinction between the two. > > T: It's obvious that the chicken looks different from the egg. > =============== J: Yes, the egg grows/develops into the chicken. But I don't see a comparable relationship between 'practice' (of satipatthana/vipassana) and 'progress' (on the path): in each case what is being referenced is a moment of awarenss/insight. > =============== > >>T: ... There are good exceptions, though. > >Jon: Then we don't actually agree :-)) But perhaps we should leave it there for now. > > T: Okay, let's not worry about which translator's personal views are good. But by declaring that none of them is good, isn't it probably wrong? > =============== J: Just to clarify, I didn't say (or mean to imply) that all translators' personal views are wrong. What I was trying to say was that if there is a difference or contradiction between the translator's personal view and whatever is in the text being translated, then the text should be preferred. In the case of Ven. Soma's Introduction, it seems to me that the notions of 'preliminary object of contemplation' and 'wholetime awareness' are not mentioned in or supported by the Satipatthana Sutta and its commentaries as translated by the Ven. > Be forgiving, J: Happy to. But what is there to forgive? :-)) Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130197 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:37 pm Subject: Nina update, was:Thank you very much sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > By the power of your best wishes the operation is safely over, and I am now recovering at home. But I still cannot sit down to work on my computer for more than a few minutes at a time. > My own body parts which have become a potential murderer (vadhaka) have been removed. > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). > [I have been inspired by the passages from SN 35.238 Aasiivisopama sutta to write the above two sentences.] .... S: Glad to hear you're home and slowly recovering. No escape from old age, sickness, death and murderers whilst travelling in samsara. Thank you for the good reminders. *** We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130198 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:00 pm Subject: Re: Nina update, was:Thank you very much tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah Thank you for the news on Han's and Nina's recovery. If Nina can access the Internet at the hospital, she should listen to the Daily Dhamma Talk of the Foundation by clicking the icon of an antenna with radio-waves. Some are old and some are new talks, and their content changes daily. (I love listening it.) Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Han & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > > By the power of your best wishes the operation is safely over, and I am now recovering at home. But I still cannot sit down to work on my computer for more than a few minutes at a time. > > > My own body parts which have become a potential murderer (vadhaka) have been removed. > > > But I still cannot remove the nandi-raaga, my intimate companion/murderer (antaracaro vadhako). > > > [I have been inspired by the passages from SN 35.238 Aasiivisopama sutta to write the above two sentences.] > .... > S: Glad to hear you're home and slowly recovering. No escape from old age, sickness, death and murderers whilst travelling in samsara. Thank you for the good reminders. > *** > > We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. > > She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. > > The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! > > Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. > > Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130199 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:05 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - >Jon: Yes, the egg grows/develops into the chicken. But I don't see a comparable relationship between 'practice' (of satipatthana/vipassana) and 'progress' (on the path): in each case what is being referenced is a moment of awarenss/insight. T: A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no progress. In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path(magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. "Herein the disciple rouses his will to overcome the evil, unwholesome states that have already arisen and he makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives." [AN 4:13; Word of the Buddha, p. 58.] >J: Just to clarify, I didn't say (or mean to imply) that all translators' personal views are wrong. ... In the case of Ven. Soma's Introduction, etc. T: Thanks for the clarification. > >T: Be forgiving, > J: Happy to. But what is there to forgive? :-)) T: Good for you! Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, - > > > > >Jon: To my understanding, real progress only occurs when there is awareness of a currently arising dhamma. And that is also 'the practice of the teachings/path'. There is no actual distinction between the two. > > > > T: It's obvious that the chicken looks different from the egg. > > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130200 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina update, was:Thank you very much hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah,  Thank you very much for your update on Nina's condition. I know she is very brave. I pray for her speedy recovery.  with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: sarah  Dear Han & all, S: Glad to hear you're home and slowly recovering. No escape from old age, sickness, death and murderers whilst travelling in samsara. Thank you for the good reminders. *** We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. Metta Sarah ====== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130201 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:41 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, Jon, all, >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130202 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is > presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot > engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated > over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view > and control, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? > What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. Of all the cittas rooted in ignorance, only four are conditioned by wrong-view. Besides in a day, not only akusala cittas arise, but there must be kusala cittas as well. > You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or > someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... > You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, such as dosa, lobha and mana. > At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can > even lead to Dhamma wisdom. > Wrong View is further away from Right View than any other kind of akusala. Meditation leading to wisdom is an impossibility. > Being perfect in order to reach perfection seems like "God's grace" or > something like that. > What is suggested is the development of understanding, starting with pariyatti and not the idea of achieving perfect right view before "doing" anything. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130203 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, Your questions. > 1. Is "formal meditation" the same as samatha-vipassana? Please > elaborate a little. > 2. Is this Right View you are talking about same as described in Vism > XVI, 76? If not, what is it? > > Vism XVI, 76: "Briefly (see Ch. XXII, 31 for details), when a > meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, > his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the > inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right > seeing as its characteristics. Its function is to reveal elements. It > is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance." > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to nama and rupa. Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be achieved. Whats more is that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130204 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Han Please take a good care of yourself. I look forward to reading your exposition. Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, >  > Thank you very much once again. > I will write more when I amÂfit. >  > with metta andÂrespect, > Han >  > > ________________________________ > From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." > ÂDear Han > It's nice to hear that you've been getting stronger. > I look forward to reading your thought on Nandi-raaga, which is to a certain degree > under my control. > Mettaaya, > tadao > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130205 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? >Suk:You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, >such as dosa, lobha and mana. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For stream entry one doesn't remove or weaken those fetters. So in the beginning, a meditator isn't expected to remove those fetters either. Later on, yes. One has to start where one can, even if it is in delusion. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130206 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:23 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep The actual spelling, which requires a super- and sub-script, is slightly different from "panini". But your look up of the term is correct. He is the greatest Sanskrit grammarian, whose grammatical framework has traditionally been used not only for Sanskrit but also for Pali and other Indic languages. As for Rinzai Zen, a sad reality is that most of its practitioners do not understand the essence of Rinzai-roku. Daisetsu Suzuki had a good grasp of the Zen teaching, but he was too stingy in explaining its essence. The weakest point of the Zen teaching is the misunderstanding or distorted idea that finding the starting line is tantamount to reaching the goal line. At any rate, don't depend on Wikipedia, which must have been written by someone who has no idea of the essence of Rinzai Zen. Each individual are different; and even each arahatta is different. Some or most of them are well versed in the Buddha's teaching and at least one arahatta is the polar opposite. Here I'm referring to the handkerchief monk. (I assume that you know the sutta.) Even Kun Sujin says that each one has different accumulation and she cannot expect that everyone is like Kun Nina. (I'm very much like the handkerchief monk sans his wisdom.) Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hello Tadao, - > > >Tadao: Have you studied Panini's Grammar? It's sophistication is in the realm of Super Computers. > > T: I did not know that term! The Wickipedia shows that it is the classical Sanskrit. Maybe the Wickipedia is inaccurate. > > >Tadao: My interest in what Kun Sujin has been preaching originated in my study of (Rinzai) Zen. These two schools perfectly match. In Zen, there are hardly any words or explanations of nama and rupa, but it still pinpoints where one can find the essence of Buddhism, i.e., "here and now." > > T: The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. ["Among the methods it practices are shouts (katsu) or blows delivered by the master on the disciple, question-and-answer sessions (mondo), and meditation on paradoxical statements (koan), all intended to accelerate a breakthrough of the normal boundaries of consciousness and to awaken insight that transcends logical distinctions."] > > >Tadao: The point is that (many) Japanese prefer a simple/simpler teaching to the highly elaborated description of the teaching; and I am one of them and I cannot help. > > T: I see your point now. Simple teachings are found in the Itivuttaka too. For example, Iti 2.2: "Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life --untroubled, undistressed, & unfeverish-- and at the break-up of the body, after death, a good destination can be expected. Which two? A guarding of the doors of the sense faculties, and knowing moderation in food." > .......... > Knowing moderation in food (and drinks) alone results in good health and freedom from several diseases. > > Be well, > Tep > === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > > > > > (Being exposed to the Grammar was my initial interest in Linguistics.) > > > > The same with the Abhidhamma, whose sophistication can only be appreciated by > > those with highly developed left brains. > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130207 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:32 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex (Jon & others) - Thanks for the comment : > Alex: I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > Alex: The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. T: Whenever one wants to believe what he/she thinks is right (a ditthi), then that can be a cause of misapprehension. ........... Allow me to elaborate how a Buddhist should practice to develop right view at the mundane level that progresses towards the supramundane right view of a Stream-winner. There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. So the instructed disciple, who now has conviction (saddha), follows the following training scheme to develop higher mundane right view further: "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -right view, right effort, & right mindfulness- run & circle around right view." [MN 117] This practice/training procedure continues over and over again through time to develop higher right view, higher right mindfulness and higher right effort towards supramundane right view of the Sotapattimagga. At the fruition of Stream-entry the wrong views are completely destroyed, then and only then, the right view becomes Ariyan right view (lokuttara samma-ditthi). ............ Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > >T : A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no progress. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130208 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: Meditation and Right View t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, (others) - Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. [Sukin:] 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to nama and rupa. Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be achieved. Whats more is that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom. ----------- [Tep:] 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom"? Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Your questions. > > > 1. Is "formal meditation" the same as samatha-vipassana? Please > > elaborate a little. > > 2. Is this Right View you are talking about same as described in Vism > > XVI, 76? If not, what is it? > > > > Vism XVI, 76: "Briefly (see Ch. XXII, 31 for details), when a > > meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, > > his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the > > inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right > > seeing as its characteristics. Its function is to reveal elements. It > > is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance." > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130209 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:50 am Subject: Abrupt vs Gradual truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, Tadao, all, >T:The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the >abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What >this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well in some things it does sound like KS's views as how they appear to me. A kusala moment can arise abruptly after akusala. No gradual stages in between. It doesn't appear the some people here accept the idea that the mind might be partially deluded, and partially correct. It seems that it is either only kusala or only akusala, thus either meditation is totally wrong (which has only wrong results) or it is totally right (which they correctly claim that we can't have right now). It kinda seems too black-and-white to me. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130211 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:04 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tadao, (Alex, Rob E.) - [I deleted the same message posted earlier because of an error.] The more I use Wickipedia the less I believe it; yet it is free and often useful. >Tadao: The weakest point of the Zen teaching is the misunderstanding or distorted idea that finding the starting line is tantamount to reaching the goal line. T: That misunderstanding is indeed unforgivable ! It is similar to the claim I often heard that a non-ariyan can understand and "see" right now the ultimate reality without the ariyan's right view (of the path). >Tadao: Here I'm referring to the handkerchief monk. (I assume that you know the sutta.) > T: Is he the one who rubbed on a handkerchief (while chanting something) till it got dirty? > Tadao: Even Kun Sujin says that each one has different accumulation and she cannot expect that everyone is like Kun Nina. (I'm very much like the handkerchief monk sans his wisdom.) T: That's true; even two cats do not have same intelligence. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Tep > ... .... > As for Rinzai Zen, a sad reality is that most of its practitioners do not understand > the essence of Rinzai-roku. Daisetsu Suzuki had a good grasp of the Zen teaching, but he was too stingy in explaining its essence. At any rate, don't depend on Wikipedia, which must have been written by someone who has no idea of the essence of Rinzai Zen. > > Each individual are different; and even each arahatta is different. Some or most of them are well versed in the Buddha's teaching and at least one arahatta is the polar opposite. > > Mettaaya, > > tadao > #130212 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:15 am Subject: Re: Abrupt vs Gradual .. Or Both ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, (Tadao, others), - >Alex: It doesn't appear the some people here accept the idea that the mind might be partially deluded, and partially correct. It seems that it is either only kusala or only akusala, thus either meditation is totally wrong (which has only wrong results) or it is totally right (which they correctly claim that we can't have right now). It kinda seems too black-and-white to me. T: Although there are plenty of discrete binary (digital, 0-1) variables in this world, most of the quantitative variables take continuous (analog) values. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in his book, The Noble Eightfold Path, that defilements can manifest by (abruptly) surging up -- a discrete behavior, or they can lie dormant and accumulating strength (continuously) before showing up in the form of bodily or verbal actions. ..................... "The Buddha teaches that the defilements are stratified into three layers: the stage of latent tendency, the stage of manifestation, and the stage of transgression. The most deeply grounded is the level of latent tendency (anusaya), where a defilement merely lies dormant without displaying any activity. The second level is the stage of manifestation (pariyutthana), where a defilement, through the impact of some stimulus, surges up in the form of unwholesome thoughts, emotions, and volitions. Then, at the third level, the defilement passes beyond a purely mental manifestation to motivate some unwholesome action of body or speech. Hence this level is called the stage of transgression (vitikkama)." Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Tadao, all, > > >T:The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the >abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What >this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Well in some things it does sound like KS's views as how they appear to me. A kusala moment can arise abruptly after akusala. No gradual stages in between. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130213 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Sukin, Robert E, all, > > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... I think the understanding that conventional activities have no relation to Dhamma is based on a very technical belief that such things do not really exist. Since only momentary dhammas are actual, anything that is based on conceptual understanding such as a person, killing, eating, walking, cars, animals - are all not real. They are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities that are apprehended directly. So we don't really see a "person" or even a "body" in front of us, just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating actually taking place as an ongoing activity. There's hardness, nutriment, visual object, all these experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating." I personally think there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" in such a view. It assumes that "ultimate" means "only" and that the fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. It is frowned on here, in my experience, to make a connection between dhammas and conventional objects and activities, but I don't think the Abhidhamma was meant to deny the existence of conventional doings - just to give the most accurate view of how things are experienced through the six doors. I also feel that the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc. But those who believe in the technical view of dhammas think this is also concept and not accurate. > At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can even lead to Dhamma wisdom. I agree, but those who differ feel that all efforts to reach enlightenment impose a concept of self that can control the path. I don't think this is true either, but "never the twain shall meet." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130214 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., Alex (Sukin + others) - You say there are three assumptions [A1 - A3] that underlie the dogmatic idea (proposed by Sukin, for example), i.e., "one cannot engage with meditation without indulging self-view", as follows. A1. Conventional activities and anything that is based on conceptual understanding are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities that are apprehended directly. A2. We only see just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating only experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating." A3. The fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. (This is because there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" : it assumes that "ultimate" means "only".) Your rebuts [R1-R3]: R1. I don't think the Abhidhamma was meant to deny the existence of conventional doings - just to give the most accurate view of how things are experienced through the six doors. R2. (I think) the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc. R3. Those who differ feel that all efforts to reach enlightenment impose a concept of self that can control the path. I don't think this is true. ............ T: Allow me to offer some thoughts for your consideration. My rebut to A1 - A3 is the following: I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: they are everything the non-ariyans understand. A person (puggala) for example is real. The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. These sabhava dhammas do not depend on time, place, people or their thoughts. No matter how many trillion years may pass by, no matter how many Buddhas will be born to teach people, the same essence is still seen and the Noble Eightfold Path will always be the same. Concerning your R2, I think all conditioned dhammas --internal or external-- are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta. I agree 100% with your R3. Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex and all. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Sukin, Robert E, all, > > > > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130215 From: "philip" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 1 (Rupas of the body) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear Group I will occasionally post words from A.Sujin who always helps us to return to developing the understanding of present realities. I will limit my participation at DSG to offering passages for wise reflection. I will not be able to participate beyond that. Thanks for your understanding. "Acharn: Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a > > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators are > > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong > > view about meditation and meditators. > You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so. It also does not make it not so. > From where I stand, > its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm > right. Well that is extremely self-righteous to think that you are right and everyone who meditates is wrong - esp. as you say that you do have some doubt as your understanding is intellectual. In other words, that to me is indeed a definition of dogmatic. It is possible to state your understanding without being so disparaging and to admit of your doubt, but instead you choose to state it as a general case that applies without doubt and to all meditators. Why state it that way? Why not look into it and wait to see if you are right? > Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual > understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing > the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view > expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has > been reason for confidence rather than any wavering. It has never been shown, nor have I ever gotten a substantive quote from anyone in authority in traditional Theravada, that meditation is the expression of self-view. Almost all of the scriptures say the opposite, that one should, could or does follow the breath, cultivate mindfulness and samatha, etc., so you must understand that your view is not only unproven, but goes against the word of most of the teachings. So where have you gotten this view? Can you identify the source? What writings tell you explicitly that meditation is bad for you? There are none. > I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice do so > as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will agree > with the idea of formal meditation. > You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how this > is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do. > > In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is > the result of wrong view. Well you may continue to state it but there is no evidence for it other than your own logical construction, which I believe is skewed in that direction. No one has ever explained why meditation *must* be the product of self-view, rather than just doing something that Buddha spoke of and in my view recommended almost constantly. It is always said [around here] that the act of sitting is itself an effort to control what dhammas arise, even though Buddhist meditation is explicitly aimed at merely observing whatever dhammas arise in the way that is possible at the present time, not "trying to make something happen" in any way. It is no more inherently controlling than simply observing what arises in daily life, as is constantly recommended on dsg, so I don't frankly see the difference. Surely, if one *does* want to control what arises then at the moment that this is the case, that is a moment of attempting to control dhammas, but this is not the case at every moment, and it is not more the case just because someone is meditating. It is just a spurious argument. In addition, if meditation is unrelated to the path and has no effect on anything, then there is nothing wrong with it, as it will not change what dhammas arise or how they are regarded. Something that has no path relevance cannot make the path "worse," so either way I don't see the problem, or why those who are against meditation appear to be obsessed by it and filled with negative intention towards it. Aversion, anyone? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130217 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? Thanks for helping my education. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130218 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > Rob E. : > I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) T: But it did not take much effort to sum up the points you made earlier just to make it easy for me to reply to them. [ I am glad you like it.] .............. > > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. > > Rob E. : I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > T: Thanks, Robert. I believe it is important to note that the fleeting states of the Arahants and their disciples were real, yet impermanent & and not-self. I have to repeat that again; otherwise, someone may say that they did not exist. .............. > > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. > > Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? T: My apologies for the blurred wording! Allow me to do a better job this time: The dhamma theory states that ultimate reality consists of elementary constituents called "dhammas" that are the fundamental components of actuality. Sabhaava means "intrinsic nature" or "essence" of the dhammas. For example, the "essence" of feeling is the characteristic of being felt. And, as stated in the Vism XI, note 20, "the meaning of element is the meaning of individual essence, the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness, the meaning of voidness is the meaning of not-a-living-being." Thus the not-self or no-self perception clearly follows. Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. Regards, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130219 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Words from Ajahn Sujin 1 (Rupas of the body) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Phil, Thanks - greatly appreciated when you quote such helpful passages! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > How can there not be the idea of my body any more? Only when > pa~n~naa develops and becomes very firmly established, that is sacca > ~naa.na, understanding of the truth. ~Naa.na is understanding and > sacca is truth. Once one has heard (the truth) and understood it and > listened more and more, there are conditions that the understanding > of what is heard becomes more firmly established. The Buddha did not > just say to follow or to believe, but to consider until it is one’s > own right understanding of realities, from life to life, unil > realities appear as they are to the developed pa~n~naa." ... Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130220 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:46 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > .... > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! <..> > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > Lookin' back on how it was > In years gone by > ... the good & bad times that I had > Makes today seem rather sad > Not much has changed! > ................ S: We were reading posts in the taxi as we went to the airport in Hong Kong at 6 a.m. for our early flight. We got to your verse and started singing out loud to the shock of the driver: " every sha-la-la-la Every wo-wo-wo Still shines Every shing-a-ling-a-ling That they're starting to sing's So fine..." BUT, should be: "Lookin' back on how it was In years gone by And the good times that I had Makes today seem rather sad SO much has changed" It all changes, Tep, each moment! Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130221 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:49 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >I wonder if there are any competing commentaries that we do not >ordinarily hear about...? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There are plenty. Such as Vimuttimagga which came before Visuddhimagga. > > As for two truths: > There is sarvastivadin, sutrantika, cittamatra, and two (or more?) madhymaka, and perhaps more takes on "two truths". .... S: Only one Pali canon including the ancient Pali commentaries rehearsed and approved at all the Great Councils by the arahats. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130222 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:59 pm Subject: Re: What atta is denied? sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >To summarize that view [as I understand it:] when you hear a Dhamma command, you should "hurry up and not do anything" so you don't fall into wrong view. ... S: That sounds like a wrong view in itself.... the idea that 'you' should or can do or not do anything is wrong view. .... > > The second way of looking at it, which is how I look at it and is why I think meditation is a legit part of the path, is that when you hear a Dhamma command such as "don't be heedless, develop the path now or you'll be sorry later" [which is a pretty good paraphrase of what the Buddha said:] the correct way to take it is to let it have it's effect. For instance, if "don't be heedless" makes you start wanting to observe dhammas now and see their true nature, that doesn't mean necessarily that there is a "self doing it." ... S: Depends. If there is an idea of you starting to do or observe anything, it's wrong view. It's not understanding what has been conditioned already. ... >It may be that this statement of the Buddha's may be exciting correct volition to develop satipatthana on the part of the cittas arising at that moment, after hearing such a command. ... S: It's not "exciting volition" that develops satipatthana, but right understanding and the accompanying path factors. ... > ....So in my view we should get out of the way and let the cittas go for it without intereference from mis-applied Dhamma concepts. ... S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation. This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it! Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (158) #130223 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Please remember that voices in your head are NOT real. Satan doesn't exist. Don't listen to those voices. ... S: Very well said! Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130224 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:39 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, all, >S: Only one Pali canon including the ancient Pali commentaries >rehearsed and approved at all the Great Councils by the arahats. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? What is wrong with, lets say, Vimuttimagga? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130225 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:48 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Sarh, - > S: We were reading posts in the taxi as we went to the airport in Hong Kong at 6 a.m. for our early flight. We got to your verse and started singing out loud to the shock of the driver ... T: Yesterday Once More, the Carpenters 1973. It was my favorite song then. So much has chaged since. > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > .... > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > <..> > > > > Lookin' back on how it was > > In years gone by > > ... the good & bad times that I had > > Makes today seem rather sad > > Not much has changed! > > ................ > > > " every sha-la-la-la > Every wo-wo-wo > Still shines > Every shing-a-ling-a-ling > That they're starting to sing's > So fine..." > > BUT, should be: > > "Lookin' back on how it was > In years gone by > And the good times that I had > Makes today seem rather sad > SO much has changed" > > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130226 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:30 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! > T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. ... S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! Metta Sarah > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > > .... > > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130227 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > > >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, > >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of > >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then > why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? Daily life is not a practice. It is where vipaka cittas, kusala and akusala cittas arise by conditions. In other words, in addition to sense experience which is the result of kamma performed in the past, there is ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, wrong view, moral restraint, kindness, understanding etc. all arisen in accordance to the individuals accumulations and other conditions. Whats important is that any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control. Does meditation agree with such an understanding? I don't think so. While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" certain things. From this one then assumes that just doing it is "kusala". And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be patipatti. And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object while siting in a particular posture. So rather than the understanding that dhammas have arisen and fallen away already, this is "control". > >Suk:You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, > >such as dosa, lobha and mana. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > For stream entry one doesn't remove or weaken those fetters. So in the > beginning, a meditator isn't expected to remove those fetters either. My response was to your suggesting: Quote: "You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes..." > Later on, yes. One has to start where one can, even if it is in delusion. If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this reflects not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is conditioned and beyond control. Therefore it is *not* the understanding of where one is at, but rather motivated by where one would like to be. Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130228 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. > > [Sukin:] > > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. > Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to > nama and rupa. > Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the > name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, > concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place > and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be > achieved. Whats more is > that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the > meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. > > 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and > function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this > particular level of wisdom. > ----------- > > [Tep:] > 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise > through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you > described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor > vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. > Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana. > 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of > the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding > with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to > ignorance". > I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only mundane right view or that there are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? > By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of > this particular level of wisdom"? > For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas preceding this. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130229 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, Alex - >Sukin: "Daily life is not a practice. It is where vipaka cittas, kusala and akusala cittas arise by conditions. In other words, in addition to sense experience which is the result of kamma performed in the past, there is ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, wrong view, moral restraint, kindness, understanding etc. all arisen in accordance to the individuals accumulations and other conditions. Whats important is that any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control." With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! Be heedful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, > > >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of > > >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then > > why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130230 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130231 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:17 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, (Alex) - > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. May there be clear knowing, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130232 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all This sutta quote might be relevant: "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesali in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. I went to him at the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood, and there he spoke in a variety of ways on mental absorption. Master Gotama was both endowed with mental absorption & made mental absorption his habit. In fact, he praised mental absorption of every sort." "It wasn't the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. "He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with uncertainty. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One did not praise. "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. Metta, Tam B  Hi Tep, > With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130233 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:04 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, > J: In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha. > > The significance of the 'official' objects of samatha is that their contemplation can support the development of samatha to a particularly high degree. > > If panna arises with, say, a kasina as object it does so not because the object is a kasina, nor because there is concentration with a kasina as object, but because of the way the (notion of) kasina is being contemplated (and obviously the same could not be said of, say, a cake :-)) Thanks for that. To clarify, there can be kusala samatha bhavana of ordinary daily life moment kind with (concept of) cake as object (so not dana, not sila, not samatha bhavana of high degree, nor vipassana), but there cannot be saamatha bhavana of high degree with (concept of) cake as object. That is what you are saying, right? Thanks. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130234 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:13 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. I guess some schools/texts will seem appealing, some dwn't. That's as far as anyone can tell nowadays I guess without actual nanas of whatever level. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130235 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > certain things. Strawman. > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > "kusala". Strawman. And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > patipatti. Strawman. > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > while siting in a particular posture. Strawman. etc, what's the point of debating with imaginary meditators above? They'll never get a chance to respond. I can be a meditator for a bit if you want an actual debate? Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130236 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:32 am Subject: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, (others) - I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. Be free, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130237 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam Bach (& others), - The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesali in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130238 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > > certain things. > > Strawman. > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > "kusala". > > Strawman. > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > patipatti. > > Strawman. > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > > while siting in a particular posture. > > Strawman. etc, what's the point of debating with imaginary meditators > above? They'll never get a chance to respond. I can be a meditator for > a bit if you want an actual debate? > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining how what I stated are strawman. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130239 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:59 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Pt, all, >Pt:There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like >that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited >to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I >understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, >how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. The above justification might have been for authorship of Mahayana sutras. Or maybe even for authorship of various Abhidharma texts. It is interesting that there is Theravada Post canonical Abhidhamma, sarvastivada Abhidharma, Sutrantika Abhidharma, Yogacara Abhidharma, Madhymaka philosophy, etc. I wonder if the reason there are so many different Abhidharmas and philosophical texts is that it is abstract, and different thinkers have different ideas. Maybe all the categories, divisions, analysis, etc, are conceptual activities rather than The Absolute Truth? You can divide the distance into miles, kilometers, feet, meters, centimeters, inches, etc... IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130240 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >S: Does meditation agree with such an understanding? Meditation is all about study and understanding of phenomena appearing right now. >S:If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this >reflects > not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is >conditioned and beyond control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130241 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Alex, > > One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". > Are you suggesting there are two selves: the true and the _____??? Who meditates? connie #130242 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:49 am Subject: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, Sukin, all, >C:Are you suggesting there are two selves: the true and the _____??? >Who meditates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130243 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:34 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Alex, > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > would you say the mind sits? connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130244 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:38 am Subject: Re: Meditation and Right View t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin (& others) - The reply below may be too long; but I want it to be clear. > >T 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. >Sukin: "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." T: "Singleness of mind is concentration(samadhi); the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development." [MN 44] Concentration is achieved through developing each of the following dhammas: Renunciation, non-ill-will, perception of light, non-agitation, dhamma-vicaya, ~naana (knowledge), gladness(paamojja); each of the following kammatthanas: 10 kasinas, 10 recollections(anussati), 10 kinds of foulness, 32 modes of anapanasati. T: Samatha bhavana is for jhana training; beyond jhana is direct knowledges. There are so many ways to 'abide in jhana' by developing each of the following dhammas: Metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha; four foundations of mindfulness; four exertions; four iddhipada (bases for power); five mental faculties(indriya); five powers (bala); seven factors for enlightenment; eightfold path, and so on. Example. "Seeing the dangers of sensual pleasures I practiced it much. Seeeing the benefits of non-sensual pleasure I practiced it much. Then my mind readily pursued, became delighted, got established and was released seeing non-sensual pleasure as appeasement. Ananda, then secluding the mind from sensual and demeritorious thoughts, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion I abode in the first higher state of the mind." [Anguttara Nikaya 004. Mahà vaggo Tapussasutta. The householder Tapussa] Vipassana bhavana: In general, contemplation (anupassana, vipassana) is the concentration development (samaadhi bhaavanaa) that leads to clear knowing (yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati) of the phenomena(dhaatu, khandha, naamaruupa). Concentration is developed through relinquishment of the phenomena (dhammas) that are produced during vipassana meditation (e.g., contemplating 'anicca, dukha, anatta') of the following dhammas: The five clinging aggregates; the All; six perceptions (associated with phassa at the sense doors); six volitions, six cravings, vitakka and vicara associated with ayatanas; eighteen proprties(dhatus); the thirty-two body parts; eight jhanas; eleven paticcasamuppada dhammas. [Source: Patisambhidamagga] ------------------ > >T: 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". >Sukin: I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only mundane right view or that there are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? T: The lowest level of mundane right view in my opinion is kammically based and is defined as in MN 117: "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." The top-limit of mundane right view is the Sotapanna's right view. So, yes, there are many levels in between the two limits -- as I see it. ............. > >T: By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom"? >Sukin: For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas preceding this. T: Please elaborate. It is not yet clear to me. Be peaceful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. > > > > [Sukin:] > > > > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. > > Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to > > nama and rupa. > > Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the > > name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, > > concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place > > and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be > > achieved. Whats more is > > that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the > > meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130245 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:09 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Alex, > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > connie > No. Mind does not sit. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130246 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:13 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, Alex - >C: would you say the mind sits? No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Alex, > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > connie > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130247 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:25 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear friends, are there 'mental postures' at all then? what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. to stilling, connie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Connie, Alex - > > >C: would you say the mind sits? > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > Be well, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > connie > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130248 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:57 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi, Connie, all - [Connie wrote:] > dear friends, > are there 'mental postures' at all then? > what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. T: We do not need to answer a thousand-and-one miscelleneous questions, hoping that right understanding may unpredictably arise. We do need 'anupassana' on the arising/ceasing of the upadanakkhandhas and the path leading to their cessation. "Monks, if there are any who ask, 'Your listening to teachings that are skillful, noble, leading onward, going to self-awakening is a prerequisite for what?' they should be told, 'For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.' 'What duality are you speaking about?' 'This is stress. This is the origination of stress': this is one contemplation. 'This is the cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': this is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way --heedful, ardent, & resolute-- one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return." [Dvayatanupassana Sutta: The Contemplation of Dualities] Truly, Tep === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > > > Alex: Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > > > connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130249 From: "azita" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:14 am Subject: Re: Nina update, was:Thank you very much gazita2002 Send Email Send Email Hallo Sarah, thank you for the update on Nina's condition. She has amazing energy and will do well in post surgery - please give her my well-wishes patience, courage, truthfulness and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. > > She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. > > The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! > > Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. > > Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130250 From: "philip" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:28 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Connie > are there 'mental postures' at all then? > what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. > to stilling, > connie This may or my not be off topic, but there is an interesting Pali term that gets at the way an excessive interest in body posture obstructs satipatthana. Oh so noble I am. sitting with spine erect! Look at my calm half-smile, just like the Buddha! A lobhaditthi constructed 7 day awakening doll! Meditation is great for the health, though. I was speaking to Lukas yesterday and as always recommended playing with the breath to create pleasant sensations in the body, the technique taught by Thanissaro Bhikhu. . Lotta lobha, yes, but this meditation (itfs yoga really, not bhavana) is better than booze, personally I love it! (Lukas didn't fall for it, he values bhavana over abusing Dhamma for pleasure. ) Phil P.s does anyone remember the Pali term I mentioned above? I heard about it in either the 2004 or 2005 India talks. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Connie, Alex - > > > > >C: would you say the mind sits? > > > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > > > Be well, > > Tep > > === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > > > > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > > > connie > > > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130251 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > Right. The above justification might have been for authorship of Mahayana sutras. Or maybe even for authorship of various Abhidharma texts. > > It is interesting that there is Theravada Post canonical Abhidhamma, > sarvastivada Abhidharma, Sutrantika Abhidharma, Yogacara Abhidharma, > Madhymaka philosophy, etc. I think what I'm saying is that there must be some Dhamma in the above texts as well. I mean, there were supposedly other Buddhas, silent Buddhas, uncounted disciples, etc, so Dhamma cannot be restricted to coming out of the mouth of our historical Buddha only. It's supposed to be the Law of how things are, not just limited to words of this or that person in time. Our problem is that we cannot tell what's Dhamma and what's not. We can conjecture based on our opinions, affiliations, grammar study, historical study, but that's conjecture. So, my take is that according to one's faculties, this or that text will appeal more or less. That's it. Everything else is conjecture and a waste of time imo unless that's your field of scholarly research, I like scholarly research. > I wonder if the reason there are so many different Abhidharmas and philosophical texts is that it is abstract, and different thinkers have different ideas. > > Maybe all the categories, divisions, analysis, etc, are conceptual activities rather than The Absolute Truth? Maybe, but I don't think I can know either way until there are actual nanas happening, so conjecture seems like a waste of time. The texts will either appeal or not, if not now, maybe later, maybe never. I like abhidhamma and commentaries and honestly don't care they came out of the mouth of the historical Buddha or not. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130252 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:32 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining > how what I stated are strawman. Ok, but please do some work too (though please let's not get into gargantuan posts like we used to). > > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > > > certain things. Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view or whatever other dhammas? > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > > "kusala". It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such moments condition more such moments of understandging? Wouldn't this be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > > patipatti. Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding most of the time? > > > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > > > while siting in a particular posture. I just formally meditated for you. I'm physically unable to sit in a lotus. Different postures don't seem to make a real difference. Further, I'm unable to focus on a certain object, nor see the point of it as things pop up regardless of what I want, etc. Basically, none of your criticisms above seem applicable to my actual meditation, so please find ways to criticise it in a way I can relate to. Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130253 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, all T: The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". --------------- Tam B:  and he also pointed out the cause of such wrong mental absorption:  " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen." It follows that understanding is the origin, the cause of  the type of mental absorption praised by the Buddha. As I see it, if the Buddha were to praise the act of doing meditation, if  "doing meditation"  were  the cause which  leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types. He was concerned with the mental states and the cause for their arising only, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is the core of his message delivered to the world. Metta, Tam B === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesali in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130254 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:24 pm Subject: Extracts from Thailand with Lukas - Doubt sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Lukas & friends, ***** Lukas: Ajahn, all these questions here because I doubt. I doubt because now we talk about dhammas, about conditions..... I have a doubt. A.Sujin: Doubt is a dhamma. L: Not self, but then I have a doubt about doubt. A.Sujin: It's not self again. L: Then I need some kind of motivation or someone to tell me. A.Sujin: You know that it's a dhamma. L: A dhamma? A.Sujin: Yes. Otherwise, no other way. If you try to think about something different, it's not like understanding it's only a reality. L: I think I learn this is a dhamma, the doubt must be a nama, this is a rupa.... A.Sujin: That is thinking, not understanding. L: But later comes some unpleasant .... A.Sujin: Dhamma again. L: This is what I cannot believe - this is nama, this is rupa. This is what I doubt. A.Sujin: That is what you recite, but what about understanding whatever appears now as that which is experienced or that which experiences? That's all. In a moment. ***** Metta Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130255 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Extract from Thailand with Lukas - "I, I, I, I, I..." sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Lukas and friends, Another good reminder for us all *** L: Ajahn, whenever I cut myself or something and I see blood, I have long, long stories and then lose consciousness. A.Sujin: I, I, I, I, I, or what? L: Concepts. I mean when I see blood, I lose consciousness, I feel very weak. A.Sujin: So what is there at that moment. L: Some kind of thinking? Ann: When you've lost consciousness? A.Sujin: No thinking! L: Bhavanga cittas. A.Sujin: Right. We are talking about each moment in life. **** Best wishes for the journey of life from moment to moment, Lukas. Just dhammas! Metta Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130256 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:39 pm Subject: Howard - Many Happy Returns! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! Metta Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130257 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, (Howard & all)< --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > ...The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. I would say roughly that Sarah and Ken H. and others would be in the "cetana-only" group, and that you would be in the "rupa-inclusive" group. I am probably in the rupa-inclusive group too - have been in the past - but now a little uncertain. ... S: A little unsure what I'm being accused of, but happy to discuss further:-) Kamma is cetana cetasika. When it is a 'complete course of action', kamma-patha, there has to be not only the intention to kill a being, but the death of that living being. If it's just a passing thought, it's just akusala thinking and intention only. The actual cause of death for that other being (the cuti citta or death consciousness of what is referred to as a being), is actually kamma. However, for that kamma to bring its result, there must be supporting conditions, such as the impact of hardness experienced by body-consciousness, for example. So if the first person intends to kill another by using a weapon, it depends on kamma of the second person and other conditions as to whether this will be successful. In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130258 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:53 pm Subject: Re: Nina update sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tadao, I think you meant to say that Nina is not a 'whining' person. She is not someone who is used to complaining at all. I agree with you! It's such a good lesson for us all - if we cannot be patient and learn not to 'whine' or complain in our ordinary daily life when we experience minor inconveniences (usually just dosa as a result of lobha for having things another way), then how will we cope when life is very difficult, when kamma brings really tough results! As for Nina, I'm sure that now she is over the initial shock and trauma, she's adjusting to her new circumstances well. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Sarah > > Thank you for the update. > > She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that > the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. ... Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130259 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: And you kindly gave a quoted passage from Vism XIV to say all sankhata dhammas "fall into" the five aggregates. Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? ... S: Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. ... >However, we have to be careful about (unintentionally) mixing up inherent features (sabhava) of a dhamma with the 'sammuti sacca'. This danger arises when a speaker (unintentionally?) switches back-and-forth between the ultimates and the conventionals! ... S: The Buddha intentionally switched between referring to ultimate dhammas and conventional truths all the time. There is no problem at all when dhammas are understood. Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! ... > > >T: It is not clear to me how to contemplate a rupa --as an ultimate reality-- through the dhamma-anupassana, Sarah. Can you show me how? > > >S: It's never a question of 'how?', but a question about the understanding of what is meant. Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately. > > T: It is clear by reasoning, not by realizing through direct knowing, that "visible object appears - it is seen" and that "it's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place". ... S: The understanding has to develop. If there is not very clear pariyatti, theoretical understanding of dhammas as anatta such as visible object appearing now, there will not be the direct knowing, patipatti, that directly understands such realities. ... >T:But it is not possible without 'yathabhutam pajanati' to directly know that sankhata dhamma arises and falls away immediately. ... S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. ... >T:It is easier imo to directly know when an in-breath or an out-breath arises and falls away. A breath isn't a paramattha dhamma, yet the Buddha strongly recommends Anapanasati as a major meditation method. ... S: By the time it seems that there is the direct knowing of the arising and falling away of an in or out breath, countless cittas experiencing countless objects have arisen and fallen away. So it's just an idea we have, like when we think we're aware of lifting an arm or washing the dishes. We're lost in the world of concepts all the time. ... > > >S: A very firm intellectual right understanding about realities, sankhara dhammas, as anatta has to be developed first. > > T: Thanks! I absolutely agree with that. The question is : when direct knowing must be developed through appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana, if not now. ... S: What is "appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana"? Again, we need to consider each term carefully. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130260 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category. > "As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html ... S: Yes, I disagree and so does he in a later comment you quote from the intro to CMA, as I recall. Certainly the text itself, Ab.Sangaha, the Tipitaka and other ancient commentaries disagree. ... > > 3. >S: When touching the keyboard, is a keyboard experienced or is it only hardness? > > T: I remember having seen this kind of question so many times before. :-) > If you close your eyes, yes. ... S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130261 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > I have a rough question: > If a person kills a man, then it is bad kamma. > If that man happens to be one's father, then it is not just bad kamma, it is heinous kamma. Big difference. > > If only paramattha dhammas have characteristics, and if only paramattha dhammas exist - then: > > Question 1: what paramattha dhamma is "one's father"? ... S: Cittas, cetasikas and rupas. ... > > Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? .... S: For communication purposes as we are doing now. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130262 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tadao & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > This is not an Abhidhammaic description at all, but when we have a positive attitude to our life, our kamma wouldn't inflict us too much pain. ... S: I think you mean that there won't be so much dosa and domanassa on account of the painful bodily feeling. The painful bodily experience itself is the result of kamma which even a Buddha could not avoid. ... > > > > Even at a bad situation, our own invisible hand(s) would guide us to escape from such a situation without much difficulties. > > > > (Sorry, probably, ignoring Dhamma, I'm too optimistic.) ... S: I remember when I was young and always optimistic about people and situations, Ajahn used to say to me: "Khun Sarah, better to be realistic than optimistic!" It made quite an impression as I'd been brought up to always think the best of people and so on. ... >R: Thanks much for your optimistic thoughts! :-) I appreciate them, and I think that like you whenever one cultivates a positive attitude, it may not change the vipaka, but the view of it can maybe be lighter. I think this corresponds to one of my favorite metaphors in Dhamma, the Buddha's "second arrow." Psychospiritual suffering - the way we react to things - is a different order of dukkha than the initial experience, even if it is unpleasant. ... S: Yes, the second arrow of dosa doesn't help at all. ... > > Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... .... S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130263 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, Rob E & all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >H: There also needs to be specific rupas that constitute the killing, a.k.a. "the actions" and also called the kamma-patha. Without this, there is only thinking and intending, i.e., there is only incompleted kamma. .... Yes, if it is just thinking, not complete kamma which will bring its results as you say. As quoted quite recently by Ken O from the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta: <> **** Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130264 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Phil (Connie), C: > are there 'mental postures' at all then? P: P.s does anyone remember the Pali term I mentioned above? I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. The morning of the first day in Hua Hin (6th Jan) Ajahn asked us, referring to the realities appearing as different people in the room, what was behind the scene, and I think this would also apply to realities appearing as different postures (either physical or mental) as well (or to the truth spoken in any conventional terms, like posture, people & so on, for that matter). Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130265 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:33 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, - >> T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category: "As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. >S: Yes, I disagree and so does he in a later comment you quote from the intro to CMA, as I recall. Certainly the text itself, Ab.Sangaha, the Tipitaka and other ancient commentaries disagree. T: Isn't it fair to say that commentators sometimes disagree among themselves? ......... >S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? T: Then the whole keyboard is seen, and the touch adds a sensed fact that it is hard or soft. That "experience" does not lead to the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of rupakkhandha, though. Yesterday I looked through the old photos of DSG members meetings in 2007 (when Nina's husband was alive, and Sarah was more vibrant) versus the latest photos. A flash of understanding arose with regard to ageing and death --I saw no men, no women, no buildings, no parties, no beaches-- just the dukkha sacca. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category. Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130266 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam bach (& others) - Earlier you wrote: "My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding." T: Allow me to propose this for your kind consideration: the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight). >Tam B: .. and he also pointed out the cause of such wrong mental absorption: " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen." It follows that understanding is the origin, the cause of the type of mental absorption praised by the Buddha. T: Yes, it is true that vipassana understanding can condition concentration (samadhi); vipassana preceding samatha, so to speak. ......... >Tam B: ... if "doing meditation" were the cause which leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types. T: Wise observation! I agree with you. [So, why waste time nitpicking anyone?] >Tam B: He was concerned with the mental states and the cause for their arising only, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is the core of his message delivered to the world. T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said: He was concerned with the mental states, the cause for their arising and their dissolving, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is one of his core messages delivered to the world. "What do you think, monks --Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all > > > > T: The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130267 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Nina update tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah I couldn't find the word, which sounded like wine-ing. But "whining" is the word I was looking for. Thank you for your help. Anything happens with our lives; the fact which I've learnt with the Great Earthquake, which said to occur once every one thousand years. Still, I feel that we should not be pessimistic. We are quite lucky in the sense that we have been able to find the Dhamma in the current lives. Metta, tadao P.S. If Kun Nina is stopping over in Bangkok before going to Vietnam, I may be able to see her. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tadao, > > I think you meant to say that Nina is not a 'whining' person. She is not someone who is used to complaining at all. I agree with you! > > It's such a good lesson for us all - if we cannot be patient and learn not to 'whine' or complain in our ordinary daily life when we experience minor inconveniences (usually just dosa as a result of lobha for having things another way), then how will we cope when life is very difficult, when kamma brings really tough results! > > As for Nina, I'm sure that now she is over the initial shock and trauma, she's adjusting to her new circumstances well. > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah > > > > Thank you for the update. > > > > She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that > > the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. > ... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130268 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Skin How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there for the entire month. As for what I've said and what you've said, I can say very very briefly that I'm only interested in things (i.e., dhammas), which I think I can "verify". Things which I think I would never be able to verify remain merely as concepts, hence, attracting no interests of mine. Metta, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hello Tadao, > > > Good to see you posting here. > > > The question of whether a hammer or hand exists or not is the > > so-called "ill-posed problem" in the sense that we have no "means to > > prove" if it does or does not. > > (Only we can say is that we cannot "experience" a hammer or hand.) > > Does not the Abhidhamma tell us what does exist, namely, citta, > cetasika, rupa and nibbana? Does not the Dhamma make the distinction > between paramatthadhamma and pannatti and is not hammer a pannatti? Even > if we don't label or even recognize it as "something", being that it is > not a nimitta of a reality, it must be pannatti, no? > > > If we were a Supernatural Being, who could look at our processing > > mechanism > > totally beyond and above it and could compare our cognition of such an > > object > > and the seemingly existing object, we would be confidently able to say > > such an object exist or dose not exist. > > But the Buddha was enlightened and he knew didn't he? He made it clear > to us that conditioned existence must have the characteristic of rise > and fall, only nibbana does not rise and fall away. That unknown object > out there which you are not sure whether it exists or not, would it be > something that rises and falls away or something presumed to be solid > and lasting in time? > > > But we perceive the seemingly existing object only through our sensory > > doors, > > so we are not in any position of providing a solid answer to the question. > > What we perceive through our senses is only seven of the twenty eight > rupas which the Buddha pointed out. Do you think that the Buddha's > enlightenment was limited? > > > Given that it's an ill-posed question, such a debate does not bring > > any merit. > > It is an ill posed question when there is no Dhamma to refer to. The > Dhamma covers all dhammas. And the important thing is that it can be > proven "now". > > > > If you are interested in, could you please read the following passage? > > It is taken from Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. (2010). The > > Grand Design, p. 39. London: Bantam Press. > > > > To me it's a pure dhamma. > > > > A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners > > from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measurefs sponsor > > explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a > > fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would > > have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, > > undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside > > some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous > > lens? The goldfishfs picture of reality is different from ours, but > > can we be sure it is less real? > > A similar idea was expressed hundreds of years ago by the Taoist Chuang > Tzu when referring to the man dreaming he is a butterfly. My impression > in that case was that this is simply an expression of doubt due to not > knowing / understanding the Dhamma. When the Buddha's teachings is not > known / understood, people can't help having doubt and speculating. > > Metta, > > Sukin > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130269 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:46 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, - Our dialog has rapidly become quite long, yet an end is no where in sight! >> T: Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? >S (message #130259): Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. T: I think you are refering to the 'sabhava' or "essence" of the paramattha dhamma 'rupa', rather than to forms or form-aggreagte themselves: it's like an atomic physicist who refuses to see nothing but the atoms. ............ > >T: However, we have to be careful about (unintentionally) mixing up inherent features (sabhava) of a dhamma with the 'sammuti sacca'. This danger arises when a speaker (unintentionally?) switches back-and-forth between the ultimates and the conventionals! >S: The Buddha intentionally switched between referring to ultimate dhammas and conventional truths all the time. There is no problem at all when dhammas are understood. T: I don't think our Greatest Teacher switched anything: he always talked about the dhammas and their sabhava. There is no mention of paramattha (ultimate) in the Sutta teachings. The confusion arose later, long after the Parinibbana. ............ >S: Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! T: Yes, if our purpose is to contemplate hardness as a sabhava dhamma --a characteristic of materialities. ............ >> T: It is clear by reasoning, not by realizing through direct knowing, that "visible object appears - it is seen" and that "it's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place". >S: The understanding has to develop. If there is not very clear pariyatti, theoretical understanding of dhammas as anatta such as visible object appearing now, there will not be the direct knowing, patipatti, that directly understands such realities. T: Yet, in many DSG discussion messages it does not seem that "theoretical understanding of dhammas" is the purpose. The following two declarations show direct understanding/ direct knowing of paramattha dhammas by the speaker. "There has to be very clear understanding of what visible object is and how it is distinct from seeing consciousness. There also has to be clear understanding of many other rupas and namas appearing in a day. Without such understanding, there will never be the very highly developed understanding which understands the arising and falling away of realities." "Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately." ............ >S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. T: Those are legitimate questions every student who intends to apply any theory/principle and develop skills would ask! In the Suttas there are many stories of outsiders and also monks who asked the Buddha the same kind of questions. Of course there was "no understanding about dhammas at such a time"; that's why they asked the Buddha so they learn to abandon akusala dhammas, develop kusala dhammas, and practice for the cessation of dukkha. ............ >>T:It is easier imo to directly know when an in-breath or an out-breath arises and falls away. A breath isn't a paramattha dhamma, yet the Buddha strongly recommends Anapanasati as a major meditation method. >S: By the time it seems that there is the direct knowing of the arising and falling away of an in or out breath, countless cittas experiencing countless objects have arisen and fallen away. So it's just an idea we have, like when we think we're aware of lifting an arm or washing the dishes. We're lost in the world of concepts all the time. T: Then do not think like that, just practice Anapanasati and develop ~naana. ............ S: What is "appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana"? Again, we need to consider each term carefully. T: I already gave Sukin's similar question an answer in the DSG message #130244, just yesterday. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: And you kindly gave a quoted passage from Vism XIV to say all sankhata dhammas "fall into" the five aggregates. Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130270 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:37 am Subject: Re: Howard - Many Happy Returns! upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Sarah - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! ----------------------------------- Thanks, Sarah! Much appreciated. :-)And happy birthday to Jon (tomorrow)and to you (on the 1st)! Uh, oh - now you guys'll be deluged with online good wishes! ----------------------------------- > Metta > > Sarah ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130271 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:42 am Subject: Re: audio uploaded, Hua Hin, Jan 2013 tony.humphreys Send Email Send Email Thanks Sarah...I'll tentatively give them a listen - It'll be good to be reminded of AS's words...and my holiday! :) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tony, Vietnamese friends, Lukas & all, > > We've completed the upload of (edited) discussions from Hua Hin, Jan 2013: > > http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/dsgAudio.html > > > They are in the first section under "editing in progress". > > We'll continue with the other sets after a little break as we're travelling on Sat. > > For those who find them helpful - please consider transcribing any short extracts you like and posting them here for others to read and consider. We especially appreciate everyone's support while Nina is unable to post. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #130272 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:15 am Subject: Re: Howard - Many Happy Returns! jonoabb Send Email Send Email --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! > ----------------------------------- > Thanks, Sarah! Much appreciated. :-)And happy birthday to Jon (tomorrow)and to you (on the 1st)! Uh, oh - now you guys'll be deluged with online good wishes! > ----------------------------------- Thanks, Howard. And best to you also. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130273 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Happy Birth Day jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Jon and Sarah Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. Best wishes Jagkrit Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130274 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > > I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a > > > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators > are > > > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong > > > view about meditation and meditators. > > > You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so. > > It also does not make it not so. > > > From where I stand, > > its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm > > right. > > Well that is extremely self-righteous > "Self-righteous"? You keep repeating what I consider wrong view and I tell you this, makes me self-righteous? > to think that you are right and everyone who meditates is wrong - esp. > I don't go about thinking this way, comparing myself with the meditator; you are adding spice. I think about wrong view and the concept of meditator only when I read someone expressing it, but without comparing myself. > as you say that you do have some doubt as your understanding is > intellectual. > That was reference to the inherent tendency to doubt of someone with weak understanding and therefore a long, long way to go before it is eradicated. Intellectual understanding is accompanied by a corresponding level of saddha. If doubt arises it would be when there is no intellectual understanding. > In other words, that to me is indeed a definition of dogmatic. > My understanding of Ehipassiko or "come and see" is that pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha are all ehipassiko at their own level. My confidence in the Dhamma is in the fact that it is about dhamma "now" and there is dhamma now. This is the opposite of dogmatism would you not say? > It is possible to state your understanding without being so > disparaging and to admit of your doubt, but instead you choose to > state it as a general case that applies without doubt and to all > meditators. Why state it that way? Why not look into it and wait to > see if you are right? > It is possible to state my understanding without being disparaging of course, but to say that I should doubt makes no sense. But I'm not really talking about meditators am I? A meditator represents the view behind the decision to meditate. Do I need to hear all meditators out then? And of course I've been reading meditators express their views for years and not once have I got the impression that they may be right. > > Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual > > understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing > > the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view > > expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has > > been reason for confidence rather than any wavering. > > It has never been shown, nor have I ever gotten a substantive quote > from anyone in authority in traditional Theravada, that meditation is > the expression of self-view. > When it is a matter of interpretation based on general understanding, I don't think quoting texts will work. > Almost all of the scriptures say the opposite, that one should, could > or does follow the breath, cultivate mindfulness and samatha, etc., so > you must understand that your view is not only unproven, but goes > against the word of most of the teachings. So where have you gotten > this view? Can you identify the source? What writings tell you > explicitly that meditation is bad for you? There are none. > As I said, when the texts refer for example, to concentrating on breath, you interpret this one way and others interpret it another way. It is not texts saying that "meditation is bad", or that "fire worship is bad" that we need to look for, but understanding them in a way that is consistent with certain general principles. And is not understanding in light of these principles the point of reading and quoting texts? And have you been able to quote texts and interpret them in a way consistent with such principles as conditionality and the Tilakkhana, when trying to demonstrate that the Buddha did recommend conventional activities? > > I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice > do so > > as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will > agree > > with the idea of formal meditation. > > You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how > this > > is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do. > > > > In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is > > the result of wrong view. > > Well you may continue to state it but there is no evidence for it > other than your own logical construction, which I believe is skewed in > that direction. No one has ever explained why meditation *must* be the > product of self-view, rather than just doing something that Buddha > spoke of and in my view recommended almost constantly. > The understanding that the past is completely gone and the future is unknown / unpredictable, and that the present dhammas have arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control. The understanding that intention to have kusala for example, is not a condition for the particular kusala to arise, but that like any other sankhara dhamma, they do so by whole set of conditions, none of which is subject to control of will. The Buddha encouraged all kinds of kusala, but more than anything, the development of Right Understanding. Samatha Bhavana at some point involves the rising and falling away of particular set of dhammas each with particular relation to another. In giving a description of what those dhammas are, their particular characteristic and functions, he would go on to also cite their general characteristics. It is this that the listener is supposed to understand. If all the dhammas in every stage of Jhana are anicca, dukkha and anatta and must be understood as such, why would one think that these particular Suttas is about how Jhana can be developed? And if dhammas arise by conditions beyond control, why would one think that the different states can be achieved by "just doing it"? > It is always said [around here] that the act of sitting is itself an > effort to control what dhammas arise, even though Buddhist meditation > is explicitly aimed at merely observing whatever dhammas arise in the > way that is possible at the present time, not "trying to make > something happen" in any way. > It is trying to make sati and panna arise by deciding to sit and concentrate on a chosen object and then believing that the "observing" is sati, that the "control" is about. > It is no more inherently controlling than simply observing what arises > in daily life, as is constantly recommended on dsg, so I don't frankly > see the difference. > It is because "no-control" that it is daily life. If the meaning of daily life meant "do it" in daily life, that would mean control. Daily life is where dhammas rise and fall away by conditions regardless of whether we believe in control or not. When wrong view arises during the day, and if panna has been accumulated enough, this wrong view can become its object, not by the decision to observe. The decision to observe can't make sati and panna arise. > Surely, if one *does* want to control what arises then at the moment > that this is the case, that is a moment of attempting to control > dhammas, but this is not the case at every moment, and it is not more > the case just because someone is meditating. It is just a spurious > argument. > As I said, the control is in the decision observe / meditate, making sati and panna arise by following a conventional activity. > In addition, if meditation is unrelated to the path and has no effect > on anything, then there is nothing wrong with it, as it will not > change what dhammas arise or how they are regarded. > Of course wrong view will not change what dhammas arise. But that is not what the wrong view behind the wrong practice believes. It takes what is wrong practice for right which further gives rise to wrong ideas about dhammas and practice. The man lost in the dark forest going round and round in circles and not knowing it. > Something that has no path relevance cannot make the path "worse," so > either way I don't see the problem, or why those who are against > meditation appear to be obsessed by it and filled with negative > intention towards it. Aversion, anyone? > Aversion, yes sometimes, obsessed, no.But even if I were obsessed, so what? How does that effect my argument? Wrong view accumulates just as any other sankhara dhamma. So it does get worse, such that it becomes ever harder to get on the right track. Can a person who rejects moral cause and effect develop Right Understanding? Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130275 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day tambach Send Email Send Email Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah! May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. Metta, Tam B  Dear Jon and Sarah Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. Best wishes Jagkrit Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130276 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, > > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining > > how what I stated are strawman. > > Ok, but please do some work too (though please let's not get into > gargantuan posts like we used to). What "work" are you referring to? As to gargantuan posts, I'll try, but as you know, its anatta. Know however, that I do not mind if you decide not to continue as a result of my responses being too long. > > > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention > to "do" > > > > certain things. > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it must be in spite of and not because of it. > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view > or whatever other dhammas? So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? > > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > > > "kusala". > > It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of > one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition > understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such > moments condition more such moments of understandging? Wouldn't this > be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will not condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged in, the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is wishful thinking. > > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > > > patipatti. > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > most of the time? Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct understanding calls for further development of intellectual understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. > > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of > situation, > > > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen > object > > > > while siting in a particular posture. > > I just formally meditated for you. I'm physically unable to sit in a > lotus. Different postures don't seem to make a real difference. > Further, I'm unable to focus on a certain object, nor see the point of > it as things pop up regardless of what I want, etc. Basically, none of > your criticisms above seem applicable to my actual meditation, so > please find ways to criticise it in a way I can relate to. Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not the standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130277 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, all  T: Allow me to propose this for your kind consideration: the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight). -------------------- Tam B:  If you agree with my observation as bellows:   " >Tam B: ... if "doing meditation" were the cause which leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types. T: Wise observation! I agree with you. [So, why waste time nitpicking anyone?]" ,  I don't see why you would say that the Buddha praised the act of doing meditation. If the act of doing meditation it-self is not the cause of wholesome states, why would he praise it? On the contrary, what I see here is that he cautioned against  misunderstanding about the basis of the  development of wholesome states : not the act of doing, but the understanding. T: Yes, it is true that vipassana understanding can condition concentration (samadhi); vipassana preceding samatha, so to speak. ------------------ Tam B: While it is true that vipassana  includes samatha in the wider sense, IMHO, the sentence " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen."  actually  indicates the wisdom inherent to the development of samatha: the wisdom which  understands the characteristics of wholesome and unwholesome states. And as the text shows, this wisdom is indispensable for the arising of wholesome states praised later on, namely the jhanna. T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said No problem if you want it to be more complete. Metta, Tam  B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130278 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tam B, Jagkrit & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah! > > May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. ... S: Many thanks for the good wishes! Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) Any time, any moment, dhamma (reality) can be known. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130279 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah > S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) >S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) JJ: Happay Birth Day in advance, Sarah. Your Birth Day is the same day as my wife (55). I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) It seems that our cittas never get old at all. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130280 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam, - >Tam: I don't see why you would say that the Buddha praised the act of doing meditation. T: This is what I wrote earlier: "the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight)". In other words, he does not praise the samatha meditator who is overcome by sensual passion (and self-views). >Tam: If the act of doing meditation it-self is not the cause of wholesome states, why would he praise it? T: No, he would not. ........... >Tam: IMHO, the sentence " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen." actually indicates the wisdom inherent to the development of samatha: the wisdom which understands the characteristics of wholesome and unwholesome states. T: Indeed, the fault is in the person who is not able to discern the escape. The fault is not due to samatha meditation. Jhana development is for purification of consciousness. .......... >>T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said. >Tam: No problem if you want it to be more complete. T: Even among people whose views are alike they still disagree once in a while. Completeness (perfection) is found only in the Buddha's words; people's interpretation of them is not complete. .......... Thanks for the discussion, Tam. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all >  Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130281 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, (and Jagkrit), - >>S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) T: You are already happy, so I am not going to say "Happy Birthday, Sarah". > >S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) T: I'm glad to know that! May your bodily health remain very good for several years to come, Sarah. ............ >JJ: I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) T: You are lucky there. The beaches closest to where I live are not clean enough for happy swimming . Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Sarah > ... > > It seems that our cittas never get old at all. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130282 From: "philip" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:00 pm Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 2 (Panna little by little) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group Acharn: One can see that the manner of development of pa~n~naa is little by little. Otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. When sound appears, think of nothing at all, no thing, except sound. Or nothing at all, except hardness, only that is reality. (end of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130283 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day jonoabb Send Email Send Email Dear Tam B, Jakgrit and Howard (and others I may have missed) Many thanks for the birthday wishes, and of course for the Dhamma reminders in your messages to the list. Much appreciated. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah! > > May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. > > Metta, > Tam B >  > Dear Jon and Sarah > > > Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit > > Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130284 From: "philip" Date: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:38 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Alberto Thank you for your explanation re the below: > > I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. > Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130285 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, (Howard & all)< > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > ...The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. I would say roughly that Sarah and Ken H. and others would be in the "cetana-only" group, and that you would be in the "rupa-inclusive" group. I am probably in the rupa-inclusive group too - have been in the past - but now a little uncertain. > ... > S: A little unsure what I'm being accused of, but happy to discuss further:-) Since I am uncertain which group I'm in, I doubt I'm "accusing" anyone of being in one or the other... We'll find out whose side I'm on eventually... > Kamma is cetana cetasika. When it is a 'complete course of action', kamma-patha, there has to be not only the intention to kill a being, but the death of that living being. If it's just a passing thought, it's just akusala thinking and intention only. > > The actual cause of death for that other being (the cuti citta or death consciousness of what is referred to as a being), is actually kamma. However, for that kamma to bring its result, there must be supporting conditions, such as the impact of hardness experienced by body-consciousness, for example. > > So if the first person intends to kill another by using a weapon, it depends on kamma of the second person and other conditions as to whether this will be successful. > > In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130286 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:02 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 10 jonoabb Send Email Send Email Dear All Nina has sent Sarah and me a copy of her article from the recent Thailand trip, so that installments can continue to be posted to the list. Jon Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): It is good to be reminded of the cycle of birth and death. The last citta of this life, the dying-consciousness (cuti-citta), is succeeded immediately by the rebirth-consciousness (pa.tisandhi-citta) of the following life. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. Wholesome qualities and unwholesome qualities which arose in the past can condition the arising of such qualities at present. Since our life is an unbroken series of cittas, succeeding one another, wholesome qualities and unwholesome qualities can be accumulated from one moment to the next moment, and, thus, there are conditions for their arising at the present time. When we listen to the Dhamma and we have a little more understanding, this is never lost. Understanding is accumulated and it can grow from life to life. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130287 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:55 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >Jon: Yes, the egg grows/develops into the chicken. But I don't see a comparable relationship between 'practice' (of satipatthana/vipassana) and 'progress' (on the path): in each case what is being referenced is a moment of awarenss/insight. > > T: A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no progress. > =============== J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. In a later message to Sukin you say: "According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. > =============== > T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. > =============== J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. But nevertheless, it has been developed to some extent already and so will arise (i.e., will re-arise) when there are the right conditions for it to do so. Among those conditions is reflection on what has been properly understood at an intellectual level. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130288 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:03 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (and Tep) 130201 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > > The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > =============== J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. There are no exercises or methods given by the Buddha for this, just descriptions of the conditions for the arising of such awareness/insight. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130289 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:18 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Alex (Jon & others) - > ... > T: There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. > > Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. > =============== J: It is the quality/mental factor of "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" itself -- not the "person who has" such quality/accumulated tendency -- that removes wrong views. > =============== > T: And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. > =============== J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130290 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:34 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? But I still do not have a clue why practice is the same as progress. ............ > >T:"According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" >J: I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. T: That's not clear. Please elaborate! ............ >> T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. >J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130291 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:05 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon (& Alex, Rob E.), - > >Alex:The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > > J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. T: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? ............ >J: There are no exercises or methods given by the Buddha for this, just descriptions of the conditions for the arising of such awareness/insight. There are some suttas that explain the development of right view. Allow me to give a few quotes. 1. [AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html 2. [MN 117 Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:] "He endeavors to dispel wrong view and gets established in right view, that becomes his right endeavour. He mindfully dispels wrong view and abides established in right view, that becomes his right mindfulness. Thus these three things follow each other, turning in a circle. Such as right view, right endeavor and right mindfulness". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and Tep) > > 130201 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > > > > >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > A: I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130292 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:30 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, all >J:To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views >is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's od Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130293 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:54 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, Tep, all, >1.[AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is ?>supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, >supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note: Right view is supported by tranquility... I've done a lot of considering and study, and yet somehow bad qualities do arise. It seems It seems that there are two ways: a) Get into Jhana and use that super experience as basis for real right view. and/or b) After one learns that akusala qualities are bad, one uses brute force to suppress them. "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130294 From: "philip" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:59 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 3 (misunderstanding rupa) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear Group From Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "People may erroneously believe that rupa gradually changes." (end of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130295 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:26 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha. > > > > The significance of the 'official' objects of samatha is that their contemplation can support the development of samatha to a particularly high degree. > > > > If panna arises with, say, a kasina as object it does so not because the object is a kasina, nor because there is concentration with a kasina as object, but because of the way the (notion of) kasina is being contemplated (and obviously the same could not be said of, say, a cake :-)) > > > pt: Thanks for that. To clarify, there can be kusala samatha bhavana of ordinary daily life moment kind with (concept of) cake as object (so not dana, not sila, not samatha bhavana of high degree, nor vipassana), but there cannot be saamatha bhavana of high degree with (concept of) cake as object. That is what you are saying, right? Thanks. > =============== J: I'd like to amplify/clarify my earlier remarks when I said: "In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha." That kusala would have to be either dana, sila or vipassana (of an intellectual level). So for example, if there is dana with concept of cake (among other concepts, such as person) as object, and there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will be samatha with concept of cake as object. Or, in the example you gave before, if there is kusala reflection on how the present object of thinking (for example, cake) is concept and not dhamma, that would be understanding of dhammas at an intellectual level; and if there was then a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will be samatha with concept of cake as object. (Also, I've heard it said that at moment of awareness/insight, all the factors of samatha are also present). In either case, cake just happens to be the object, so it's an incidental association. There's nothing about cake per se (i.e., excluding, say, cake as earth element) that, properly reflected upon, can support the kusala factor of tranquillity that is characteristic of samatha. Hoping this is clearer. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130296 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > =============== J: I think you'll find there are plenty of references to wrong practice (including as "miccha pa.tipadaa") in the texts. For example, AN 2:40: "Bhikkhus, I do not praise the wrong practice of two kinds of people: a layperson and one gone forth into homelessness. "Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, they do not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130297 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... > .... > S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. Yes, those are worthwhile distinctions. Are those the three types of dukkha? Physical pain [on account of kamma,] Mental discomfort/suffering [second arrow?] and then the inherent suffering/unsatisfactoriness/unpleasantness inherent in the arising of all phenomena? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130298 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:48 pm Subject: Re: What atta is denied? epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation. > > This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it! I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now. A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again." Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (158) #130299 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:19 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Phil, Ph: Thank you for your explanation You're welcome - Alberto - don't try to have sati: it's already gone (TA, in Hua Hin) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130300 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... I still can't quite make sense of one thing, though I'm not sure I can quite form the question - why can't there be an "ordinary daily life moment" of awareness with samatha kind of panna which is unrelated to actual samatha objects? ... S: If the citta is kusala, it is calm, there is samatha, but occasional moments of kusala with calm are not samatha bhavana, the development of calm. ... > > What I mean is a moment of samatha bhavana (so not dana and not sila and not vipassana), which is unconnected to official samatha development objects that Jon mentioned with reference to Vsm. What I mean is perhaps like a moment when something is seen and perceived in daily life, like (a concept of) a cake for example, but there's no attachment to such concept, in other words there's a sort of kusala "calm awareness" of the fact that it's a perception/concept, .... S: If there's a brief moment of wise thinking without attachment, there is calm, but such occasional moments of kusala are not samatha bhavana. I'd also like to stress that most of what is taken for "calm awareness" in a day, when it seems there is no attachment to what is experienced, is either rooted in ignorance or attachment. Unless panna develops, there's no way of detecting subtle ignorance and attachment. .... >so with samatha sort of panna (which I guess makes it samatha bhavana), but the object is not a kasina, nor a dhamma (as we're not talking about vipassana here), nor a ... well, it's clear its a perception/concept, but it's not clung to. This is probably not making much sense. ... How would samatha bhavana develop with the concept of a cake as object, for example? If there is no understanding of how such an object can condition calm, impossible. ... > > Anyway, my point being that this sort of ordinary moments would be a precursor to actual samatha bhavana with an official object for samatha later on. I mean, I assume nobody can jump straight into fullon samatha bhavana with actual official objects until at least some sort of "ordinary" moments of samatha bhavana happened (like my cake thing) and it became clear what is a moment with sati as opposed to a moment without sati (still speaking samatha-related only like outside a sasana)? ... S: What about now? It's clear that at moments of dana or kindness, for example, that the citta is kusala, it's calm. Whilst looking at or thinking about the cake, it may be clear (even at an intellectual level) that only visible object is seen, only concepts are thought about. Kusala cittas with calm. You're interested, however, in thinking about the cake without attachment, with understanding, but of what? Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130301 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:43 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 3. "<...>The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience. ... S: You quote this from B.Bodhi's intro to CMA. Here "the momentary mental and material phenomena" refer to namas and rupas. The text details the 28 rupas - no mountains or roses. This was the contradiction I referred to. ... > > 4. .....The entities of our everyday frame of reference possess merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. .... S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. ... S: Any suggestion that mountains, roses and diamonds are rupas or paramattha dhammas is not in accordance with the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. Metta Sarah ======#130302 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email HI Phil & Alberto, Discussing postures and the pali term is iriyaapatha, as Alberto explained below. As we read in the vibhanga comy and elsewhere: “The characteristic of pain does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha).†Note, that rather than being aware of postures, it is the idea of postures that conceals the truths about the elements as dukkha.. When there is understanding, there’s no idea of posture at all. Quote from "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas": "Questioner: I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? Sujin: All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They arise and fall away, they are impermanent and therefore, they cannot be a real refuge, they are dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. When it is said that the postures conceal dukkha, one should understand that this refers not just to painful feeling but to the characteristic of dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities. One may believe that there is no dukkha when, at this very moment, one is sitting, lying down, standing or walking without being stiff. The belief that the change of one posture into another one conceals dukkha is not paññå that clearly realizes the arising and falling away of nÃ¥ma dhammas and rúpa dhammas. Naama and ruupa arise together when one assumes different postures and dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one ruupa and of one naama at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. Any idea of a posture or of the whole body, no matter there is painful feeling or not, conceals the characteristic of dukkha. So long as one has not realized the arising and falling away of nÃ¥ma and rúpa one does not understand the truth of dukkha. If a person does not develop pa~n~naa in order to understand naama and ruupa as they are, he has wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedanaa, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of naama and ruupa. This is the case if he does not know the naama which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the naama which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the naama which smells and odour, the nÃ¥ma which tastes and flavour, the naama which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the naama which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nÃ¥ma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of naama and ruupa as they appear one at a time, pa~n~naa can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized." (Also see more detail in U.P. under "Postures (Iriyapatha)" Metta Sarah > >A: I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130303 From: "azita" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day gazita2002 Send Email Send Email Happy birthday to all who are having birthdays about now!! Hallo Jagkrit, I like what you say here about cittas never getting old. They just keep arising and falling away ever so fast - no time to get old:) patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Sarah > > > S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) > > >S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) > > JJ: Happay Birth Day in advance, Sarah. Your Birth Day is the same day as my wife (55). I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) > > It seems that our cittas never get old at all. > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit > Reply | Messages in this Topic (10) #130304 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > .... > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > > I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. ... S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. ... >Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. ... S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! ... > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? ... S: The arising and falling away of various namas and rupas. .... > > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? > > It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? .... S: Volition arises at each moment. As soon as there's the idea of preparing or developing volitions, it is not understanding what has been conditioned to arise already. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130305 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:23 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >Alex: If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer! > > T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it? ... S: Yes, the bodily experience and painful bodily feeling accompanying it are real. The hardness experienced is real, very real! ... > I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena". ... S: So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when there are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby will not think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever concepts there are conditions to think about. ... T:> It is like the viewpoint of an atomic physicist who sees nothing but the atoms. ... S: Well, to use your analogy, what do you expect the atomic physicist to see? Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130306 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tung, I was glad to read your message and to see that you're still following. Did you meet our friends in Hanoi yet? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "willthlong" wrote: > The 'restrain' here doesn't necessarily mean you force yourself to be indifferent to what you come in contact with, so it's not like you can't enjoy sense objects. The way I understand it is that you "don't add stuffs" (mostly ideas) to what there is. So for example, when you watch a movie and there's a part that you enjoy, a pleasant feeling arises. Once you are aware of it, you can just let it be, and then you don't try to create ideas/fantasize things around what you experience (e.g. seeing yourself in the role, being all over a character/things you see and suddenly desire). ... S: I think that the main point to stress is that there is no "you" to enjoy/not enjoy/add ideas/let it be/fantasize or anything else. It just depends on conditions what kind of cittas arise. .... > > That's when you don't grasp at what comes to your sense doors, at least at the 'macro' level. I imagine that at a subtler level, in the movie case, you'd see whatever is in there as they are, with no feelings attached. A is just a set of pictures streaming before your eyes - so when you see it, it's just seeing. Why do you have to work yourself up and add all sorts of things around it, which leads to unnecessary emotions and attachments? But well, it's not that easy to let go of our habitual ways. ... S: Yes, just seeing of visible object followed by all kinds of thoughts and feelings. It's good to understand this, because it leads to more understanding and detachment. Again, no "you" to grasp/not grasp or anything else! Glad to hear your comments. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130307 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, (Alex & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T:... > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: they are everything the non-ariyans understand. A person (puggala) for example is real. ... S: The concepts such as 'person' seem real to the ignorant worldlings, but this does not mean they are ever real. Even if a Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma, the truths remain the same, concepts are never realities: AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" (Bodhi transl, "Numerical Discourses") "Whether Tathaagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent...that all formations are suffering.... that all things are not-self (sabbe dhammaa anattaa). "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." ... >The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. ... S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. ... >Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. ... S: No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130308 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - Thanks for the good evidence of 'miccha pa.tipadaa'. Can you tell me the Pali word for "progress"? If it turns out to be the same as pa.tipadaa, then you shall convince me that "practice is the same as progress". Concerning AN 2:40, what is the true meaning of pa.tipadaa in this Sutta? Further, what do you think 'sekha pa.tipadaa' in MN 53 means? Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > > =============== > > J: I think you'll find there are plenty of references to wrong practice (including as "miccha pa.tipadaa") in the texts. > > For example, AN 2:40: > "Bhikkhus, I do not praise the wrong practice of two kinds of people: a layperson and one gone forth into homelessness. > "Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, they do not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." > > Jon > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130309 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:02 pm Subject: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Jon, >S: So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through >the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. > >In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when >there >are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby >will not >think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever >concepts there are >conditions to think about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is, lets say, a wall is perceived vs how is the door perceived? I think that some concepts are built into consciousness and cannot be removed. My dog distinguishes wall from a door, and he doesn't know any language and can't conceptualized. Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. Some arguments seem to go this way: X is made of parts, X is not found in any parts, thus X doesn't exist. This nihilistic argument isn't very convincing. If "X" didn't exist, then we couldn't take it into its constituent parts in the first place. Also trying to compare whole (X) to its parts is like comparing trees to apples. It seems to me that conceptualizing isn't perceiving wholes, but perceiving abstract dhammas from which it is made of. So door isn't a concept: gazillion dhammas that come in kalapas of 8 rupas are. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130310 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah (Alex, others) - In response to Alex's now-famous one-line quip: "If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer!", we wrote the following comments: >T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it? I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena". > S: Yes, the bodily experience and painful bodily feeling accompanying it are real. The hardness experienced is real, very real! So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when there are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby will not think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever concepts there are conditions to think about. T: I do not agree that "there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors", dear Sarah. Since you only "see" the ultimate reality or sabhava-dhamma, you are like the atomic physicist who only "sees" atoms; and he misses a whole lot of the realities that other people see. In your example, animal and baby do not have the experience of the world at large, so a baby does not know "this is a hammer", but it sees and knows "this is my milk". ...... > S: Well, to use your analogy, what do you expect the atomic physicist to see? > T: He must see his wife at home as a person whom he loves, not a collection of atoms (although that is also a reality). Otherwise, he would have a big trouble! Be flexible, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Alex), > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130311 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, - The busy time must be over, since you wrote several messages today. >S: Even if a Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma, the truths remain the same, concepts are never realities. T: The definitions of concepts and realities have been clear to me . No question about that. But such understanding does not lead to the Noble Truths. You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. You quoted [AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" :] "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." Sadhu! Sadhu! This is a good one. Does he teach the three characteristics to conceptual disciples that do not exist, or does he teach them to his real disciples who penetrated the Dhamma and eradicated Dukkha? He does not say that all things are not real. He does not say they are real either. Real/not real, existence/non-existence, ultimate/concept issues do not lead to understanding of the Noble Truths. By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? ............ >>T: The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. >S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. T: Who are they? They are Arahants who have no illusions; so it is clear that they have "no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities". Who are we? The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? A chick should not try to sing like a male nightingale. A hen should not pretend to be beautiful like a peacock. It seems you have not admited the fact that the Buddha and his disciples are real, regardless of some people calling them "concepts". Be clear, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, (Alex & all), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130312 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - It has been encouraging to me that our discussion sems to slowly make a progress. In this sense progress does not mean the same as practice. :-) >J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. T: You are arguing like a lawyer! Here I am using the terminolgy of pa~n~naa, the quality that is not found in any ordinary person (puthujjana). >J: The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. T: That, I agree. The "insight" of those "uninstructed, run-of-the mill" people is even lower. >J: And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. T: That is on the path. So where are you in your practice? With no practice, do-nothing, the best you can be is one of the "instructed" worldling, and may remain so many eons more! Be diligent, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Alex (Jon & others) - > > ... > > T: There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. > > > > Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. > > =============== > > J: It is the quality/mental factor of "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" itself -- not the "person who has" such quality/accumulated tendency -- that removes wrong views. > > > =============== > > T: And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. > > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130313 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:50 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, all - Thanks for reading that message and discussing it (as a good moderator should). > >T: 3. "<...>The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience. ... >S: You quote this from B.Bodhi's intro to CMA. Here "the momentary mental and material phenomena" refer to namas and rupas. The text details the 28 rupas - no mountains or roses. This was the contradiction I referred to. T: I understand that these 28 rupas are the intrinsic dhammas which define the essence (sabhava) of material such as earth, mountains, stones, diamonds, trees, flowers, bodies (kaya), etc. I may be confusing to the reader. So, allow me to explain. According to the Budha (S.22:79/iii, 86) anything that deforms (ruppati) is called "material form". "Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, by heat, by hunger, by thirst, by flies, mosquitoes, wind, sunburn, and creeping things." Most of these deforming factors apply to the bodies. But materials like diamonds, trees, flowers also deform by cold, heat, wind and sunburn. The primary material element (pathavi-dhatu, #1) appears (intrinsic) in all of them; visible form(#10) characterizes them, decay (#27) and impermanence(#28) apply to them > > T: 4. .....The entities of our everyday frame of reference possess merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. >S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. T: Mountains and roses are not ultimate realities, but intrinsic pathavi-dhatu in them is ultimate reality. They are deformable, hence they are material form and may be used as meditation object to train perception of impermanence. .... >S: Any suggestion that mountains, roses and diamonds are rupas or paramattha dhammas is not in accordance with the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. T: No, I have not suggested so. But I believe they are qualified as material form that are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta. My above explanation should make it clear, I hope. Be kind, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130314 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:27 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Each day we had one session of two hours in the morning and one session of two hours later in the afternoon. In Huahin the sessions were in a large lounge of a bungalow where Jonothan and Sarah had one room and where I had another room. After the afternoon session, Thai friends arranged for fruits, cookies and different snacks. There was such an abundance of food that there was no need to go out for supper anymore. Our friends were most attentive to all our needs and looked after us all the time. We went out for lunch to different places and even while we were having lunch Acharn would speak about paramattha dhammas appearing right now. The whole atmosphere was most pleasant while we enjoyed each other's company, the beautiful panorama and the great variety of dishes. We had the following conversation about understanding realities: Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130315 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:16 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. > > T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? > =============== J: No, I was not suggesting that awareness/insight in a non-ariyan is a magga (i.e., supramundane) dhamma. But each moment of awareness/insight takes one closer towards magga citta, because it is developed insight that effects the eradication of latent tendencies at moments of magga citta. So I would see awareness/insight as progress on the path. What else could constitute progress? Other kinds of kusala, while they are a support for the development of the path, do not themselves take one closer to magga citta. (BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path".) > =============== > T: But I still do not have a clue why practice is the same as progress. > =============== J: I hope the above comments make it clearer. > =============== > > >T:"According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" > > >J: I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. > > T: That's not clear. Please elaborate! > =============== J: I'll do my best :-)) In everyday English, the word "practice" or "to practise" has more than 1 meaning, the two most obvious being: (a) doing a set of exercises designed to help one become proficient in something (e.g., as when one practises scales when learning the piano, and afterwards to maintain proficiency) (b) to carry out a particular kind of work for which one is already qualified (e.g. to practise as a doctor, lawyer, etc.) To my understanding, "practice according to the teaching" refers to the mental development that is unique to the teaching of a Buddha. This is more like the second of the 2 meanings of "practice" than the first. So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. > =============== > >> T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. > > >J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. > > T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. > =============== J: I was responding to your comment that "Mundane awareness/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge". I am suggesting that mundane awareness is weak because it has not yet been highly developed. It is only partly developed (i.e., developed to a certain extent). Hope this is clearer. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130316 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:34 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (& Alex, Rob E.), - > > > >Alex:The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > > > > J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. > > T: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? > =============== J: Think of it this way: it is the 'good' dhammas -- and not the actions of somebody doing something -- that overcome and eventually eradicate the 'bad' dhammas such as wrong view. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated, but they have been accumulated to a weak degree only. So for the most part they are not manifest but lie latent/dormant. however, when there's an interest in the teachings, and an appreciation of the importance of the development of the path, there will be the natural reflecting on what has so far been understood that will condition the arising of awareness/insight. This is the particular 'good dhamma' that counters wrong view. So it's not a matter of *somebody doing something*; it's a matter of having the confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' :-)) Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130317 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:38 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all > > >J:To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views >is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's od Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? > =============== J: It's not a matter of having to *get* right view. We can safely assume that right view has already been accumulated to a certain degree, but it is weak and arises only rarely. As far as the development of awareness/insight is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the presently arising citta is wholesome or unwholesome. Because awareness/insight is just as likely to be aware of one as of the other; or for that matter of a vipaka citta such as seeing or of a rupa such as visible object. Besides, what has arisen has already arisen :-)) Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130318 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:47 am Subject: Erakapatta The Naga King, Uttara And The Buddha yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, There is nothing-else I love to do more than tell this wonderful story of Erakapatta the Naga King to you all. ******* Erakapatta The Naga King, Uttara And The Buddha [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin,M.A.] While residing near Baranasi the Buddha uttered Verse (182) of this book, with reference to Erakapatta, a king of nagas (dragons). Once there was a naga king by the name of Erakapatta. In one of his past existences during the time of Kassapa Buddha he had been a bhikkhu for a long time. Through worry (kukkucca) over a minor offence he had committed during that time, he was reborn as a naga. As a naga, he waited for the appearance of a Buddha. Erakapatta had a very beautiful daughter, and he made use of her as a means of finding the Buddha. He made it known that whoever could answer her questions could claim her for a wife. Twice every month, Erakapatta made her dance in the open and sing out her questions. Many suitors came to answer her questions hoping to claim her, but no one could give the correct answer. One day, the Buddha saw a youth named Uttara in his vision. He also knew that the youth would attain Sotapatti Fruition in connection with the questions put by the daughter of Erakapatta the naga. By then the youth was already on his way to see Erakapatta's daughter. The Buddha stopped him and taught him how to answer the questions. While he was being taught, Uttara attained Sotapatti Fruition. Now that Uttara had attained Sotapatti Fruition, he had no desire for the naga princess. However, Uttara still went to answer the questions for the benefit of numerous other beings. The first four questions were: 1. Who is a ruler? 2. Is one who is overwhelmed by the mist of moral defilements to be called a ruler? 3. What ruler is free from moral defilements? 4. What sort of person is to be called a fool? The answers to the above questions were: 1. He who controls the six senses is a ruler. 2. One who is overwhelmed by the mist of moral defilements is not to be called a ruler; he who is free from craving is called a ruler. 3. The ruler who is free from craving is free from moral defilements. 4. A person who hankers after sensual pleasures is called a fool. Having had the correct answers to the above, the naga princess sang out questions regarding the floods (oghas) of sensual desire, of renewed existence, of false doctrine and of ignorance, and how they could be overcome. Uttara answered these questions as taught by the Buddha. When Erakapatta heard these answers he knew that a Buddha had appeared in this world. So he asked Uttara to take him to the Buddha. On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga. After hearing him, the Buddha told him how difficult it was to be born in the human world, and to be born during the appearance of the Buddhas or during the time of their Teaching. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 182: Hard to gain is birth as man; hard is the life of mortals; hard to get is the opportunity of hearing the Ariya Dhamma (Teaching of the Buddhas); hard it is for a Buddha to appear. The above discourse benefited numerous beings. Erakapatta being an animal could not attain Sotapatti Fruition then and there. ********** Love Buddhas yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130319 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:53 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- >J: So I would see awareness/insight as progress on the path. What else could constitute progress? Other kinds of kusala, while they are a support for the development of the path, do not themselves take one closer to magga citta. T: According to AN 4.37, there are five kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html ............... >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". T: The CMI book, page 66, explains the meaning of supramundane consciousness (lokuttaracittaani) that pertains to the process of transcending the world (consisting of the five aggregates of clinging). There are eight supramundane cittas that pertain to the four stages of enlightenment. Each stage involves two types of citta, maggacitta and phalacitta. There are 81 mundane consciousnesses (lokiyacitta) and they pertain to the three worlds, not the path development. I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). ............. >J: In everyday English, the word "practice" or "to practise" has more than 1 meaning, the two most obvious being: (a) doing a set of exercises designed to help one become proficient in something (e.g., as when one practises scales when learning the piano, and afterwards to maintain proficiency) (b) to carry out a particular kind of work for which one is already qualified (e.g. to practise as a doctor, lawyer, etc.) To my understanding, "practice according to the teaching" refers to the mental development that is unique to the teaching of a Buddha. This is more like the second of the 2 meanings of "practice" than the first. T: Thanks for the Dictionary definition. It is clear that even to become a (good) lawyer it takes lots of effort to develop skills that did not exist before and, after that stage, practice as a profession to become competent as a successful lawyer. Thus both (a) and (b) are required. In a similar vein, an instructed worldling (who has studied the Dhamma from books and hearing good Dhamma teachings) must apply the teachings to abandon akusala and develop kusala (that did not previously exist) such as precepts and sense restraint and abandoning wrong views. Then he/she as a trainer (sekha) practices right mindfulness (through satipatthana meditation) and right concentration which I see as "progress on the path". ............. >J: So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. T: That is basically what we differ in our opinion. Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. Knowledge and vision must be trained (i.e. developed through practice). "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. The practice of insight meditation aims at dislodging the defilements by eradicating the ignorance at their base. Ignorance is overcome by generating, through mindful observation, a direct insight into things as they really are. The material upon which insight works is precisely the sphere where ignorance is concealed, our own psycho-physical experience. Its method is the application of mindfulness or discerning awareness to this sphere without interruption and in all activities." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#top ------------ > >T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. >J: I am suggesting that mundane awareness is weak because it has not yet been highly developed. It is only partly developed (i.e., developed to a certain extent). T: Mundane awareness is weak and brittle like a piece of metal that has impurities. >Hope this is clearer. Jon Yes, it is --a tiny bit better. Keep on trying! Best wishes, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, - > > > > >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. > > > > T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? > > =============== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130320 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:12 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon and Alex, - > >J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. >Alex: And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's of Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? >Tep: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? .............. J (in #130316): Think of it this way: it is the 'good' dhammas -- and not the actions of somebody doing something -- that overcome and eventually eradicate the 'bad' dhammas such as wrong view. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated, but they have been accumulated to a weak degree only. So for the most part they are not manifest but lie latent/dormant. however, when there's an interest in the teachings, and an appreciation of the importance of the development of the path, there will be the natural reflecting on what has so far been understood that will condition the arising of awareness/insight. This is the particular 'good dhamma' that counters wrong view. So it's not a matter of *somebody doing something*; it's a matter of having the confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' :-)) J (in #130317): It's not a matter of having to *get* right view. We can safely assume that right view has already been accumulated to a certain degree, but it is weak and arises only rarely. As far as the development of awareness/insight is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the presently arising citta is wholesome or unwholesome. Because awareness/insight is just as likely to be aware of one as of the other; or for that matter of a vipaka citta such as seeing or of a rupa such as visible object. Besides, what has arisen has already arisen :-)) .............. T: In summary: 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. Lucky you to be forever with the accumulated "good dhammas" that act like an army of kind angels to carry you onto the path (magga) and beyond --like a baby boy who is well protected by several kind, loving babysitters. Be blessed, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130321 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:15 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah Thank you for the passage from SPD (part below) and the rest of your explanation. >>>>When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130322 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:49 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group Please allow me to repost the following superior Dhamma conversation. > We had the following conversation about understanding realities: > > Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." > Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." > Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. > It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." > Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." > Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." > Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. > But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." I would say dosa is like a big boss too. The desire for comfort sought by the meditator comes from the mortal fear that he or she is trying to escape. As the Buddha said, the worldling knows no escape from unpleasant mental feelings except by greedily seeking pleasant ones. We all do it, to greater or lesser degrees and frequency, but right understanding of the tendency develops for some of us. It clicks. And the courage to not to seek to escape develops as well. It ill comes down to SN 1:1, I think. Seek to rush across the flood (i.e escape dosa through lobha ditthi rooted practices) and be swept away by lobha and moha. Courageous patience, and the very very gradual development of panna, that is the only way to get across. But it goes against the way of the world. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130323 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:35 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, Phil and Alberto I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? Does mind have posture? Thank you Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130324 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:11 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- > > Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > > > Rob E. : > > I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) > > T: But it did not take much effort to sum up the points you made earlier just to make it easy for me to reply to them. [ I am glad you like it.] :-) > .............. > > > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. > > > > Rob E. : I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > > > T: Thanks, Robert. I believe it is important to note that the fleeting states of the Arahants and their disciples were real, yet impermanent & and not-self. I have to repeat that again; otherwise, someone may say that they did not exist. The idea of a changing reality should become customary, and not be confused with unreality, as you rightly are clarifying here. The question as to what aspects of this fleeting reality are actual, and which are illusory, is another matter. > .............. > > > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. > > > > Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? > > T: My apologies for the blurred wording! Allow me to do a better job this time: > The dhamma theory states that ultimate reality consists of elementary constituents called "dhammas" that are the fundamental components of actuality. Sabhaava means "intrinsic nature" or "essence" of the dhammas. For example, the "essence" of feeling is the characteristic of being felt. And, as stated in the Vism XI, note 20, "the meaning of element is the meaning of individual essence, the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness, the meaning of voidness is the meaning of not-a-living-being." Thus the not-self or no-self perception clearly follows. "the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness," That is interesting - why posit an essence which is void? > Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? Best, Rob E. - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130325 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E., - Glad to see you back. Glad to read your penetrating questions; I'll do the best I can to explain. But, in case you forgot, I do not know everything! :) >RE : The idea of a changing reality should become customary, and not be confused with unreality, as you rightly are clarifying here. The question as to what aspects of this fleeting reality are actual, and which are illusory, is another matter. T: Yes indeed, it is very important to be observant and able to clearly separate the two aspects! Confusion arises whenever the actual is not seen as "actual". -------- >RE : "the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness," That is interesting - why posit an essence which is void? T: The essence is not void; the meaning of it is that of voidness. Yes, it is confusing. So allow me explain the concept "void" and "voidness" as follows. 'Empty' or 'void' (su~n~na), the adjective of 'emptiness'(su~n~nata), is a quality that supports the liberation of consciousness from avijja. It is the mental state that is empty of self-view and the conceit 'I am'. Hope I hit the nail on the head! Yet, someone may ask: "why then is the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness?". My answer is: because the individual essence is empty of Self or anything that pertains to Self. ------- >RE : the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? T: These are difficult questions, Robert. But I don't worry, since there is always someone around who knows. In my opinion the "function of being heard" involves hearing consciousness, but the "characteristic of being heard" is the 'sabhava' of the hearing itself. Sabhava is a "nature" that exists independent of whether or not there is "acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function". Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- > > > > Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130326 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Everyone: > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. As for the above passage, what I was strongly reminded in March by Kun Sujin was that Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. Since then, my simplest mantra is "Buddhism teaches nothing but detachment and there is no exception to this statement." In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > By Nina van Gorkom > > Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): > > Each day we had one session of two hours in the morning and one session of two hours later in the afternoon. In Huahin the sessions were in a large lounge of a bungalow where Jonothan and Sarah had one room and where I had another room. After the afternoon session, Thai friends arranged for fruits, cookies and different snacks. There was such an abundance of food that there was no need to go out for supper anymore. Our friends were most attentive to all our needs and looked after us all the time. We went out for lunch to different places and even while we were having lunch Acharn would speak about paramattha dhammas appearing right now. The whole atmosphere was most pleasant while we enjoyed each other's company, the beautiful panorama and the great variety of dishes. > > We had the following conversation about understanding realities: > > Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." > Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." > Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. > It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." > Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." > Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." > Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. > But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." > > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130327 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:41 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, J: I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? I think you are right, in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130328 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:44 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tadao, - Since you said 'Hi everyone', so I thought you might allow two questions. >[Tadao:] 1. >Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." 2. >Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. 3. >In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. They say, craving (hunger for, excitement) is a synomym for greed. There are three kinds of craving: craving for sensuality(kaamatanha), craving for becoming(bhavatanha), craving for non-becoming(vibhava tanha). Which one is (your) lobha and what is its object? How do you detach from the object of lobha? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Everyone: > > > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. > > As for the above passage, what I was strongly reminded in March by Kun Sujin was that > Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." > > Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. > > Since then, my simplest mantra is "Buddhism teaches nothing but detachment and there is no exception to this statement." In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. > > Mettaa > > tadao > Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130329 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: I am so sorry! hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). 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. -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. -------------------- Clarification: [1] When I say [Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement], it is still the intellectual understanding and not "full understanding" (pari~n~naa). [2] When I say [I get fed-up with the five aggregates] I mean the ordinary meaning of the English word "fed-up", and not the (No. 6) Nibbidaa-~naa.na of the ten vipassanaa ~naa.nas. I am still struggling with the lowest two rungs: (No. 1) Sammasana-~naa.na and (No. 2) Udayabbaya-~naa.na. In this connection, my Good Brother Tep told me that if I am fed-up with the five aggregates, I should let them go. Yes, that is exactly what I will have to try: to cut off the attachment to the five aggregates. -------------------- Having said that, I have lost all my will and zeal and energy, and I do not want to write anything on any topic. So I most humbly offer my apologies to Khun Tadao and Khun Jagkrit for not keeping my promise to write something on Nandii-raaga. I am so sorry! -------------------- In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. -------------------- This is my last message for many, many days to come. I pray for you all, the best of health and happiness. with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130330 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear Han Wishing your courage and wisdom, and I know you have both. And you have done so much kusala kamma, that will carry you through your hard time, I am confident of that. Yes, letting go of the five aggregates, wise decision, made by accumulated panna. With respect, Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130331 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. > What "work" are you referring to? I just meant let's try to move on from cliches and generalised assumptions. > As to gargantuan posts, I'll try, but as you know, its anatta. Know > however, that I do not mind if you decide not to continue as a result of > my responses being too long. No worries, I'll just be late in replying due to work. > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? > > Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it > must be in spite of and not because of it. Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". > > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view > > or whatever other dhammas? > > So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and > panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? I meant just that kusala citta can arise "in spite of" all that other stuff, and if one was opportune enough to hear the Dhamma, so can understnading, bhavana. That's how wrong views are made straight so to speak. As to how will this look and find expression in the conventional world (aka meditate or don't meditate, etc) that's a different story, depending on accumulations, etc. > > ... Couldn't all this result in telling the > > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will not > condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged in, > the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that > patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is > wishful thinking. Pariyatti/patipatti is an interesting side-topic. While in principle I agree with what you say above, it simplifies matters a bit too much for my liking. I don't know if you feel like going into this in more detail? > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators > > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > > most of the time? > > Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the > necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct > understanding calls for further development of intellectual > understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. I don't understand to what you are objecting here. In any case, while you are in theory probably right above in your conclusion, I don't think one can actually choose/decide to develop (right) intellectual understanding and stop doing something else since that would still be choosing a "doing" - still in the realm of conventional things and doings, which means it has to do with lobha rather than actual arising of understanding. > Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not the > standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what > you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. Ok, though I'm not sure the question applies. I do things during the day - work, write, rest, etc. In some brief moments in the midst of all this, kusala citta arises and I appreciate it when it does (at least I believe it is kusala, and I believe I appreciate it, but who knows, it might all be self-delusion and lobha). These brief moments of kusala and its appreciation are what I'd call "meditation". Nothing to do with posture, time, place, focusing, etc. There are also times when I'm just sitting/lying/standing without doing much of anything else in particular, and during these times there might be a kusala citta and its appreciation. Since at the time I'm not working, reading, writing, nor much of anything else in the conventional sense, I call this "formal meditation". > > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. > > So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? On the contrary, criticise me as a meditator and my meditation in particular, instead of some imaginary meditator that does things entirely differently and is not here to actually participate in the discussion. I mean, you are talking to me, so it would be good to get a critique of what I'm actually doing/saying. Best wishes pt #130332 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:14 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Jon and Sarah, Thanks for your further clarifications. I understand what you're saying but I'm still not managing to get to the bottom of what I'm after, though all this helped narrow it down I think: Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: - it's a kusala citta, - it has panna of weak samatha kind with it (so it is not jhana, nor advanced samatha bhavana) - it has a concept as object, but it is an ordinary one (e.g. a cake, or music, etc), so not one of the Vsm. samatha bhavana objects. In addition, - it is brief - so an ordinary javana cittas of a normal mind-door process, involved in day-to-day interaction with cakes, music, etc. - it has nothing to do with dana, sila, advanced samatha bhavana, intellectual right understanding, vipassana, etc. Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130334 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:33 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Han, my good brother - You wrote: >Han: In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. >This is my last message for many, many days to come. T: A Chinese proverb says: "there is no happy party that lasts forever". Your time has come to leave this "party" for many days, you say. But when your health improves and the sadness disappears, you can come back to join the party again! Don't be sad; get well soon, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130335 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, Jon and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: According to AN 4.37, there are five kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. ... This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html > ............... This appears to be one of those cases in which the description of concentration includes the function and development of mindfulness. When one "remains focused" on the "arising and passing away" of form, feeling, perception, etc., and is able to understand: "Such is feeling, ...its origination, ...its passing away..." then there is sati and sampajanna as well. I think this is a good example of the interlocked nature of right mindfulness and right concentration, and how the practice of one involves the support of the other. The concentration of this level described, where one is aware of the rising and passing away of the kandhas, would not exist without this high degree of mindful awareness. And this level of mindfulness would not exist without the necessary degree of concentration/uninterrupted focus that is described. The ability to stay focused well enough and long enough to observe and understand the rising and falling away of dhammas appears to be a prerequisite support for the development of sati sampajanna and satipatthana. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130336 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah and Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > > .... > > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > > > > I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. > ... > S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. What if there is only the idea of how conditions may lead to one or another accumulation or outcome? If there is no "one" involved, and there is no one trying to do anything, but there is just an understanding of conditions, then there is no problem. The conflict is about whether a normal activity such as "studying Dhamma" or "meditating" or "doing good works" or "experiencing metta for a being" can lead to the development of the kind of kusala that supports the path. The idea that no activities make any difference continues to be the real disagreement, I think. Everyone goes about their business either reading and discussing scriptures or meditating or eradicating defilements to whatever extent is possible, doing good and trying to avoid doing bad, etc., "as if" these all really do make a difference, but then when discussing them they deny that they have anything to do with the path. It seems to me that such a contradictory divide between what is actually intended and done, and what is acknowledged, is not a very realistic situation. If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. > >Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. > ... > S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. So they either have a purpose, or are a complete waste of time. I wonder which it is...? > > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? > ... > S: The arising and falling away of various namas and rupas. > .... I agree. And that shows that what we take for ordinary activity really does represent arising and falling away of various namas and rupas, which really exist. So we may not be seeing murder correctly when we conceptualize an event, a being, etc., but there is actually something happening, real dhammas arising and falling away. The event is not fictitious, just misunderstood or glossed over. > > > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? > > > > It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? > .... > S: Volition arises at each moment. As soon as there's the idea of preparing or developing volitions, it is not understanding what has been conditioned to arise already. Yet we do try to understand how one thing leads to another in dependent origination. We do not simply take each dhamma as independent all by itself with no thought to accumulations or development. So it is also true that there are relations between what has arisen and what develops or arises afterwards. Often the hesitancy to discuss this reality of accumulation, tendency and development, except to acknowledge it in a technical discussion, robs the reality out of how conditions continue to be formed and influence what happens at each moment. No dhamma arises in a vaccuum. In fact it seems that this is one of the Buddha's main points, and the continued developments of dependent origination one of his most important and influential subjects. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130337 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:21 am Subject: The Bodhi Trees of the 28 Buddhas yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, This Monday morning..I proudly present "The Bodhi Trees of the 28 Buddhas": Please click: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11901 **Note to Sarah You asked me not to post with the link..but this post will not be perfect without the pictures...so please just let me post with link one last time because I put so much efforts to research for the information and the pictures...which are so hard to find...took me a long time to finish the post. Miss you and Nina, yawares yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130338 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:54 am Subject: Re: I am so sorry! jonoabb Send Email Send Email Dear Han I join Phil and all your friends here in wishing you all the best. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Dear Han > > Wishing your courage and wisdom, and I know you have both. And you have done so much kusala kamma, that will carry you through your hard time, I am confident of that. > > Yes, letting go of the five aggregates, wise decision, made by accumulated panna. > > With respect, > > Phil > Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130339 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Sarah, > > Thanks for your further clarifications. I understand what you're saying but I'm still not managing to get to the bottom of what I'm after, though all this helped narrow it down I think: > > Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: > ... > > Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. > =============== J: I cannot think what sort of kusala that could be. Unless perhaps the cake reminds the person of something kusala. Do you have anything in mind? In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130340 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:37 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (Tep. All) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, Tep, all, > > >1.[AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is ?>supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, >supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Please note: Right view is supported by tranquility... > =============== J: The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and insight. > =============== > A: I've done a lot of considering and study, and yet somehow bad qualities do arise. It seems > > It seems that there are two ways: > a) Get into Jhana and use that super experience as basis for real right view. > > and/or > > b) After one learns that akusala qualities are bad, one uses brute force to suppress them. > =============== J: The development of the path is not about dealing with bad qualities that have arisen. It's about awareness of any presently arisen dhamma. That awareness can arise at any time, including in the midst of bad qualities. Understanding sees the true nature of things, thus akusala as akusala. > =============== > A: > "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > =============== J: In this passage the Buddha is speaking of kusala citta, I believe. So not our idea of using brute force to suppress bad qualities that we would rather were not manifesting. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130341 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:03 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Jon, > ... > How is, lets say, a wall is perceived vs how is the door perceived? > > I think that some concepts are built into consciousness and cannot be removed. My dog distinguishes wall from a door, and he doesn't know any language and can't conceptualized. > =============== J: A dog cannot think *in words*, but does think (or conceptualise) about what is experienced through the sense-doors, and this allows him to distinguish door from wall. > =============== > A: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. > =============== J: Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. There is no dhamma of 'door'. The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, not of 'things' that are not dhammas. We can just leave it at that. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130342 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:04 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., Jon, others - The five kusala dhammas that contribute to progress towards nibbana are: 1) being consumate in virtue (Sila), 2) guarding of the sense doors, 3) knowing moderation in eating, 4) devoting to wakefulness, and 5) developing of concentration for direct knowing (via satipatthana of) the five aggregates of clinging and their arising/dissolving phenomena. [AN 4.37 and AN 4.41] >Rob E. : This appears to be one of those cases in which the description of concentration includes the function and development of mindfulness. When one "remains focused" on the "arising and passing away" of form, feeling, perception, etc., and is able to understand: "Such is feeling, ...its origination, ...its passing away..." then there is sati and sampajanna as well. T: That is an accurate summary of the two Anguttara Nikaya suttas, Robert. I appreciate your feedback. ............. >Rob E. : I think this is a good example of the interlocked nature of right mindfulness and right concentration, and how the practice of one involves the support of the other. The concentration of this level described, where one is aware of the rising and passing away of the kandhas, would not exist without this high degree of mindful awareness. And this level of mindfulness would not exist without the necessary degree of concentration/uninterrupted focus that is described. T: It is true that right mindfulness as 'samadhi-nimitta' interlocks with right concentration. In fact the three magga dhammas: right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration form the samadhi-khandha group of the Noble Eightfold path. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in his Noble Eightfold Path book as follows: "The purification of conduct established by the prior three factors serves as the basis for the next division of the path, the division of concentration (samadhikkhandha). This present phase of practice, which advances from moral restraint to direct mental training, comprises the three factors of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. It gains its name from the goal to which it aspires, the power of sustained concentration, itself required as the support for insight-wisdom. Wisdom is the primary tool for deliverance, but the penetrating vision it yields can only open up when the mind has been composed and collected. Right concentration brings the requisite stillness to the mind by unifying it with undistracted focus on a suitable object. To do so, however, the factor of concentration needs the aid of effort and mindfulness. Right effort provides the energy demanded by the task, right mindfulness the steadying points for awareness." ............. >Rob E. : The ability to stay focused well enough and long enough to observe and understand the rising and falling away of dhammas appears to be a prerequisite support for the development of sati sampajanna and satipatthana. T: Such noble "understanding" is known as "knowledge and vision of things as they really are" (yathabhuta.m pajanati) that supports disenchantment (nibbida) and dispassion (viraga). Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep, Jon and all. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: According to AN 4.37, there are four kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130343 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:08 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 12 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): After our sejourn in Huahin, we stayed for the weekend in Bangkok. On Saturday Khun Duangduen offered us a lunch in her garden which is a pleasant, restful place. On Sunday there were sessions in Thai in the building of the "Dhamma Study and Support Foundation" . It was Acharn's birthday and it was inspiring to see many people who came with gifts and paid respect to Acharn. We could watch the great generosity of the Thais. The little room Acharn uses to meet people privately was full of flowers, fruits and other gifts. During the session we had conversations about life in conventional sense and life in the sense of paramattha dhammas. It was stressed that it is important to know the difference between concept and reality. When we think of people we live in the world of concepts and when understanding is developed of reality as it appears through one of the six doors, one at a time, we come to know the world of paramattha dhammas. We had lunch in the Foundation building at a long table with Acharn and other friends. We were enjoying the food offered by a couple who sponsored the meal. Husband and wife served us with such great concern and affection, taking care all the time to see if anybody needed anything. Their children entered the room and paid respect to Acharn. I found it a special experience to be back again in the Foundation. All my Thai friends welcomed me with great cordiality and they kept smiling, radiating kindness. When everyone around us is smiling with sincere kindness, we just have to smile too and it is impossible to be sad and depressed. Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130344 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:08 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, all, >J:The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or >more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and >insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't say any one. All those are required, including samatha. >J:The development of the path is not about dealing with bad >?>qualities that have arisen. It's about awareness of any presently >arisen dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point of awareness of presently arisen dhamma could be to counteract the hindrances until they grew too strong. >That awareness can arise at any time, Only if one is actively being aware. >J:Understanding sees the true nature of things, thus akusala as >akusala. >>>>>>>>>>> The more understanding one has, the more one attempts to abandon, destroy, dispel and wipe them off existence. > > =============== > > A: > > "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > > =============== > > J: In this passage the Buddha is speaking of kusala citta, >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is kusala to abandon, destroy, dispel and wipe akusala off existence. It is akusala citta to sink into unwholesomeness under pretense "I can't do anything! No control!". IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130345 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:15 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, all, >J:A dog cannot think *in words*, but does think (or conceptualise) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thinking requires words to think with. Or images. In any case, it seems that perception of certain phenomena (doors, etc) are built into a mind. >A: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made >of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract >conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. >=============== >J:Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. >>>>>>> And door is one of them, otherwise how could dog distinguish door from a wall, or any other obstacle from empty space? >There is no dhamma of 'door'. There IS such phenomenon, and there are obstacles that dogs and other animals can walk, crawl, or fly around. Talking about momentary dhammas on other hand, is by-product of a, possibly restless, mind. >J:The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And understanding for what purpose? Is there some sort of a secret password that one can learn after aeons of such study to dial-in nibbana? I think that understanding is to motivate one to work harder and crush defilements. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130346 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:31 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > ... > >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". > > T: I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). > =============== J: I'm afraid I don't know what the Pali would be. In Ven Soma Thera's 'The Way of Mindfuoness' (translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries) there is the following in connection with the passage "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" in the opening part of the sutta: ***************** [Comy] "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. [Sub-Comy] Preliminary practice connected with the mundane path of mindfulness is pointed out by the commentator here. ***************** I would assume that awareness/insight is referred to as the mundane path because it is the teaching unique to a Buddha which, if developed, leads directly to (supramundane) magga citta. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130347 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:40 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I would say dosa is like a big boss too. The desire for comfort sought by the meditator comes from the mortal fear that he or she is trying to escape. As the Buddha said, the worldling knows no escape from unpleasant mental feelings except by greedily seeking pleasant ones. We all do it, to greater or lesser degrees and frequency, but right understanding of the tendency develops for some of us. It clicks. And the courage to not to seek to escape develops as well. It ill comes down to SN 1:1, I think. Seek to rush across the flood (i.e escape dosa through lobha ditthi rooted practices) and be swept away by lobha and moha. > > Courageous patience, and the very very gradual development of panna, that is the only way to get across. But it goes against the way of the world. Are you still meditating? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130348 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >RE : the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > > T: These are difficult questions, Robert. But I don't worry, since there is always someone around who knows. > > In my opinion the "function of being heard" involves hearing consciousness, but the "characteristic of being heard" is the 'sabhava' of the hearing itself. Sabhava is a "nature" that exists independent of whether or not there is "acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function". Exactly - that is what bugs me about it. I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined but is just postulated as an existent quality of dhammas, such that they have this special substrate or possession; and to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality - not quite the same as a "person" might have, but a special something that is not quite defined which make a dhamma more than just "empty." When this kind of specialness attaches to something, it tends to be idealized into a kind of entity beyond its momentary existence, even though it is said that it disappears completely. But having this special essence for that fleeting moment I think is comforting to those who don't like a universe of samsara that is completely meaningless and has nothing to offer but dukkha. With sabhava in hand, well, at least for that moment we have a special essence, something to hold onto, before it goes away. I don't think that sabhava ever appears in the Buddha's own words in the suttas - not that I know of anyway. The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. I suspect that this addition of sabhava to Buddhist philosophy at a later time is a sneaky way of providing subtle specialness to dhammas that should really be discarded completely and have no value whatsoever. But maybe I'm just a little paranoid... What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130349 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:14 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, Jon - Allow me to give one comment. > >Alex: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. >J: Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. There is no dhamma of 'door'. The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, not of 'things' that are not dhammas. T: There are two issues: 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. Comment: 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. 2. Path development concerns with sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. Truly, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130350 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:33 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Rob E Of course! As well as another solitary practice seeking escape from stress, rooted in moha and lobha. Over and out. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130351 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:57 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 12 philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group > > During the session we had conversations about life in conventional sense and life in the sense of paramattha dhammas. It was stressed that it is important to know the difference between concept and reality. When we think of people we live in the world of concepts and when understanding is developed of reality as it appears through one of the six doors, one at a time, we come to know the world of paramattha dhammas. > Ph: We can't hear this enough. When Ajahn is asked a question about a difficult topic such as paccayas sometimes she provides the answer, to support correct theoretical understanding. But usually she says something like " I think instead of thinking about what is not appearing now it is is better to understand what appears now" and she will then talk about seeing and visible object, usually. What is appearing now. That is how we come to understand reality, not by endlessly debating the topic of concept and reality. It is only by developing understanding of presently arisen dhammas that we really understand concept and reality. What is appearing now, listening to the wise Dhamma friend can condition moments of awareness. Ajahn helps us so much to develop understanding, little by little, she helps us to drop topics that impede awareness of what is appearing now. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130352 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:26 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., - Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined but is just postulated as an existent quality of dhammas, such that they have this special substrate or possession; and to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ...But having this special essence for that fleeting moment I think is comforting to those who don't like a universe of samsara that is completely meaningless and has nothing to offer but dukkha. With sabhava in hand, well, at least for that moment we have a special essence, something to hold onto, before it goes away. T: Sabhava, to my understanding, is the "core" quality (or qualities) that makes each category of things uniquely different. Maybe it is postulated, but it is based on actual & wise observation. For example, an intrinsic quality of earth is hardness that makes it different than water whose essence is liquidity. Such qualities do not change with location or time. They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. ............. >RE: The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. T: Broadly, he talked about two kinds of things: the conditioned and the unconditioned. The three characteristics (anicca, dukha, anatta) are the global sabhava of all conditioned things and there are individual intrinsic qualities as well. Being impermanent, they are "empty and temporary and not worth holding onto" as you said. Feelings, for example, are conditioned dhammas that are possessed of the three characteristics in addition to the intrinsic characteristic of being felt. Although the Buddha highly praised happiness (a feeling) in the jhana as "beyond the world" (niramisa), yet he also said that they were to be abandoned for the sake of the "nibbana bliss". To my understanding "bliss" is a sabhava of nibbana. This ultimate bliss, is according to him, wonderful uniqueness that is beyond all things in the three worlds. ............. >RE: What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. T: Ha, ha ... I wish I knew the answer to everything you ask! But when we are trying to understand the ultimate realities, I feel like a plankton floating in the Atlantic Ocean. :) Be well, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130353 From: "connie" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:23 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 nichiconn Send Email Send Email really, doll, it's all about relationships! take up that 'breath meditation technique' with the proviso that your eyes don't leave another's. take care, connie *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads ps. just off a crazy damn-it doll making binge myself - manipulator. Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130354 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:26 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon (Alex and others) - I am delighted by your research finding as the new ground for a more in-depth discussion. Thanks. ............ >J: I'm afraid I don't know what the Pali would be. In Ven Soma Thera's 'The Way of Mindfuoness' (translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries) there is the following in connection with the passage "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" in the opening part of the sutta: ***************** T: So the Venerable actually says that covetousness and grief (abhijjha and domanassa) have to be overcome before mindfulness may arise and get established. Then understanding has its support to directly know the rise-and-fall phenomena of the khandhas. Agree? ............ [Comy] "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. [Sub-Comy] Preliminary practice connected with the mundane path of mindfulness is pointed out by the commentator here. ***************** T: What do you think "preliminary practice" really means here? Also I'd like to remind you that "overcoming of evil" is the second component of the right effort . SN 45.8: "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen." The "do-nothing" approach to develop understanding does not fit the above description of evil abandoning. Now, let's have more Buddha's words: [ AN 4. Catukkanipaata 2. Caravaggo 4. Samvarasutta:] 002.04. "Bhikkhus, these four are the endeavours. What four? Endeavour to restrain, to dispel, to develop and the endeavour to protect." ... ... 2. "Bhikkhus, what is the endeavour to dispel? [pahaana padhaana] Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu does not endure, dispels, removes and destroys arisen sensual desires, makes them not arise again. The bhikkhu does not endure, dispels, removes and destroys arisen, hateful thoughts, ... re ... hurting thoughts and whatever arisen ... re ... demeritorious thoughts, makes them not arise again. Bhikkhus, this is the endeavour to dispel." ............ >J: I would assume that awareness/insight is referred to as the mundane path because it is the teaching unique to a Buddha which, if developed, leads directly to (supramundane) magga citta. T: Since there is no evidence of "mundane path" in the Teachings, I'm afraid it may be premature to assume as such. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > ... > >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". > > T: I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). > =============== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130355 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:14 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Connie > really, doll, > it's all about relationships! > take up that 'breath meditation technique' with the proviso that your eyes don't leave another's. > take care, > connie > > *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads > > > ps. just off a crazy damn-it doll making binge myself - manipulator. Not to worry, especially with the techniques that are sold as "jhanas." (E.g Thanissaro Bhikkhu, that awful Vimralmso or whatever his name is, and the jolly Ajahn Brahm. In the case of TB it is so blatantly wrong, but it was devised by Ajahn Lee when he was recovering from a heart attack during a remote rains retreat, with no access to medical treatment. That tells you all you need to no, it is not bhavana, it is a kind of breath yoga in which one comes, for example, to "breathe" through the hands, through the eyelids. And it absolutely easy to do when one is in touch with the ki/chi/prahna(? on the last one), those subtle energies that are absolutely real in a physiological sense. I am really good at working with them (my druggy years helped develop great visualization skills) and there is all sorts of evidence how "meditation" helps cerebral health, for example. (I would like to what I can to ward off my DNA dictated brain rot.) as I have said often to Lukas, there is no doubt that the pleasure I get from this subtle energy-manipulation technique did away for the need for alcohol, it provides a superior pleasure. (But still inferior to codeine!) It's the people who a) don't see that this technique is all rooted in lobha and doesn't have anything to do with jhanas and b) who use "satipatthana meditation" a la Mahasi who are in trouble, especially the latter, I would say, since the Buddha's subtle teaching on satipatthana is such a liberating treasure that is lost forever to people who fall deep into that trap. (How fortunate we are that Sarah was able to extricate herself all those years back.) As for Nichiconn, don't tell me her binge involved chanting the lotus sutra! I try with mana to pick out those folks getting on and off the train at the station where the big SOka Gakkai center sits like a giant concrete boil on the back of a hill. 5% of the Japanese population, apparently. Enough on this for me, Connie, thanks Phil P.s Can you chant for Scott to come back? Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130356 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:43 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, ---------- <. . .> > A: I think that understanding is to motivate one to work harder and crush defilements. --------- KH: The first defilement to crush is wrong view. From Nina's Cetasikas: "When there is wrong view one clings to a false view of reality." (end quote) So, Alex, when you insist that the world of cars, trees, people, hammers and fingers is reality, are you clinging to that view? If you are clinging to it you should crush it, now, with right view. Now is your only chance. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130357 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alberto > A: in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. JJ: Thank you very much. I can see that when we assume of any posture, we can not understand dhamma one at the time which arises and falls away completely in spit seconds. In Vism, it refers arising and falling away dhamma as destruction which is dukka, doesn't it? Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130358 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >S: Does meditation agree with such an understanding? > > Meditation is all about study and understanding of phenomena appearing > right now. > Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? It is because there is no real understanding that there is only what appears now to be known, that ideas about need for meditation arises. So if it is not now now, the now of meditation practice is not really "now", but only thinking about it. > >S:If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this > >reflects > not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is > >conditioned and beyond control. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". > You misunderstand the reference to "idea of self". It does not have to involve any verbal description, but something that is reflected in the basic attitude towards practice. If you believe in a particular time, place, posture and object of concentration as means to develop wisdom, self-view is already at work. Even if during the meditation itself, there is no real thought about "me who does it", self-view is there. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130359 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > The reply below may be too long; but I want it to be clear. > > > >T 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do > arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you > described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor > vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. > > >Sukin: "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my > conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by > attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which > kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and > which with vipassana bhavana." > > T: "Singleness of mind is concentration(samadhi); the four frames of > reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; > and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its > development." [MN 44] > Concentration is achieved through developing each of the following > dhammas: > Renunciation, non-ill-will, perception of light, non-agitation, > dhamma-vicaya, ~naana (knowledge), gladness(paamojja); each of the > following kammatthanas: 10 kasinas, 10 recollections(anussati), 10 > kinds of foulness, 32 modes of anapanasati. > > T: Samatha bhavana is for jhana training; beyond jhana is direct > knowledges. There are so many ways to 'abide in jhana' by developing > each of the following dhammas: Metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha; four > foundations of mindfulness; four exertions; four iddhipada (bases for > power); five mental faculties(indriya); five powers (bala); seven > factors for enlightenment; eightfold path, and so on. > Example. "Seeing the dangers of sensual pleasures I practiced it much. > Seeeing the benefits of non-sensual pleasure I practiced it much. Then > my mind readily pursued, became delighted, got established and was > released seeing non-sensual pleasure as appeasement. Ananda, then > secluding the mind from sensual and demeritorious thoughts, with > thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of > seclusion I abode in the first higher state of the mind." [Anguttara > Nikaya 004. Mahà vaggo Tapussasutta. The householder Tapussa] > > Vipassana bhavana: In general, contemplation (anupassana, vipassana) > is the concentration development (samaadhi bhaavanaa) that leads to > clear knowing (yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati) of the phenomena(dhaatu, > khandha, naamaruupa). > Concentration is developed through relinquishment of the phenomena > (dhammas) that are produced during vipassana meditation (e.g., > contemplating 'anicca, dukha, anatta') of the following dhammas: The > five clinging aggregates; the All; six perceptions (associated with > phassa at the sense doors); six volitions, six cravings, vitakka and > vicara associated with ayatanas; eighteen proprties(dhatus); the > thirty-two body parts; eight jhanas; eleven paticcasamuppada dhammas. > [Source: Patisambhidamagga] > I wasn't asking for a general description from the texts, but what you do or what is taught nowadays by others with whom you agree. You will have seen it pointed out often that what the texts say are descriptive in nature. That meditation teachers teach formal practice and students follow them on the other hand, this is from reading the texts as recommendations to "do". I see a big difference in understanding between these two attitudes and therefore was hoping to address this. > > >T: 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi > of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding > with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". > > >Sukin: I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only > mundane right view or that there > are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? > > T: The lowest level of mundane right view in my opinion is kammically > based and is defined as in MN 117: "There is what is given, what is > offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad > actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & > father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > themselves." > > The top-limit of mundane right view is the Sotapanna's right view. So, > yes, there are many levels in between the two limits -- as I see it. > Again I wasn't asking for the kind of response. i.e. quoting the texts. But because I've seen it suggested to the effect that pariyatti is not really right view and/ or that right view refers only to what a Sotapana or someone close to this has, I wanted a definitive answer. So perhaps you can tell me now if this is what you believe? > > >T: By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power > of this particular level of wisdom"? > > >Sukin: For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas > preceding this. > > T: Please elaborate. It is not yet clear to me. > You cited a text which referred to panna of vipassana level. Panna of lower levels such as pariyatti and patipatti (normal satipatthana) is not of the level of pativedha. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130360 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:26 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Khun Han I'm so sorry to hear about your another illness and prolong treatment. I do hope that this illness will be cured very soon. And looking forward to your coming back to join DSG again. Best wish Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130361 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tam, Thank you for your contribution. Metta, Sukin > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesali in the > Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. I went to him at the Peaked > Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood, and there he spoke in a variety of > ways on mental absorption. Master Gotama was both endowed with mental > absorption & made mental absorption his habit. In fact, he praised > mental absorption of every sort." > "It wasn't the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental > absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of > every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? > There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness > overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He does not > discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion > once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he > absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with > uncertainty. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is > present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty > the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & > supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that > the Blessed One did not praise. > "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case > where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from > unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: > rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed > thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & > evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & > pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from > directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of > rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure > with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the > Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' > With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor > pain. This is the > sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act > of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the > result of understanding. > > Metta, > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130362 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term > "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and > again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > > > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these > dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen > away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the > near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No > practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on > turning! > > > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may > not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. > And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause > for encouragement rather than being discouraged. > > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is > the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not subject to the control of will, right? > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem with the suggestion though, do you? Metta, Sukin #130363 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, > Thanks for your reply. > > > What "work" are you referring to? > > I just meant let's try to move on from cliches and generalised > assumptions. > You are trying to change the way I express myself. That is not going to happen. More reasonable would be that you refrain from butting into my discussion with others. If you can't help yourself, then you will have to accept what you get. Unless of course there is a Dhamma lesson that you are trying to get across, in which case please say it directly as I'm quite dumb when it comes to indirect suggestions. > > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > > > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? > > > > Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it > > must be in spite of and not because of it. > > Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - > sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an > insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is behind it. There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural development in daily life and that of formal practice. The latter is a denial of the former. The starting point is only when panna actually arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. > > > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > > > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > > > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong > view > > > or whatever other dhammas? > > > > So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and > > panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? > > I meant just that kusala citta can arise "in spite of" all that other > stuff, and if one was opportune enough to hear the Dhamma, so can > understnading, bhavana. That's how wrong views are made straight so to > speak. > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the straightening of view more difficult to arise. > As to how will this look and find expression in the conventional world > (aka meditate or don't meditate, etc) that's a different story, > depending on accumulations, etc. > I used to meditate before, now I don't. Do you think this is due to change in general accumulations? Would it make no difference in terms of the possibility of panna arising had I continued to meditate? Is my decision not to continue meditating due possibly to some perversion of perception and of thought? > > > ... Couldn't all this result in telling the > > > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > > > Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will > not > > condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged > in, > > the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that > > patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is > > wishful thinking. > > Pariyatti/patipatti is an interesting side-topic. > You were saying this: " It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such moments condition more such moments of understanding? Wouldn't this be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the difference between "doing" and "kusala"? " And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't think that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. > While in principle I agree with what you say above, it simplifies > matters a bit too much for my liking. I don't know if you feel like > going into this in more detail? > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence that the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another time, situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but pariyatti as well. > > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > > > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners > (meditators > > > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > > > most of the time? > > > > Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the > > necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct > > understanding calls for further development of intellectual > > understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. > > I don't understand to what you are objecting here. In any case, while > you are in theory probably right above in your conclusion, I don't > think one can actually choose/decide to develop (right) intellectual > understanding and stop doing something else since that would still be > choosing a "doing" - still in the realm of conventional things and > doings, which means it has to do with lobha rather than actual arising > of understanding. > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and to do something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to point out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. You are trying to tell me that this is no more an obstacle to right view than the one behind the understanding that development must be natural and in daily life. Hence the objection. > > Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not > the > > standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what > > you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. > > Ok, though I'm not sure the question applies. I do things during the > day - work, write, rest, etc. In some brief moments in the midst of > all this, kusala citta arises and I appreciate it when it does (at > least I believe it is kusala, and I believe I appreciate it, but who > knows, it might all be self-delusion and lobha). These brief moments > of kusala and its appreciation are what I'd call "meditation". Nothing > to do with posture, time, place, focusing, etc. There are also times > when I'm just sitting/lying/standing without doing much of anything > else in particular, and during these times there might be a kusala > citta and its appreciation. Since at the time I'm not working, > reading, writing, nor much of anything else in the conventional sense, > I call this "formal meditation". > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? I take it that you actually think this way. First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, why? Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time for leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label one "formal meditation" and the other not? If yes, is the meditation in "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it something else, and what would this be? > > > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > > > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more > relevant. > > > > So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? > > On the contrary, criticise me as a meditator and my meditation in > particular, instead of some imaginary meditator that does things > entirely differently and is not here to actually participate in the > discussion. I mean, you are talking to me, so it would be good to get > a critique of what I'm actually doing/saying. > You are imaginary too. Do you think that you describe to me what you do, this makes what I say in response of more value than when I make general statements based on imagined situations. When I write I do not have just the person I'm responding to in mind and I do believe that what I say is in line with the Dhamma. But of course you are objecting and this means perhaps I'm only fooling myself..... But do tell me this, what is the Dhamma lesson you are trying to impart to me? Like I said, I'm slow, so please be as straight as possible. If you are trying to show me how to discuss / debate forget it, I'm not interested. If you don't like my style, don't read me or at least don't bother to respond. If you do however, I'll respond as I always do whether you like it or not. Sorry. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130364 From: "azita" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:09 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! gazita2002 Send Email Send Email Dear Han, may you have lots of patience, courage and good cheer, Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > > When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. > > My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). > > 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. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. > > -------------------- > > Clarification: > > [1] When I say [Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement], it is still the intellectual understanding and not "full understanding" (pari~n~naa). > > [2] When I say [I get fed-up with the five aggregates] I mean the ordinary meaning of the English word "fed-up", and not the (No. 6) Nibbidaa-~naa.na of the ten vipassanaa ~naa.nas. I am still struggling with the lowest two rungs: (No. 1) Sammasana-~naa.na and (No. 2) Udayabbaya-~naa.na. > > In this connection, my Good Brother Tep told me that if I am fed-up with the five aggregates, I should let them go. Yes, that is exactly what I will have to try: to cut off the attachment to the five aggregates. > > -------------------- > > Having said that, I have lost all my will and zeal and energy, and I do not want to write anything on any topic. So I most humbly offer my apologies to Khun Tadao and Khun Jagkrit for not keeping my promise to write something on Nandii-raaga. > > I am so sorry! > > -------------------- > > In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. > > -------------------- > > This is my last message for many, many days to come. > I pray for you all, the best of health and happiness. > > with metta and respect, > Han > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130365 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Han, So very sorry to hear that you have further illness and investigations and prolonged treatment. As you quote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > 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. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. .... S: And it's such a good reminder even when there is the illusion, the mirage, that all is well and happy. <...> > In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. .... S: Happy and sad all day....momentary changing dhammas, not Han, Sarah or anybody else. Yes, always a big debt and lots of payback to come, life after life in samsara. Time to see the truth about the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self nature of all conditioned dhammas. Very best wishes & metta Sarah p.s sorry for late reply - only just saw your message. ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130366 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, (Alex & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I do not agree that "there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors", dear Sarah. Since you only "see" the ultimate reality or sabhava-dhamma, you are like the atomic physicist who only "sees" atoms; and he misses a whole lot of the realities that other people see. .... S: You also questioned how we could 'switch' between used of ultimate dhammas and conventional terms and uses. I referred to the sutta in AN in which the Buddha makes it clear that whether or not a Buddha arises in the world or not, the truths about realities as anicca, dukkha and anatta remains the same. In other words, whether or not there is any understanding of the fact that seeing only ever sees visible object, hearing only ever hears sound, that there is never a finger, hammer or person in reality, the truth remains the same. I've quoted the following from the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) before. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41): “ 'Without self' means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. ".....Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' This is the sense here. "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. <...> "Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression 'there is the person who,' must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.†Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130367 From: "azita" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states gazita2002 Send Email Send Email hallo Alberto, each time I see your name I think of the expression on your face when we walked into that Tuscany look-alike in NE thailand, you were 'welcoming' us all to 'your' house:) Sanna at work!!! In the commentary to the Sammaditthi sutta, it reads: 'Herein, one of right view is one possessing a lucid and praiseworthy view, but when this word 'right view' is used to signify a state [rather than a person endowed with that state] it then means a lucid and praiseworthy view.' now I know you are writing about the sattipatthana sutta, but this 'lucid and praiseworthy view' must be the view that comprehends the realities that arise in normal everyday life while sitting, standing etc and when this view does comprehend a reality then there is no posture, just a reality. may all beings be happy azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit, > > J: I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? > > I think you are right, in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. > > Alberto > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130368 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or >rupa which appears now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130369 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, I'm posting a quote from the chapter The charactersitic of dukkha of A survey, in which Ajahn talks about this difficult subject. Alberto **************** ... Q: What is the meaning of studying characteristics? A: When sati is aware and someone considers the characteristic of whatever appears, that reality can be known as naama, which experiences something, or as ruupa which does not experience anything. Then one studies the characteristic of non-self of that reality. It is naama or ruupa, not self. This kind of study is different from thinking about terms or naming realities. When pa~n~na is developed to the degree that it is more accomplished, it can penetrate the three general characteristics of naama and ruupa: impermanence, dukkha and anatta. ... (Sarah's already posted this, from the same chapter) Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? A. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed pa~n~na. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different ruupas that arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are ruupas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these ruupas are dukkha. It has been explained in the Visuddhimagga that the postures conceal dukkha (7). The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the naama and ruupa which arise and form together different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a "whole", for "mine". The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one naama and one ruupa at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. If a person does not develop pa~n~na in order to understand naama and ruupa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedana, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of naama and ruupa. This is the case if he does not know the naama which sees, and colour appearing through the eyes; the naama which hears, and sound appearing through the ears; the naama which smells and odour; the naama which tastes and flavour; the naama which experiences tangible object and tangible object; the naama which thinks; happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of naama which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of naama and ruupa as they appear one at a time, pa~n~na can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130370 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:41 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, > You are trying to change the way I express myself. That is not going to > happen. More reasonable would be that you refrain from butting into my > discussion with others. If you can't help yourself, then you will have > to accept what you get. Unless of course there is a Dhamma lesson that > you are trying to get across, in which case please say it directly as > I'm quite dumb when it comes to indirect suggestions. No dhamma lesson, just asking for more clarity, do as you see fit of course. > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is > behind it. > There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural > development in daily life and that of formal practice. The latter is a > denial of the former. Ok, but isn't the denial of your making? I mean, you designate the two concepts as opposite, hence the denial. Others might not designate them like that. > The starting point is only when panna actually > arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. I don't quite get what you are saying here. > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the > straightening of view more difficult to arise. Ok, but that's depending on what's meant by conventional designation "formal practice". Different people designate it differently, you seem to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > I used to meditate before, now I don't. Do you think this is due to > change in general accumulations? Would it make no difference in terms of > the possibility of panna arising had I continued to meditate? Is my > decision not to continue meditating due possibly to some perversion of > perception and of thought? I don't know. > And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this > condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during > formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the > formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting > that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't think > that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti > relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. Ok, if you want to discuss it, I get the impression from the above that panna and pariyatti are somehow similar to sotapati in the sense of making wrong view and wrong practice appear a lot less than before. I might be wrong, but my thinking is that despite occasional pariyatti moments with panna, there will still come plenty of wrong view and wrong practice moments until sotapati happens. Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala dhammas happening somewhere in there. > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The > connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence that > the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any > place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another time, > situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means > that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but > pariyatti as well. Ok, though again depending on how you designate the conventional meaning of "meditation". You have your own, no worries, but there are others. E.g. bhavana translated as meditation meaning a kusala citta with panna, pariyatti translated as study also meaning a kusala citta with panna. But there are also others who equate study with wrong practice, just like others equate meditation with wrong practice. Concepts can be used anywhich way. > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and to do > something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at > least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to point > out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. Well, again, that holds only according to your designation of terms. > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" > just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? I take it > that you actually think this way. > > First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of > reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to > give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, why? > Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time for > leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you > experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label > one "formal meditation" and the other not? Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation pretty well. > If yes, is the meditation in "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it > something else, and what would this be? Sure, sometimes there are more kusala moments during what I designate "formal meditation". Sometimes there are less. There are no rules since concepts and doings like meditating or not meditating are not realities. Would there also be wrong view somewhere in there? Perhaps you don't agree, but I do think wrong view arises very often, despite any kusala that happens to arise occasionally. It's all just conditioned moments that arise despite of what we may want to arise. > But do tell me this, what is the Dhamma lesson you are trying to impart > to me? Like I said, I'm slow, so please be as straight as possible. If > you are trying to show me how to discuss / debate forget it, I'm not > interested. If you don't like my style, don't read me or at least don't > bother to respond. If you do however, I'll respond as I always do > whether you like it or not. Sorry. That's quite alright, no need to apologise, the discussion proceeds in whatever way it can. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130371 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, > > Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. > > =============== > > J: I cannot think what sort of kusala that could be. Unless perhaps the cake reminds the person of something kusala. > > Do you have anything in mind? > > In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. I don't know, didn't have anything specific in mind, just seemed logical there should be a citta like that. I mean, sort of a foundation for samatha bhavana with specific objects (much) later on. Perhaps if it's the contemplation about the object that conditions calm as you say, maybe then the cake can be, erm, contemplated in that way... Yeah, that doesn't sound quite right. Anyway, thanks anyway. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130372 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Azita, > each time I see your name I think of the expression on your face when we walked into that Tuscany look-alike in NE thailand, you were 'welcoming' us all to 'your' house:) Sanna at work!!! I've lived for a couple of years in Florence (a good while back), must have been sanna at work for me too :) Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130373 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, Alex - Sukin: So why think about another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? Alex: Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. Alex is too indirect to get your attention, Sukin. Let me be direct! :) Are you able to experience by direct knowing of "the nama or rupa which appears now"? If you are not, then stop acting like a parrot who can talk but does not understand even a single word it is talking. Be realistic and study what the Buddha taught at the level that you may understand, e.g. abandoning evil and unskilled states (such as the five hindrances) NOW. [I suspect you didn't read the Suttas, otherwise you would have known what the Buddha taught.] Importantly, do not forget that the meditation schemes for developing concentration (samadhi) are indeed one of the three major components of the Buddha's Teachings. See the Vism. Purification of Consciousness, Part III, Chapters VI, VII, VIII, XI and XII. ............... >Sukin ( in an older message): "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." My reply to you in DSG message #130244 gives details about the two meditation methods taught by the Buddha: samatha & vipassana. But it got rejected! To be fair, show me first that you understand these meditation schemes taught by the Buddha and why you have rejected them! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130244 Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all, > > >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about > >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or >rupa which appears now? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train > is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. > > Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130374 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:20 am Subject: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, A member@ DhammaWheel posted this story that so new to me...I like it alot..please let me share with you all. ***************** The Deva Bhikkhu [Presented by PLWK @ DhammaWheel (From Sayâdaw U Pandita)] 6. Chariot to Nibbâna Once, when the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove near the ancient city of Sâvatthî in India, he was visited in the wee hours of the night by a deva, come down from the heaven realms with a retinue of a thousand companions. Although the deva's radiance filled the entire grove, he was nonetheless visibly distraught. He paid respects to the Buddha and then launched into the following lament: "O Lord Buddha," he cried, "devaland is so noisy! It's full of racket from all these devas. They look like petas (unhappy ghosts) to me, frolicking in their own land. Confusing it is to be in such a place. Please show me a way out!" This was an odd speech for a deva to make. The heaven realms are characterized by delight. Their residents, elegant and musically inclined, hardly resemble petas who live in extreme misery and suffering some petas are said to have gigantic bellies and pinhole mouths, so that they feel a constant, terrible hunger which they cannot satisfy. Using his psychic powers, the Buddha investigated the deva's past. He learned that only recently this deva had been a human being, a practitioner of the Dhamma. As a young man he had had such faith in the Buddha's doctrine that he left home to become a bhikkhu. After the required five years under a teacher, he had mastered the rules of conduct and community life and had become self-sufficient in his meditation practice. Then he retired to a forest alone. Because of his tremendous wish to become an arahant, the bhikkhu's practice was extremely strenuous. So as to devote as much time as possible to meditation, he slept not at all and hardly ate. Alas, he damaged his health. Gas accumulated in his belly, causing bloating and knife-like pains. Nonetheless the bhikkhu practiced on single-mindedly, without adjusting his habits. The pains grew worse and worse, until one day, in the middle of walking meditation, they cut off his life. The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbâna." ***********To be continued************ yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130375 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, - > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not subject to the control of will, right? T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to experience ultimate realities . Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the ultimate realities alone. How do you verify the accuracy of their statements? Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? ....................... > >T: I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > >S:I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem with the suggestion though, do you? T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. Be gentle, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term > > "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and > > again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > > > > > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these > > dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen > > away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the > > near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No > > practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on > > turning! > > > > > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may > > not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. > > And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause > > for encouragement rather than being discouraged. > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130376 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:44 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hello Rob E > > Of course! Well that makes one of us - I've been out of it lately. I must be more detached than you. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130378 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 6:42 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email -Hi Sarah, (Rob E., Alex, others) - [This is replacing the the message I wrote earlier today -- an error was corrected.] >S: You also questioned how we could 'switch' between used of ultimate dhammas and conventional terms and uses. I referred to the sutta in AN in which the Buddha makes it clear that whether or not a Buddha arises in the world or not, the truths about realities as anicca, dukkha and anatta remains the same. >In other words, whether or not there is any understanding of the fact that seeing only ever sees visible object, hearing only ever hears sound, that there is never a finger, hammer or person in reality, the truth remains the same. T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! Thanks for another quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p.41) of the Kathavatthu. Allow me to give some thoughts as follows. 1. "Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' ... T: Popular speech and convention are man-made. Hammer and car are man-made. There are men who made these things. Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist (even for a moment)! 2. ... it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. 3. "What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense." T: Clearly, these are words of the commentator, but he does not say either that 'person' does not exist or not real. "Tep" is the label, but it is ridiculous to say 'there is no Tep' and there are only fleeting khandhas that write this message. It is also ridiculous to say "there are no materialities, no earth, no Sun, no Cosmos; there are only atoms. These celestrial bodies are not real." It all sound ridiculous only because the ultimate-reality convention does not allow anything else to be accepted as "realities". T: There are realities at the micro-level and also at the macro-level. The two levels of reality are integrated. To deny one and accept the other is ridiculous. > The controversy on ‘person’ is ended. But I did not see any controversy at the beginning! Be realistic, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130379 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Rob E > > > Well that makes one of us - I've been out of it lately. I must be more detached than you. :-) > We are unlikely to know that. All kusala moments are accompanied by alobha, but kusala moments are very rare. A moment of friendliness arises, with alobha. Very very rare. Most friendliness is with attachment. A moment of understanding realities, awareness of kusala as I post, of friendliness as I write. Awareness of kusala. I think a out this. Probably with attachment. Akusala. Fleeting moments of kusala in a day. If we try to make a practice out of them, it is all for nought. SN 1:1 is very very deep. All suttas are, they are not for casual study and underlining and cutting and pasting. Lobha does that. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130380 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > Sukin: So why think about another time, place and posture re: > meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? > Alex: Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine > presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > > Alex is too indirect to get your attention, Sukin. Let me be direct! :) > > Are you able to experience by direct knowing of "the nama or rupa > which appears now"? > No. > If you are not, then stop acting like a parrot who can talk but does > not understand even a single word it is talking. > What is your objection to the idea that understanding begins with pariyatti and only later there will be patipatti before finally pativedha? > Be realistic and study what the Buddha taught at the level that you > may understand, e.g. abandoning evil and unskilled states (such as the > five hindrances) NOW. > I keep saying that my understanding is only pariyatti level, is this being unrealistic? What about you? Do you assume patipatti during any particular activity? If so, is this being realistic? > [I suspect you didn't read the Suttas, otherwise you would have known > what the Buddha taught.] > Reading Suttas will definitely condition right understanding? Everyone who reads the Suttas has right understanding? > Importantly, do not forget that the meditation schemes for developing > concentration (samadhi) are indeed one of the three major components > of the Buddha's Teachings. See the Vism. Purification of > Consciousness, Part III, Chapters VI, VII, VIII, XI and XII. > I believe that there have been discussions regarding this on DSG. Are you assuming that I have never read them or is it that you would like to enter into a new round of discussion with me? > >Sukin ( in an older message): "Since I don't believe that you are > agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are > motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe > to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha > bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." > > My reply to you in DSG message #130244 gives details about the two > meditation methods taught by the Buddha: samatha & vipassana. But it > got rejected! To be fair, show me first that you understand these > meditation schemes taught by the Buddha and why you have rejected them! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130244 > I think what you are saying is that you didn't like my response. This is what I wrote: Quote: "I wasn't asking for a general description from the texts, but what you do or what is taught nowadays by others with whom you agree. You will have seen it pointed out often that what the texts say are descriptive in nature. That meditation teachers teach formal practice and students follow them on the other hand, this is from reading the texts as recommendations to "do". I see a big difference in understanding between these two attitudes and therefore was hoping to address this." How did you come to the conclusion that my response was a rejection of the Buddha's words? It was a rejection of your approach, including here where you ask me to express my understanding after you reduce the Buddha's words to being "meditation schemes". Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130381 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] step on railway tracks. No train in the present. sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > > >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about > >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or > >rupa which appears now? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train > is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. > Its like this Alex, there is no me or you, but there are namas and rupas. Sanna, thinking, intention, attention, attachment, fear, all these are the realities which will arise in situations like the one you describe. No me to decide whether to stand in front of the train or to avoid doing this. And of course the thinking / reaction now, is based on past arising of nama and rupa including the experience of earth element by body consciousness and consequent mental pain, and also of thinking about different situations where things could be much worse, including death. Understanding that there are only nama and rupa does not somehow change how one normally reacts to conventional situations since the namas and rupas likely to arise, will continue doing so. You seem to think that understanding that there is no "self" must lead to behaviors suggestive of "nothing exists". But we are all saying that only namas and rupas exist, and this is regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not. > > Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently > arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > How did you arrive at this conclusion? Do not give quotes, but instead reasoning based on your own understanding. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130382 From: "azita" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) gazita2002 Send Email Send Email hallo Yawares, thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. Patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Members, > > A member@ DhammaWheel posted this story that so new to me...I like it alot..please let me share with you all. > > ***************** > > The Deva Bhikkhu > [Presented by PLWK @ DhammaWheel (From Sayâdaw U Pandita)] > > 6. Chariot to Nibbâna > > Once, when the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove near the ancient city of Sâvatthî in India, he was visited in the wee hours of the night by a deva, come down from the heaven realms with a retinue of a thousand companions. > > Although the deva's radiance filled the entire grove, he was nonetheless visibly distraught. He paid respects to the Buddha and then launched into the following lament: "O Lord Buddha," he cried, "devaland is so noisy! It's full of racket from all these devas. They look like petas (unhappy ghosts) to me, frolicking in their own land. Confusing it is to be in such a place. Please show me a way out!" > > This was an odd speech for a deva to make. The heaven realms are characterized by delight. Their residents, elegant and musically inclined, hardly resemble petas who live in extreme misery and suffering some petas are said to have gigantic bellies and pinhole mouths, so that they feel a constant, terrible hunger which they cannot satisfy. > > Using his psychic powers, the Buddha investigated the deva's past. He learned that only recently this deva had been a human being, a practitioner of the Dhamma. As a young man he had had such faith in the Buddha's doctrine that he left home to become a bhikkhu. After the required five years under a teacher, he had mastered the rules of conduct and community life and had become self-sufficient in his meditation practice. Then he retired to a forest alone. Because of his tremendous wish to become an arahant, the bhikkhu's practice was extremely strenuous. So as to devote as much time as possible to meditation, he slept not at all and hardly ate. Alas, he damaged his health. Gas accumulated in his belly, causing bloating and knife-like pains. Nonetheless the bhikkhu practiced on single-mindedly, without adjusting his habits. The pains grew worse and worse, until one day, in the middle of walking meditation, they cut off his life. > > The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. > > Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" > > Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. > > In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" > > The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. > > "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. > > Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: > > "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbâna." > > ***********To be continued************ > > yawares > Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130383 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti > is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa > or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not > subject to the control of will, right? > > T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to > experience ultimate realities. > Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other teacher? Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding, is it not? So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the necessary initial level of understanding? The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! What is lacking is the understanding that they are indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This is intellectual understanding which is supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view? And you are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. This can't happen, can it? > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the ultimate > realities alone. How do you verify the accuracy of their statements? > Is seeing now "me"? Does it not fall away because otherwise the other experiences such as thinking, touching and hearing wouldn't occur? Seeing experiences visible object and arises at the eye, hearing hears sound and arises at the ear, is this not indication that they are conditioned differently? Seeing experiences visible object or color and the thinking is what defines people, objects and situations, in the same way that hearing hears sound and thinking thinks bell or horn, this can be understood too, now, can it not? The non-Arahant Abhidhammikka's words vs. yours, whose words do I therefore find reasonable, now you tell me!! > Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not talk about and go by such ideas. One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a beginner go by and why? > ....................... > > >T: I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > > > >S:I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem > with the suggestion though, do you? > > T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest > anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. > There is no need to believe anyone. However, one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130384 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 4:03 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Azita (and Yawares) > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. Surely the deva realm is unvaried in pleasant vipaka, which is why it is not a realm for awakening. I would suggest that the story must be flawed. But if there is evidence in the tipitika that experience in the deva realm can possibly be unpleasant to its inhabitants, I will stand corrected. I think it's an important point because it gets at why our human birth is so precious. The mixture of pleasant and unpleasant sensory experience is unique to the human realm, at least that is how I have understood it. Phil > > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some > > The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. > > > > Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" > > > > Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. > > > > In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" > > > > The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. > > > > "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. > > > > Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: > > > > "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbâna." > > > > ***********To be continued************ > > > > yawares > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130385 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 7:44 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Azita, --- <. . .> > A: I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. --- KH: I think you were right the first time; devaland is full of *pleasant* sounds. Pleasant sounds are just as suitable for vipassana jhana as unpleasant sounds are, so what was the problem? I think the problem was that particular monk was also practising samatha jhana, which required silence. Nice to see a happy ending though. :-) Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130386 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:07 pm Subject: There is no self = wrong reflection (MN2) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukinder, all, >S:Its like this Alex, there is no me or you, but there are namas and >rupas. Sanna, thinking, intention, attention, attachment, fear, all >these are the realities which will arise in situations like the one >you describe. No me to decide whether to stand in front of the train >or to avoid doing this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So... There is no me (Alex), and no you. That is precisely the speculative view that Buddha rejected in MN2 which doesn't lead to breaking 3 fetters. ================================== "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html ========================= "Am I not" and "I have no self" are all considered to be inappropriate reflection. Furthermore, appropriate reflection is in framework of 4NT. >A:Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine >presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to >do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >S:How did you arrive at this conclusion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through my very limited (so far) experience. I can notice my hindrances better when I am not restless, and when my senses are not overloaded. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130387 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >S:Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how to practice. >Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to >know by oneself or from any other teacher? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This understanding is useless unless one puts it to use. One can know that smoking is bad, yet still smokes. Why? Due to craving. And here is the difficulty lies. To resist the craving. >Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? Very little after a while. >And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such >understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its almost useless unless one puts it into a practice. Knowing to swim and swimming are different. >The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience >ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! >>>>>>>>>>>> This is irrelevant to the path. Appropriate attention is to contemplate 4NT rather than existence/non-existence. See MN2 > > > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the >ultimate realities alone. >>>>>>>>>>> That is not what suttas or Abhidhamma teaches. >Is seeing now "me"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong reflection. See MN#2. >...this can be understood too, now, can it not? Better is to reflect on 4NT. See MN2 >Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away >right now? >>>>>>>>>> A better thing to see is arising and passing away of dukkha. MN2. >One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a >beginner go by and why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All relevant teaching minus improper speculative theories. >Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and >achieving this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talking that "self doesn't exist... Thus no control..." is exactly the same kind of speculative story about self, that doesn't (supposedly) exist. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130388 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:07 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Azita, Thank you for reading my post...love your comment! yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > > hallo Yawares, > > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. > The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. > > Patience, courage and good cheer > azita > > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130389 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:12 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Philip, Thank you for reading my post...please read the CONTINUE part today..more information/explanation. Thanks, yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Azita (and Yawares) > > > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > > Surely the deva realm is unvaried in pleasant vipaka, which is why it is not a realm for awakening. I would suggest that the story must be flawed. But if there is evidence in the tipitika that experience in the deva realm can possibly be unpleasant to its inhabitants, I will stand corrected. I think it's an important point because it gets at why our human birth is so precious. The mixture of pleasant and unpleasant sensory experience is unique to the human realm, at least that is how I have understood it. > > Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130390 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, - S: >One listens to the Buddha's teachings to understand something one otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other teacher. One keeps on listening because one sees the value of such understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding. So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the necessary initial level of understanding? T: What you think you are listening to may not always be what-the-Buddha-taught. So you have to double-check it with several suttas. If you listen to a wrong idea, and keep on listening, it will be like mud accumulation on a pig's tail! The poor pig runs around crying in pain, but it does not "understand now" what is causing the pains. T: I do not deny that every beginner needs intellectual (not stupid) understanding; but intellectual ideas may still be incorrect. How may an assumed-correct intellectual understanding of what-is-heard progress toward direct knowing of the khandhas that they are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta? Direct experience of the dhammas such as sense objects, sense media, and the five aggregates is absolutely important for direct knowing, i.e., "knowledge and vision of things as they really are" (yathabhuta~nanadassana) that supports disenchantment (nibbida) leading to the cessation of dukkha. The Upanisa Sutta shows the dependent conditions. Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html .............. S: >We all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all day. What is lacking is intellectual understanding that they are indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This understanding is supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view. T: No, all of us do not experience ultimate realities (paramattha-dhammas) that arise and pass away rapidly; our perceptions are perverted (vipallasa) so our minds do not have samadhi at the level of right concentration to know and see the ultimate realities, Sukin. What you are claiming to understand ultimate realities as "indeed ultimate realities and not a 'self' who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas" is just a false claim caused by ignorance. You still have the 20 self-identifications (attaditthi), don't you? Thus it is impossible to pretend that you have the outlook that "include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view". You may be confused, Sukin. S: >You are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. This can't happen, can it? T: I think you misquoted me. Please provide an evidence to show my writing that supports using "atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view". Wrong views must be abandoned and right view is to be developed. Period. ........... > >T: Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? S: > You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not talk about and go by such ideas. T: For one who knows that he/she has a low level of wisdom , there should be no claim of understanding of ultimate realities. Period. Muddy understanding can become less muddy and finally progresses to direct knowing through following the Buddha's teachings about sila, sense restraint, and samatha-vipassana meditation. >S: One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a beginner go by and why? T: Everything the Buddha taught about sila (starting with the Five Precepts), samadhi and panna at the level that he/she can understand and verify. Then apply what-the-Buddha-taught to everyday living. .............. >S: one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. T: This accusation that everybody else, except you and some DSG members you know, has the Self Demon lurking behind is based on a wrong view: "I don't have self-views, they do". Be wise & fair, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti > > is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > > > >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa > > or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not > > subject to the control of will, right? > > > > T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to > > experience ultimate realities. > > > ... > > T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest > > anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. > > > > There is no need to believe anyone. However, one side is talking about > that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man > attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following > suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love > stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. > Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking > and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their > power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why > you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. > > Metta, > > Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130391 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:16 pm Subject: THE DEVA BHIKKHU....continue!! yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, Please let me continue the story from yesterday: THE DEVA BHIKKHU *************** The Buddha's Progressive Instructions The Buddha's response was unusually succinct. Generally, he instructed people step by step, beginning with morality, progressing through the right view of kamma and concentration, before he began with insight practice. To illustrate this order of teaching, he once gave the example of an art master. Approached by a neophyte who wants to paint, the master does not just hand out a brush. The first lesson is stretching a canvas. Just as an artist cannot paint in empty air, so it is futile to begin vipassanâ practice without a basis in morality and understanding of the law of kamma. Without these two things, there will be no surface, as it were, to receive concentration and wisdom. In some meditation centers, morality and kamma are ignored. Not much can result from meditation under these circumstances. The Buddha also tailored his instructions to his listeners' backgrounds or propensities. He saw that this unusual deva had been a mature bhikkhu and meditation practitioner, and that he had not broken his moral precepts during that abbreviated stop in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods. There is a Pâli word, kâraka, meaning a dutiful and industrious person. Our bhikkhu had been one of these. He was not a yogi by name only; not a philosopher or a dreamer, lost in ideas and fantasies; nor a sluggard, gazing blankly at whatever objects arose. On the contrary, he was ardent and sincere. The bhikkhu walked the path with total commitment. His profound faith and confidence in the practice supported a capacity for sustained effort. Moment to moment, he tried to put into practice the instructions he had received. One might regard him as a veteran. *******to be continued********** yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130392 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:42 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: Do you have anything in mind? > > > > In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. > > > pt: I don't know, didn't have anything specific in mind, just seemed logical there should be a citta like that. I mean, sort of a foundation for samatha bhavana with specific objects (much) later on. > =============== J: Actually, they are not so much *specific objects (of consciousness)* as *(general) subjects*, if you see what I mean. Take maranasati, for example. It's contemplation about the subject of death (with understanding), and this could occur in any number of circumstances: a discussion, seeing an accident, remembering somebody who has passed away, receive news about one's medical condition, etc. Likewise, the terms (vocabulary, imagery, etc.) in which the subject is contemplated will vary from one person to the next; there is no rule on the form of the thoughts, it's the substance that's significant. Similar considerations apply to the other objects/subjects. In the Vism translation the term 'meditation subject' is used. The Pali is 'kamma.t.thaana', and I understand the literal meaning of this is 'field of work'. > =============== > pt: Perhaps if it's the contemplation about the object that conditions calm as you say, maybe then the cake can be, erm, contemplated in that way... Yeah, that doesn't sound quite right. Anyway, thanks anyway. > =============== J: If we change that and say "It's the contemplation about the *subject matter* that conditions calm", it perhaps gives a better idea (and a different perspective). Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130393 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:45 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all. Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, and it harms himself and others. Yet he craves for it. Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. Should he study chemistry, biology, etc, and know everything about alcohol? PhD can be useless here as this is not an abstract problem to solve. Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. Imagine if he uses "there is no wife" as an excuse to beat her after he gets drunk. Or "there is no me, so nobody suffers from drinking, no fists, and no wife". It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. With best wishes, Alex #130394 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - > > It has been encouraging to me that our discussion sems to slowly make a progress. In this sense progress does not mean the same as practice. :-) > =============== J: :-)), :-)) > =============== > >J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. > > T: You are arguing like a lawyer! Here I am using the terminolgy of pa~n~naa, the quality that is not found in any ordinary person (puthujjana). > =============== J: (I must plead guilty, on occasion :-)) To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. > =============== > >J: The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. > > T: That, I agree. The "insight" of those "uninstructed, run-of-the mill" people is even lower. > =============== J: "Insight" as a translation of the Pali term "vipassana" refers to the mental factor of panna. > =============== > >J: And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. > > T: That is on the path. So where are you in your practice? With no practice, do-nothing, the best you can be is one of the "instructed" worldling, and may remain so many eons more! > =============== J: As far as I know, there is no reference in the texts to a person's practice (as in, your/his/my practice), only to the practice of the teachings, and this carries quite a different meaning. Whenever awareness/insight occurs there is the practice of -- and progress in :-)) -- the teachings. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130395 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex 130344 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > > >J:The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or >more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and >insight. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: It doesn't say any one. All those are required, including samatha. > =============== J: Actually, it's 'tranquillity' that is mentioned, but I agree that what is being referenced is probably samatha. However, in the absence of anything in the commentaries, this should not be taken as a reference to jhana only. I would see there as being a progression from learning to discussion to tranquillity/samatha to insight. It could be that the samatha is the reflection on the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as these are all included in the kamma.t.thaana for samatha development. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130396 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 12:24 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 13. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Our second trip outside Bangkok was to the North East, to Wang Nam Khiao, also called Korat. On the way we visited a museum of a petrified forest. It was an exposition of the geological history of the region and one could see many rare examples of petrified trees. It was crowded with school children so that we had to wait a long time and since our visit took many hours we arrived rather late in Wang Nam Khiao. This is a mountainous region where we went out for walks in the morning before breakfast. We stayed in peaceful bungalows with a balcony situated at the waterside. We had to walk from our bungalow to the restaurant for breakfast. For lunch we went out to a variety of places. The lunch tables were outside in the garden of the restaurant so that it seemed that we were in the middle of a forest. One of our outings was to the best restaurant in the region where very refined food was served and which, as healthy air was concerned, had the seventh place in the world. This made me think of Kuru where the outward conditions and the climate were most favorable for the development of the understanding of Dhamma. Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130397 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)- >J: To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. > So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. T: I'm sorry to pronounce that you're wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called "wisdom faculty" in the CMI (see p. 90). It is the mental factor #52 (see p. 79). Second, by definition panna is "knowing things as they really are", and as such, it is not found in ordinary men/women. :-) >J: "Insight" as a translation of the Pali term "vipassana" refers to the mental factor of panna. T: Excuse me? are you saying now that panna is a "citta" and vipassana is a cetasika? Or you are sayimg that both panna and vipassana are cetasika? Again, checking with the CMI Table 2.1 on P. 79, there is no 'vipassana' listed as a cetasika! The author must have lumped vipassana and panna together as wisdom/knowledge. [I think you know that I did not mean to find fault with you, just poking fun a little. Can't do the same to Sukin or KenH, though. :-)] ............ >J: As far as I know, there is no reference in the texts to a person's practice (as in, your/his/my practice), only to the practice of the teachings, and this carries quite a different meaning. T: Right, but it is simply because the ignorant assumption of "my practice" is due to self-views and craving that are relinquished in meditation [e.g. observe the following phase in the Satipatthana Sutta: "And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world."]. However, the Suttas do not make a big deal about the Self Demon (like here at DSG). Even Arahants and the Buddha used "I" and "mine" freely without fear that other monks or householders might criticize them! SN 1.25 Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe [Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits? [The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.[1] That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.[2] Notes 1. Ya.m mata.m: "whatever is thought." Mrs Rhys Davids's emendation of yamata.m in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maññana.m "imagining"). 2. Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them." ......... >J: Whenever awareness/insight occurs there is the practice of -- and progress in :-)) -- the teachings. T: I'd rather put is as follows: Whenever the practice according to the Dhamma makes a progress, there are awareness and insight during that time. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130398 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 3:39 am Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 4 (Gradual development of panna) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear Group "When we learn little by little about naama and ruupa it is the development of understanding from one moment to another moment. However it is not the stage of clear comprehension when there is no doubt, when reality appears as it is. You do not have to name it or call it naama, or a reality which experiences an object. There is no time to think about words, because the characteristic of the reality which experiences, the faculty of experiencing is just there. There is no world we think of, such as this room, Poland or Thailand. Only that reality appears and this is the moment of clear comprehension. There is no doubt about the reality which can experience an object. There is no time to think of the meaning of what it is called. When there is an idea of what that reality is called, it is the I again. Before the I can be completely eradicated, right understanding can see that there is no other way but developing understanding. The way is not just wanting to have awareness, concentration or anything. Just understand." (End of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130399 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:18 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. > > >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined... ...to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ... something to hold onto... > > T: Sabhava, to my understanding, is the "core" quality (or qualities) that makes each category of things uniquely different. ... For example, an intrinsic quality of earth is hardness that makes it different than water whose essence is liquidity. I can see the essence of an element being that which makes it unique. Hardness for earth makes sense, as opposed to liquidity of water. That is a good example, good comparison to make the point. If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. If that's what it is, I have no idea why anyone would want to translate it as "own-being" which has so many more implications - something of one's "own" has the connotation of a self; while "being" has the connotation of an entity, so I think that translation really mystifies the idea of that "essence." I wonder how sabhava literally translates...? > ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? > ............. > >RE: The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. > > T: Broadly, he talked about two kinds of things: the conditioned and the unconditioned. > The three characteristics (anicca, dukha, anatta) are the global sabhava of all conditioned things and there are individual intrinsic qualities as well. Being impermanent, they are "empty and temporary and not worth holding onto" as you said. > Feelings, for example, are conditioned dhammas that are possessed of the three characteristics in addition to the intrinsic characteristic of being felt. Understood - this is very clear and makes sense. In a sense, there is the "unique" characteristic of each dhamma -- which seems to me to be mostly functional or descriptive of its natural quality -- ie, it makes sense that water would have flowing-ness, liquidity, fluidity - however you like - as its characteristic quality; and that earth would have hardness; and that then there are the three "universal" characteristics of all dhammas [except nibbana.] One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? Feeling has the characteristic of being felt, which is unique to it, but it also has characteristics of being contacted, being conscious of being felt, as there is no feeling without consciousness of feeling, etc. Maybe those are more secondary. For physical dhammas - rupas - such as hardness or the elements, it seems they have more co-equal characteristics on the physical level, but maybe there is just one major one and the others are subsidiary...? ... > ............. > >RE: What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. > > T: Ha, ha ... I wish I knew the answer to everything you ask! But when we are trying to understand the ultimate realities, I feel like a plankton floating in the Atlantic Ocean. :) Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130400 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:21 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ... All kusala moments are accompanied by alobha, but kusala moments are very rare. A moment of friendliness arises, with alobha. Very very rare. Most friendliness is with attachment. > > A moment of understanding realities, awareness of kusala as I post, of friendliness as I write. Awareness of kusala. > I think a out this. Probably with attachment. Akusala. > Fleeting moments of kusala in a day. If we try to make a practice out of them, it is all for nought. > > SN 1:1 is very very deep. All suttas are... Thanks for your response - I do appreciate your reflections on this above. In friendliness, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130401 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:37 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 13. philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear Group > >This made me think of Kuru where the outward conditions and the climate were most favorable for the development of the understanding of Dhamma. > The other day I met a Burmese Dhamma friend at crowded Shibuya station, where I once met Robert K. At that time I said to Robert that it must be kind of overwhelming, coming from the somewhat rural area in which he was living to the heart of Tokyo. All the same, just seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, he said. I told that to my Burmese friend as we walked to a lovely park. A lovely park with its fresh green leaves and quiet shady places certainly felt like a more suitable place to discuss Dhamma. But as for the development of the understanding of seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, it's difficult to understand why any one place is better than the other. If we are in a quiet place and think it is more suitable, there will just be desire for results, and self seeking control. An example of how it is difficult for people in this day and age with our greedy, results-oriented socially-conditioned accumulations to properly benefit from the Buddha's subtle guidance. The people of Kuru had very different accumulations, surely. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130402 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:49 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E Well, I've come to appreciate that you actually listen and try to understand what people are saying instead of just seeking to impose your own platform, thank you for that. But you see, I can't say it is kusala friendliness at this moment, there is lobha for someone posting in a way I approve of, in escape from dosa arising in response to ways of posting that I don't like. Or maybe there is kusala friendliness. We really can't know kusala from akusala in such a case and of course it is not something to fret about. Just interesting to note that there is always a lot of akusala mixed in when we might assume behaviour is purely kusala. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130403 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 9:52 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., - I appreciate your questions. You are a researcher who always searches for better and deeper knowledge. >RE: If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. If that's what it is, I have no idea why anyone would want to translate it as "own-being" which has so many more implications - something of one's "own" has the connotation of a self; while "being" has the connotation of an entity, so I think that translation really mystifies the idea of that "essence." I wonder how sabhava literally translates...? T: Yes, the "own-being" translation (by whom?) does imply an entity. A quick review of two Pali dictionaries shows the following meanings: bhava: becoming; the state of existence. bhaava: condition; nature; becoming. 'atta-bhaava': "personalized existence", "selfhood", "personal identity", "self state", or just "this body". {Tep: This shows that 'self' is not a bad four-letter word that is hated by some DSG members.} sabhaava : nature; condition; disposition; reality. [A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera Dictionary] sabhaavadhamma : principle of nature. sabhaava : 1. state (of mind), nature, condition.2. character, disposition, behaviour . 3. truth, reality, ... [PTS Dictionary] .......... >> T: ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. >RE: They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? T: I think sabhaava of any dhamma (a conditioned or unconditioned "nature"/reality) is intact. Jasmin flowers have their unique aroma, unchanged over millions of years (although there has been no jasmin tree that is older than a few decades). A sabhaava is inherent in the sabhaavadhamma or nature it represents. The Suttas talk about non-self sabhava-dhammas all the time, but no Arahants called them ultimate. .......... >RE: One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? T: I'd say all characteristics together define sabhaava of a dhamma. Sarah has often informed me that there are 28 rupas or "material phenomena" (as listed in the CMI book, for example). A visible object -- say body of a man-- is an aggregate of several "rupas" such as the four great essentials (dahatus, elements, properties), eye-sensitivity - body-sensitivity, visible form, sound, smell, tangibility (hardness), masculinity . [This example probably will invite criticism from the experts.] ............ >RE: Feeling has the characteristic of being felt, which is unique to it, but it also has characteristics of being contacted, being conscious of being felt, as there is no feeling without consciousness of feeling, etc. Maybe those are more secondary. For physical dhammas - rupas - such as hardness or the elements, it seems they have more co-equal characteristics on the physical level, but maybe there is just one major one and the others are subsidiary...? T: The importance ranking will depend on individual preference, I think. To my understanding the four great essentials are the major ones. ............ >RE: Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, .. T: Take my thoughts as strawman (for the experts to throw darts at), if you will. Thanks for the willingness to accompany this plankton in the lonely, vast ocean! Let's be brave, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E., - > > > > Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. > > > > >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined... ...to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ... something to hold onto... > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130404 From: "Christine" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 10:57 am Subject: WiPitaka - Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies- WiPitaka (Prof. Richard Gombrich) christine_fo... Send Email Send Email Hello all, Not sure if this has been posted on DSG before - over at DhammaWheel, member seekingheartwood has posted this message re Pali translations: ''As some of you know, retired Oxford professor Richard Gombrich volunteers his time going around the world to teach people how to translate Pali. The latest out growth of this efforts, with the Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies, is the WiPitaka: http://www.ocbs.org/wipitaka If you get a free moment, please check it out.'' with metta Chris Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130405 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 2, 2013 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, > > > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is > > behind it. > > There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural > > development in daily life and that of formal practice. > The latter is a > > denial of the former. > > Ok, but isn't the denial of your making? I mean, you designate the two > concepts as opposite, hence the denial. Others might not designate > them like that. > That development of wisdom must be natural / daily life is based on the understanding that all experiences are conditioned and arisen already by the time they are known. Therefore sati and panna, like any other dhamma, are not subjected to control of will but arises by specific conditions all of which are equally anatta. That they develop is due to their being sankhara dhammas and therefore based on prior arising of the same. That formal meditation needs to be undertaken in order that sati and panna is developed, is this from the same kind of understanding or completely different? > > The starting point is only when panna actually > > arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. > > I don't quite get what you are saying here. > You had suggested that: "Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". And elsewhere, the idea that we are all in the Buddha sasana and therefore as long as we have heard the teachings, this can condition right understanding. My point therefore, is that we can't assume this and that it is only when panna has actually arisen, that we can say that it can arise again. > > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the > > straightening of view more difficult to arise. > > Ok, but that's depending on what's meant by conventional designation > "formal practice". Different people designate it differently, you seem > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't happen without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? > > And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this > > condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during > > formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the > > formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting > > that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't > think > > that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti > > relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. > > Ok, if you want to discuss it, I get the impression from the above > that panna and pariyatti are somehow similar to sotapati in the sense > of making wrong view and wrong practice appear a lot less than before. > Coming to a conclusion about what constitutes practice while referencing the teachings, this is where I am speaking from, and not the understanding that is firm, as in that of the sotapana. In other words, if one believes that dhammas are anatta and beyond control and that there are in fact only dhammas, how can one at the same time think about meditation and believe that patipatti could arise during the time. > I might be wrong, but my thinking is that despite occasional pariyatti > moments with panna, there will still come plenty of wrong view and > wrong practice moments until sotapati happens. > Yes plenty, for both of us. > Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional > terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, > studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would > all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala > dhammas happening somewhere in there. > I miss the point you are making here. > > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The > > connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence > that > > the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any > > place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another > time, > > situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means > > that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but > > pariyatti as well. > > Ok, though again depending on how you designate the conventional > meaning of "meditation". You have your own, no worries, but there are > others. E.g. bhavana translated as meditation meaning a kusala citta > with panna, pariyatti translated as study also meaning a kusala citta > with panna. > I think that you are quite clear by now how I use it. What does it matter how anyone else uses it? My objection is based on the meaning and implications that I give. > But there are also others who equate study with wrong practice, just > like others equate meditation with wrong practice. Concepts can be > used anywhich way. > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong practice? Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice without the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. > > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and > to do > > something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at > > least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to > point > > out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. > > Well, again, that holds only according to your designation of terms. > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about meditation which does not involve self-view? > > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" > > just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? > I take it > > that you actually think this way. > > > > First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of > > reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to > > give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, > why? > > Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time > for > > leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you > > experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label > > one "formal meditation" and the other not? > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > pretty well. > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice motivated by wrong view. I don't label moments of satipatthana as "meditation" like you do. > > If yes, is the meditation in > "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it > > something else, and what would this be? > > Sure, sometimes there are more kusala moments during what I designate > "formal meditation". Sometimes there are less. There are no rules > since concepts and doings like meditating or not meditating are not > realities. Would there also be wrong view somewhere in there? Perhaps > you don't agree, but I do think wrong view arises very often, despite > any kusala that happens to arise occasionally. It's all just > conditioned moments that arise despite of what we may want to arise. > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? And you think that your novel idea should change the way I view the concept? Forget it, I reserve the right to use it the way I have been doing. First, I limit my use of formal meditation to something done in the name of Dhamma practice. This means that it is not about the arising of kusala at the level of samatha, but the arising of right view. Second, if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it is more likely that you are deluded. I am generalizing? Yes. Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130406 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, You said to Sukin : Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. May I jump in and say something: Although Sukin might not have much the inclination to read a lot, several members that we know very well here such as Nina, John, Sarah etc....are very well learnt, suttas as well as commentaries. They also share the same understanding than Sukin. So it is not a matter of reading enough or not, but a matter of understanding. People read the same suttas and understand it differently. Moreover, the Buddha mentioned four kinds of people: those who have heard little and succeed, those who have heard little and fail, those who have heard much and succeed, those who have heard much and fail. Metta, Tam B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130407 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:38 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Well, I've come to appreciate that you actually listen and try to understand what people are saying instead of just seeking to impose your own platform, thank you for that. Thanks for that assessment. > But you see, I can't say it is kusala friendliness at this moment, there is lobha for someone posting in a way I approve of, in escape from dosa arising in response to ways of posting that I don't like. Or maybe there is kusala friendliness. We really can't know kusala from akusala in such a case and of course it is not something to fret about. Just interesting to note that there is always a lot of akusala mixed in when we might assume behaviour is purely kusala. I think you are right to assume that there is a lot of akusala mixed in with whatever kusala arises. Those subtle attachments and defilements are very much worth being aware of, and sometimes they're of course not so subtle. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130408 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:53 pm Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > I appreciate your questions. You are a researcher who always searches for better and deeper knowledge. Well I should probably do more research! But I do like to look into these subjects as much as I can. > >RE: If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. ..."own-being" ... has the connotation of a self... > > T: Yes, the "own-being" translation (by whom?) does imply an entity. > > A quick review of two Pali dictionaries shows the following meanings: > > bhava: becoming; the state of existence. > bhaava: condition; nature; becoming. > 'atta-bhaava': "personalized existence", "selfhood", "personal identity", "self state", or just "this body". {Tep: This shows that 'self' is not a bad four-letter word that is hated by some DSG members.} > sabhaava : nature; condition; disposition; reality. [A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera Dictionary] > sabhaavadhamma : principle of nature. > sabhaava : 1. state (of mind), nature, condition.2. character, disposition, behaviour . 3. truth, reality, ... [PTS Dictionary] > .......... These definitions are very helpful. We can conclude that sabhava is something like the "nature" or "condition" or "disposition" of a dhamma, it represents the "character" of that dhamma, and it is a "truth" and a "reality." In other words, it is the real nature, character or condition of that dhamma, and by implication, the most important aspect of that dhamma's existence and function, which gives it its uniqueness. > >> T: ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. > > >RE: They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? > > T: I think sabhaava of any dhamma (a conditioned or unconditioned "nature"/reality) is intact. Jasmin flowers have their unique aroma, unchanged over millions of years (although there has been no jasmin tree that is older than a few decades). A sabhaava is inherent in the sabhaavadhamma or nature it represents. The Suttas talk about non-self sabhava-dhammas all the time, but no Arahants called them ultimate. > .......... I am still a little confused about this idea. I can understand that a certain kind of dhamma is going to arise with a certain kind of characteristic due to the sorts of conditions that give rise to it. For instance, when conditions come together for hearing to contact an object of hearing, that will allow for the arising of an object whose nature is to be heard. But I don't think it would be correct to say that the characteristic of hearing exists at a moment when no object of hearing is arising. Likewise, I don't think the smell of jasmines exists in some latent form where there is no jasmine flower. The fact that this smell arises according to plan when a jasmine flower grows is quite striking, but that does not mean that the smell exists without the flower, or that it has some special existence apart from the flowers that smell that way. I would say it is the co-incidence of like conditions that bring about a similar dhamma with a similar or same characteristic, rather than a characteristic having an independent existence of some kind. I would think that this would again be mystifying the sabhava into some kind of spiritual entity, rather than being a part of the conditional nature of the dhammas in question. > >RE: One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? > > T: I'd say all characteristics together define sabhaava of a dhamma... That is something that will require more contemplation on my part. ... > >RE: Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, .. > > T: Take my thoughts as strawman (for the experts to throw darts at), if you will. Thanks for the willingness to accompany this plankton in the lonely, vast ocean! > > Let's be brave, > Tep Thanks Tep, for a good conversation. Sabhava has always mystified me - I think it is a bit more clear now. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130409 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 3:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam, - I appreciate your gentle and persistent communication about the value of understanding. But we need to make sure that we understand/know the term "understanding" more or less the same. There are several kinds of understanding such as: 1. comprehension, 2. intellect (power of abstract thinking), 3. perception of a given situation, 4. sympathetic awareness, and 5. insight. The Visuddhimagga states (Chapter XIV, 1) that it is not easy even to know about understanding (insight), let alone to develop it. Vism XIV, 2 : "What is understanding? Understanding (pa~n~na) is of many sorts and has various aspects... so we shall confine ourselves to the kind intended here, which is understanding consisting in insight knowledge associated with profitable consciousness." But that kind of understanding (or wisdom) often is not the main concern here at DSG. >Tam: People read the same suttas and understand it differently. Moreover, the Buddha mentioned four kinds of people: those who have heard little and succeed, those who have heard little and fail, those who have heard much and succeed, those who have heard much and fail. T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > You said to Sukin : > > Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. > > > May I jump in and say something: .... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130410 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > >S:Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > To know how to practice. > How to do it or what it is? And why jump to the idea of practice? Is not the Eightfold Path the fourth of the Four Noble Truths and therefore it is imperative that you hear about the other three also? > >Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to > >know by oneself or from any other teacher? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This understanding is useless unless one puts it to use. > The idea of "putting into use" may be due exactly to not understanding what the Buddha taught. Therefore start again, because even if there is right understanding, one must begin again and again rather than the idea of application or of having direct experience. > One can know that smoking is bad, yet still smokes. Why? Due to > craving. And here is the difficulty lies. To resist the craving. > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. Worse is to resist it with self-view. > >Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? > > Very little after a while. > A difference in terms of accumulated understanding, and no worry about how much and when, dhammas works their way. Craving for direct understanding on the other hand, and further to be driven to wrong practices, this is not the right cause for the result aimed at. > >And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such > >understanding. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Its almost useless unless one puts it into a practice. > Knowing to swim and swimming are different. > Yes intellectual understanding is not direct understanding. However one leads to the other by conditions and not by a self who wishes it. Intellectual understanding knows that it is intellectual understanding and therefore far from being a problem, is sign of being on the right track. What is bad is wrong practice mistaken for right, where no direct understanding is ever involved, but wrong view makes appear otherwise. > >The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience > >ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is irrelevant to the path. Appropriate attention is to > contemplate 4NT rather than existence/non-existence. See MN2 > Four Noble Truths are not ultimate realities that exist? > > > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > > > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > > > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the > >ultimate realities alone. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > That is not what suttas or Abhidhamma teaches. > Of the Four Noble Truths, which one refers to persons? As to practice, it is the Fourth Noble Truth, but this is a particular set of cetasikas accompanying the citta, not a person who practices. > >Is seeing now "me"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Wrong reflection. See MN#2. > MN2 is about someone whose reference point is "I". in the above the reference point is "seeing", a dhamma. > >...this can be understood too, now, can it not? > > Better is to reflect on 4NT. See MN2 > Seeing consciousness is Dukkha, the First Noble Truth. > >Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away > >right now? > >>>>>>>>>> > > A better thing to see is arising and passing away of dukkha. MN2. > If you don't understand seeing consciousness as a dhamma, there is no way that you will ever understand it as Dukkha. > >One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a > >beginner go by and why? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > All relevant teaching minus improper speculative theories. > So you think that the Dhamma contains speculative theories? Anyway, please give a more precise answer as to which part of the teachings a beginner should go by. > >Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and > >achieving this and that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Talking that "self doesn't exist... Thus no control..." is exactly the > same kind of speculative story about self, that doesn't (supposedly) > exist. > Talking about "self" not existing but not understanding that there only dhammas is speculative. However when self is denied while asserting that there are only dhammas "now" to be known, this is pointing to the First Noble Truth. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130411 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 9:36 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >S:How to do it or what it is? And why jump to the idea of practice? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the suttas, please. Even the commentaries (VsM) talk about practice in seclusion. What you say about "no practice" contradicts suttas, commentaries, and very pro Abhidhamma monks such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, or many others. >S:Yes intellectual understanding is not direct understanding. >However one leads to the other by conditions and not by a self who >wishes it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One uses one's understanding to correctly practice. So in that way it is required condition. >S:Four Noble Truths are not ultimate realities that exist? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should not be put that way. 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.' 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced' This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed' SN56.11 >S:The idea of "putting into use" may be due exactly to not >understanding what the Buddha taught. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See above. >To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. >>>>>>>>>>>> "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html Check http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.042.wlsh.html Desire can be used to end desire. >S:Worse is to resist it with self-view. Strawman. One doesn't need to have self-view to follow Dhamma. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130412 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (Sukin, Tam), - >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. T: Thanks for pointing out the important fact that a problem (dukkha) can be caused by craving, rather than by self-view. A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha. Be joyful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all. > > Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, and it harms himself and others. .... > It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130413 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry!....Poem for Dr. Han Tun yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Brother Han, This Uposatha Day...please read my poems I wrote just for you! *********** Dear Brother Han I remember the day I joined SD and JTN Groups You were the first member to greet me I felt your sincerity..kindness..so clearly to see Whatever I posted.. you always encouraged me Helping me find stories that I looked for I posted Anuruddha..you gave me Rohini You said they were brother/sister May be like.. you and me Dear Brother Han You are my big brother That I truly love so dearly I wish you never feel sad or depressed I wish you blue-birds in the spring I wish you sweet songs to sing I wish you health and wealth But more than anything I wish you..you.. you Sotapatti Fruition! Why? Because Tep and I love you!: Namo Tassa song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1Oa31xYUQ Sister yawares *************** --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > > When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. > > My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). > > 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. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (8) #130414 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Professor Tep > > T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. > Did it ever occur to you that cutting and pasting chunks of sutta (suttantitos? suttantots?) and thrusting them under people's noses in order to score points in an Internet debate is a rather coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching? This morning I sat with SN 35 in the anthology, as is my wont. So much better a way to open patiently to the Buddha's words than having people like you cyber whacking me with suttantots. Just because people like me resist being hectored with suttantitos doesn't mean we don't treasure the suttanta. I recommend paraphrasing suttas, briefly, to demonstrate your understanding. Be refined, Be moderate, Be sensible, Phil Phil Phil P.s this is a one-time suggestion, conditioned by your comments. Nothing more to say on it. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130415 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 1:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Phil, - >Ph: Did it ever occur to you that cutting and pasting chunks of sutta (suttantitos? suttantots?) and thrusting them under people's noses in order to score points in an Internet debate is a rather coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching? T: I need to see a few examples of what you're calling "coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching" because I have no idea what you are complaining and accusing me about. Let's examine together in this forum whatever evidence you can produce, and if you can prove that your complain is not a lie with the purpose to abuse (but I don't have any clue why you'd want to commit such a sinful kamma!), then I promise to offer my apologies & correct the problem for you. .............. >Ph: Just because people like me resist being hectored with suttantitos doesn't mean we don't treasure the suttanta. I recommend paraphrasing suttas, briefly, to demonstrate your understanding. > > Be refined, > Be moderate, > Be sensible, T: Again, no hollow accusation, please. Produce an adequate evidence and submit it. Be a gentleman, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Hello Professor Tep > > > > T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. > > > > Phil > Phil > Phil > > P.s this is a one-time suggestion, conditioned by your comments. Nothing more to say on it. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130416 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 2:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Phil, Sukin, all, It is one thing to teach "KS Teaching" and call it her teaching. It is totally different to call it Buddha's teaching as found in the suttas, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and even VsM. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130417 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:06 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (& Sukin), > > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. > "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " I think the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) might help a bit here. Alberto ************* Discourses of the Buddha - An Anthology - Part 1 - Translated by Nyanaponika Thera - BPS Wheel N. 155-158, page 120n note 64. ta.nha.m nissaaya ta.nha.m pajahati - Com: "Based on the present craving (i.e. desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantaship) is wholesome (kusala) or unwholesome (akusala)? - It is unwholesome. Should it be pursued or not? - It should be pursued (sevitabbaa). Does it drag one into rebirth (pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati) or not? - It does not drag one into rebirth. Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130418 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:12 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Alberto, all, Comy agrees with what I have said: "It should be pursued (sevitabbaa)...It does not drag one into rebirth...Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained." It is also similar to parable of the raft. N8P is sankhata, yet it leads to asankhata. Parable of the raft: one uses the raft to cross over, and then it is discarded. Similar is with meditation. Even though one may start with little amount of right views, as one gains insight, one will develop more right view. The goal is NOT the path as some unorthodox mahayana teachings can teach. Path starts as imperfect and it brings, it doesn't create, it brings one to Nibbana. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130419 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 8:13 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alberto , Alex (Sukin), - According to the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) that helps more than a bit for me, I learnt this : Due to the present craving (desire for becoming an Arahant) he gives up previous craving that was the root cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. It is unwholesome. It should be pursued. It does not drag one into rebirth. Such permissible craving is abandoned when its object is attained. Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the Self to drag one into rebirth? Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka , or is his teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to follow? Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Alex (& Sukin), > > > > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. > > > "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on > craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " > > I think the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) might help a bit here. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130420 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:59 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, Sukin, all, >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone >attain arahantship? >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >T:Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the >Self to drag one into rebirth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craving and self view are not the same. There can be craving without self views, such as craving found in sotapanna to anagami stage. >T:Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka , or is his >teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to >follow? >>>>>>>>>>>>> He teaches correctly. It is only clinging to views that, IMHO, cause some to create issues that He didn't have. If practice was wrong because it developed Self Views, and this sort of practice was widely known, don't you think that it would be all over the suttas him saying it over and over again? Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130421 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, Tep, all >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. -------------------- Tam B:  Well, the texts tell us that  craving is a nama,  a mental factor;  it has  a distinctive characteristic which is not the same as aversion or feeling, though normally people mix all of them up and call it "emotion". And craving, like any other dhamma, is not I, me or mine, and it can be understood as such, now. >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. -------------------- Tam B:  the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative ? I think it becomes speculative when one doesn't really investigate the meaning of "a dhamma". What is a dhamma? Is tasting-base I, me, mine? Is the taste I, me, or mine? Is the tasting consciousness I, me or mine? Do they last? Do they really bring satisfaction? That is the reality of drinking, which can be investigated, very little by little.  Don't you see that it is understanding which is doing the work, whatever is the level ? Just wanting with ignorance don't. T: Thanks for pointing out the important fact that a problem (dukkha) can be caused by craving, rather than by self-view. A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha. ------------------- Tam B:  So self-view has to disappear first, right? Without the eradication of self-view, can there be the eradication of tanha? By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. I would like to quote Nina's vipassana letters, No 11: "We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (I, Sagatha-vagga, Ch I , The Devas, 3, The Sword Suttas, par. I, By Impending Sword) that a deva said to the Buddha: As one downsmitten by impending sword, >As one whose hair and turban are aflame, >So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert, >Go forth, all worldly passions left behind. The Exalted One said: As one downsmitten by impending sword, >As one whose hair and turban are aflame, >So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert, >Go forth, leaving personality-belief behind. Just as the person who has been struck by a sword or whose hair and turban are aflame will not be neglectful but apply energy to remedy his dangerous situation, even so should the bhikkhu not be neglectful, but mindful and alert. The Buddha repeated what the deva said, but he changed one line, and this change is very meaningful. The deva spoke about subduing the sense pleasures. However, so long as they have not been eradicated by the magga-citta so long will one be bound by them. We read in the commentary to this sutta, the "Saratthappakasini", that the Buddha, in view of this, wanted to change the deva's verse, using the same similes but applying them to the first magga-citta (the magga-citta of the sotapanna) which eradicates personality-belief, sakkaya ditthi. We may easily overlook the subtle point of this sutta. We understand in theory that first of all wrong view has to be eradicated before finally, at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the anagami, clinging to sense pleasures can be eradicated. Even though we know this, we are still inclined to worry about our attachment to sense pleasures instead of knowing its characteristic when it appears. This is the only way to finally be able to eradicate it" Metta, Tam B === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130422 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 4:36 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, (Tam, others) - So you agree with me that without a desire for becoming an Arahant, no-one can attain arahantship. >>Tep: Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the Self to drag one into rebirth? >Alex: No. Craving and self view are not the same. There can be craving without self views, such as craving found in sotapanna to anagami stage. T: Exactly! ........... >>Tep: Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka, or is his teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to follow? >Alex: He teaches correctly. It is only clinging to views that, IMHO, cause some to create issues that He didn't have. Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. T: The twisting of the Sutta meaning to be something else is not a wrong view, it is a wrong speech with wrong intention. However, saying that there is no Self is right in the sense of 'no Soul' and 'no Ego-identity'. The word 'atta' -- the lower-case self-- is often seen in the Suttas in the conventional sense, e.g. 'attaahi attano naatho' = one's self is one's own refuge. ........... >Alex: This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. T: Thank you for clearing me from that debate on Khun Sujin's teaching. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sukin, all, > > >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone >attain arahantship? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130423 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:10 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Alex (& Pt), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > >A: At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? ... S: Lots of detail in 'useful posts' under 'commentaries -origins'. All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. Here's a quote by I.B.Horner I've given before, which I've given before, from her Preface to the commentary of the Buddhavamsa: "Through enemies and friends alike deleterious change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The commentaries are the armour and protection agains such an eventuality. As they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to understand them but to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they comment on it. They are as 'closed' now as is the Pali Canon. No additions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to be contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included within it." .... S: As for the Vimuttimagga, this is not included. ... > > There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. I guess some schools/texts will seem appealing, some dwn't. That's as far as anyone can tell nowadays I guess without actual nanas of whatever level. .... S: In the end, the Dhamma is now, the reality now that can be directly known.So what is important is what can be tested now. Is there seeing now? Is the citta kusala or akusala when wondering about the origins? Is it hardness or a computer touched now? Metta Sarah ======= #130424 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, (Tep), > Comy agrees with what I have said I think the Cmy referred to craving for nibbana, a reality, the object of arahantaship, which eradicates craving itself, thus putting an end to the cycle. And I also think that this particular kind of craving can only be conditioned by understanding realities as non self, at its first two levels (pariyatti and patipatti). Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130425 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: .... No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! <....> > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. ... S: What about micchaa pa.tipada (wrong practice)? SN 12:3 (3), The Two Ways (Pa.tipadaasutta.m) (Bodhi transl): "At Saavtthi. 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way (micchaapa.tipada) and the right way (sammaapa.tipada).... " 'And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness...Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way. " 'And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations..... This, bhikkhus, is called the right way." Nina summarised the commentary to this sutta: "The wrong way is the way that does not deliver beings from dukkha. The Commentary explains that in this respect also the attainment of the stages of jhaana (the eight jhaana samaapatti, including ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana) and the five 'supra-natural powers' (abhi~n~naas ) are part of the cycle (vatta) and are as such the wrong way of practice. The way of practice by which ignorance and the other defilements are completely eradicated and nibbaana is attained is the right way. Further on, the Commentary explains that in this sutta the practice is considered from the point of view of the result it leads to: the continuation of the cycle (vatta) or the end of the cycle (vivatta). When it leads to the end of defilements, nibbaana, it is the right way practice. The Commentary states that even the offering of one ladle of rice or a handful of leaves can be the right way of practice, leading out of the cycle. When someone performs daana together with satipatthaana, without the idea of self who is giving, the giving is very pure, it is the right practice." **** S: We also read in many suttas about the right and the wrong path factors. Without right understanding of present realities, the distinction will never be known. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130426 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:41 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: ....No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! ... S: From an old message I wrote: >S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or "meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising. The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka, comes down to the understanding of this moment. For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: (Ananda speaking): "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust (kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. "While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation." We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas, are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. Only the development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice". 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."< **** Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130427 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:53 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: Isn't it fair to say that commentators sometimes disagree among themselves? ... S: Can you give me an example? ... > ......... > >S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? > > T: Then the whole keyboard is seen, and the touch adds a sensed fact that it is hard or soft. That "experience" does not lead to the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of rupakkhandha, though. ... S: No, because it's not the understanding of dhammas. We think we see a keyboard, but this is just thinking about what is seen. At the momet of seeing, only visible object appears - just the seen. At another moment, hardness is experienced by body consciousness. It is the understanding of dhammas, elements, no person or thing there, that gradually the understanding of conditions and of the ti-lakkhana of such dhammas becomes known, beginning with the understanding of the clear distinction between those dhammas which cannot experience anything and those dhammas which can experience an object - all anatta. ... Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130428 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:09 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >S (message #130259): Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. > > T: I think you are refering to the 'sabhava' or "essence" of the paramattha dhamma 'rupa', rather than to forms or form-aggreagte themselves: it's like an atomic physicist who refuses to see nothing but the atoms. ... S: rupa is rupa khandha. "Form" is just a translation of rupa. Only rupas are experienced through the 5 sense doors. .... > T: I don't think our Greatest Teacher switched anything: he always talked about the dhammas and their sabhava. There is no mention of paramattha (ultimate) in the Sutta teachings. > The confusion arose later, long after the Parinibbana. > ............ ... S: Dhammas are namas ad rupas. These are paramattha dhammas. No matter what words are used, it is the same dhammas, dhatus, khandhas, ayatanas referred to throughout the Tipitaka. There are entire sections of the Suttanta under these headings - all to stress the anattaness of dhammas. .... > > >S: Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! > > T: Yes, if our purpose is to contemplate hardness as a sabhava dhamma --a characteristic of materialities. > ............ S: Let's be clear that hardness is not "a characteristic of materialities" - there are only rupas such as hardness experienced through the bodysense - nothing else at all. ... > T: Yet, in many DSG discussion messages it does not seem that "theoretical understanding of dhammas" is the purpose. The following two declarations show direct understanding/ direct knowing of paramattha dhammas by the speaker. > > "There has to be very clear understanding of what visible object is and how it is distinct from seeing consciousness. There also has to be clear understanding of many other rupas and namas appearing in a day. Without such understanding, there will never be the very highly developed understanding which understands the arising and falling away of realities." > > "Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately." .... S: The only distinction between pariyatti and patipatti is in the degree of right understanding. It is always the direct understanding of dhammas that is the goal. Without hearing, carefully considering and appreciating what those dhammas are at this moment, they will never be directly understood. ... > >S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. > > T: Those are legitimate questions every student who intends to apply any theory/principle and develop skills would ask! ... S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130429 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. > >R: Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. ... S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130430 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam (Alex, others) - Thank you for giving an opinion on anatta, self-view, and craving/tanha. >>Alex: Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. >Tam: the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative ? I think it becomes speculative when one doesn't really investigate the meaning of "a dhamma". What is a dhamma? Is tasting-base I, me, mine? Is the taste I, me, or mine? Is the tasting consciousness I, me or mine? Do they last? Do they really bring satisfaction? ............. Tep: I think 'Sabbe dhamma anatta.' means 'all dhammas are not-self', i.e., they are not what a person conceives (and is attached to) as his/her ego. However, you're right about the taste and tasting consciousness, and also about the dhammas in general that, as sabhava-dhammas, they are anicca.m, dukkha.m, and anatta (empty of self and anything pertaining to self). We contemplate the anatta characteristic often in order that we may let go (relinquish) "the All" for the cessation of dukkha. Earlier I made a comment : "A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha." and you wrote this: >Tam: So self-view has to disappear first, right? Without the eradication of self-view, can there be the eradication of tanha? [Nina in Vipassana Letter 11:]"We understand in theory that first of all wrong view has to be eradicated before finally, at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the anagami, clinging to sense pleasures can be eradicated." Tep: Apparently, you had Nina's vipassana letter in mind. It is clear, but nothing is deep at all, that the first stage of ariya-puggala is the Sotapanna who eradicates self-view. How can one become Arahant, who finally eradicates craving, without first passing through the Sotapatti? But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. ............. >Tam: By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. Tep: So would you advise an alcoholic, who wants to quit drinking, that he/she has to become Sotapanna first? Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Alex, Tep, all > > >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. > -------------------- > Tam B:  Well, the texts tell us that  craving is a nama,  a mental factor;  it has  a distinctive characteristic which is not the same as aversion or feeling, though normally people mix all of them up and call it "emotion". And craving, like any other dhamma, is not I, me or mine, and it can be understood as such, now. > > >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. > >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful > at certain stage. > -------------------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130431 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. > >R: Yes, those are worthwhile distinctions. Are those the three types of dukkha? Physical pain [on account of kamma,] Mental discomfort/suffering [second arrow?] and then the inherent suffering/unsatisfactoriness/unpleasantness inherent in the arising of all phenomena? ... S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130432 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html > =============== J: The passage is an interesting one. My reading of it is as follows: Question: What is the development of concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents? Answer: Directly knowing the arising and the falling away of dhammas. In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. > =============== > > J: So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. > > T: That is basically what we differ in our opinion. Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. > =============== J: Quite so, awareness/insight does not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. However, what I said earlier (i.e., that "practice (of the path)" measn the actula arising of awareness/insight) does not contradict that statement. > =============== > T: Knowledge and vision must be trained (i.e. developed through practice). > > "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. The practice of insight meditation aims at dislodging the defilements by eradicating the ignorance at their base. Ignorance is overcome by generating, through mindful observation, a direct insight into things as they really are. The material upon which insight works is precisely the sphere where ignorance is concealed, our own psycho-physical experience. Its method is the application of mindfulness or discerning awareness to this sphere without interruption and in all activities." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#top > =============== J: What you have quoted above is Ven. Bodhi's personal interpretation of the texts, and not a translation or summary of any specific text (Tipitaka or commentaries). Of course, there's no reason why the Ven. should not give his own views; however, it is appropriate to check any personal views stated/interpretations given against the texts. The Ven. says that the Canonical term "development of insight" (Pali: "vipassana bhavana") refers to a "system of meditation" that must be "practised". As far as I know, there is no term in the Pali texts for "meditation" as used in this manner. The Ven. does not give any references from the texts to support his interpretation. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130433 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 3, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, all T: But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. ............. Tam B:  That wrong view is eradicated before craving is not anyone's decision, isn't it? It is merely how Dhamma is. Similarly, it doesn't depend on someone's decision that craving can be reduced. Assuming so would tantamount to assume a self who can control dhammas at will. The degree that craving can be gradually reduced, so we learn, depends on the degree of the understanding/wisdom/panna which has been developed. So I think it is not a matter deciding to do something about it, or to not do something about it, as both implies an idea of a self.  Rather, isn't it more in accordance to the Dhamma that understanding should be developed, as all important wholesome dhammas circle around right view (MN117)? I think it is not beyond our own consideration  that craving gradually decrease as our understanding of the Dhamma grows (even at the intellectual level), without having to do anything about it. >Tam: By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. Tep: So would you advise an alcoholic, who wants to quit drinking, that he/she has to become Sotapanna first? --------------------- Tam B: I didn't advise anything, it is just a re-statement of what has been said in the texts.  It was said in the context of Alex's denying the role of right view in the cure of alcoholism. Again, things happen because of conditions, and how can we predict what conditions will arise at what moment? But we know from the Buddha that hearing the Dhamma and wise considering are the cause of wisdom and of all wholesomeness, that can condition more studying and considering, which at due course, will bear result. Metta Tam B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130434 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tam, all, >Tam B:  the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is practical advice not to consider whatever phenomenon that arise as "Self". This doesn't even refute speculative view of atta. Some theoreticians can say that "sabbe dhamma" is limited set of what is, and Atta is beyond that. While I don't agree with this because it is a view, this is what I understand some atta-vadins to teach. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130435 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, all, >S:All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils >by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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). At least when the Buddha was alive, he could have used his authority to rebuke wrong views... But when he is gone... After the Buddha there were about 19-20 early schools... With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130436 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:14 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Alberto, all, >And I also think that this particular kind of craving can only be >conditioned by understanding realities as non self, at its first two >levels (pariyatti and patipatti). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as one believes in no-self, one can't even reach stream entry, and those who preach it are not even stream-enterers. IMHO. Rather, one needs to treat everything that arises as not-self, anatta. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130437 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:25 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils >by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 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. ... >At least when the Buddha was alive, he could have used his authority to rebuke wrong views... But when he is gone... > > After the Buddha there were about 19-20 early schools... .... S: Yes and the wise Theras rebuked the wrong views and attempts at schisms and alterations of Dhamma Vinaya. However, the Truths will never be understood by historical analysis and argument, only by testing out what is correct. What appears now? Is there doubt about the reality appearing now? Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130438 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:46 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon, - >J: In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. T: Your answer is neither conclusive nor convincing without your own definition of "awareness/insight" Or just give me the Pali word for it. I guess it is yathabuta~nana that is supported by right concentration (samma samadhi), the 8th factor of the path. ......... >>T: Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. >J: Quite so, awareness/insight does not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. However, what I said earlier (i.e., that "practice (of the path)" means the actual arising of awareness/insight) does not contradict that statement. T: Ha, ha :) .. your unyieldling view of "practice(of the path)" must be supported by a strong belief --'This is my understanding'-- that seems to be a self -view . ......... >>Tep's quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's Transcendental Dependent Arising: "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. ... > J: What you have quoted above is Ven. Bodhi's personal interpretation of the texts, and not a translation or summary of any specific text (Tipitaka or commentaries). Of course, there's no reason why the Ven. should not give his own views; however, it is appropriate to check any personal views stated/interpretations given against the texts. T: FYI the text to be checked against is the one the venerable used in writing this article: the Upanisa Sutta. A person who doubts everyone --except himself-- may end up not learning much even if he lives to be 100. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130439 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, 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. Also, how do we know that commentators were Arahants, or even ariyans? >S: Yes and the wise Theras rebuked the wrong views and attempts at >schisms and alterations of Dhamma Vinaya. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I've read, it was sthaviravadins who altered Vinaya, while mahasanghikas did not. "One reason for the interest in the origins of the Mahasamghika school is that their Vinaya recension appears in several ways to represent an older redaction overall." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81s%C4%81%E1%B9%83ghika With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130440 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, all, >J:The passage is an interesting one. My reading of it is as >follows:> Question: What is the development of concentration that >leads to the ending of the effluents? Answer: Directly knowing the >arising and the falling away of dhammas. > >In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the >effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. > >So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of >developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutta does seem to suggest a sequence of developing Samadhi: ============================== "There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a 1) pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 2) the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 3) mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 4) the ending of the effluents." an 4.41 ================================ Numbers are mine. There is no way to go around Jhana as requisite. It is part of N8P, it is not optional like arupa attainments. Before hindrances are suppressed, and mind is tranquil, one cannot really see with insight arising & ceasing. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130441 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, Thep and friends >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? >>>>>>>>>>>> >No. JJ: In Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey (translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkh) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html the Buddha mentioned about "papanca dhamma" which is dhamma assails and stops a person to end the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming and the obsessions of ignorance. The Pali Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought: craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow the mind down in its escape from samsara. And any type of desire or craving and self views demoralize wholesomeness of mind including desire for becoming an Arahat. It is, therefore, very odd when one interprets that desire for becoming an Arahat can attain a person arahantship with simple meaning by citing Bhikkuni sutta. Moreover, there is an issue of translation of this sutta as well as interpretation mentioned in useful post #100183 : ------------------------- "C: "I usually don't trust his translations, but this instance is an exception. It is Thanissaro's rendering of the Bhikkhuni Sutta that accords with theAnguttara Commentary, not the PTS one." The PTS edition gives: "...'This body has come into being through craving, is dependent on craving; craving must be abandoned..." Thanissaro: "...This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned..." And the Paa.li: Ta.nhaasambhuuto aya.m, bhagini, kaayo ta.nha.m nissaaya. Ta.nhaa pahaatabbaa 'ti, iti kho paneta.m vutta.m. C: "...we meet with the clarifying statement: 'so aparena samayena ta.nha.m nissaaya ta.nha.m pajahati'... 'He, on a later occasion, [through] having relied on craving, abandons craving.'" Scott: What is not ambiguous is that at all times, despite conventional language, the function of impersonal dhammas is being described in this sutta. I consider that the suttas are expressed conventionally and that it doesn't do to take these conventional expressions in a literal fashion. In particular, it doesn't do to misunderstand the meaning of 'he...having relied on craving, abandons craving,' Or, as Thanissaro puts it, 'it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' There is no one who relies on or uses anything, nor is there anyone who abandons. No one 'bootstraps' anything. There is no 'using' of craving by an agent in order to 'abandon' craving. And I think this is the whole of Thanissaro's project. Given that all dhammas are anatta, and that the characteristic of anatta is that any given dhamma is not subject to control, then this whole premise founders. C: "The commentary explains that the craving rooted in the past round of sa.msaara is abandoned through relying on the presently arisen craving (for extinction of the aasavas). It then continues: aya.m pana paccuppannata.nhaa kusalaa akusalaati? akusalaa. sevitabbaa na sevitabbaati? sevitabbaa. pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati naaka.d.dhatiiti? naaka.d.dhati. etissaapi pana paccuppannaaya sevitabbata.nhaaya nikanti pajahitabbaayeva. Q. But is this presently arisen craving wholesome or unwholesome? A. It is unwholesome. Q. Must it be embraced or not embraced? A. It must be embraced. Q. Does it draw one towards rebirth-linking? A. It does not draw one. However, desire for the presently arisen craving-that-must-be-embraced must be abandoned." Scott: From the PTS PED: "Paccuppanna...what has arisen (just now), existing, present..." What is your take on the meaning of the commentary? Are we dealing then with a dhamma (ta.nhaa) which is present in this case? Is 'ta.nhaa' meant as a synonym for 'lobha?' It seems to me that 'ta.nhaa' is used when the reference is to that which leads to the round of rebirth, but that, ultimately, it refers to lobha cetasika. In what sense is 'the presently arisen craving' 'relied' upon? Would it not be in the sense of serving as object of liberating wisdom? And, for that matter, could not any dhamma could serve as object in this regard? One need not assume, for example, that the sutta or its commentary mean to suggest that by literally craving abandonment someone can use this craving to finally achieve abandonment craving after working hard towards it. Sorry for the loose thinking, I'm writing on the fly here. Sincerely, Scott." -------------------------- JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. And this should be the same as self view and conceit. ================================ >A: If practice was wrong because it developed Self Views, and this sort of practice was widely known, don't you think that it would be all over the suttas him saying it over and over again? JJ: Practice cannot be wrong with right view of no self. ================================= >A: Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. JJ: In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera : The Blessed One said this. "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self... "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self... "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self... "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' This sutta clearly states that there is no dhamma as self at all and should apply to all suttas no exception. On the other hand, to study other suttas with the concept or view of self will totally twist the ultimate point of teaching for thoroughly understand dhamma of the Buddha and create wrong view of self unnoticable. And this is why I see many hard work practitioners (including meditators) are so deeply proud of their experience and knowledge. ============================= >A: This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. JJ: I respect your opinion but Than Acharn Sujin studys and explains dhamma accordance to Tipitika all vinaya, suttas and abhidhamma with commentaries thoroughly for more than 60 years. To conclude that her teaching is different to Tipitika without undisputed reason to clerify your support seems to be unfair. However, Than Acharn Sujin always said that do not rely upon any teaching of any teachers and also not our own idea but carefully consider and investigate the detail of dhamma explanation whether it has reason in all aspect of Tipitika. not only some parts. And most importantly whether the explanation leads us to understanding variety of dhammas which are realities appearing to us right now at this moment, not just know only wordings which will be forgotten at last. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130442 From: Sukinder Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > > S: >One listens to the Buddha's teachings to understand something one > otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other > teacher. One keeps on listening because one sees the value of such > understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the > intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding. > So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the > necessary initial level of understanding? > > T: What you think you are listening to may not always be > what-the-Buddha-taught. So you have to double-check it with several > suttas. > Only one's own accumulated panna can be a reliable guide. If no panna, checking with the Suttas will not help. If influenced by wrong view, checking with the suttas will only reinforce the wrong view. Is what I understand at the present moment what the Buddha really taught? Let me put it this way. What I understand now, is not only the best set of teachings I've ever come across, but the only one that would qualify as Truth. And this I attribute the Buddha, who I consider the only enlightened teacher. > If you listen to a wrong idea, and keep on listening, it will be like > mud accumulation on a pig's tail! The poor pig runs around crying in > pain, but it does not "understand now" what is causing the pains. > Well, what I have been hearing is the only set of teachings that encourage understanding "now". And this is precisely what my confidence is built upon. > T: I do not deny that every beginner needs intellectual (not stupid) > understanding; but intellectual ideas may still be incorrect. > Intellectual understanding stands opposite to wrong understanding, not to stupidity. Being stupid is not an obstacle to intellectual understanding, but wrong understanding is. A smart person who can attend to and manipulate ideas may not have any pariyatti or intellectual understanding at all. On the other hand, a slow witted person who can't seem to remember anything that he's heard, may have some understanding at the intellectual level and which can later result in direct understanding or patipatti. > How may an assumed-correct intellectual understanding of what-is-heard > progress toward direct knowing of the khandhas that they are anicca.m, > dukkha.m, anatta? > Understanding is understanding, different from remembering and having the ability to attend to various ideas. One sign of intellectual understanding and its relation to direct understanding is confidence that the reality "now" is what needs to be understood. This means that, if one continues to insist on another time, place and activity as means to develop mindfulness and wisdom, this is sign of a lack of right understanding and the presence of wrong understanding. > Direct experience of the dhammas such as > sense objects, sense media, and the five aggregates is absolutely > important for direct knowing, i.e., "knowledge and vision of things as > they really are" (yathabhuta~nanadassana) that supports disenchantment > (nibbida) leading to the cessation of dukkha. The Upanisa Sutta shows > the dependent conditions. Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html > Without much patipatti there can never be pativedha. In the same way, without much pariyatti, there can never be patipatti. > S: >We all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all > day. What is lacking is intellectual understanding that they are > indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, > separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This understanding is > supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there > can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include > from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view. > > T: No, all of us do not experience ultimate realities > (paramattha-dhammas) that arise and pass away rapidly; > Without experience of ultimate realities, I wouldn't be writing this message and you wouldn't be reading it. Is there not seeing and that which is seen, touching and hardness, thinking, pleasant and unpleasant feelings, attachment, ignorance, aversion and so on? Are not these ultimate realities and do we not refer to them all day as in "I see", "I feel happy or angry" or "how did you like the taste of the food?" > our perceptions are perverted (vipallasa) so our minds do not have > samadhi at the level of right concentration to know and see the > ultimate realities, Sukin. > There is sanna and citta vipallasa with all akusala cittas, not when the citta is kusala. When wrong view arises, it is in addition, also ditthi vipallasa. There is no vipallasa when there is pariyatti, so when there is intellectual understanding of seeing now, thinking now, touching now, this is right. To deny that these exist or are expereinced and to go on to believe in ideas such as "need for concentration in order to see ultimate realities", this is wrong view and therefore at that time, all three vipallasas are present. > What you are claiming to understand ultimate realities as "indeed > ultimate realities and not a 'self' who owns, is within, separate from > or identical with, the khandhas" is just a false claim caused by > ignorance. > I admit that pariyatti arises only in flashes, and most of the time I speak from memory. But I think, you are denying that pariyatti understanding is right understanding, therefore this speaking from memory has no basis at all, is that right? > You still have the 20 self-identifications (attaditthi), don't you? > Thus it is impossible to pretend that you have the outlook that > "include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of > self-view". You may be confused, Sukin. > No, you are the one who is confused. You are saying that so long as one has not attained stream-entry where all wrong view is eradicated, there can't be any recognition of wrong view. This is saying that enlightenment happens as a result of causes other then the development of wisdom. > S: >You are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that > we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry > happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of > attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. > This can't happen, can it? > > T: I think you misquoted me. Please provide an evidence to show my > writing that supports using "atta sanna as means of attaining anatta > sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view". > Well, your objection above to my suggestion that the development of wisdom from the very beginning include recognizing wrong view, this implies that one will be motivated by wrong view, is it not? If one can't with right view, recognize wrong view, then invariably one will proceed to study and practice with wrong view, no? > Wrong views must be abandoned and right view is to be developed. Period. > And part of the development of Right View is recognizing wrong view as wrong view. Without this, wrong view will never be abandoned. Period. > > >T: Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away > right now? > > S: > You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why > in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming > that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means > that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not > talk about and go by such ideas. > > T: For one who knows that he/she has a low level of wisdom muddy>, there should be no claim of understanding of ultimate > realities. Period. > This comes from someone who has yet to experience the first step along the Path of understanding the Four Noble Truths. > Muddy understanding can become less muddy and finally progresses to > direct knowing through following the Buddha's teachings about sila, > sense restraint, and samatha-vipassana meditation. > What is sila and how does it influence the ability to understand seeing or that which is seen, "now"? What is sense restraint, and how is it different from vipassana? What is samatha? And please don't respond simply by giving quotes, because when you do this, your understanding remains hidden from view. A parrot can quote too, but does it understand? > >S: One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a > beginner go by and why? > > T: Everything the Buddha taught about sila (starting with the Five > Precepts), samadhi and panna at the level that he/she can understand > and verify. Then apply what-the-Buddha-taught to everyday living. > We need to know what sila in reality is, do we not? So what is it? Also we need to understand what samadhi is and how it influences panna, do we not? So please say a little about this too? Applying what the Buddha taught in everyday living, like understanding the reality "now", right? Is this what you encourage? Or do you want us to do something else first? > >S: one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas > the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is > talking about following > suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love > stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and > that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of > thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose > their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and > that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other > category. > > T: This accusation that everybody else, except you and some DSG > members you know, has the Self Demon lurking behind is based on a > wrong view: "I don't have self-views, they do". > Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", such as the need for sila and samatha-vipassana meditation, whatever this means? How did you draw the statement "I don't have self-views, they do", from what I said? Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130443 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:12 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? Sounds a bit like asking if one walking in the rain can get back home with dry clothes and hair without having the (unwholesome) desire to open his/her umbrella :) Seriously, I think that what matters most in getting just a little bit closer to the farther shore is understanding realities arising now, one at the time, by conditions, through hearing the Dhamma and considering it wisely. Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130444 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:14 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Tam (Alex, Jon, Sarah) - >Tam: That wrong view is eradicated before craving is not anyone's decision, isn't it? It is merely how Dhamma is. Similarly, it doesn't depend on someone's decision that craving can be reduced. Assuming so would tantamount to assume a self who can control dhammas at will. Tep: It is not a decision but intention, and it is also a right view to abandon craving (origin of dukkha) that arises with feeling at each of the six sense doors. [Samma-ditthi Sutta:] "When a noble disciple has thus understood craving, the origin of craving, the cessation of craving, and the way leading to the cessation of craving... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Besides, abandoning greed (abhijjha, lobha) and distress(domanassa) is an important part of training in the four foundation of mindfulness. >Tam: Rather, isn't it more in accordance to the Dhamma that understanding should be developed, as all important wholesome dhammas circle around right view (MN117)? Tep: MN 117 states that right effort and right mindfulness are the wholesome dhammas, including right view itself, which "circle around" right view to develop it further. Right effort is "doing something" -- to make an effort to abandon akusala and develop kusala dhammas. It consists of four components: endeavor to restrain(samvara-padhana); endeavor to dispel(pahana padhana); endeavor to develop (bhavana-padhana); and endeavor to protect (anurakkhana-padhana). See AN 4. Catukkanipata 2. Caravaggo 4. Samvarasutta. The metta.lk Web site. >Tam: I think it is not beyond our own consideration that craving gradually decrease as our understanding of the Dhamma grows (even at the intellectual level), without having to do anything about it. ... we know from the Buddha that hearing the Dhamma and wise considering are the cause of wisdom and of all wholesomeness, that can condition more studying and considering, which at due course, will bear result. Tep: In theory, yes. But in practice the important point has been that intellectual understanding is a weakling when it comes to fighting with the bully greed, lust, thirst and hunger for pleasurable things! Very intelligent people who have high education, rich experiences and great trainings tend to be the most greedy, selfish with insatiable hunger for morepower, more fame, and more riches! You must have understanding at the level that you know greed the way it really is so that this knowledge (~nana) can condition disenchantment (nibbida) and dispassion (viraga), otherwise there is no hope to deal with craving. Now, how does one know sensual desire, as it really is, such that he/she will not fall to an agreeable sign and, therefore, greed will not overcome him/her? [MN 10:] "Herein, monks, when sensual desire is present in him the monk knows, 'There is sensual desire in me,' or when sensual desire is absent he knows, 'There is no sensual desire in me.' He knows how the arising of non-arisen sensual desire comes to be; he knows how the rejection of the arisen sensual desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the rejected sensual desire comes to be." [The same idea applies to other hindrances: ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.] ........... Have faith, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all > > T: But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130445 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, Tep, Alex and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > 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."< 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. The Buddha of course does not praise meditation that is "mid-meditation" as it is called in the sutta, any more than we would praise a drunk airline pilot. That does not mean that he does not praise corrrect meditation that is not supporting the hindrances. In fact, while saying that he does not praise mis-meditation, it is clear that he does praise correct meditation. The idea that such correct meditation is only at the naturally-arisen moment of insight and has no relation to the activity of "formal" meditation is not borne out by anything that I have read. The suttas talk in detail about formal meditation practices and the Buddha praises them. The Visudhimagga is filled with meditation practices which it says are part of the correct practice of meditation. No one would argue that an akusala moment is a great meditation moment, it is not. But the idea that meditation itself is akusala and cannot lead to the development of insight is not borne out by anything I have ever seen, and is in direct contradiction to many suttas that extol the virtues of correct meditation and positive meditative states, even though you may say that they only arise momentarily. Through accumulation, they develop. One could easily imagine the Buddha saying "Do not be fooled by those practicing formal meditation into thinking this is part of the path. Such monks are deluded and mistake the path for a formal practice." But he never said that, he said the opposite. And neither did anyone else say that in scripture as far as I have ever seen. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130446 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:37 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. > > > >R: Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. > ... > S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. That's great - good to know about those possible supporting rupas as a result of kamma. That was the kind of detail I was trying to find out. One can only hope for vipaka where the knives and bullets are not that hard! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130447 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Thanks Sarah, for the refresher on the three forms of dukkha. Does one experience sankhara dukkha directly in one of the vipassana-nanas? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130448 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sukin, all, >Suk:Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why don't you jump into railway tracks front of a train? There is no train there now!! Same is here. If "formal practice" as understood by everyone else is so wrong, then why didn't the Buddha reject it on every possible occasion? Why did he instead talk so much about sitting cross-legged in seclusion, and meditating. Even VsM teaches it. Despite all of this, one modern teacher and some people on a certain board know better. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130449 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:56 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, all, >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. Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. It is strange how compilers of the suttas were so "incompetent" that they couldn't explain "don't practice!", and VsM along with other commentaries also talk about practice... Yet, some modern householders know better... With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130450 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:07 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alberto (Alex), - >Alberto: > Seriously, I think that what matters most in getting just a little bit closer to the farther shore is understanding realities arising now, one at the time, by conditions, through hearing the Dhamma and considering it wisely. T: Given that you have the Raft that you have propelled from the nearer shore, then you may relax and take much less effort to get "just a little bit closer to the farther shore". Be good, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? > > Sounds a bit like asking if one walking in the rain can get back home with dry clothes and hair without having the (unwholesome) desire to open his/her umbrella :) > > Alberto > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130451 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:59 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin, > That development of wisdom must be natural / daily life is based on the > understanding that all experiences are conditioned and arisen already by > the time they are known. Therefore sati and panna, like any other > dhamma, are not subjected to control of will but arises by specific > conditions all of which are equally anatta. That they develop is due to > their being sankhara dhammas and therefore based on prior arising of the > same. That formal meditation needs to be undertaken in order that sati > and panna is developed, is this from the same kind of understanding or > completely different? Formal and natural are concepts, not dhammas, hence they can be different for different people (since they are not dhammas with specific characteristics). > My point therefore, is that we can't assume this > and that it is only when panna has actually arisen, that we can say that > it can arise again. Since there's no discernible beginning to the round, we all have faculty of panna developed to some degree - it already arose at some point. > > Different people designate it differently, you seem > > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't happen > without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal > practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? The one at a moment with right view. > Coming to a conclusion about what constitutes practice while referencing > the teachings, this is where I am speaking from, and not the > understanding that is firm, as in that of the sotapana. In other words, > if one believes that dhammas are anatta and beyond control and that > there are in fact only dhammas, how can one at the same time think about > meditation and believe that patipatti could arise during the time. I'd say that thinking and believing is not pariyatti most of the time. For example, a strong intellectual understanding of the logic of the texts, intellectual belief in the superiority of this or that idea expressed in the texts - all that still isn't pariyatti, nor can it protect or diminish the arising of wrong view. I'd say pariyatti happens in moments when there's panna. In all other moments in between, it's just thinking about Dhamma. Can there be akusala with such thinking? I'd say yes. Can there be wrong view with such thinking about Dhamma without panna? I'd say yes. Hence, I see no difference when it comes to concepts of doings and situations - thinking, meditating, studying, living, etc, all just good opportunities for right view or wrong view to arise, interspersed. > > Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional > > terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, > > studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would > > all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala > > dhammas happening somewhere in there. > > > > I miss the point you are making here. As above, I'd say that moments of right view and wrong view arise interspersed, there's no magic shield that stops wrong view or diminishes it in some way as long sotapati doesn't happen. In other words, increase of moments with right view does not mean decrease of moments with wrong view as long as sotapati hasn't eradicated it, or in other words, until right view has become strong enough to eradicate wrong view. Until that point, I'd say they "coexist" so to speak. > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong practice? > Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a > Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but > not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice without > the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. It seems you are saying that aside from dhammas, doings and situations are also real. > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about > meditation which does not involve self-view? You mean "anyone else's"? I don't know. Most teach based on the same suttas, hence, they are advocating right view. The fact that you or me fail to heed what they are advocating should not be a bad reflection on them. I'm against blaming parents/teachers/elders for our failures. > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > > pretty well. > > > > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all > using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice > motivated by wrong view. I understand that simplifying things helps to make the argument clearer, but that often means dispensing with reality to some degree as well. > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a > difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? Not sure what you mean. > And you > think that your novel idea should change the way I view the concept? > Forget it, I reserve the right to use it the way I have been doing. > First, I limit my use of formal meditation to something done in the name > of Dhamma practice. This means that it is not about the arising of > kusala at the level of samatha, but the arising of right view. Look, that's all fine, you can use terms in any way you want. I find that when I insist on using the terms the way I imagine them to work best usually ends up confusing and hostile even towards those I'm supposedly trying to help. > Second, > if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your > formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the > case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no > difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to > natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it > is more likely that you are deluded. That's sort of what I'm saying, wrong view will arise very often, even if there's a moment of right view now and then, regardless of the situation - i.e. anything is a good excuse for wrong view - meditating, not meditating, studying, not studying, daily life, monastic life, etc. Best wishes pt Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130452 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 2:19 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, Rob E., Sarah, Jon, Tadao, Tam B, Alberto, Jagkrit, Sukin, - After several rounds of questions and answers that I have been through since I rejoined DSG lately, and by reading other conversations/debates, it is NOW plainly visible to me that there are certain issues that have not been resolved. It seems that As Robert Epstein aptly observed in his message #130445, they won't be resolved no matter how many times they may be discussed. There are five key observations made by Rob E. in the message : 1. "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." 2. "The Buddha of course does not praise meditation that is "mid-meditation" as it is called in the sutta ... In fact, while saying that he does not praise mis-meditation, it is clear that he does praise correct meditation." 3. "The idea that such correct meditation is only at the naturally-arisen moment of insight and has no relation to the activity of "formal" meditation is not borne out by anything that I have read." 4. "The Visudhimagga is filled with meditation practices which it says are part of the correct practice of meditation." 5. ".. the idea that meditation itself is akusala and cannot lead to the development of insight is not borne out by anything I have ever seen, and is in direct contradiction to many suttas that extol the virtues of correct meditation and positive meditative states, even though you may say that they only arise momentarily." T: I concur with the above five-point observation and agreed with Rob E. that there is nothing I can (or should) do about the following: ideas concerning meditation practices; understanding and insight development; the meaning of right view; and importance of greed abandonment. Well, there is a very little left for me to discuss here! May each day of your life be a great day, Tep === >> Sarah: > >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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Alex: And why would those states arise? Because of conditions, one of which is actual practice. > Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. > Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. > >Alex: It is strange how compilers of the suttas were so "incompetent" that they couldn't explain "don't practice!", and VsM along with other commentaries also talk about practice... > > Yet, some modern householders know better... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130453 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 2:24 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: > > a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. > > b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. > > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Another question on these. As there are three forms of dukkha corresponding to unpleasant, pleasant and neutral vedana, are there also different forms of anicca and anatta, or are they just single? It also interests me that dukkha follows the different types of vedana - wonder if there is a special reason for that. Since dukkha, anicca and anatta together mark all sankharas, I would guess that there is at least sankhara anicca and sankhara anatta, if not the other forms. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130454 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 4:34 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, RobertE, all, RobertE made good points and Tep summarized them very well. If formal practice is, supposedly, so misguided, then why didn't the Buddha refute it in sutta after sutta? Why do sutta after sutta, and even VsM talk about energetic practice and things to do? They don't talk about "read books, live lay life and after aeons of accumulations sati+panna will arise by itself". Why is it only a certain modern group that states that? Does it know better than sutta compilers, VsM and many modern Abhidhamma teachers (such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc)? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130455 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:25 am Subject: Yoga Nidra and Karma via Nina colette_aube Send Email Send Email Hi Group, Interesting how this is turning out. Nina has been in my thoughts, very much, based on experiences I've had trying to define CITTA which Nina proved very adept at. IN FACT I've been working on VIJNANA THOUGHT CONCOMITANT ADANAVARGA. I'm glad that she is recovering from her mishap and the resulting surgery. After cognizing Nina's assistance to me on CITTA and VIPISSANA, last week or earlier this week, I ran into a very specific oddity, HTOO's conversation with me which was resounding in my head concerning his utter focus on CONCEPTS and CONCEPTUALIZATION he applied to any and all arguments I once was raising in an explanation of something or other. This helped me realize the EASTERN position on CONCEPTS, the concepts that only exist IN THE MIND, then are projected outward establishing reality (see MIND ONLY, CITTAVARGA, etc) And finally, while in a preliminary inverstigation of CITTAVARGA: ADANAVARGA I run into CONNIE'S jest at me, one time, many years ago, concerning my appearance as being SARVASTAVADAN. There actually exists a separate ABHIDHARMA in the SARVASTAVADA doctrine. Hmmm, what Bhikhu was it that was pointing at THE DHARMAPADDA? I find it insteresting how Nina's travails have reached out to me and to my consciousness, in her time of pain and suffering. It almost appears as being A COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUSNESS (Carl G.Jung). HMMMM, William S.Waldron comes to mind, (http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/440169/original/waldron_how_innovative_is_\ alayavijnana0.pdf ) BEST WISHES TO NINA! toodles, colette Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130456 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 7:11 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi all, I'd like to point out that some DSG conversations have become farcical. An outside observer would think we are a bunch of idiots. The reason they are farcical is that the participants in the conversations are talking about completely different things! Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. He is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply pointed out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an impediment to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid thoughts of self). How can there be a sensible conversation if half of the participants think we are talking about a no-self characteristic of reality, while the other half think we are talking about a not-self meditation strategy? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, RobertE, all, > > RobertE made good points and Tep summarized them very well. > > If formal practice is, supposedly, so misguided, then why didn't the Buddha refute it in sutta after sutta? > > Why do sutta after sutta, and even VsM talk about energetic practice and things to do? They don't talk about "read books, live lay life and after aeons of accumulations sati+panna will arise by itself". > > Why is it only a certain modern group that states that? Does it know better than sutta compilers, VsM and many modern Abhidhamma teachers (such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc)? > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130457 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 7:55 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear KenH, all, >Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. >He >is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply >?>pointed >out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an >impediment >to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid >thoughts of self). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman. I am not saying that "since the Buddha refused to declare that Atta does not exist, atta does exist in some indescribable way". Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? Rather tan getting entangled in metaphysics, why not focus on reducing as much dukkha as possible? Ultimately if one is on fire, at that moment it doesn't matter much metaphysical speculations about nature of fire - what is of concern is how to extinguish it ASAP. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130458 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:05 am Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group "If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance of realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance." (end of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130459 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:22 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Phil, all, What feeds ignorance are 5 hindrances (AN10.61). This is why I believe that deep meditation that suppresses the hindrances is so important. Suppress the hindrances long enough to see "The Truth" in-sight, and than that insight can weaken and eventually eradicate ignorance. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130460 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:59 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Alex I agree that that woul > > What feeds ignorance are 5 hindrances (AN10.61). This is why I believe that deep meditation that suppresses the hindrances is so important. > Suppress the hindrances long enough to see "The Truth" in-sight, and than that insight can weaken and eventually eradicate ignorance. > I agree that that is the way the texts say that liberation is achieved, but I disagree that we can follow those texts like a training manual. I feel that you guys place too much faith in the one sutta (in AN that tells you that you can use akusala to get rid of akusala.) I think that is a dangerous faith. It is better to be patient and very gradually and very very very occasionally develop understanding of the realities that are appearing now rather than attempting with cittas rooted in fear and greed to imitate what is taught in the profound texts as though they were a training manual to get you out of fear and greed, that is a gross misuse of the profound Dhamma which goes against the ways of the world. Remember, the Buddha hesitated to teach because he knew his Dhamma went against the ways of the world. What are the ways of the world? Have you and others here somehow magically come to the Dhamma free of cittas rooted heavily in greed, fear and ignorance? I know we can't agree here, and probably never will. You will just say that it is precisely because our cittas are so deeply rooted in greed, fear and ignorance that we have to get cracking to get rid of them as though our head were on fire. I know where you are coming from because I used to believe that too. Who knows, maybe I will again someday. Quite possible. But for now I am inspired by and have faith in a subtler approach to Dhamma based on the understanding that only kusala can condition bhavana. I know it seems like a Catch 22, but so be it... I don't think there is much point in discussing this though. Obviously it is always about eventually reaching the "let's agree to disagree" point and I always choose to reach that point sooner than later. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130461 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi again Alex I'll just add that the hindrances are suppressed and the sense doors are guarded at all moments of awareness, at all moments of kusala. and all monents of kusala must be rooted in alobha. (Basic Abhidhamma, if you don't accept it, your loss.) As you may know, I am prone to very heavy defilements so I appreciate your references to strip clubs, etc. I find it fascinating and encouraging to note how freedom from those defile ments that drive behaviour that is very harmful to myself and others comes just as regularly without trying to have it as it does with a lot of trying. The movement towards liberation is very gradual but very real, albeit without those great periods I used to have of believing that I had eliminated bad behaviour through intense diligence. That was just like holding a beach ball underwater, to use a metaphor you may have heard. Anyways, let's a t d. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130462 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 10:46 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Phil, all, >P:I feel that you guys place too much faith in the one sutta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many many suttas. >(in AN that tells you that you can use akusala to get rid of >akusala.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conceit cannot by itself remove akusala, but it can force one to follow Buddha's teaching (to be better than that monk) and it is following the teaching which is kusala and is going to uproot the fetters and bring one to liberation. >P:Have you and others here somehow magically come to the Dhamma free >of cittas rooted heavily in greed, fear and ignorance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cittas rooted in sensuality (kama) are fully uprooted at Anagami stage, and lobha for the rest, is uprooted at Arhatship. This is quite far from some of us to worry about. Don't put cart in front of a horse. During deep meditation the hindrances are temporary suppressed and one can clearly see presently arisen realities and learn from that rather than being brainwashed by the defilements and seeing things through "filters" which happen during normal states of mind without prior samatha. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130463 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 11:30 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, -------- <. . .> > A: Strawman. I am not saying that "since the Buddha refused to declare that Atta does not exist, atta does exist in some indescribable way". ------- KH: It's not a straw man. The Buddha did not refuse to declare that atta did not exist; he declared it all the time. Anatta (no self) is what makes the Dhamma profoundly different from every other teaching. This has been explained to you thousands (or certainly hundreds of times) on DSG, but you refuse to acknowledge those explanations. You are only interested in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy. -------------- > A: Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? -------------- KH: No, there is no difference. The only way to rightly understand dukkha and its cessation is to know there is no atta, there are only dhammas. ------------------------ > A: Rather than getting entangled in metaphysics, ------------------------ KH: There is no entanglement required; just an acceptance of the doctrine of anatta. ------------ > A: why not focus on reducing as much dukkha as possible? ------------ KH: That would be the Thanissaro way and the way of the formal meditator. It denies the doctrine of anatta. --------------------- > A: Ultimately if one is on fire, at that moment it doesn't matter much metaphysical speculations about nature of fire - what is of concern is how to extinguish it ASAP. --------------------- KH: Yes, if you insist on believing in a self then you must be concerned about your self catching fire. To a student of anatta, however, that sort of thing is no cause of concern. "Mere suffering exists, no sufferor is found." Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130464 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Tadoa, > How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there > for the entire month. > I'm fine. Hope you are fine too. Yes, see you in August. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130465 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, > Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how > to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary > escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, > and it harms himself and others. Yet he craves for it. Craving is not > an intellectual, it is emotional problem. > You mean craving is a kind of nama different from thinking and different from intellectual understanding. One can intellectually understanding that craving is harmful and at the same time that this is not going to eradicate the craving. And further, that understanding needs to be developed and go through many, many stages before at sotapanna, craving for intoxicants is completely eradicated and at anagami, sensual craving. Intellectual understanding can understand the value of restraint, but also that any restraint by the puthujjana is only temporary, unlike that of the sotapanna where it is perfect. > Should he study chemistry, biology, etc, and know everything about > alcohol? PhD can be useless here as this is not an abstract problem to > solve. > No, the problems are very real, re: ignorance and craving. This is why we need to hear the Dhamma, and hear again and again. > Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on > breaking the addiction. > He knows that drinking is bad, because he knows that akusala behavior is bad which the drinking tends to encourage. Knowing that akusala is bad must include not only aversion and attachment, but ignorance as well. It is this which motivates him to study the Buddha's teachings knowing that otherwise he will never be able to eradicate the other two akusala roots. > Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually > be harmful at certain stage. > Understanding what the realities are is what will ultimately lead to perfection of sila. Belief in "self" is what leads exactly to the opposite direction. If you find this too speculative, then lets talk about the reality "now". > Imagine if he uses "there is no wife" as an excuse to beat her after > he gets drunk. Or "there is no me, so nobody suffers from drinking, no > fists, and no wife". > Of course when drunk anything can happen. All sorts of excuses are made for dosa to get a chance. But I would think that a person who is bent on beating his wife, he'd have plenty of other excuses than the one you imagine here . But really, if he actually understood that there is no wife, why would he wish to beat her? > It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of > practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many > cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short > instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. > Or, he went to the Buddha, heard him and went about his daily activities. Therefore whether this is going to the forest to practice jhana or any other activity, it is the Buddha's words with regard to the nature of the Five Aggregates which caused him to become enlightened. If it was the jhana practice itself which was key, since he was already doing this from before, why did he not already get enlightened? Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130466 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear KenH, all, >KH: It's not a straw man. The Buddha did not refuse to declare that >atta did not exist; he declared it all the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please post where. :) >Anatta (no self) You don't know pali, then. Anatta = not-Atta. It is different from natthatta (no Atta) which the Buddha refused to claim - Even to Venerable Ananda who would have understand Buddha's teaching. >You are only interested in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy. >>>>>>> Looking back, Ven. TB is a genius for spotting this. > -------------- > > A: Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? > -------------- > >KH: No, there is no difference. The only way to rightly understand >dukkha and its cessation is to know there is no atta, there are only >dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And until one holds that view, one is not even Sotapanna. >KH: That would be the Thanissaro way and the way of the formal >meditator. It denies the doctrine of anatta. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ven. TB denies natthatta, and so does the Buddha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >KH: Yes, if you insist on believing in a self then you must be >concerned about your self catching fire. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe in Atta. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130467 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 12:32 am Subject: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, all - There are two levels of right view: mundane (lokiya) and supramundane (lokuttara). Often when we discussed right view here in this group, I found that it was often confusing. Below, you may find the definitions of right view in MN 117 (Maha-cattarisaka sutta, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi), which are useful in my opinion. Tep === 4. "Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. [Note 1100] And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one's right view. [Note 1101] [Note 1101] This statement suggests that in order to acquire right view about the nature of reality, one must first be able to distinguish between wrong and right teachings on the nature of reality. MA says that this is the right view of insight which understands wrong view as an object by penetrating its characteristics of impermanence, etc., and which understands right view by exercising the function of comprehension and by clearing away confusion. ---------- 5. "And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' This is wrong view. ----------- 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment [Note 1102]; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path." [Note 1102] This is mundane right view, a meritorious factor that conduces to a favourable rebirth but cannot by itself issue in a transcendence of conditioned existence. ----------- 7. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment? 'There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment. ---------- 8. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path [Note 1103]: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. [Note 1103] This definition defines supramundane right view as the wisdom (pa~n~naa) found among the requisites of enlightenment as a faculty, power, enlightenment factor, and path factor. The definition is formulated by way of the cognitive function rather than the objective content of the view. Elsewhere (MN 141.24) the right view of the path is defined as knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realising Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view. ---------- So it is clear that the "right view" that someone with intellectual understanding claims to have is not a path factor (the right view of the path). It is rather the mundane kind, that is "affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment", i.e. it is not yet free from the self demon. Truly, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130468 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 1:42 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. As you and others have pointed out in the past, the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. It is the understanding behind that usage that matters. 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. 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. 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. The chariot is not shown to be non-existent, a hallucination, it is shown to be a concept that combines many separate parts. The ultimate parts that do exist when everything is broken down to its smallest particles are the dhammas which are ultimate, and cannot be broken down further. So I don't think that our daily experiences, though they are conceptual, are meant to be seen as pure hallucinations, but as combined ideas about the dhammas that are experienced, and do have a relation to dhammas. The dhammas are specific and real, the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas, but less accurate than nimittas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130469 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sun May 5, 2013 1:47 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Hi Skin See you in August. I'm also planning to stay in Bangkok a few month during this winter. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tadoa, > > > How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there > > for the entire month. > > > > I'm fine. Hope you are fine too. > Yes, see you in August. > > Metta, > > Sukin > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130470 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 3:10 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, Sukin, Jon, all, >5."And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, >nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and >bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no >beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses >and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct >knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note how some people teach today that in "absolute sense" beings do not exist... Or arguing for non-existence of people: ============================= [Herein, there is no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater.] Even one who cuts off another's head with a sharp sword does not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the seven bodies. SN24.8 ====================================================== Sounds familiar... With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130471 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sun May 5, 2013 3:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tadaomiyamot... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex I would like to express my opinions concerning the issues you've brought about. First, in my opinion, we cannot say that cars or trains do NOT exist (even though Kun Sujin says that they do not.) All we can be sure is that these things cannot be experienced in direct manners (through our five senses). Second, nobody persuades us from not to conduct sitting meditation. If it is properly conducted by those who have strong inclination for it, it would be highly meritorious and highly recommended. However, as you know well, the sitting meditation itself is not uniquely Buddhistic. The essential teaching of Buddhism is to develop sati/panna for understanding the realities of this moment. (It is the only way to eradicate our ignorance and defilements.) Fortunately, this type of practice can be conducted without any constraints on place/time/occupation/(sitting or not-sitting). Very unfortunately, sati/panna cannot be induced by our own will. (If we do not understand this point, we would never never never see the essence of Buddhism.) Going back to your issue, when the Buddha said that one should develop samatha, firstly, he was talking to those monks who had strong inclination to sitting meditation, and secondly, he was clearly aware of the fact that they had the right view (having no doubt about the essence of the Teaching, i.e., satipatthana). In other words, the Buddha would not command those with no inclination for samatha to sit, and would not command those who have no understanding of satipatthana to do anything. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all, > > >Suk:Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And why don't you jump into railway tracks front of a train? There is no train there now!! Same is here. > > If "formal practice" as understood by everyone else is so wrong, then why didn't the Buddha reject it on every possible occasion? Why did he instead talk so much about sitting cross-legged in seclusion, and meditating. Even VsM teaches it. > > Despite all of this, one modern teacher and some people on a certain board know better. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130472 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 4:17 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E. - Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! >Rob E. : .. the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. It is the understanding behind that usage that matters. >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. T: Yes. The Buddha and the Arahants in the Sutta stories were flexible: they knew when to use "I" and "mine". Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html >Rob E. : The Buddha ... 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. T: Whether 'no self' or 'not self' is used in the contemplation, the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. When voidness (emptiness, su~n~nataa) arises, clinging in the conditioned dhammas will be relinquished. >Rob E. : ... the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas ... T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] .................. By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130473 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 5:00 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, - Yes, it is clear why it is wrong view to deny things given or sacrificed, kamma and result of a kamma, existence of this world or other world, of mother and father, etc. since a non-ariyan disciple must depend on those as the basis to develop his/her belief and conviction in the Teacher and his teachings (such as the law of kamma; abandonment of akusala dhammas and development of kusala dhammas). The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sukin, Jon, all, > > >5."And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, >nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and >bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no >beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses >and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct >knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130474 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 11:57 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, -------- <. . .> > A: Anatta = not-Atta. It is different from natthatta (no Atta) which the Buddha refused to claim -------- KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots preaching ridiculous theories. What a complete and utter travesty it is when people claim the Buddha did not teach "no soul." In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life in heaven. They are saying he was just another religious leader, teaching the same sort of thing everybody else taught. What a disgrace! They can't explain why the Buddha never said there *was* an eternal soul. They can only insist (falsely) that he never categorically said there * wasn't*. How pathetic is that? On the plus side, those crackpots do provide an excellent illustration of miccha-ditthi. They demonstrate how determined wrong view is to deny right view, and they demonstrate how desperate wrong view is to *not see* the ariyan path. It will go to absurd lengths to avoid seeing the true path. ----- <. . .> > A: I don't believe in Atta. ----- KH: Why don't you? You have just finished telling us the Buddha didn't teach "no atta" and now you seem to be telling us you personally don't believe in atta. Why is that? Is it a conclusion you have reached on your own? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130475 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 12:57 pm Subject: Lobha adjusts the flowers on the balcony philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group. Just color, visible object. Sanna marks them, and the stories begin. Last year there were more, they were brighter. Dosa, sadness. I go to the garden center and stock up, escape from dosa the only way we know, through lobha. (And very very ovcasional moments of dosa understood, moments of panna arising the only way they possibly can, with alobha, uncontrollable, beyond greedy fearful intent.) Back home, studying. I look up, visible object, vipaka of seeing. And them javana cittas rooted in lobha, with mana. The balcony garden is good now. Lobha has adjusted the variety and brightness of flowers the way lobha likes. And so life goes on and on, through samsara. Understanding is the only way out of greed and fear, rare moments of understanding conditioned by listening to the wise friend and reflecting patiently on the Buddha's words, without exploiting them. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130476 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) philofillet Send Email Send Email Hello Tadao I agree with you. Saying there is no car or there is no Nina is not particularly helpful and leads to these sort of doctrinal debates that distract from understanding the realities if the present moment.The important point in my opinion is that a car cannot be directly experienced through the sense doors except as hardness, visible object and so on. A car is not a dhamma. It is only by the developing of understanding of dhammas that there can be progress, debate about the existence or non-existence of cars etc seems like a kind of mental game. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130477 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, I think the difficulty is when we start thinking of a particular situation and trying to work out what the cittas are or might be instead of understanding the present reality now. Aren't we just lost in stories about a past (or future) scenario? Having said that: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: > > - it's a kusala citta, > - it has panna of weak samatha kind with it (so it is not jhana, nor advanced samatha bhavana) > - it has a concept as object, but it is an ordinary one (e.g. a cake, or music, etc), so not one of the Vsm. samatha bhavana objects. > > In addition, > - it is brief - so an ordinary javana cittas of a normal mind-door process, involved in day-to-day interaction with cakes, music, etc. > - it has nothing to do with dana, sila, advanced samatha bhavana, intellectual right understanding, vipassana, etc. .... If it's kusala and not right understanding of a reality, it must be intellectual right understanding (of a concept), however weak and at whatever level, i.e. not pariyatti which is intellectual right understanding about reality. So now, I'm eating an apple - there can be reflections (naturally) about the attachment to the taste, to the apple, reflections about the transitory nature of the attachment and pleasant feelings, the value of restraint, the shortness of life, impermanence (but not of realities) etc..... just brief moments of kusala with samatha that anyone might reflect on without any understanding of dhammas as anatta. Again, more precious is just a moment now of understanding the doubt or attachment at this moment as a dhamma, not self. When we see A.Sujin in June, I'll see if she has anything to add. I understand your point. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130478 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Pt, > Formal and natural are concepts, not dhammas, hence they can be > different for different people (since they are not dhammas with > specific characteristics). > Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are also concepts meaning different things to different people. I think what you are saying is that we should only talk in terms of dhammas since only these have definite characteristics. But of course there is no stopping thinking about conventional reality. For someone whose had right understanding about practice, there won't be thinking about formal practice in the course of his day. On the other hand, someone who thinks in terms of formal practice, this would be due to the arising of wrong view in the past and also some time during his day. > Since there's no discernible beginning to the round, we all have > faculty of panna developed to some degree - it already arose at some > point. > OK, which is a worse situation, two persons, both with accumulations of right view from previous lives. One, he has not heard the Dhamma and therefore does not think about it. The other, has heard the teachings but has wrong understanding about it? > > > Different people designate it differently, you seem > > > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > > > > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't > happen > > without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal > > practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? > > The one at a moment with right view. > What motivates the formal practice? Does the right view agree with it? > I'd say that thinking and believing is not pariyatti most of the time. > For example, a strong intellectual understanding of the logic of the > texts, intellectual belief in the superiority of this or that idea > expressed in the texts - all that still isn't pariyatti, nor can it > protect or diminish the arising of wrong view. I'd say pariyatti > happens in moments when there's panna. In all other moments in > between, it's just thinking about Dhamma. Can there be akusala with > such thinking? I'd say yes. Can there be wrong view with such thinking > about Dhamma without panna? I'd say yes. Hence, I see no difference > when it comes to concepts of doings and situations - thinking, > meditating, studying, living, etc, all just good opportunities for > right view or wrong view to arise, interspersed. > For someone who has never understood wrong practice as wrong, in fact believes it to be right, what likely are the dhammas that have arisen when he sits down to meditate and is motivated to continue sitting? For someone who understands that only the present moment reality is object of the development of wisdom, when thinking about the Dhamma in the abstract (no pariyatti in the moment), would these include those that motivate "doing" in the name of practice? Would someone go rock climbing in the name of formal practice? Would someone who sits cross legged and concentrates on his breath as a relaxation exercise call it "formal practice"? Just because "daily life" and "formal practice" are both concepts, how does this make believers (no pariyatti understanding) of both, equal in terms of being on and off the Path? Someone who is swimming, if he must think about the concept of practice, will think that he is practicing swimming. A meditator when meditating will think that he is doing Dhamma practice. A believer in conditioned dhammas will think that practice is a conditioned dhamma, therefore whatever he is doing (conventional situation) he'd not identify that as being Dhamma practice, would he? More importantly, the reason I pointed out the concepts of saccannana > kiccannana > kattannana is to show that it is not the concepts entertained which define the presence or lack of panna, but the confidence that "now" is the only object of study. So a meditator who thinks in terms of another time and place, this kind of confidence shows to be lacking. So why would you insist that he has equal opportunity as the one who has had some pariyatti understanding, especially if he keeps at it? > > I miss the point you are making here. > > As above, I'd say that moments of right view and wrong view arise > interspersed, there's no magic shield that stops wrong view or > diminishes it in some way as long sotapati doesn't happen. In other > words, increase of moments with right view does not mean decrease of > moments with wrong view as long as sotapati hasn't eradicated it, or > in other words, until right view has become strong enough to eradicate > wrong view. Until that point, I'd say they "coexist" so to speak. > And the wrong view behind wrong practice makes no difference? That which takes concept for reality, what is not sati for sati and for panna what is not panna, this makes no difference in terms of the likelihood of right understanding arising? Not being a sotapanna but a kalyana puthujjana is no different from someone who encourages wrong view and wrong practice? > > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong > practice? > > Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a > > Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but > > not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice > without > > the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. > > It seems you are saying that aside from dhammas, doings and situations > are also real. > No, but would someone who wishes to do Dhamma practice go climb rocks? And when otherwise he is climbing rocks for pleasure, would he believe that patipatti can arise at anytime during the activity? And if he suddenly wishes to "practice" would he not decide that he must find a quiet place and sit cross legged or something? > > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about > > meditation which does not involve self-view? > > You mean "anyone else's"? I don't know. Most teach based on the same > suttas, hence, they are advocating right view. > You mean they just recite the Suttas and the audience are not expected to understand it according to a particular interpretation? Even if this is the case, would not the suttas have been given in a particular setting, i.e. at a retreat or in a meditation manual? > The fact that you or me fail to heed what they are advocating should > not be a bad reflection on them. I'm against blaming > parents/teachers/elders for our failures. > ?? Even if I am wrong and they are right, how is my pointing out their wrong equal to blaming them for my failure? > > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > > > pretty well. > > > > > > > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all > > using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice > > motivated by wrong view. > > I understand that simplifying things helps to make the argument > clearer, but that often means dispensing with reality to some degree > as well. > With regard to formal meditation, I'll believe that you are correct only after you or anyone else show me one right motivation for doing it. > > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a > > difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? > > Not sure what you mean. > OK, lets go one step back. Why do you call what you do during times off-work which you described in an earlier message, formal meditation? > > Second, > > if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your > > formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the > > case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no > > difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to > > natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it > > is more likely that you are deluded. > > That's sort of what I'm saying, wrong view will arise very often, even > if there's a moment of right view now and then, regardless of the > situation - i.e. anything is a good excuse for wrong view - > meditating, not meditating, studying, not studying, daily life, > monastic life, etc. > If this is what you really believe, then why meditate? Purely out of attachment just as it is for me with regard to watching movies? If so, why consider it "formal practice"? Do you think those of us who have come to the conclusion that development of understanding must be natural / daily life go about using labels such as "daily life", "not meditating", "dhamma study" and so with regard to particular activities? How conventional living proceeds, there is no change. The meditator on the other hand, his conventional life now includes the new activity which he labels "formal practice". Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130479 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E (and Tep) 130324 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > ... > > > RE: Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? > > ... > > T: Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. > > RE: Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > =============== J: Regarding <>, in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. Cittas have the general function of experiencing an object, and this general function can be further sub-classified. 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. 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. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130480 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. > > T: Mountains and roses are not ultimate realities, but intrinsic pathavi-dhatu in them is ultimate reality. ... S: There are only elements such as pathavi-dhatu (earth element) which arise and fall away. Such elements are not in mountains or roses because there are only the elements themselves which arise and fall away. You referred in another post to the trainer (sekha). The sekha is the ariyan disciple (not yet an arahat) who directly knows pathavi-dhatu as pathavi-dhatu without any more wrong views about people or mountains as existing in reality or about earth element as being part a person or mountain or anything else, no longer imagines a person or mountain in earth element, apart from earth element or owning earth element in anyway. MN 1 and commentary (Bodhi transl): "He directly knows earth as earth" (pa.thavi.m pa.thavito abhijaanaati) Cy: "He directly knows earth in its nature as earth (pa.thaviibhaavena), unlike the worldling who perceives it with a completely perverted perception. Further, he knows it with distinguished knowledge (abhivisi.t.thena ~naa.nena). What is meant is that, resolving upon the earth in accordance with its real nature as earth, he knows it as impermanent, suffering, and non-self." S: It means, as the sub-commentary elaborates, that he clearly understands the dhammas as dhammas, i.e. the realities, without any confusion. .... >They are deformable, hence they are material form and may be used as meditation object to train perception of impermanence. ... S: What is deformed are the rupas, the "material form". It is through the development of right understanding of dhammas, i.e. namas and rupas, that the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of such dhammas becomes apparent. ... Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130481 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. .... S: Yes, like with the "butter-jar" example quoted, we refer to people and things, we talk about associating with family and friends. This can be with right or wrong understanding. For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! ... > > You quoted [AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" :] > "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." > > Sadhu! Sadhu! This is a good one. > Does he teach the three characteristics to conceptual disciples that do not exist, or does he teach them to his real disciples who penetrated the Dhamma and eradicated Dukkha? ... S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. Is the visible object seen your wife? Is the sound heard your wife? Is the hardness/softness touched your wife? .... > By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? ... S: Unless there is any understanding of what "all (conditioned) things" are, it's useless. For example, if we have the idea that a person or a mountain is anatta, it is not the understanding of sankhara dhammas. ... > >S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. > > T: Who are they? They are Arahants who have no illusions; so it is clear that they have "no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities". > Who are we? The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? ... S: Instead of being concerned about "experience" or results, we can begin to understand, even in theory, what dhammas (realities) are and how these are distinct from concepts. If we don't appreciate the clear distinction between those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing and hearing, and those realities which cannot experience anything, such as visible object and sound, there will never be the development of direct understanding. ... > It seems you have not admited the fact that the Buddha and his disciples are real, regardless of some people calling them "concepts". .... S: See Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'Tathaagata': "To the often asked questions, whether the Tathaagata still exists after death, or not, it is said (e.g. S. XXII, 85, 86) that, in the highest sense (paramattha, q.v.) the Tathaagata cannot, even at lifetime, be discovered, how much less after death, and that neither the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.) are to be regarded as the Tathaagata, nor can the Tathaagata be found outside these corporeal and mental phenomena. The meaning intended here is that there exist only these ever-changing corporeal and mental phenomena, arising and vanishing from moment to moment, but no separate entity, no personality. When the commentaries in this connection explain Tathaagata by 'living being' (satta), they mean to say that here the questioners are using the merely conventional expression, Tathaagata, in the sense of a really existing entity." Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130482 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 8:45 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear KenH, all, >KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots >preaching ridiculous theories. >>>>>>>>>>> It is their stuff. If there is similarity in what I say, and what someone else say - it is coincidence. > In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life >in heaven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% NO. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say that. There is no eternal retirement home for some indescribable citta after Parinibbana. Lets bury this issue. The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130483 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, - >Alex: >The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' ! Just a thought. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear KenH, all, > > >KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots >preaching ridiculous theories. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > It is their stuff. If there is similarity in what I say, and what someone else say - it is coincidence. > > In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life >in heaven. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 100% NO. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say that. There is no eternal retirement home for some indescribable citta after Parinibbana. Lets bury this issue. > > > The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). > #130484 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:12 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep (and Alex) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Alex, - > ... > T: In summary: > 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. > =============== J: A more accurate summary would be: "All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; however, they are weak and so mostly lie latent/are dormant. Progress can only ever be very gradual". > =============== > T: > 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. > =============== J: Better would be: "Right view is a mental factor, not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is also a mental factor, in particular, the mental factor that accompanies right view; it is not the conventional 'effort to have' awareness/insight". Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130485 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex 130345 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > >J:Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. > >>>>>>> > > A: And door is one of them, otherwise how could dog distinguish door from a wall, or any other obstacle from empty space? > =============== J: The rupas that are object of consciousness in our daily life are those that are the objects of the 5 sense-doors, that is to say, visible object, audible object, … hardness/softness, etc. It is from the experience of such rupas that the idea of 'a door' can be formed (by consciousness). It's the same for all the 'things' that we take for being 'real' in life. You make the point that other people see the same door and know to go through it rather than try to go through the wall. You mean, I think, that this indicates that there is something there, something real, in the first place. The Dhamma does not concern itself with the 'reality' (or otherwise) of conventional 'things'. It is concerned only with what can be directly known, and this means anything that can be directly experienced (and thus directly known, and verified) by panna. These are the things ("dhammas") that have an inherent characteristic that is the same no matter the circumstances (time, place, state of mind). These things the Buddha classified in many ways including as khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc. There is no dhamma of 'door'. While the idea (i.e., thought or concept) of 'door' can arise in the mind, that idea is based on the prior experience of visible object, hardness, audible object, etc. and the ability to recall those previous experiences (i.e., conventional memory). Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130486 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tep > T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' Jk: I agree that there can be craving or wanting to understanding the ultimate realities either by way of listening to dhamma and by way of meditation. It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? Please educate me if you have time. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130487 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:04 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alex > > A: The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). Jk: I would like to know more how can we treat every phenomena as not-self. Thank you Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130488 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:27 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, all, >Jk:I would like to know more how can we treat every phenomena as not->self. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't consider it to really be "I, me, mine". Observe it "from outside". Don't personally cling or be aversive to it. It is much easier (and perhaps only possible) to do it when there is some basis in samatha. Here I believe skill in samatha is important. Samatha any attachment to arisen phenomenon whenever it arises. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130489 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hello Jagkrit, (and Alex) - Thank you for giving me The opportunity to communicate. >Jk: It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. T: They think they can, but they may not. Maybe they don't know the difference between "understanding" and "knowledge and vision of things as they really are". >Jk: But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. T: It is not hard for an intelligent person who has saddha in the Dhamma. "And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#sut >Jk: And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? T: If 'self' is 'bhava', then 'no self' is 'vibhava'. If 'vibhava' can be the object of clinging, then why can't 'no self'? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > > T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' > > Jk: I agree that there can be craving or wanting to understanding the ultimate realities either by way of listening to dhamma and by way of meditation. It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. > > Please educate me if you have time. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130490 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:28 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. .......... > S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. T: Then how could the Buddha tell if this disciple was Sariputta and that disciple was Moggallana? The "namas, rupas, elements" are micro constituents of the macro human known as Sarah, who is a fleeting reality. This kind of understanding does not create a conflict. The fact #1 that there are only atoms and sub-atomic particles in the universe does not conflict with the fact #2 that they make up the stars and planets in the macro scale. However, by claiming that there are no stars no galaxies, but only atoms and sub-atomic particles is a conflict with the reality. How can our atmosphere change so much when there is a flare-up in the solar activity, if both the Earth and the Sun do not exist? Sarah now is not the same as the young-and-vibrant Sarah 25 years ago, just because of ageing . But by looking at the ageing phenomenon and say there is nobody ageing is a self denial. Be realistic, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. > .... Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130491 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:30 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E. - > > Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! What is in the mind one moment is always gone or changed in the next. :-) > >Rob E. : .. the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. ... > > T: Yes. The Buddha and the Arahants in the Sutta stories were flexible: they knew when to use "I" and "mine". ... > T: ...the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. This knowledge would eliminate the idea of a controlling self, which I guess are clarified through different successions of ~nanas. > >Rob E. : ... the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas ... > > T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] > .................. I will look into this sutta - that is nice the way that is explained. On the level of normal concepts I don't think we even experience that there are dhammas at all, but the sense that we have of what we have seen or experienced still contains the traces of the actual namas and rupas that took place. > By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. It is also a good idea to back up what we think or believe with something from the suttas or other scriptural authority, keeping it grounded to the teachings. That's not a bad thing. > But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. That doesn't happen too often. Most people appreciate the sutta references if they pertain to the point you are making or clarifying. If someone doesn't like it that is fine too. I think that a good combination of making your point and when possible giving a reference is just about right. > Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. Everyone is unhappy anyway. Nothing to do about that for the time being. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130492 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:46 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Tep (and all) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- > > >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! > > T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. > .......... > > S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. > > T: Then how could the Buddha tell if this disciple was Sariputta and that disciple was Moggallana? The "namas, rupas, elements" are micro constituents of the macro human known as Sarah, who is a fleeting reality. This kind of understanding does not create a conflict. > > The fact #1 that there are only atoms and sub-atomic particles in the universe does not conflict with the fact #2 that they make up the stars and planets in the macro scale. However, by claiming that there are no stars no galaxies, but only atoms and sub-atomic particles is a conflict with the reality. How can our atmosphere change so much when there is a flare-up in the solar activity, if both the Earth and the Sun do not exist? > > Sarah now is not the same as the young-and-vibrant Sarah 25 years ago, just because of ageing . But by looking at the ageing phenomenon and say there is nobody ageing is a self denial. > > Be realistic, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep & all, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. > > .... > > ================================== My opinion: Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are dhammas-IN-RELATION. If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130493 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:50 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. > The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130494 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 3:00 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > > =============== > > J: Regarding < of the function of being heard.>>, in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. Okay. However it is classified, "being heard" or "being audible" is the same thing as being an audible object, or object of hearing. It doesn't say anything about the rupa except what it already is. That is fine, but it seems to me that is the long and short of what an object of hearing is. In other words, rupas are characterized by exactly what they are...? Fine, if that's what it is. > Cittas have the general function of experiencing an object, and this general function can be further sub-classified. That is sensible. > 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. 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. > 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. 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? If the nama were designed to hear "hardness" then that would become "audible" too, without any change on the part of the rupa. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130496 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:18 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hello Howard (Sarah & other good friends) - I am so glad to see you back to this forum at the time we are actively discussing your favorite topics. :) >H: My opinion: >Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are dhammas-IN-RELATION. If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. T: Yes, that key word --dhammas-in-relation -- makes lots of sense. Indeed mental conflict and confusion usually result when the truths (impermanence & not-self characteristics of realities) seem incoherent with "the world of appearance and convention". Then our common sense tells us that something doesn't seem right! >H: Because dhammas arise interdependently and tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. T: Yes, in other words "interrelationship and interdependence" ensure that there is no unrealistic and absurd abrupt-change from the ultimate reality to nothing-existing-world that the Buddha lived and taught His great Dhamma. The ultimate realities are within us internally as well as externally. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and all) - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- > > > > >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! > > > > T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. > > .......... With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130497 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:29 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, Rob E. - >Rob E. : > Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. T: I came across this sutta SN 24.8 first time because of Alex , who quoted in a SariputtaDhamma message: [Herein, there is no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater.] Even one who cuts off another's head with a sharp sword does not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the sever bodies. SN24.8 So, Alex, could you please reply to robert's request? Thanks. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. > > The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. > > Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130498 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:46 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Send Email Send Email I pasted it from samyutta nikaya pdf (pg 744). It can also be found in the hardcover Samyutta Nikaya Book. Bottom of Pg 995 (The Great view). Interesting thing is that there is "no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater" is considered a view (ditthi) and this is one of those views that is very popular somewhere. Sotapanna is supposed to overcome this and other ditthi s. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130499 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 10:42 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., - > >T: Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! > Rob E. : What is in the mind one moment is always gone or changed in the next. :-) T: Thanks to sa~n~na for it brings what was gone back to mind: a nimitta of what happened. ........... > >T: ...the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. > Rob E. : This knowledge would eliminate the idea of a controlling self, which I guess are clarified through different successions of ~nanas. T: Precisely so! Understanding through "listening and considering" has yet a long-and-lonely-way-to-go before the first ~nana may arise (quite likely, not). ........... >> T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] > Rob E. : I will look into this sutta - that is nice the way that is explained. T: Anyway allow me to explain the meaning of this meaningful sutta quote as I understand it: 1. The perception of inconstancy is developed as the result of anupassana [This is form. This is its arising. This is its passing-away. ... feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness] 2. Seeing the arising/passing-away of the khandhas the way they really are, it will become clear that the khandhas are dukkha.m and hence they should not be perceived as me, mine or my self. Thus the perception of not-self is made firm. Another sutta that I recommend is SN 22.89, Khemo Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html ........... > Rob E. : On the level of normal concepts I don't think we even experience that there are dhammas at all, but the sense that we have of what we have seen or experienced still contains the traces of the actual namas and rupas that took place. T: Along that line of thought I also think the namas and rupas that we have seen or experienced in every-day living, although they do not satisfy the (Abhi)dhamma definitions, are useful enough for us to realize that these "things" once come-to-be, they actually deform, deteriorate, change, and disintegrate. And that is enough for us to abandon the perception of permanence. ........... > Rob E. : Everyone is unhappy anyway. Nothing to do about that for the time being. T: Yes, we just let it go. BTW Thanks for the advice that if someone doesn't like "my" Sutta quotes, "that is fine too". Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E. - > > ... ... > > By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. > > It is also a good idea to back up what we think or believe with something from the suttas or other scriptural authority, keeping it grounded to the teachings. That's not a bad thing. > > > But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. > > That doesn't happen too often. Most people appreciate the sutta references if they pertain to the point you are making or clarifying. If someone doesn't like it that is fine too. I think that a good combination of making your point and when possible giving a reference is just about right. > > > Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130500 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:44 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah - [Please replace my deleted message #130495 by this one:] This is Part 2 of my earlier reply. >S: Is the visible object seen your wife? Is the sound heard your wife? Is the hardness/softness touched your wife? T: Ah, that's a good one; but I like the cliche computer-keyboard better. :) If each constituent is perceived as a whole, then it is misperceived. But when a whole is perceived as the coming-together of its constituents, then that is a correct understanding of the reality -- no illusion-delusion kind of conflict. ...... > >T: By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? >S: Unless there is any understanding of what "all (conditioned) things" are, it's useless. T: Even when it is an intellectual understanding of a conditioned thing, it is nothing to cherish about. The purpose of the contemplation that all (conditioned) things are anatta can lead to disenchantment (nibbida). But the proudly-presented "intellectual understanding" has no chance to become yathabhuta-~naanadassana, unless craving and other hindrances have been abandoned. ...... >S: For example, if we have the idea that a person or a mountain is anatta, it is not the understanding of sankhara dhammas. T: The mountain example and your computer keyboard are not good as the object of vipassana since they don't relate to dukkha unlike the five aggregates of clinging (conceived as a person) and the sense sphere. ...... >>T: The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? >S: Instead of being concerned about "experience" or results, we can begin to understand, even in theory, what dhammas (realities) are and how these are distinct from concepts. If we don't appreciate the clear distinction between those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing and hearing, and those realities which cannot experience anything, such as visible object and sound, there will never be the development of direct understanding. T: Assessing the worth of anything we do at the beginning can save us lots of time and frustration. To continue to think about and listening to, or discussing, paramettha dhammas and concepts for so many years now is like an airplane that keeps running on the runway without taking off! That's not profitable. ...... >S: When the commentaries in this connection explain Tathaagata by 'living being' (satta), they mean to say that here the questioners are using the merely conventional expression, Tathaagata, in the sense of a really existing entity. T: Thanks for the reminder. Be healthy & happy, Tep == Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130501 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 12:25 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tep Thank you very much for your explanation. This is very interesting and I would like to know more in detail. >Jk: It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. > T: They think they can, but they may not. Maybe they don't know the difference between "understanding" and "knowledge and vision of things as they really are". JK: What is the meaning of knowledge and vision above mentioned? Is there level of Knowledge and vision to some certain things as they are or this means absolute knowledge? ================== > >Jk: But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. > T: It is not hard for an intelligent person who has saddha in the Dhamma. > "And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#sut JK: Thank you for citing this sutta. I went through it and this seems to me that this sutta explains in line of conditions. If we start from suffering, suffering is the supporting condition of faith. This is very interesting to know why and how this line of supporting activates. Again same as concentration, there are lines of supporting conditions. Therefore if there're any possibility that we start to concentrate by cut out the suffering. Because suffering in this context should not refer to only body sickness and unpleasant feeling. It should mean Dukkha which is difficult to know. And faith up to the level in this sutta is hard to arise without really know Dukkha first. ==================== > >Jk: And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? > T: If 'self' is 'bhava', then 'no self' is 'vibhava'. If 'vibhava' can be the object of clinging, then why can't 'no self'? JK: I think that "bhava" means existance or becoming and "vibhava" means non existance or non becoming. It is different from the meaning of self. Otherwise, sotapatimagga citta which yet to eliminate "bhava and vibhava tanha" will not extinguish wrong view about self if self means bhava. Therefore, I still wonder about craving for no self? Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130502 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alex Thank you for you explanation. I would like to discuss more in detail. >A: Don't consider it to really be "I, me, mine". Observe it "from outside". > Don't personally cling or be aversive to it. > It is much easier (and perhaps only possible) to do it when there is some basis in samatha. Here I believe skill in samatha is important. JK: When you mention "observe it from outside", it seems to me like the technic used in psychology. I've been attained in some seminar like "Atthony Robbins" He applies the technic of watching yourself from the outside, like watching the movie. This way you will relax the emotion of yourself down to some certain level. When you get angry, observe yourself from the outside and picture yourself like Mikeymouse mumbling. Then you can detach from yourself and your anger. And when you mention that it is much easier with basis of samatha. Sometime during the seminar, he asked participants to lie down, rest and relax and then concentrate or focus to anything that makes you happy. After that start of observe from the outside. I don't know that there are somethings more to aware when we observe from the outside concerning time and place due to your explanation and suggestion? ======================= > A: Samatha any attachment to arisen phenomenon whenever it arises. IMHO. JK: I think some words are missing on you typo. Can you give more detail? Thank you Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130503 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ...If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. ... I think this is most important. My biggest effort is to relate the reality of dhammas to the everyday world that I experience, and I think that by understanding the relationship of dhammas, nimittas and concepts as different levels of perception that distort the arising and falling away of dhammas to a greater or lesser degree, one can create a continuum of understanding, rather than a bifurcated radical break between dhammas and everyday experience. With the "continuum" view, rather than the "all or nothing" view of dhammas, it is possible to make sense of all the teachings as they are presented, and see the different levels of experience as co-existent. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130504 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:19 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H., and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > <. . .> > > A: I don't believe in Atta. > ----- > > KH: Why don't you? You have just finished telling us the Buddha didn't teach "no atta" and now you seem to be telling us you personally don't believe in atta. Why is that? Is it a conclusion you have reached on your own? Jumping in to what I think is an interesting point, I would say two things for myself: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhoold but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130505 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:37 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I came across this sutta SN 24.8 first time because of Alex , who quoted in a SariputtaDhamma message: ... > So, Alex, could you please reply to robert's request? Thanks. Thanks, Tep. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130506 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > I pasted it from samyutta nikaya pdf (pg 744). Do you know of a link for the Samyutta Nikaya pdf? Or is it possible that you could send it to me as an email attachment? I'd be happy to give you my personal email address if you don't already have it. Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130507 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:27 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 2. Seeing the arising/passing-away of the khandhas the way they really are, it will become clear that the khandhas are dukkha.m and hence they should not be perceived as me, mine or my self. Thus the perception of not-self is made firm. Another sutta that I recommend is SN 22.89, Khemo Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html I enjoyed that sutta. I clicked onto the Thanissaro translation as well, which gives the full sutta, and found it illuminating as well: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html The distinction between the residual arising of the "I am" and the sense that "I am that" is a very useful one to know about. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130508 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> > RE: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. ---- KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul? ---------------------- > RE: In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. ---------------------- KH: It might be clear to you, but to me the opposite is clear. There is no self that is made up of khandhas or anything else. There is just the khandhas (nama and rupa). --------------------- > RE: It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. > By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhoold but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. > 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. > Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' ---------------------- KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130509 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - It is good to see your suggested improved version of my summary of your own ideas. They say you are what you write. So if one is not careful and his writing is vague, then he may not be credible --like having a low credit rating :) >J: A more accurate summary would be: "All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; however, they are weak and so mostly lie latent/are dormant. Progress can only ever be very gradual". T: Knowing/understanding that 'progess has been very gradual', will there be a sense of urgency and heedfulness/earnestness to improve upon the mediocre progress in sila-samadhi-panna? Please don't make me sad by tellling me that improvement is impossible since there is no agent or condition to make it happen. ......... >J: A more accurate summary would be: "Right view is a mental factor, not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is also a mental factor, in particular, the mental factor that accompanies right view; it is not the conventional 'effort to have' awareness/insight". T: Are you saying that effort arises by itself, and so it means that higher understanding is not supported by wholesome effort? ......... Be heedful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Alex) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon and Alex, - > > ... > > T: In summary: > > 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. > > 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. > > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130510 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 6 (the object which is seen) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group " If one is only interested in the object which is seen, it prevents one from knowing that the object which is seen can only appear because citta arises and performs the function of seeing that object." (From SPD) (end of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130512 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 8:44 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello RobertE, I can't find the link to SN. I did find almost complete AN book. http://uploaded.net/file/h90h7rll/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_\ Buddha_A_Translation_of_the_Anguttara_Nikaya_2012_Scan_OCR_PDF.rar If your email can accept 5mb something, I can try to send it that way. What is your email? With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130513 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello RobertE, all, >RE: Do you know of a link for the Samyutta Nikaya pdf? I compressed it (rar) and uploaded here in members files. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130514 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 6, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) > > The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. -------------------------------- HCW: Your equating the assertion of the importance of interrelation and interdependence among dhammas with atta-belief is groundless, pointless, and absurd, and no more than an attempt to promote your personal dislike of certain facts about reality by attacking those who point them out. I think this is, at best, a painting over of what you dislike with the excrement-covered brush of "Buddhist heresy". Are you trying to establish a Dhamma Inquisition? Okay, a bit harsh, for which harshness I immediately apologize, but I do strongly object to this tack you are adopting. --------------------------------- > > Ken H > =============================== With metta, Howard /"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."/ (From the Honeyball Sutta) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?""Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form." / (From the Nalakalapiyo Sutta) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130515 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Jakrit, - Thank you for allowing me to clarify unclear remarks. Certainly, you will find more coming! :) JK: What is the meaning of knowledge and vision above mentioned? Is there level of Knowledge and vision to some certain things as they are or this means absolute knowledge? T: "Knowledge and vision of things as they are" is the rendition of yathabhuta~nanadassana. Yathabhuta means in reality, conformity with the truth. The word ~nana means knowledge, and dassana is vision. Therefore, the whole word means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. Bhikkhu Bodhi states in his article, Transcendental Dependent Arising, as follows: "The realization of these three characteristics — impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness — through unmediated insight is the knowledge and vision of things as they really are." I like that! I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? ........... T: After having read the Upanisa Sutta, your comment is : >Jk: If we start from suffering, suffering is the supporting condition of faith. This is very interesting to know why and how this line of supporting activates. Again same as concentration, there are lines of supporting conditions. Therefore if there're any possibility that we start to concentrate by cut out the suffering. T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? >Jk: Because suffering in this context should not refer to only body sickness and unpleasant feeling. It should mean Dukkha which is difficult to know. And faith up to the level in this sutta is hard to arise without really know Dukkha first. T: I agree. Experiencing suffering that is drastic enough, such as death of people whom one loves dearly, will be an eye opener to him that death is suffering. When there is birth, then death comes to be. So to him, who realizes that condition, birth is a supporting condition for the whole mass of suffering (dukkha). For someone who wants to escape from suffering, suffering is the motivation for him to have faith in the Buddha's teachings which are mainly about the Four Noble Truths. >Jk: I think that "bhava" means existance or becoming and "vibhava" means non existance or non becoming. It is different from the meaning of self. Otherwise, sotapatimagga citta which yet to eliminate "bhava and vibhava tanha" will not extinguish wrong view about self if self means bhava. Therefore, I still wonder about craving for no self? T: Let me try again. It is true that bhava does not mean self, but self is an existence to some, non-existence to others. So to those who believe in existence of self, self is a bhava. The reverse is true, i.e. no self is vibhava in the sense of "non-existence of self". (In my opinion) Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > #130516 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:52 pm Subject: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, all - My search of old DSG messages about Karaniya Sutta stumbled upon an old post titled On Concepts. It is very interesting, so I thought of reposting it for the members to see. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92764 The key points are : 1. The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought. The reality corresponding to that is actually a mental activity, a specific line of thought. Any instance of that is certainly anicca, dukkha, and anatta. 2. Often, there is no actual phenomenon, elementary or an aggregation of elementary phenomena, that is the referent of a given concept. In that case, the intended referent is merely imagined/projected; it doesn't exist, and we speak of it as "concept-only." 3. On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, and if that intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is treated, oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, hence having the property of anatta. 4. While unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/formations and of all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of compounds, including sentient beings. Do you have anything to add to or delete from the above? Be well, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130517 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:18 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RE: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. > ---- > > KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul? Ken, you seem to have made a dsg profession of being purposely thick. Are you just trying to test my ability to meditate on the fly and refrain from getting frustrated? Maybe it's an attempt to prove that there is no one to control the unpleasant vedana that arises when you say things like that...? Haven't I personally made clear about a million and a half times that there is no self or soul of any kind? Below I also add what I would call the "provisional everyday self," that is, merely, the psycho-physical organism and its everyday functioning, which I then say is also completely devoid of any real self or entity, and try to show that this was the view of the Buddha, as is the one above. Between the two - the denial of a Soul or Spiritual Self, and the denial of any entity within the everyday activity of body and mind, there is NOTHING left over - no self of any kind. So why you think I am suggesting a temporary self I do not know. I guess you are committed to the view, in lieu of any evidence to support you, that I must be trying to sneak in some kind of self when I talk specifically about what the Buddha said was not-self. Why do you think that? I don't know - maybe because you are pre-convinced that I am on the "other team" and that as someone who believes that meditation is part of the path, I MUST be committed to a view of a controlling self. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I do not believe in the existence of a self or internal or eternal or temporary entity of any kind, as I have said many many times. Are you clear about my view now? Or should I repeat it several more times? Yes, Ken H. someone CAN disagree with your philosophy of a world of dhammas that are "wholly other" than our everyday experiences and still NOT believe in the existence of any kind of self. It is true. > ---------------------- > > RE: In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. > ---------------------- > > KH: It might be clear to you, but to me the opposite is clear. There is no self that is made up of khandhas or anything else. There is just the khandhas (nama and rupa). That's exactly what I'm saying. If you use your intelligence to follow my argument you will see that we are saying the same thing, not the opposite. You are not a computer, so you don't have to have an automated reaction to a key word that you think shouldn't be used. I am making clear that within the everyday activities that are considered the everyday self there is in fact no self or entity, so I am saying the same thing, not the opposite. Take a closer look and don't jump at the word 'self' like Pavlov's dog without understanding what is being said. > --------------------- > > RE: It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. > > > By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhood but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. > > > 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. > > > Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' > ---------------------- > > KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) Did you not bother to read what I said above? It seems you didn't: Here it is again: "It is precisely his point that ***no personal self can be found*** in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person." You disagree with that...? If you do, you disagree with yourself. > The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. That's what I said. I don't believe in any kind of self, and I ruled out both/all kinds in the above. If you can't read, that's your problem. > What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. I didn't say that, Howard did. If you want me to discuss how I would describe the action of dhammas, feel free. Maybe it's similar, maybe different, but I didn't say that. Thanks for lumping us together though, that is very convenient I'm sure. "The other team - Team Atta." > Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. You are misreading what I said in every way, based on ignorance and prejudice, which doesn't give me much confidence in your understanding of anything relating to Dhamma. Sorry I tried to communicate with you. It's like trying to teach your dog to sing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130518 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 7, 2013 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, > My opinion: > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about this. > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130519 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:05 am Subject: Re: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Tep - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Howard, all - > > My search of old DSG messages about Karaniya Sutta stumbled upon an old post titled On Concepts. It is very interesting, so I thought of reposting it for the members to see. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92764 > > The key points are : > > 1. The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought. The reality corresponding to that is actually a mental activity, a specific line of thought. Any instance of that is certainly anicca, dukkha, and anatta. > 2. Often, there is no actual phenomenon, elementary or an aggregation of elementary phenomena, that is the referent of a given concept. In that case, the intended referent is merely imagined/projected; it doesn't exist, and we speak of it as "concept-only." > 3. On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, and if that intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is treated, oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, hence having the property of anatta. > 4. While unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/formations and of all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of compounds, including sentient beings. > > Do you have anything to add to or delete from the above? > > Be well, > Tep > === > ========================= I would add the following: I believe in thinking but not in things called "concepts." We may "think about" so-called paramattha dhammas, we may think about groups of interrelated dhammas, and we may think of purely imagined things. The complexes of interrelated dhammas, also called "compounds" are not individual phenomena, and they are only known by thinking, but they do have a basis in simple interrelated dhammas. I would add one more thing - my own perspective that every everyday thing that we think we know, whether the clearly conventional or the allegedly ultimate, lacks genuine, separate reality and exists only as a matter of appearance. For me, there is one reality, nibbana. With metta, Howard /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) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /There is but one reality: Unconditioned, timeless, boundless, seamless, and luminous. The mystics in the Abrahamic traditions, call it "God." The Ch'an/Zen Buddhists refer to it variously as "vast emptiness" and "the empty field." The Buddha called it "nibbana." Misperceived, it is Buddhist "samsara": the realm of tortured wandering - being tossed about on the waves of desire and aversion; it is the appearance realm of separate things, the Hasidic "world of lies". Coming to perceive it as it is, is our awakening, the destruction of all taints, the end of suffering, and the final and perfect attainment of ultimate happiness and perfect peace./ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130520 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > My opinion: > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? ------------------------------ HCW: Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. ------------------------------ > > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about this. ----------------------------- HCW: Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. ------------------------------- > > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. ------------------------------ HCW: I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. ----------------------------- > > Metta, > Sukin > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ================================= 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130521 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 4:29 am Subject: Re: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, - Thanks for responding to the request. ... > HCW: I would add the following: I believe in thinking but not in things called "concepts." We may "think about" so-called paramattha dhammas, we may think about groups of interrelated dhammas, and we may think of purely imagined things. The complexes of interrelated dhammas, also called "compounds" are not individual phenomena, and they are only known by thinking, but they do have a basis in simple interrelated dhammas. > I would add one more thing - my own perspective that every everyday thing that we think we know, whether the clearly conventional or the allegedly ultimate, lacks genuine, separate reality and exists only as a matter of appearance. For me, there is one reality, nibbana. > T: Thinking --to my understanding-- originates from consciousness (citta), concomitant dhammas(cetasikas), and mind object(arammana). Citta and cetasikas are ultimate realities, while arammana may be anything internally or externally. Yes, they are interrelational, conditioned; and they are fleeting. Nibbana is also a mind object, but it is unconditioned. But, for me, they are all realities. Without consciousness there is nothingness. Regards, Tep === ........................ > /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) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > /There is but one reality: Unconditioned, timeless, boundless, seamless, and luminous. The mystics in the Abrahamic traditions, call it "God." The Ch'an/Zen Buddhists refer to it variously as "vast emptiness" and "the empty field." The Buddha called it "nibbana." Misperceived, it is Buddhist "samsara": the realm of tortured wandering - being tossed about on the waves of desire and aversion; it is the appearance realm of separate things, the Hasidic "world of lies". Coming to perceive it as it is, is our awakening, the destruction of all taints, the end of suffering, and the final and perfect attainment of ultimate happiness and perfect peace./ > > (Anonymous) > Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130522 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 8:14 am Subject: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group The alarm rings. Hearing is vipaka, arising beyond control. Perhaps there are conditions that lead to seeing physical object and conditions that lead to thinking about the meaning of the object that is marked by sanna whether digital, or hands. Or perhaps first there is struggling to remember what day it is. And in response to sanna and countless cittas noting the day, there arise javana cittas rooted in dosa or lobha depending on whether it is once holiday or not, for example. From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. Understanding is the only way out. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (5) #130523 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work nichiconn Send Email Send Email > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. haha, phil - they say if you 'chant the sutta' you're guaranteed the pure abodes; how could i entertain thoughts of chanting scott back! take care, and keep tucking in the good messages, connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (5) #130524 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 10:19 am Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Connie > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. The Dhamma is much deeper than we like to think. > haha, phil - they say if you 'chant the sutta' you're guaranteed the pure abodes; how could i entertain thoughts of chanting scott back! Don't think, just do it. Visualize The Captain and Tenille. Correct understanding of the sublime Dhamma will keep us together. Make up some palicious words and murmur them until you believe them fervidly. And them plant your butt on a cushion and let 'er rip! Just do it without any understanding of the processes at work, hey, that's the secret to effective meditation! just do it! Some of us are fervidly counting on you as we manipulate our beads, bottoms twitching on our cushions, changing position to escape dosa...lly. Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (5) #130525 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, > > > My opinion: > > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? So what is it exactly? > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about > this. > ----------------------------- > HCW: > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the > world of > > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, > higher-level > > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious > error. > > > > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. > ------------------------------ > HCW: > I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the > notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a > correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their particular functions, this very well illustrate not only conditionality, but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear as they are in the conventional world. And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic concepts of the Dhamma. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130526 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:49 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Tep, i'd thought you meant the ti-lakkhana when we were thinking about conventional-v-absolute talk examples the other day... but the 3 Stigmata seem a grey or special class of 'realities' ... not really real on their own but more as aspects of other, 'more real' realities like the cohesiveness defining 'the water element', also only known thru the mind-door. i don't mean to say the three marks aren't real; just that in the usual imaginary room there are really 4 doors but 3 are still invisible (no handle on them)... how 'bout that hole in the roof? anyway, 'neither here nor there' was my phrase of the day then; and to borrow it for it's 'unimportant' conventional sense, "so it is ..." jump track "...what it is", yatha; "has become", bhuta. and gone, iaw conditions - another loose change word. > > T: How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? c: our thinking is upside down, somehow. The eyes and ears don't say any such thing - if they talk at all, it's in ultimate terms only; conceptualizing may put people and other little selves 'out there' - blended perceptions, yum! - but thinking can be done without conceiving / me- myself- and I-ing things thru craving, conceit and view; also we tend to be delightfully color-blind as far as the roots go. We're a perverse bunch. don't mind the tangled commo lines, connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130527 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work nichiconn Send Email Send Email > > > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. > > Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. c: not at all, Phil, just a clumsy elaboration: bhavanga-cittas being `process-freed'... with that weird object! and yet, no different from right now's moments of vipaka. cuti anytime, but not yet. you keep the muskrats! connie The Dhamma is much deeper than we like to think. > poor hares! c Reply | Messages in this Topic (5) #130528 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:06 pm Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Connie > > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > > > > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. > > c: not at all, Phil, just a clumsy elaboration: bhavanga-cittas being `process-freed'... with that weird object! and yet, no different from right now's moments of vipaka. cuti anytime, but not yet. Ah yes, "process freed", thanks. > you keep the muskrats! > Oh god, you send me back to youtube for another taste of that tantalizing twosome. Whoever knew that during my punk days lobha for those guys was accumulating, beyond control. It blows me away how much I like Hall and Oates now, and how much I *thought* I hated them then. Citta processes aring and falling away, beyond control. Phil p.s I prefer the Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation of "Don't go Breaking my Heart", but Kiki Dee disagrees, of course. That debate will never end, we should just agree to Let The Sun Go Down on it, but we Don't. (Or won't.) Again, processes beyond control, although a sense of control may arise occasionally. Reply | Messages in this Topic (5) #130529 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > I can't find the link to SN. > > I did find almost complete AN book. > > http://uploaded.net/file/h90h7rll/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_\ Buddha_A_Translation_of_the_Anguttara_Nikaya_2012_Scan_OCR_PDF.rar > > > If your email can accept 5mb something, I can try to send it that way. > > What is your email? > I did send you a private request just now for the pdf, but now it looks like it is downloading just fine from the link. If that is the same volume, I think I will be able to get it as a download. Thanks for finding it! And thanks everyone for indulging this message...! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130530 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 4:18 pm Subject: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi All - Mindfulness of the Body A section of B. Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya - 593 (19)~595 (21) . ¦ . ; .. "Bhikkhus, when one thing is developed and cultivated, (593) penetration of numerous elements occurs...(594) penetration . of the diversity of elements occurs... (595) analytical knowt- edge of numerous elements occurs What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. WTien this one thing is . developed and cultivated, penetration of the various elements occurs... penetration of the diversity of elements occurs... ana­ lytical knowledge of the various elements occurs/' 596 (22)—599 (25) . "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (596) to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... (597) to realiza­ tion of the fruit of once-returning... (598) to realization of the fruit of non-retuming [45].:. (599) to realization of the fruit of arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cul­ tivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... to real­ ization of the fruit of once-returning... to realization of the fruit of non-returning... to realization of the fruit of arahantship." 600 (26)-615 (41) - "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (600) to the obtaining of wisdom!.. (601) to the growth of wis­ dom ... (602) to the expansion of wisdom... (603) to greatness of wisdom... (604) to diversity of wisdom... (605) to vastness ' of wisdom... (606) to depth of wisdom... (607) to a state of 132 The Book of the Ones 146 , unsurpassed wisdom... (608) to breadth of wisdom... (609) to abundance of wisdom... (610) to rapidity of wisdom... (611) to buoyancy of wisdom.. - (612) to joyousness of wisdom... (613) to swiftness of wisdom... (614) to keenness of wisdom... (615) to penetrativeness'of wisdom What is that one thing? Mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cultivated, leads to penetrativeness of > wisdom." . Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130531 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 5:59 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. > S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! > > T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. ... S: The Buddha's Teachings are always true. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130532 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tam B & Bach Lang, I thought Tam wrote an excellent reply to your question (#130185), such as the following: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > BL:  The practice of seeing senses experience as the > elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time > with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a > shock. ... <...> >TB: This development is therefore "hard" in the sense that the truth is deep and it takes time for understanding to be cultivated. It is also surely a shock, because it challenges our attachment to all pleasant objects, such as our ideas of loved ones and life experiences, that same attachment that binds us in samsara. So it is a most beneficial shock, as it provides the chance to be awakened to the truth, which is the real way out of suffering. > > There might be the idea of someone who tries to practice that "seeing is just seeing" and therefore it seems impossible.  And it is indeed impossible as long as there's the idea of "someone" who can try to experience something in a certain way. ... S: Do you have any further questions for us, Bach Lang? Often the basic questions and comments like your one above are the most useful for us all to consider further. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130533 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 7, 2013 6:41 pm Subject: Nina update sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, I just spoke to Nina and she sounded cheery and happy to chat. Her hip is progressing slowly with lots of exercise and therapy. She can walk with special assistance, but still needs help for most tasks and this means a lot of patient waiting around, especially in the morning, when there are not enough staff. She thinks she'll be at the centre for about 8 weeks in total and I think she's been there about 3 so far. She'll need help at home, I'm sure. We chatted about how even though we think a lot about situations, such as 'my accident', 'being in the centre' or 'taking a long time in the bathroom to wash', in fact there are only ever just realities, just dhammas arising and falling away. Hardness in the bathroom is just like hardness now or hardness in Thailand. No Nina at all - just different realities being experienced through 6 doorways, realities experiencing them and lots of ideas and dreams on account of them. How fortunate we are to have heard and considered the Dhamma to assist us through all the trials in life. Metta Sarah ====== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130535 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah, - > > > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. > > >S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! > > T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. > ... > S: The Buddha's Teachings are always true. > T: So, let there be clear knowing of what-the-Buddha-taught! Sincerely, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130536 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tep Thank you for your explaination. There are an interesting pali word you brought up which I would like to find more detail. >T: …..yathabhuta~nanadassana. ….. means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. Bhikkhu Bodhi states in his article, Transcendental Dependent Arising, as follows: "The realization of these three characteristics — impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness — through unmediated insight is the knowledge and vision of things as they really are." I like that! I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? JK: The meaning of yathabhuta-nana as you explained above is one level of vipassana-nana which also means panna or wisdom. In some commentary, panna is divided into 3 levels Suta-maya-panna (knowledge of studying or intellectual understanding), Jinta-maya-panna (knowledge of contemplating or direct understanding) and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge of experiencing or absolute understanding). Bhavana-maya-panna is vipassana-nana which has 16 levels. Yathabhuta-nana is the second level vipassana-nana knowing or understanding namas and rupas and their conditions. Therefore, when we use the term of understanding, it is understandable that understanding is panna which can develop to higher vipassana-nana. But I think the most important is to have complete intellectual understanding first before panna can develop to other level. Don't you think? ============================= T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? JK: I mean that, in upanisa sutta, the line of supporting conditions start from suffering to be supporting condition of faith and so forth until concentration. But in model meditation practice, practitioners start to concentrate directly without following the line of supporting conditions. I would like to know that to start without or cut out the suffering as supporting condition is ok for right concentration? ================================== T: Let me try again. It is true that bhava does not mean self, but self is an existence to some, non-existence to others. So to those who believe in existence of self, self is a bhava. The reverse is true, i.e. no self is vibhava in the sense of "non-existence of self". (In my opinion) JK: I understand your definition above. Thank you very much Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130537 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 9:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > My opinion: > > > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > > > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > > > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? ------------------------------ HCW: Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect how we respond now and what comes to us now. ----------------------------- > So what is it exactly? ----------------------------- HCW: What is *what*? ---------------------------- > > > > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > > > > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > > > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > > > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > > > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > > > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > > > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about > > this. > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? ----------------------------------- HCW: Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition reduces to contiguity condition. ---------------------------------- > > > > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the > > world of > > > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, > > higher-level > > > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious > > error. > > > > > > > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > > > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > > > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > > > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > > > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > > > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the > > notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a > > correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. > > > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only conditionality, > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > as they are in the conventional world. ---------------------------------- HCW: Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. ----------------------------------- > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > concepts of the Dhamma. ---------------------------------- 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! ;-) ------------------------------------ > > Metta, > > Sukin > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130538 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 10:10 pm Subject: Bypassing the No-self Argument Directly to Nibbana t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, all - Contemplation of feelings as impermanent in seven aspects [1. impermanent, 2. conditioned, 3. dependently arisen, 4. wasting, 5. vanishing, 6. fading, and 7. ceasing] is effective enough for the cessation of dukkha! You don't need to see anatta (not-self, no-self) in the feelings. You don't need to intellectually see the world being empty of beings: no fingers, no hammers, no persons, no seas, no mountains, no computer keyboards. :) .............. "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. "When liberated, there comes to him the knowledge (~naana) that he is liberated. He now knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived, done is what was to be done, there is no more of this to come.' "A monk whose mind is thus liberated, concurs with none and disputes with none; he employs the speech commonly used in the world, but without misapprehending it. [MN 74, Dighanaka Sutta] .............. Please note that the wisdom to "employ speech commonly used in the world, but without misapprehending it" belongs to Arahants who do not cling to nama-rupa, khandha, ayatana. Be healthy & happier, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130539 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, - I appreciate this Dhamma discussion. > > >T: …..yathabhuta~nanadassana. ….. means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. ... I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? > > JK: The meaning of yathabhuta-nana as you explained above is one level of vipassana-nana which also means panna or wisdom. In some commentary, panna is divided into 3 levels Suta-maya-panna (knowledge of studying or intellectual understanding), Jinta-maya-panna (knowledge of contemplating or direct understanding) and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge of experiencing or absolute understanding). Bhavana-maya-panna is vipassana-nana which has 16 levels. Yathabhuta-nana is the second level vipassana-nana knowing or understanding namas and rupas and their conditions. Therefore, when we use the term of understanding, it is understandable that understanding is panna which can develop to higher vipassana-nana. But I think the most important is to have complete intellectual understanding first before panna can develop to other level. Don't you think? > ============================= T: As the Abhidhamma term panna is the 52nd cetasika, the wisdom faculty. The Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (a BPS publication. Editor: Bhikkhu Bodhi) on page 90 says: "wisdom is knowing thing as they really are. ... In the Abhdhamma, the three terms --wisdom (panna), knowledge(nana), and non-delusion(amoha)-- are used synonymously. ... Its proximate cause is wise attention(yoniso manasikara). I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. ............ > >T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? > > JK: I mean that, in upanisa sutta, the line of supporting conditions start from suffering to be supporting condition of faith and so forth until concentration. But in model meditation practice, practitioners start to concentrate directly without following the line of supporting conditions. I would like to know that to start without or cut out the suffering as supporting condition is ok for right concentration? > ================================== T: To my understanding the four "conditions" that make up the transcendental order : joy, rapture, tranquillity and happiness, are jhana factors. For example, joy & rapture pertain to the first jhana. Since right concentration (samma-samadhi) is defined as first jhana to fourth jhana, it clearly depends on the four transcendental conditions. According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. .................. Be happpy, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130540 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 12:16 am Subject: Rahula-theragatha yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear Members, This lovely Tuesday morning, I proudly present "Rahula-theragatha" that I love very much ..to you all. ************ Thag 4.8. Rahula-theragatha (uttered by Venerable Rahula) [Presented by Dr.Han Tun @ SD/JTN] "In both ways consummate, I'm known as Rahula the Fortunate: Because I'm the son of the Buddha, because I've the eye that sees Dhammas." "Because my fermentations are ended, because I've no further becoming. I'm deserving of offerings, a worthy one a three-knowledge man, with sight of the Deathless." "Those blinded by sensuality covered by the net, veiled by the veil of craving, bound by the Kinsman of the heedless, are like fish in the mouth of a trap." "Throwing that sensuality aside, cutting through Mara's bond, pulling out craving, root and all, cooled am I, Unbound." ************ yawares Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130541 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 4:31 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - Mindfulness of the body is wonderful; it offers many benefits including the four Noble Paths (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arahantship) and great wisdom: "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the obtaining of wisdom... to the growth of wisdom ... to the expansion of wisdom... to greatness of wisdom.. " Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi All - > > Mindfulness of the Body > A section of B. Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya - > > 593 (19)~595 (21) . ¦ . ; .. > "Bhikkhus, when one thing is developed and cultivated, (593) > penetration of numerous elements occurs...(594) penetration > . of the diversity of elements occurs... (595) analytical knowt- > edge of numerous elements occurs What is that one thing? > It is mindfulness directed to the body. WTien this one thing is > . developed and cultivated, penetration of the various elements > occurs... penetration of the diversity of elements occurs... ana­ > lytical knowledge of the various elements occurs/' > 596 (22)—599 (25) . > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads > (596) to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... (597) to realiza­ > tion of the fruit of once-returning... (598) to realization of the > fruit of non-retuming [45].:. (599) to realization of the fruit of > arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed > to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cul­ > tivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... to real­ > ization of the fruit of once-returning... to realization of the fruit > of non-returning... to realization of the fruit of arahantship." > 600 (26)-615 (41) - > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads > (600) to the obtaining of wisdom!.. (601) to the growth of wis­ > dom ... (602) to the expansion of wisdom... (603) to greatness > of wisdom... (604) to diversity of wisdom... (605) to vastness > ' of wisdom... (606) to depth of wisdom... (607) to a state of > 132 The Book of the Ones 146 > , unsurpassed wisdom... (608) to breadth of wisdom... (609) to > abundance of wisdom... (610) to rapidity of wisdom... (611) to > buoyancy of wisdom.. - (612) to joyousness of wisdom... (613) > to swiftness of wisdom... (614) to keenness of wisdom... (615) > to penetrativeness'of wisdom What is that one thing? > Mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, > when developed and cultivated, leads to penetrativeness of > > wisdom." . > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130542 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 4:40 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] Many thanks for your nice thoughts! > C: don't mind the tangled commo lines .. T: It's a unique experience reading your commo lines, Connie. ............. > C: i'd thought you meant the ti-lakkhana when we were thinking about conventional-v-absolute talk examples the other day... but the 3 Stigmata seem a grey or special class of 'realities' ... not really real on their own but more as aspects of other, 'more real' realities like the cohesiveness defining 'the water element', also only known thru the mind-door. T: I think I see what you mean. Looking from the Suttas side, my intellect is not so keen to detect the different shades of realities. The mind often hesitates to dig into 'anubya~njana' as it's questioning: is this leading to the Path? ............... > C: "...what it is", yatha; "has become", bhuta. and gone, iaw conditions - another loose change word. T: I'll be glad to know your thought on yathabhuta~nana, Connie . Is it important for you? .............. > C: our thinking is upside down, somehow. The eyes and ears don't say any such thing - if they talk at all, it's in ultimate terms only; conceptualizing may put people and other little selves 'out there' - blended perceptions, yum! ... We're a perverse bunch. T: Yes, you're right about the lacking of trustworthiness in the perverted sensing. So there are conflicts in our minds as we keep on denying and doubting what we are seeing, hearing, and so on. Therefore, it's important to know how to deal with such conflicts. > C: - but thinking can be done without conceiving / me- myself- and I-ing things thru craving, conceit and view; also we tend to be delightfully color-blind as far as the roots go. T: For me the not-self understanding comes to be when perception of impermanence of the khandhas arises to replace atta-sanna (perception of self). Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Tep, > ... > i don't mean to say the three marks aren't real; just that in the usual imaginary room there are really 4 doors but 3 are still invisible (no handle on them)... how 'bout that hole in the roof? > > anyway, 'neither here nor there' was my phrase of the day then; and to borrow it for it's 'unimportant' conventional sense, "so it is ..." > > jump track > ... > > > T: How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130543 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 5:00 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 7 (just a succession of dhammas) philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear group "There is mere introduction to realities when panna does not develop even to the degree that even a moment of understanding whatever appears is worthwhile in this life. For example hardness is very common. There is touching many many moments but is there understanding or not? Or is there no understanding at all? Seeing sees many times a day but what about the understanding of it? Hearing hears, it now hears, it appears. It is a reality that is there. there is no one there and then it is gone completely. Life is a succession of different realities from moment to moment, that is all." (end of passage) Phil Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130544 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 5:24 am Subject: Re: Nina update philofillet Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah Thanks for the update. ->No Nina at all - Hmmm. I still don't favour this wording, I don't think panna leads us to this conclusion. > just different realities being experienced through 6 doorways, realities experiencing them and lots of ideas and dreams on account of them. 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. But while this point might be seem important I mean this point of whether there is a Nino or not it is in fact not important because it is only by developing understanding of dhammas that the answer will come. And because of our accumulations to think about Nina and other people there will be proper behavior towards people that is not a problem. Or there will not be proper behavior. But the goodness or badness of our behavior towards people does not depend upon whether they have ultimate existence or not. That is irrelevant. The goodness or badness of our behavior towards people depends upon our accumulated kusala and akusala, that is all, dhammas performing functions. Please give her my best when you speak to her and tell her I have been enjoying Jon's posting of her latest series, more to come soon I hope. > How fortunate we are to have heard and considered the Dhamma to assist us through all the trials in life. Yes but how very rare it is that the Dhamma is not exploited for easy comfort, with wanting to escape dosa. Very natural and if that is as far as understanding develops for almost all people, Dhamma is at least the best self help program. Phil > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130545 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:43 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - > > Mindfulness of the body is wonderful; it offers many benefits including the four Noble Paths (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arahantship) and great wisdom: > > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the obtaining of wisdom... to the growth of wisdom ... to the expansion of wisdom... to greatness of wisdom.. " > > Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? > > Regards, > Tep > === Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. From the kayagatasati sutta: ...The bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty house, sits legs crossed, the body straight, and mindfulness established in front. Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out. ...When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Again the bhikkhu becomes aware, going forward or turning back, looking on, or looking about, bending or stretching, Becomes aware bearing the three robes and bowl, Becomes aware enjoying, drinking, eating or tasting. Becomes aware going, standing, sitting, lying, speaking, or keeping silence. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130546 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 7:55 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts nichiconn Send Email Send Email dear Tep, > [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] ok. good thing i saw this one before sending the answer i will delete now. connie #130547 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 10:44 am Subject: Delisting announcement14 philofillet Send Email Send Email Dear moderators I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. This is probably because there is so much attachment to the atmosphere of the recorded talks and the atmosphere is so very different here. (Of course it is, it's a different medium, and the Internet naturally lends itself to broader membership with more debate, fair enough.) That doesn't seem to be a problem for some people (maybe it is for others who join in live discussions but don't come here) but there are different accumulations of akusala and kusala for each of us. Hope to see you again in Thailand or Australia when circumstances permit. I don't suppose it is possible, but if there is ever and alternative or sub group that is more in line with the atmosphere of the live discussions please let me know. (Yes that is an absurd thing to wish for, I know.) Phil P.s Thanks again for the recordings and please know I will be listening. Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130548 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:48 am Subject: Re: Delisting announcement14 sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Phil, Can't believe it's only 14 - are you sure you've counted correctly? :-)) Seriously, thanks for sharing the extracts and for all your participation as usual. Glad you'll be listening to the recordings (and maybe reading Nina's series). You'd probably be amazed if you heard some of the unedited recordings at the Foundation - amazed at Ajahn's patience for one thing! As you say, lots of different accumulations and any problems always come back to the citta now. There's a very good part on a recording to be uploaded soon. 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. Best wishes and keep in touch on or off list. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear moderators > > I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130549 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:54 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., - > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. T: It is samatha meditation that leads to wisdom (~nana) and ends at nibbana. Starting with vipassana (e.g. contemplation of the arising & passing away of the upadanakkhandha), given that it is done rightly, also ends at nibbana. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - > > ... ... > > Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? > > > > From the kayagatasati sutta: > ...The bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty house, sits legs crossed, the body straight, and mindfulness established in front. Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out. > > ...When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Again the bhikkhu becomes aware, going forward or turning back, looking on, or looking about, bending or stretching, Becomes aware bearing the three robes and bowl, Becomes aware enjoying, drinking, eating or tasting. Becomes aware going, standing, sitting, lying, speaking, or keeping silence. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130550 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 8, 2013 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, > > > HCW: > > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect > how we respond now and what comes to us now. > What kind of cause /effect are you pointing at, conditionality, kamma / vipaka or is it accumulated tendencies? > ----------------------------- > > So what is it exactly? > ----------------------------- > HCW: > What is *what*? > ---------------------------- > 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: > > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition > reduces to contiguity condition. > 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. > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > > > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only > conditionality, > > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > > as they are in the conventional world. > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality > reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. > 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". > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > > concepts of the Dhamma. > ---------------------------------- > 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? 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. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130551 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 3:45 pm Subject: Re: Delisting announcement14 epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. This is probably because there is so much attachment to the atmosphere of the recorded talks and the atmosphere is so very different here. (Of course it is, it's a different medium, and the Internet naturally lends itself to broader membership with more debate, fair enough.) That doesn't seem to be a problem for some people (maybe it is for others who join in live discussions but don't come here) but there are different accumulations of akusala and kusala for each of us. > > Hope to see you again in Thailand or Australia when circumstances permit. I don't suppose it is possible, but if there is ever and alternative or sub group that is more in line with the atmosphere of the live discussions please let me know. (Yes that is an absurd thing to wish for, I know.) You know, Phil, it's not that absurd, and you could even start it yourself. Anyone can start a yahoo group. It can be moderated and does not have to have open membership. You could start a group called the Khun Sujin Study Group and have the mission of discussing and understanding K. Sujin's interpretation of the Dhamma. No debates, just discussions among like-minded followers. I am not being sarcastic. DSG for whatever reason has a slightly broader mission and allows anyone who is interested in the Dhamma to participate. There's no reason why you couldn't start a sub-group and invite whoever you want to include to join, or just have it be a prerequisite that you accept K. Sujin's teaching of the Dhamma. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130552 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:00 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> > RE: It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. --------- KH: I am glad to see the word "almost." To me it doesn't sound *remotely* like advocating meditation, but I will pay "almost." :-) ------- > "Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out." ------- KH: Even people developing samatha can, in rare cases, develop satipatthana at the same time. ----------- > <. . .> "Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. ----------- KH: As the ancient commentaries remind us, even dogs and jackals know "going" (etc) in the conventional sense. So is that what the Buddha taught? Or does a monk, at *any* time, regardless of what he is doing, know the ultimately real (nama or rupa) arammana of the moment? Which do you think? Is the Buddha's mindfulness of the body the same as worldling mindfulness? Or is it something profound? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130553 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! .... S: If you look in 'Useful Posts' under 'Person & People, Beings', you'll find countless quotes, such as the following in a message of Phil's: **** SN 35:23 At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that... "And what, Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objexts, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make know another all' - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If here were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexations. For what reason? because, bhikkhus, taht would not be within his domain.'" SN 5:10 "Why now do you assume 'a being?' Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found" **** > > Thanks for another quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p.41) of the Kathavatthu. Allow me to give some thoughts as follows. > > 1. "Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' ... > > T: Popular speech and convention are man-made. Hammer and car are man-made. There are men who made these things. ... S: They are the creations of cittas. No man to make anything. .... >Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. ... S: Sabhava, intrinsic qualities only refer to characteristics of ultimate realities. It's not correct to refer to ultimate realites as sabhava of concepts. Makes no sense at all and you won't find any textual support for such an idea. ... >It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist > (even for a moment)! ... S: As the texts quoted many times indicate, the wise may refer to the smelling of a rose or to people and things without any misunderstanding that in reality there is no rose, person or thing. ... > > 2. ... it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). > > T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. .... S: Citta and the Buddha are also names, expressions used for convenience. Only ever namas and rupas. If you read the very beginning of CMA, it's made clear that there are only 4 ultimate realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130554 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tep >T: I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. JK: I agree with you on this. Do you have more idea how the level of jinta-maya-panna or direct understanding develop from intellectual understanding? =================== > T: ........... According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. JK: You raise very interesting point. Because before the time of Buddhism, there were a lot of Jhana practitioners, including 2 great teachers of the Buddha; Arraara-daapatha and Uttakka-daapatha. These 2 teachers were great jhana practitioners. When the Buddha enlightened, he thought of his teachers and would like to teach them but it was too late because they'd passed away. The Buddha lamented that disaster had come to them because they would stay in jhana plane of a long long time and never get out of samsara. In my opinion, this different of jhanas shall be investigate carefully. Even though in many suttas and vism mention jhana practice, there must be some crucial points to differentiate Buddism jhana from others. Like in this upanisa sutta, the Buddha stressed the line of supporting conditions. This shall imply certain factors when we look at concentration, not just simple meditation. Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130555 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:15 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 14 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): I was sitting next to Acharn in the car and I enjoyed the mountainous landscape. Meanwhile we had a most beneficial Dhamma conversation. Acharn: "Sometimes there is very strong lobha or very strong dosa (aversion), who can condition that? The nature of attachment is different from the nature of aversion. Who can control them? There must be conditions, no matter kusala or akusala arises. The truth can appear little by little as not permanent. At this moment there can be a little understanding of what appears as uncontrollable; it does not belong to anyone. Can that which arises and falls away and never comes back be anyone? Not at all. That is the way pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti (intellectual understanding), to pa.tipatti (development of direct understanding), to pativedha (direct realization of the truth). Next life one is a different person, suddenly. But past accumulations go on. That is why people have different characters, different likes and dislikes." Nina: "I experience a very pleasant object with pleasant feeling, such as the mountains." Acharn: "It is a reality, it is conditioned. It falls away before we know what it is. As soon as it is an object that is experienced, it is gone. Then another object appears and pa~n~naa can understand that. The intellectual understanding conditions detachment from clinging when time comes. But it is not as effective as direct understanding. The difference between the two can be seen." Nina: "It is not so easy to know direct understanding." Acharn: "When awareness arises it can be seen that it is quite different. Intellectual understanding can condition direct understanding, and it keeps on going by conditions. Otherwise it is always, how, how can `I' understand." Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130556 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > HCW: > > > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect > > how we respond now and what comes to us now. > > > > 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. ----------------------------------- > > > > ----------------------------- > > > So what is it exactly? > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > What is *what*? > > ---------------------------- > > > > > 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. --------------------------------- > > > > > > HCW: > > > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition > > reduces to contiguity condition. > > > > 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. ----------------------------------- > > > > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > > > > > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > > > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > > > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only > > conditionality, > > > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > > > as they are in the conventional world. > > ---------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality > > reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. > > > > 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! ------------------------------------ > > > > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > > > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > > > concepts of the Dhamma. > > ---------------------------------- > > 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. ------------------------------------ > 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. --------------------------------------- > > 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130557 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep (and Alex) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Alex, Jon - > > T: There are two issues: > 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. > 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. > > Comment: > 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. > =============== 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. > =============== > 2. Path development concerns with sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. > =============== J: In terms of momentary dhammas, path development refers to a moment of insight (citta with panna that knows anther dhamma as it really is). The path factors are mental factors that accompany such a moment of insight. Those mental factors can be grouped according to the aspects of sila, samadhi and panna. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130558 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)- > > >J: To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. > > So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. > > T: I'm sorry to pronounce that you're wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called "wisdom faculty" in the CMI (see p. 90). It is the mental factor #52 (see p. 79). Second, by definition panna is "knowing things as they really are", and as such, it is not found in ordinary men/women. :-) > =============== J: Pa~n~na cetasika is referred to by many different names in the texts (vijja, ~naa.na, vipassana to mention just a few). It is a 'faculty/indriya' (and also a power/bala and a perfection/parami) CMA, Ch. 1, para 13 lists the 8 types of wholesome consciousness of the sense-sphere (kaamaavacara-kusalacittaani). Of these, 4 are cittas that are "associated with knowledge" (~naa.nasampayutta.m). The Guide to para 13 explains the expression "associated with knowledge" as follows: "Knowledge comprehends things as they are (yathaasabhaava.m). In the consciousness associated with knowledge, the word ~naa.na refers to the mental factor of wisdom (pa~n~naa-cetasika), which also represents the root non-delusion (amoha)." > =============== > T: [I think you know that I did not mean to find fault with you, just poking fun a little. Can't do the same to Sukin or KenH, though. :-)] > =============== J: I'll take that as a compliment :-)) Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130559 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Khanika Samadhi rjkjp1 Send Email Send Email Dear Group On another site I was interested to see a friend who thought that khanika samadhi was some rather high level of concentration rather than the momentary samadhi that arises all the time in whatever we are are doing. Here is my post: robertk wrote:without khanika samadhi one couldnt read a book, or even a sentence, couldnt watch tv, or tie one laces. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>Obviously your opinion is different from my interpretation of the >>>>>>text. I think that what I quoted, the rest of the Visuddhimagga, >>>>>>the Suttas, and other Theravada literature, make it clear that >>>>>>>what is required is considerably more than what is required for >>>>>>>reading a book. +++++++ Robert: Khanika has the meaning of momentary. Eggagata cetasika (concentration) arises with practically all cittas, kusala or akusala. From Bodhi's tranlsation of the Abhidhammathasangaha The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkhana). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time that it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. ....Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters in a stream." [page 156 of CMA] Thus i think we agree that khanika samadhi is brief and it can arise with either kusala or akusala- it can be right or wrong concentration. Even in wrong concentration it can be quite strong- like a safe cracker picking a lock say. And of course the suttas are clear that one can attain while listining to Dhamma, or speaking about Dhamma, or thinking about Dhamma. On emoment can be citta with lust or anger, the next could be satipatthana with deep understanding of that moment of lust or anger. Does samadhi strengthen at the moments there is listening and considering with right view? Yes it does, but the key point is in my opinion right view. Here is a link for anyone interested on Khanika samadhi to an old discussion (its brief!) http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=312&hl=khanika Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130560 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, - >Jk: Do you have more idea how the level of jinta-maya-panna or direct understanding develop from intellectual understanding? > T: As you explained earlier, cinta-maya-panna is knowledge based on thinking, and suta-maya-panna is knowledge based on learning ("hearing"). So, what you call "intellectual understanding" seems to be rather a combination of knowledge depending on both thinking & learning. The Vism XIV says that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna) is that "which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appana samadhi). >Jk: In my opinion, this different of jhanas shall be investigate carefully. Even though in many suttas and vism mention jhana practice, there must be some crucial points to differentiate Buddism jhana from others. Like in this upanisa sutta, the Buddha stressed the line of supporting conditions. This shall imply certain factors when we look at concentration, not just simple meditation. > T: I like this excellent attitude that you have! Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is indeed a worthwhile subject for a deep study. Arahant Dhammadinna: Singleness of mind is concentration; the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development. [MN 44] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > > >T: I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. > > JK: I agree with you on this. > =================== > > > T: ........... According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. > > JK: You raise very interesting point. Because before the time of Buddhism, there were a lot of Jhana practitioners, including 2 great teachers of the Buddha; Arraara-daapatha and Uttakka-daapatha. These 2 teachers were great jhana practitioners. When the Buddha enlightened, he thought of his teachers and would like to teach them but it was too late because they'd passed away. The Buddha lamented that disaster had come to them because they would stay in jhana plane of a long long time and never get out of samsara. Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130561 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Alex) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, Jon - > > > > T: There are two issues: > > 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. > > 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. > > > > Comment: > > 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. > > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130562 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:40 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, - Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are clearly what make "a person" at the world level. Of course, there is no human in the dhammas at the ultimate-reality level; same as no human seen through an electron microscope! There is no question about that. Again, the same idea is understood in "This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found". The emphasis of these two suttas is on relinquishment of the five aggregates and of the sense media (i.e., they should not be grasped as a being or as a Self); it is not about existence/non-existence. The same misapprehension --the failure to understand relinquishment of nama-rupa-- is again seen in your statement that the man-made things are "creations of cittas" that reside in vacuum disconnected from a being (that does not exist). The underlying Dhamma is: the external worldly things, and internal khandhas & ayatanas, are not to be clung to as 'me, mine, my self'. This is because clinging to them does not lead to cessation of the whole mass of suffering. ........... >>T: Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist(even for a moment)! >S: Sabhava, intrinsic qualities only refer to characteristics of ultimate realities. It's not correct to refer to ultimate realites as sabhava of concepts. Makes no sense at all and you won't find any textual support for such an idea. As the texts quoted many times indicate, the wise may refer to the smelling of a rose or to people and things without any misunderstanding that in reality there is no rose, person or thing. T: The truth is that khandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas are sabhava-dhammas that are constituents of a being: a concept. The "wise" has been misquoted many times before! In reality the texts emphasize the teaching that says sense pleasure (e.g., conditioned by sweet smell of a rose) and sense object (e.g., a rose) should not be enjoyed and clung to; it is not about existence/non-existence of the sense object or the sense base, etc. When you keep on insisting about non-existence, you'll get trapped in the wrong view forever. Be free, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! > .... ... ... > > T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. > .... > S: Citta and the Buddha are also names, expressions used for convenience. Only ever namas and rupas. If you read the very beginning of CMA, it's made clear that there are only 4 ultimate realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130563 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:58 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: As the ancient commentaries remind us, even dogs and jackals know "going" (etc) in the conventional sense. So is that what the Buddha taught? If the ancient commentaries appear to contradict the suttas, I guess you dismiss what the sutta says. The sutta is pretty clear. The commentary has its own opinion, about "dogs" and "jackals," but the truth is that the awareness that is "mindful" of what the body is doing is *not* the same as dogs and jackals in any way shape or form. Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. > Or does a monk, at *any* time, regardless of what he is doing, know the ultimately real (nama or rupa) arammana of the moment? > > Which do you think? Is the Buddha's mindfulness of the body the same as worldling mindfulness? Or is it something profound? Worldlings do not practice mindfulness. They are generally unconscious of what is going on even on the everyday level of the body at any given moment. Your idea that this is for jackals or worldlings does no justice to the Buddha's teachings. Your understanding of Dhamma is all interpretation through dogma and very little actual reading and comprehension. You have "dogs and jackals" in your head instead of the actual quality of movement, hardness or visual object that is taking place in the body now, which jackals and worldlings are almost totally unaware of. But even being aware of where your leg is moving, or what position you are in, is beyond jackals and worldlings. Trust me, people don't even remember what they just ate. Mindfulness is attention to what is actually happening, and its fruit is awareness and more awareness. It isn't some sort of body-worship. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130564 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:58 am Subject: Kancanadevi yawares1 Send Email Send Email Dear members, I just finished cutting flowers and arranged them for my Buddhas-shrine puja...And now it's time to post this beautiful story for you all. *********** Kancanadevi [Wisdom Library] Daughter of the king of Devaputta On the day of her birth jewels fell from the sky and her body was so bright that no lamps were needed when she was by. She entered the Order when she grew up and became an arahant. In her past birth, when she was listening to a sermon at the end of celebrations held at Devaputta in honour of the Bowl Relic, a Naga king fell in love with her. When she refused his attentions, the Naga wrapt her body with his coils, but she continued to listen unmoved. By power of her virtue the Naga was subdued, and he paid her great honour by means of an Udakapuja(Udakapújá.-A celebration held by a Nága king in honour of Kañcanadeví.) ******** Love Buddhas yawares/sirikanya Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130565 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 9:51 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Connie, - > dear Tep, > > > [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] > > ok. good thing i saw this one before sending the answer i will delete now. > connie > What's up? The communication line was deleted too!? Be happy, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130566 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 11:04 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> > RE: If the ancient commentaries appear to contradict the suttas, I guess you dismiss what the sutta says. -------- KH: I don't know what I would do if the commentaries ever appeared to contradict the suttas. It hasn't happened yet. Let's say I will cross that bridge when I come to it. -------------- > RE: The sutta is pretty clear. -------------- KH: The Dhamma is "deep, profound and difficult to see." -------------------- > RE: The commentary has its own opinion, about "dogs" and "jackals," -------------------- KH: Should I ignore the commentary's opinion in favour of yours? --------------------------- > RE: but the truth is that the awareness that is "mindful" of what the body is doing is *not* the same as dogs and jackals in any way shape or form. --------------------------- KH: I would say in it was the same in *every* way shape and form, and I think the commentaries say that too. I think wild animals provide an excellent example of conventional mindfulness. Animals need to be alert for so many dangers, and they can't miss an opportunity for a feed etc. In the main they provide a much better example of conventional mindfulness than safe, comfortable, civilised humans do. ------------------- > RE: Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. ------------------- KH: I have no idea why you would say that. I think animals are, in most regards, very similar to humans. --------------------------- > RE: The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. --------------------------- KH: Please tell me how you would do that. If you practice mindfulness of walking, for example, will you be aware of a bus that is about to run you over? If so, how? You would have to interrupt your walking-watching intermittently in order to check the traffic, wouldn't you? So, when you are walking you will sometimes need to practice non-mindfulness of walking. The same goes for breathing; assuming you are breathing and walking at the same time you will have to practice non-mindfulness of one and mindfulness of the other. If you are also moving your arms, turning your head and chewing gum etc while you are walking, which of those things should you be mindful of, and why? ----------- > RE: We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, ----------- KH: That is the Dhamma version. ------------------- > RE: but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. ------------------- KH: Where in the suttas or the commentaries (or in any of the Pali texts) does the Dhamma say that? ------------------------------ > RE: The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, ------------------------- KH: "The attention to the extent one is aware of it"? Sorry, you have lost me. ---------------- > RE: is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation ---------------- KH: It is not any kind of weird formulation. ------------------------ > RE: that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. > The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. ---------------- KH: Hmm. -------------------- > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. -------------------- KH: No, it indicates that kayagatasati *is* wisdom, and wisdom develops more wisdom. Is walking-watching wisdom? What sort of wisdom would develop from mindfulness of feet? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130567 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 12:04 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I think wild animals provide an excellent example of conventional mindfulness. Animals need to be alert for so many dangers, and they can't miss an opportunity for a feed etc. In the main they provide a much better example of conventional mindfulness than safe, comfortable, civilised humans do. You show an astounding ignorance of any sense of what mindfulness is. It is not alertness against a perceived enemy or being hungry for food and then going to eat. All of that can be done without any mindfulness at all. Dogs are not aware of what they are doing as an object or of the specifics of the actions or objects they undertake. They are very skillful at doing what they do, and they are aware of their environment in order to coordinate with it, but that's not mindfulness. > ------------------- > > RE: Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as > part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. > ------------------- > > KH: I have no idea why you would say that. I think animals are, in most regards, very similar to humans. They are not conscious of things as separate object apart from their actions. They don't have that kind of discernment. They take actions based on feelings and drives and do not focus on a specific object in order to know what it is. > --------------------------- > > RE: The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. > --------------------------- > > KH: Please tell me how you would do that. If you practice mindfulness of walking, for example, will you be aware of a bus that is about to run you over? > > If so, how? You would have to interrupt your walking-watching intermittently in order to check the traffic, wouldn't you? So, when you are walking you will sometimes need to practice non-mindfulness of walking. The same goes for breathing; assuming you are breathing and walking at the same time you will have to practice non-mindfulness of one and mindfulness of the other. > > If you are also moving your arms, turning your head and chewing gum etc while you are walking, which of those things should you be mindful of, and why? One can be mindful of a specific object and still have peripheral awareness of what is going on around one. You don't have to walk in front of a bus. > ----------- > > RE: We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, > ----------- > > KH: That is the Dhamma version. > > ------------------- > > RE: but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. > ------------------- > > KH: Where in the suttas or the commentaries (or in any of the Pali texts) does the Dhamma say that? Try the Abhidhammasangaha, I think the Visudhimagga too. Nimittas. > ------------------------------ > > RE: The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, ------------------------- > > KH: "The attention to the extent one is aware of it"? Sorry, you have lost me. > > ---------------- > > RE: is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation > ---------------- > > KH: It is not any kind of weird formulation. > > ------------------------ > > RE: that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. > > > The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. > ---------------- > > KH: Hmm. > > -------------------- > > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. > -------------------- > > KH: No, it indicates that kayagatasati *is* wisdom, and wisdom develops more wisdom. Speaking of the sutta not saying things, it doesn't say that. > Is walking-watching wisdom? What sort of wisdom would develop from mindfulness of feet? The object is not as important as the mindfulness developed, but attention to activities and positions is part of what is described in the suttas. What do you think those direct statements mean? To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130568 From: Thanh Nguyen Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. bostight257 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah and Tam B, 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? 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. "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"? 1c.) How can you keep out of not falling to nihilism? 2./ There's a burst of information out there. In spiritual, there are Osho, Krisnamurti,psedo-science.v.v.... Not mention many linear in Vajranaya, Mahayana. Even in Theravada there a some controversial between traditions. In life, there are lot of knowledge we must "update". Technology, business, culture, science..... How are we "knowing as just knowing"? We must learn, at least,some "mundane" knowledge, and we must consider what is according to dhamma, and what is not. And it affect you, at least at subconscious level. Thinking become a tool we use more than ever. So, how are we "restrain the intellect faculty"? Or we just ignore all and practice to what we are taught in our tradition? Keeping our mundane knowledge minimum. 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? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130569 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:24 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, I don't think you have any idea of what meditation is. But don't feel bad, none of the other meditators do either. One meditator famously said on DSG, "It doesn't matter what you mean by `meditation' just so long as you do it." ---- > RE: To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. ---- KH: It might be, but we should be careful with words like `silly' in case we accidentally cause offence. There are many respected Buddhist meditation teachers who think `feet' is the issue. Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. "Once you feel connected to the body, let your attention settle into your feet and lower legs. <. . .> With your attention in the legs and feet, feel the sensations of each step. Feel the legs and feet tense as you lift the leg. Feel the movement of the leg as it swings through the air. Feel the contact of the foot with the ground. There is no "right" experience. Just see how the experience feels to you. Whenever you notice that the mind has wandered, bring it back to the sensations of the feet walking." Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130570 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Tep > T: As you explained earlier, cinta-maya-panna is knowledge based on thinking, and suta-maya-panna is knowledge based on learning ("hearing"). So, what you call "intellectual understanding" seems to be rather a combination of knowledge depending on both thinking & learning. The Vism XIV says that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna) is that "which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appana samadhi). JK: I would like to discuss more about the 3 level of panna. In my opinion, suta-maya-panna can develop by thoroughness of learning either hearing or reading. When one clearly understand dhamma which is taught with no doubt or rough comprehension, then intellectual understanding is fulfilled. Cinta-maya-panna will develop from substantial understanding of suta-maya-panna. One will experience and survey directly dhammas he has learnt which occur to him at the moment of their present. Thus the knowledge in this level arises with direct experiencing real dhammas not only wording. When cinta-maya-panna develop after long and repeatedly experiencing and investigating those dhammas, bhavana-maya-panna starts to develop from further understanding real dhammas as they are. 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. 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. > T: ...........Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is indeed a worthwhile subject for a deep study. JK: Do you think that samadhi is sammatha? Best wishes Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130571 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 4:00 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > I don't think you have any idea of what meditation is. But don't feel bad, none of the other meditators do either. > > One meditator famously said on DSG, "It doesn't matter what you mean by `meditation' just so long as you do it." I feel quite certain that it is you who do not understand what meditation is, Ken. You and some others who believe a particular ideology about meditation repeat the same catch-phrases without ever making the logical bridge between what you think and what actually takes place in meditation or what it actually does. But never mind, it's a useless debate as always, and always will be. When you are coming from a specific dogma you will continue to espouse the principles of that dogma no matter what is said or experienced. Even if you meditated yourself, as I guess you did in the past, it would make no difference because you are already fully committed to your view. And that's just the way it is. > ---- > > RE: To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. > ---- > > KH: It might be, but we should be careful with words like `silly' in case we accidentally cause offence. There are many respected Buddhist meditation teachers who think `feet' is the issue. No they do not. > Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. The fact that attention on the feet is part of walking meditation does not mean that 'feet' are the issue. The reason they focus on the feet is because it is a *walking* meditation, for God's sake, and that is where the main contact takes place, and thus the main sensation. The meditation is on the sensation of stepping, not on the feet per se, just as in breathing meditation the attention would be on the sensation of breathing. It's pretty obvious really, not about 'feet' but about awareness. If it was a handstand meditation the attention would be on the hands. What a shock. > "Once you feel connected to the body, let your attention settle into your feet and lower legs. <. . .> With your attention in the legs and feet, feel the sensations of each step. Feel the legs and feet tense as you lift the leg. Feel the movement of the leg as it swings through the air. Feel the contact of the foot with the ground. There is no "right" experience. Just see how the experience feels to you. Whenever you notice that the mind has wandered, bring it back to the sensations of the feet walking." Yeah, it's just a basic meditation procedure, in this case walking meditation, to pay attention to what is taking place and develop mindfulness through attending to whatever occurs. Or as it is called on dsg, The Devil's Playground. Scary stuff. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130572 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > .... > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > ... > > S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. > >R: What if there is only the idea of how conditions may lead to one or another accumulation or outcome? If there is no "one" involved, and there is no one trying to do anything, but there is just an understanding of conditions, then there is no problem. ... S: Right, then no idea of how to prepare oneself to do anything. ... >R: Everyone goes about their business either reading and discussing scriptures or meditating or eradicating defilements to whatever extent is possible, doing good and trying to avoid doing bad, etc., "as if" these all really do make a difference, but then when discussing them they deny that they have anything to do with the path. It seems to me that such a contradictory divide between what is actually intended and done, and what is acknowledged, is not a very realistic situation. .... S: The more understanding there is that there are only ever just dhammas arising and passing away, the less thought or concern there is about whether this or that is the right activity for such understanding to develop. It is the understanding which knows what are good states, what are bad states, what seeing is (result of kamma), what visible object is and so on. Clearly for such understanding to develop, there has to be firm intellectual understanding of such dhammas, but again it's not a matter of doing something special, but just beginning to understand what appears now. ... > >R: If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. .... 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. ... > > S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! > >R: They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. ... S: We think we are. In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. 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. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130573 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Self-view is Clinging to Attabhava t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, Rob E., others- 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'. 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.'. 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. 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. For the one who has abandoned atta-ditthi there still is attabhava, but there is no clinging to it as 'my self'. Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130574 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:27 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hello KenH, all, >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130575 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 9:56 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, - It seems that our "discussion train" is running along just fine. But what is its destination? >JK: When one clearly understand dhamma which is taught with no doubt or rough comprehension, then intellectual understanding is fulfilled. Cinta-maya-panna will develop from substantial understanding of suta-maya-panna. One will experience and survey directly dhammas he has learnt which occur to him at the moment of their present. T: To my understanding the "knowledge based on thinking" is lower than " knowledge based on learning". But as knowledge based on learning is accumulating, one's thinking is also improving along with the advancement. ......... >JK: Thus the knowledge in this level arises with direct experiencing real dhammas not only wording. T: We differ here as I see "direct experiencing real dhammas" coming after "knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna)". ......... >JK: But bhavana-maya-panna is one level of vipassana not sammatha. Therefore, there should be some clarification to this issue. T: At the level of "full concentration" (appana samadhi) the citta is associated with the fourth jhana which is samatha, is it not? ......... >JK: 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. T: Thank you for asking me as if I have experienced right concentration. No, I haven't. However, I think I do have enough knowledge based on learning the Suttas and have understood bhavana-maya-panna well enough to talk about it. And I promise to tell you when I don't know (i.e., I will not pretend to know). Now, concerning some ascetics (e.g. the famous Bahiya) who attained arahantship by just listening, we need to know their background enough before making any judgement. ......... >JK: Do you think that samadhi is sammatha? T: Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is samatha. Be well, Tep === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130576 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 3:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, all, >J: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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Previously they could have been meditating 20 hours per day, 7 days a week, for many years. Also, they were Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu individuals which according to commentaries, do not exist today (they all became awakened during Buddha's time). How many people did NOT awaken even after listening to the Buddha and considering? What happened to few rare and exceptional cases cannot serve as a general rule relevant to us. It wasn't even relevant to many other monks who lived under the Buddha. Some of us read 100x as much as was required for Arhatship, and still not even sotapannas. Why? :) With best wishes, Alex #130577 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 4:23 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) nichiconn Send Email Send Email right on, alex... it's because we don't understand a single word, not to mention a single dhamma. best wishes, connie > > What happened to few rare and exceptional cases cannot serve as a general rule relevant to us. It wasn't even relevant to many other monks who lived under the Buddha. Some of us read 100x as much as was required for Arhatship, and still not even sotapannas. Why? :) > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130578 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:39 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. > .... > 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. > ... 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: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! > > > >R: They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. > ... > S: We think we are. In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. 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? 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...? > 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. 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...? :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130579 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:43 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello KenH, all, > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. No, you must be wrong about this. The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130580 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:46 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > No, you must be wrong about this. The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. Just to add to this - I don't think the Buddha would ever do the kind of lowly meditation practiced by "dogs and jackals," as reflected in some commentaries. As you know, most dogs and jackals spend a good deal of time doing formal walking meditation, thinking to themselves, "Now I am moving my right front paw, now I am moving my back left paw," etc. It's really not for humans. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130581 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 7:47 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > 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. ... What the above intended to say was "however flawed you might think the zen methodology is," not intended to say that your view of the methodology was flawed. Bad syntax... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130582 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Alex, --- <. . .> >> KH: >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. >> > A: It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. --- KH: There is only one way taught by the Buddha -- the 8fold path. Concentration on walking is not the 8fold path. ---------------- > A: Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. ---------------- KH: So you say, so why don't you prove it? Where in the Pali canon will we find anything remotely similar to the "walking meditation" that we find on the internet? As I understand it, many monks devoted their lives to Dhamma-study, contemplation, and discussion. Some of them developed samatha-jhana at the same time. In any case, the monks were reminded by their teachers to exercise occasionally (to stretch their legs). That didn't mean they had to stop what they were doing. Hence the term `walking meditation' came about, but it didn't refer some silly, pointless concentration on the act of walking. In this and many other ways the Buddhism that is taught today is a farcical parody of the original. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130583 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:51 am Subject: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E., Alex - >Rob E. : The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. T: The Greatest Teacher taught several kinds of concentration (samadhi) in the Suttas. This is one of them: "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 Be cool, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > No, you must be wrong about this. ... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130584 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:59 am Subject: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Hi KenH, all, >KH: So you say, so why don't you prove it? Where in the Pali canon >will we find anything remotely similar to the "walking meditation" >that we find on the internet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps not exactly similar in instruction, but: In Satipatthana sutta on 4 postures. Also: "On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha on Mount Vulture Peak. Now on that occasion, not far from the Blessed One, the Venerable Sariputta was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus; the Venerable Mahamoggallana was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus; the Venerable Mahakassapa … the Venerable Anuruddha … the Venerable Punna Mantaniputta … the Venerable Upali … the Venerable Ananda was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus. And not far from the Blessed One, Devadatta too was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus."-SN14.15 =================== 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130585 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:30 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn Send Email Send Email 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 > would you happen to know the phrasing for this concentrated monk's discernment? 'in line with what has come into being'? 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. i like in the Vism where it talks about the blood running clear. peace, connie > Be cool, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > > > No, you must be wrong about this. ... > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130586 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 11:55 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) colette_aube Send Email Send Email --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote:> Hi all, > > I'd like to point out that some DSG conversations have become farcical. An outside observer would think we are a bunch of idiots. > > The reason they are farcical is that the participants in the conversations are talking about completely different things! Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. He is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply pointed out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an impediment to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid thoughts of self). > > How can there be a sensible conversation if half of the participants think we are talking about a no-self characteristic of reality, while the other half think we are talking about a not-self meditation strategy? > > Ken H GOOD MORNING KEN H., I love it, applause, applause, applause. GREAT APPLICATION! I mean, the cement of the BUDDHIST FOUNDATION could not exist without the ingredient ANATTA existing and being constituent in the FOUNDATION mix. That's the example used to illustrate the concept of FARCICAL and FARCE i.e. "surely you jest" (jesting is a function of the court jester, no?). John Lennon had it nailed when he sang about MIND GAMES since we are dealing with the MIND ONLY school which leads me to my current confusion with/in THE ALAYA VIJNANA. It's a good thing that you, Ken H., recognized a characteristic of the group and it's function of discussion because "that which is discussed" is nothing but a perspective thus is nothing more than a concept or conceptualization of the individual. Only that which has been experienced can be questioned as being a concept or not. Experience is the Buddha's most sought after behavior since only through experience can the individual decide the truth, rigpa, about a "thing" or not. Are we to believe that each individual does not have any experience in the Buddha's words and teachings because they are devotees of BAUBLES and TRINKETS abandoning all else to the wayside based on it's monetary value as if they were members of a communist party in a tiny little town like Beijing? Sorry, "my baby", Henny, won't let me type anymore. She needs something to eat and protection while eating, from the male dogs upstairs so I've gotta end this "jest" of illuminating thought. thank you. toodles, colette Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130587 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 1:58 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. Samahito bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathabhuta.m pajanati. Ki~nca yathabhuta.m pajanati? Rupassa samudaya~ca atthagama~nca, vedanaya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sa~n~naya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sankharana.m samudayañca atthagama~nca, vi~n~na.nassa samudaya~nca atthagama~nca. ] >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 > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130588 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 10, 2013 2:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Send Email Send Email 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?  --------- Tam B: As in my previous post, I would like to stress that, it is important to understand that the practice is not done by someone trying to do something, as we commonly think. This idea of "someone doing something" is lead by our ignorance of realities. 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 lead by the idea of someone doing something. The idea that is being suggested by DSG members who agree with Achaan Sujin’s explanation of the Dhamma is that 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. Ignorance and wrong view can not "practice", only right understanding can.  When you say  " practice "seeing is just seeing", you are very probably having in mind the idea of someone trying to practice that. But 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. And what is the condition for the arising of right understanding? Hearing the right Dhamma and wise consideration of what is being heard. It seems to be simple, but it is not. One might think it is simple to understand intellectually “anattanessâ€. However, understanding of the words is not the same than the intellectuall understanding that many members here refer to as “pariyatiâ€. Without proper consideration, there’s not even intellectual understanding. Because, when intellectual understanding arises, panna cetasika arises with it too, and it knows how it is worth. You are concerned about how what is merely thinking can uproot craving. That is true. Thinking can not. However, what is being suggested here is that,  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. Craving can not be uprooted right away. Even a sakadagami stills has craving for sense pleasure. But before a higher stage is reached whereby craving is eradicated, the wrong view of self should be eradicated first. 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: “Like a weak man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say “I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the riverâ€. It is not posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind does not spring, delight and settle to be released. It should be known as the nature of that weak man. Like a strong man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, Ananda, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind springs, delights and settles to be released, it should be known as the nature of the strong man.. .†MN64 ------------------------- 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. -------- Tam B: The five hindrances are obstacle to samatha bhavana, not to vipassana bhavana. The hindrance to vipassana is wrongview. -------------------- "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." Bach Lang: Or "directly knowing the seen as the seen" is like "seeing is just seeing"? -------- Tam B: Yes, more or less. Seeing is not a person seeing, it is just an element which arises to perform its function of seeing then falls away, by conditions. The seen is just an element which can be seen, it cannot sees, it arises and falls away be conditions, not a person or something. Is there seeing now? ------------------------- Bach Lang: 1c.) How can you keep out of not falling to nihilism? ------- Tam B: What do you mean by nihilism? ----------------------- Bach Lang: 2./ There's a burst of information out there. In spiritual, there are Osho, Krisnamurti,psedo-science.v.v.... Not mention many linear in Vajranaya, Mahayana. Even in Theravada there a some controversial between traditions. In life, there are lot of knowledge we must "update". Technology, business, culture, science..... How are we "knowing as just knowing"? We must learn, at least,some "mundane" knowledge, and we must consider what is according to dhamma, and what is not. And it affect you, at least at subconscious level. Thinking become a tool we use more than ever. So, how are we "restrain the intellect faculty"? Or we just ignore all and practice to what we are taught in our tradition? Keeping our mundane knowledge minimum. --------- Tam B: It is by conditions that one hears this or that information and agrees with such or such point of view. No one can tell another: this is true, you have to follow it. Only if there is proper reflection and  truthfulness that one can find the  answer, not without conditions of course. Without the words coming from the enlightenment of the Budda, we would go following our own ideas. But without consideration of what appears now, there will be much doubt about whether this or that interpretation is true. The Buddha said: the dhamma is your teacher. Let it be your teacher now. --------------------- Bach lang: 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? ----------Tam B: Again, let not be ‘someone†doing the restrain, but right understanding is! Doing or not doing is still the idea of someone. Try to  understand our natural life correctly ,what it really is precisely. The Buddha has taught us in details.  There are only causes and effects, causes and effects again and again.  But the good news is there's a way out, which is the Noble Path, with right view as the forerunner.  Right understanding always does its own work. Tks much for the conversation, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the points discussed. Metta, Tam  B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130589 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, (Alex, Tep & all), Many excellent comments and quotes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. > And this should be the same as self view and conceit. > ================================ S: You may also like to see these posts I wrote before: groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59632 groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59634 From the first one: >S: 1. Bhikkhuni Sutta .................... You (Steve) wrote (#52094): "....to me it seems there is a type of tanha that does not condition rebirth. In a sense I think that could be called a tanha that does not produce suffering(five khandhas)? Its from the commentary to : `This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' (Anguttara Nikaya IV.159, Bhikkhuni Sutta) Commentary: Based on the present craving [ta.nhaa] (i. e., desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root-cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantship) is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? It is unwholesome. Should it be pursued or not? It should be pursued [sevitabbaa]. Does it drag one into rebirth [pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati] or not? It does not drag one into rebirth." ..... More recently, Nina added some notes on the same lines (#56503) Nina: "This body has come into being through craving...through conceit...through sexual intercourse...through food. These must be abandoned. Thai Co not so clear, but I think: craving is one of the main causes for being in the cycle. Sometimes the term pre-craving is used. So long as there is conceit one has to be reborn, only the arahat has eradicated it. We are still dependent on (leaning on) craving and conceit so long as they have not been abandoned.These should be known as they are by paññaa. That is the way out." ... Sarah: A. Sujin commented that we should consider who the person is who pursues(sevitabba) such tanha and at what level. She suggested that the one who wishes to be an arahant in this context is the one who is close to arahantship and who has very slight tanha left before it is completely eradicated. It doesn't mean it’s a way to encourage anyone (even the anagami) to have tanha, but when it arises, no one can help it. It's inevitable by conditions that when the tanha arises it is (to be) followed (sevitabba). It has to be known at such times by panna in order to be eradicated. In this case, it doesn't drag one into rebirth because on attainment of arahatship, there is no more rebirth. I hope this also answers a comment you raised, Steve, about 'the tanha that does not conduce to further becoming' (in #53194). ***** 2. Nettippakarana reference ............................ In the same post, you also raised the passages from the Nettippakarana and its commentaries: ..... Steve: "As for the tanha that is to be pursued, passages from the Nettippakarana and its commentaries seem to address this point. == There are two kinds of ta.nhaa: skilful [kusala] and unskilful [akusala]. Unskilful ta.nhaa leads to sa.msaara, skilful ta.nhaa is for abandoning, which leads to diminishing [of sa.msaaric activities]. As the text goes on to tell us, quoting a passage from the Majjhima Nikaaya, such skilful ta.nhaa is synonymous with an 'eager desire [pihaa] to enter the peaceful sphere that the ariyas, who having realized it by themselves, dwell in'.[36] Thus, having 'liberation of mind' (ceto-vimutti) due to the 'fading away of [unskilful] desire' (raaga-viraaga) as its object, such ta.nhaa is skilful' (Three cheers for Tanha http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tanha.html) == Nettippakarana: Tattha tanha duvidhaa, kusalaapi, akusalaapi There craving is two fold, kusala and akusala. Steve: The kusala tanha which is an eager desire to `enter the peaceful sphere that the ariyas, who having realized it by themselves, dwell in' is similar to the Bhikkhuni Sutta `'I hope that I, too, will -- through the ending of the fermentations -- enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment- release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.'" ..... Sarah: I raised your comments on these passages as well, specifically the first comments on kusala and akusala tanha. A. Sujin stressed that tanha can never be skilful, but since it will lead or be a condition for understanding by showing up and being seen for what it is, here 'skilful tanha' is used as a kind of shorthand for the understanding of the (akusala) tanha. If tanha never arose and was never seen for what it is, there'd be no way out. In this context, 'skilful tanha' is specifically kusala chanda - it's the keen interest to realize nibbana due to the fading away of tanha. The commentary makes this clear so that we don't mistake tanha for being kusala (which it never is). So, the he 'skilful' simply means the tanha which is understood with chanda and panna.< **** S: As always, the context and the understanding of dhammas are essential when reading different suttas. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130590 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > The sutta does seem to suggest a sequence of developing Samadhi: > ============================== > "There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a 1) pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 2) the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 3) mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 4) the ending of the effluents." an 4.41 > ================================ > > Numbers are mine. There is no way to go around Jhana as requisite. It is part of N8P, it is not optional like arupa attainments. > =============== J: I agree that the 4 kinds of concentration in the sutta are given in order of level of attainment. However, there is nothing in the sutta specifically suggesting that one is a prerequisite for the next. In the Bh. Bodhi translation of this sutta, the 4 kinds of concentration are given as the concentration that leads to the following: 1. dwelling happily in this very life 2. obtaining knowledge and vision 3. mindfulness and clear comprehension 4. the destruction of the taints In his notes to the sutta, which are compiled from the commentaries, Bh. Bodhi says of the first and second of these: 1. "This refers to the attainment of the jhanas either by one who does not use them to develop insight, or by an arahant, who enters the jhaanas simply to dwell at ease". 2. "Mp [J: the commentary] explains "knowledge and vision" in this context as the divine eye (dibbacakkhuñaa.nadassanassa pa.tilaabhaaya).". So it seems that there is no necessary causal connection being made between the 4. To my understanding from sources other than the sutta, however, I'd say that 1 would be a prerequisite for 2, and 3 would be a prerequisite for 4. > =============== > A: Before hindrances are suppressed, and mind is tranquil, one cannot really see with insight arising & ceasing. > =============== J: The development of awareness/insight begins with knowing/seeing namas as namas and rupas as rupas, and progresses gradually through the various stages over many lifetimes. The knowledge of arising and ceasing is a highly advanced level. I think we can forget about that level of insight for this lifetime :-)) Besides, there is no need for the hindrances to be suppressed before awareness/insight can begin to develop -- see the "Dhammas" section of the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130591 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:36 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >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: "Maha Kaccaana is wise, bhikkhus, Mahaa Kaccaana has great wisdom. If you had asked me the meaning of this, I would have explained it to you in the same way as Mahaa Kacaana...." MN 18 All the words of the arahats were 'Buddha vacana'. ... > Also, how do we know that commentators were Arahants, or even ariyans? ... S: We know from the descriptions of the early councils that they were all arahats. Even Ananda was not going to be able to attend the First Council under Maha Kassapa to recite the Teachings unless he became an arahat first (which he did during the night beforehand). You can read more about the early councils (lots of material in U.P. and the commentaries). There's bound to be lots of doubt about whether these teachings are correct or not until dhammas are understood as anatta and the clear distinction between namas and rupas are known. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130592 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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"? Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130593 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. > >R: That's great - good to know about those possible supporting rupas as a result of kamma. That was the kind of detail I was trying to find out. One can only hope for vipaka where the knives and bullets are not that hard! ... S: Yes, it depends on past kamma whether the vipaka arises at that moment (through the body-sense) to experience hardness (and if so what kind of hardness!). Even in a deadly battle, not every soldier is injured or killed. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130594 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:58 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. > >R: Thanks Sarah, for the refresher on the three forms of dukkha. Does one experience sankhara dukkha directly in one of the vipassana-nanas? ... S: Good question. Even now, when there is an understanding of a reality as a reality, not self, it is the very beginning of understanding sankhara dukkha. 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. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130595 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >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, associating with the wise, hearing the wise words and careful consideration. The 'practice' that leads to insight is the right understanding of dhammas. It is the kusala citta with panna (understanding) that is always referred to. ... >A: Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. > Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. ... S: No one to put in any effort. When right understanding arises, right effort arises with it. These other factors 'circle around' right understanding. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130596 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > 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 :-)) > =============== > > RE: Okay. However it is classified, "being heard" or "being audible" is the same thing as being an audible object, or object of hearing. It doesn't say anything about the rupa except what it already is. That is fine, but it seems to me that is the long and short of what an object of hearing is. In other words, rupas are characterized by exactly what they are...? Fine, if that's what it is. > =============== 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). > =============== > > 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. 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. > =============== > > 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. > =============== > 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. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130597 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: > > > > a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. > > > > b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. > > > > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. > >R: Another question on these. As there are three forms of dukkha corresponding to unpleasant, pleasant and neutral vedana, are there also different forms of anicca and anatta, or are they just single? .... S: As you know, all conditioned dhammas are anicca and anatta. So this means that all the dhammas referred to above are anicca and anatta. Impermanence may be referred to in a conventional sense and we can also say concepts are anatta in the sense they are not atta, but in all the Teachings, whatever we read, the Buddha is pointing to the understanding of sankhara dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. ... > > It also interests me that dukkha follows the different types of vedana - wonder if there is a special reason for that. ... S: I think it's because of the great importance we give feelings. This is why the second khandha is vedana khandha. When there is bodily or mental unpleasant feeling (dukkha dukkha) we find is so disturbing, so important. Likewise, all day we look for pleasant feeling which never lasts (viparinama dukkha). The Buddha pointed out that all dhammas including neutral feeling and these other types are sankhara dukkha. It's just an emphasis on vedana, but all such dhammas are included. ... > >R: Since dukkha, anicca and anatta together mark all sankharas, I would guess that there is at least sankhara anicca and sankhara anatta, if not the other forms. ... S: Well, "sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". For anatta, nibbana is also included. Thanks for your careful consideration and helpful comments. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130598 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > "If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance of realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance." ... S: Good one! Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (6) #130599 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 7:17 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah (Jagkrit, Alex, others) - The great monk Ananda also told the young Bhikkhuni the following: "There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will â€" through the ending of the fermentations â€" enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said." ....... He also told the bhikkhuni about abandoning conceit: "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned." Because of conceit a good monk, who desires to become a better monk, compares himself to another: "Oh, he is a better monk than I! I hope that I, too, will attain the same concentration and knowledge." So he exerts himself in the samadhi bhavana taught by the Buddha, and soon realizes the same attainment in concentration and knowledge. He does not worry whether there is a "self" doing the concentration development like some DSG members do! The problem we have here is "intellectually" over-analyzing, over-speculating! The consequence is that we're over-confusing each other. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit, (Alex, Tep & all), > > Many excellent comments and quotes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > > JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. > > And this should be the same as self view and conceit. > > ================================ Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130600 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:57 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130601 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130602 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) htoonaing... Send Email Send Email > > 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130603 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: A request szmicio Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130604 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 pariyatiÂ. 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. > -------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130605 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130606 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn Send Email Send Email 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 Send Email Send Email 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. <...> Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130608 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 6:24 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn Send Email Send Email 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. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130609 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 7:53 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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? > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130610 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130611 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration colette_aube Send Email Send Email 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. > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130612 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn Send Email Send Email nothing most people say makes much sense to me, colette. connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130613 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat May 11, 2013 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130614 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 11, 2013 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130615 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 3:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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? > > --------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130616 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (45) #130617 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 4:45 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration htoonaing... Send Email Send Email 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 samudayañca 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130618 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:12 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. > ---------------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130619 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:21 pm Subject: Vipassanaa_007 (DT 894 ) htoonaing... Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (142) #130620 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:41 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130621 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 5:46 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration htoonaing... Send Email Send Email --- 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130622 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 11, 2013 6:08 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation htoonaing... Send Email Send Email --- 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130623 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 11, 2013 10:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130624 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 12:34 am Subject: Six Kinds of Samma-ditthi t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130625 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:40 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130626 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:39 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration colette_aube Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130627 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Send Email Send Email 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! Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130628 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 3:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Send Email Send Email 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! Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130629 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Why Is Feeling in the Upadanakkhandha? t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130630 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:41 am Subject: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130631 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 12:00 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation kenhowardau Send Email Send Email --- 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130632 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 12, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130633 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== > > - - - - - - - - - > Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130634 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:32 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130635 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Nina update sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130636 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 5:06 pm Subject: Problems: was Delisting announcement14 sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130638 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130639 From: han tun Date: Sun May 12, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130640 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130641 From: han tun Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130642 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 9:49 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No. 15 jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 rúpas 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130643 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 12, 2013 10:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130644 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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'. Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130645 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 12, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > === Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130646 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 13, 2013 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130647 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon May 13, 2013 4:47 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130648 From: han tun Date: Mon May 13, 2013 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130649 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130650 From: han tun Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:38 am Subject: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130651 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 10:18 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130652 From: Sukinder Date: Mon May 13, 2013 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130653 From: Tam Bach Date: Mon May 13, 2013 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. tambach Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130655 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130656 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 13, 2013 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130660 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 2:51 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130661 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 3:17 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130662 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue May 14, 2013 4:49 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130663 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:26 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. > =============== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130664 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:16 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130665 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:24 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130666 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130667 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 12:16 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (157) #130668 From: "Christine" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 1:02 pm Subject: The Buddha and Bodhgaya christine_fo... Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130669 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130670 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130672 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130673 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130674 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130675 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 6:46 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130676 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:12 pm Subject: Re: Self-view is Clinging to Attabhava t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > ===== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130677 From: Tam Bach Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. tambach Send Email Send Email 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 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130678 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:07 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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. > > > .... Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130679 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130680 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130681 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. nichiconn Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130682 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:41 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130683 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 3:55 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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?? Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130684 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130685 From: "mahesh_247989" Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:47 pm Subject: Looking for meaning mahesh_247989 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130686 From: "azita" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 8:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. gazita2002 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130687 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 8:46 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130688 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130689 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:28 am Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (33) #130690 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:03 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130691 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130692 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130693 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 15, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130694 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: Looking for meaning sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130695 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130696 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130697 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130698 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130699 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130700 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! .. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130702 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 6:17 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130703 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130704 From: "anattaman" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 9:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130705 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 10:00 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130706 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 15, 2013 10:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email 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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130707 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 15, 2013 11:32 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130708 From: han tun Date: Thu May 16, 2013 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #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 Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130710 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 9:07 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun anattaman Send Email Send Email 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! >  Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130711 From: han tun Date: Thu May 16, 2013 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130712 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130713 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu May 16, 2013 3:58 pm Subject: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130714 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 12:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun anattaman Send Email Send Email 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. > ......... Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130715 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 4:06 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Send Email Send Email 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-ñana), 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130716 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 5:27 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130717 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 8:02 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #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 Send Email Send Email 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130719 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 12:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130721 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130722 From: han tun Date: Fri May 17, 2013 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 === [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130723 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 17, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: Nina & travels sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130724 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 7:49 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 15 jonoabb Send Email Send Email (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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130725 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 7:54 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 16 jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130726 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130727 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130728 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Sila->samadhi->panna truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130729 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 10:18 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ... Let's Share Examples... anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130731 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 17, 2013 11:05 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130732 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 2:26 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130734 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 5:57 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130735 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 6:02 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130736 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 8:50 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ... Let's Share Examples... nichiconn Send Email Send Email 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 > === > Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130737 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130738 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 2:31 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130739 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 18, 2013 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... Send Email Send Email --- 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130740 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat May 18, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_007 (DT 894 ) --> Correction htoonaing... Send Email Send Email --- 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (142) #130741 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile anattaman Send Email Send Email 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. > > > > = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130742 From: "azita" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self gazita2002 Send Email Send Email 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 > Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130743 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 8:26 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self anattaman Send Email Send Email 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, > Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130744 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: "concepts" work too truth_aerator Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130745 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat May 18, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130746 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 3:15 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130747 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130748 From: Kenneth Elder Date: Sun May 19, 2013 7:40 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation txbodhi Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130749 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 8:44 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130750 From: han tun Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130751 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:43 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130752 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130753 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana anattaman Send Email Send Email 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! Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130754 From: han tun Date: Sun May 19, 2013 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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 == [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130755 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 19, 2013 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130756 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. colette_aube Send Email Send Email 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) > Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130757 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Vattaka Jataka : Uttarasetthiputta yawares1 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130758 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 19, 2013 10:42 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. anattaman Send Email Send Email 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, > > > .... Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130759 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:19 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130760 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:41 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana moellerdieter Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130761 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:32 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130762 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:59 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Send Email Send Email 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. > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130764 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130765 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:46 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130766 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 2:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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! --------------------------------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130767 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 3:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130768 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 4:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana philofillet Send Email Send Email 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! > > --------------------------------- > Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130769 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130770 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130771 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130772 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:15 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130773 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130774 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:37 pm Subject: Another Nina update sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130775 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon May 20, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Q & A sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130776 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130777 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130778 From: han tun Date: Mon May 20, 2013 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana hantun1 Send Email Send Email 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130779 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130780 From: "sarah" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:33 pm Subject: Re: Q & A sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130781 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon May 20, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Buddha's Verses yawares1 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130782 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 > ==== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130783 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 2:13 am Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding .. Small Typo... anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 > === Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #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 Send Email Send Email 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 ) . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #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 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130786 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 9:54 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130787 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (32) #130788 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:06 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130789 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130790 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:14 am Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130791 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:32 am Subject: Re: Dissolving the self sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email 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 ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130792 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:56 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 17 jonoabb Send Email Send Email 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 Send Email Send Email 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 > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130794 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 21, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130795 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 3:25 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email 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. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130796 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue May 21, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Q & A sprlrt Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130797 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 > ====== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130798 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email 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 Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130799 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 10:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, no 1. anattaman Send Email Send Email 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 === Reply | Messages in this Topic (64) #130800 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 21, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > 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. > > RE: 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? > =============== J: A couple of points of clarification. First, I was not suggesting that the listener/reader is being told to find a corpse and contemplate it. To my understanding, the sutta is explaining that if a corpse is seen and if there is then a certain kind of contemplation, it may -- in one who has already developed awareness/insight -- be a condition for the further arising of awareness/insight with certain dhammas as object. Secondly, what is being described in the sutta is not contemplation of *a corpse* but contemplation about death and about *one's own* body. In the words of the sutta: "And further, O bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu, in whatever way, sees a body dead, … he thinks of his own body thus: …" > =============== > RE: 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? > =============== J: I think we can forget about what you call "corpse observation". That's not what's being taught in the sutta. > =============== > > J: 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; > > RE: 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. > =============== J: I see the commentary as pointing out what, in terms of dhammas, distinguishes a corpse from the body of a living being, namely those 3 dhammas. I don't read the commentary as saying that a corpse, or a body, is a dhamma. > =============== > > J: 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 > > RE: 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? > =============== J: Agreed that the description of the corpse in various stages of decomposition is part of the setting of the sutta. What the commentary is describing is the contemplation that may occur when such a corpse is seen (and of course those thoughts occur, and can only occur, in terms of concepts). > =============== > > J: 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: 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. > =============== J: Again, the sutta does not talk about "corpse contemplation". Regarding, "So you are picking and choosing the part that is agreeable and discarding the rest", I'm not discarding anything because I'm not in any sense denying the contemplation. I'm saying that the real message is something beyond that, something that is not spelt out in so many words in the sutta. > =============== > > 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. > > RE: 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. > =============== J: Correct, the other forms of kusala are not, in and of themselves, the development of the path. However, they support the development of the path in a number of ways. One way would be in contributing to rebirth in the human realm rather than in a lower realm where there is no opportunity to hear the teachings. Another would be that the person lives without regret for the past, and so is not distracted from hearing and considering the teachings. > =============== > > J: 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. > > RE: I have no problem with understanding that, if they do indeed help develop the path. How do they do so? > =============== J: The other forms of kusala are a favourable, rather than an unfavourable, condition. However, they are no substitute for hearing the teaching on awareness/insight and reflecting on that. Without this, all the non-path kusala in the world will be of no avail; it will condition rebirth in fortunate realms but there will come a time when the accumulated wrong view and other kilesas will condition akusala deeds that will later result in unhappy rebirth. > =============== > > > 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. > =============== J: There is no *promotion* of corpse/own body meditation in the sutta > =============== > RE: 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. > =============== J: First, the sutta is not telling people to go out and contemplate a corpse. Secondly, the teachings of the Buddha are given in language that is open to a purely conventional interpretation. Thirdly, the teaching was given for the benefit of the then audience, or certain members of it, who were able to `get' the underlying meaning. > =============== > > 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. > > RE: If you could give me a little more detail or references for this, I would appreciate it. > =============== J: No references to hand, and none immediately come to mind, but will see if I can find some. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130801 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Dear Ken H, 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." D: you may be right in a sense as the Ken Dhamma is concerned , but the Buddha Dhamma is different. Ken, are you serious when you claim "They point away from it, towards wrong view" ? 'they', the essays from the quoted authors , are written by well respected Dhamma teachers (e.g. Bhikkus Bodhi, Payutto,Nanananda ) of the Theravada community. Perhaps you will recognize the blunder when you learn more about the Law of Dependent Origination ( and related Abhidhamma treatment ). with Metta Dieter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130802 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 8:36 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Dieter, --------- > D: you may be right in a sense as the Ken Dhamma is concerned , but the Buddha Dhamma is different. --------- KH: There is no Ken Dhamma. If you can tell me where the Buddha's Dhamma is different from what I have said please do so. I have been known to use that tactic too: I have told former DSG members that they were espousing their own Dhammas. But was only after they had rejected the ancient commentaries, rejected the Abhidhamma, and rejected certain suttas that didn't comply with their own views. On the other hand, all I have done is to insist that the Buddha taught absolute reality. The dhammas that the Buddha taught (the eye, eye consciousness, eye contact, feeling . . .) were absolutely real. You and your favourite authors have refused to say that. Instead you have suggested that the Mahayana Dhamma is true. You have suggested that the dhammas the Buddha taught were not absolutely real and did not really exist. And then you have accused *me* of replacing the Buddha's teaching with my own. Please come to DSG prepared to discuss the issues. Don't just quote some popular authors and then run away. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130803 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:20 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 18 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): Visible object, sound and the other sense objects that appear are present only for an extremely short while. As soon as they have been experienced they are gone already, never to return. Visible object falls away and then a different visible object arises and falls away again. It seems as if visible object can stay for a while. We cling to shape and form and we are taken in by the outward appearance of things. It seems that we see people and things, but this is a delusion. Visible object is that which is seen. It could not appear without the citta which sees, seeing-consciousness. Seeing-consciousness is an element that cognizes or experiences, it is naama, whereas visible object is ruupa, it does not know anything. Ruupas do not arise alone, they arise and fall away in groups or units of ruupas. Each group consists of several kinds of ruupas which always include four kinds of ruupas which are called the four Great Elements. These are the following ruupas: the Element of Earth or solidity the Element of Water or cohesion the Element of Fire or heat the Element of Wind (air) or motion The Element of Earth appears as hardness or softness, the Element of Fire as heat or cold, and the Element of Wind as motion or pressure. These are tangible object, they can be directly experienced through the body-consciousness when they appear. The Element of Water is not tangible object, it cannot be experienced by body-consciousness. When we touch what we call water it may be softness, heat or cold which are experienced. The function of the Element of Water or cohesion is holding together the accompanying ruupas in one group, so that they do not fall apart. Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130804 From: han tun Date: Wed May 22, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Sarah,  >>. 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." .... >. Sarah: 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. ....  Han: What I said was for Venerable Aananda the Tathaagata existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas."  If you do not read anything to suggest any wrong view about dhammas as being atta, I also do not read anything to suggest that Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as just a heap of dhammas.  It can go on like this for indefinitely:>)). I think we better agree to disagree.  with metta and deepest respect, your Partner Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130805 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:25 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > 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. ...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. Thanks - let's see if we can talk on the same subject - maybe I'm confused about what you are saying too... > 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. To me this is not about conventional thinking, but about conventional speech on the part of a Buddha. Sure, people will think all kinds of things, even arahant, but the Buddha *teaches.* He doesn't just engage in normal conversation, but talks about what is important. So this is about why the Buddha *talked* about conventional matters, not why or whether we *think* about them. > 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? Again, I am looking for a coherent explanation as to why the Buddha would talk about killing, bodies, people, drinking, playing dice, householders, men and women, giving alms, etc. when he is *teaching.* If these are all just concepts, they are not in themselves kusala or akusala. They are delusions. Why would He teach that one delusion is better than another, or you should not kill a conceptual being, and talk about them as real. > 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? Well if a particular situation arises, and the Buddha has a chance to encourage metta, sila, dana and so on, maybe in that situation it is a natural and normal thing to do, but not when the Buddha is giving a formal talk to monks or serious lay-persons. Then it would not be appropriate to talk about these forms of kusala without making clear what is true and what is false; what is the path and what is not the path. No, that would not be appropriate. And the question remains: Jon said recently that such "auxiliary" kusala supports the development of the path. This is a new idea which I am still waiting to see in more detail, because normally the answer I get is that they have *no relation* to the path at all, but are sort of impotent kusala as far as the path is concerned. If they do act as supporting conditions for the development of the path, that opens up many different possibilities, including the referencing of concepts as part of path development, as long as the mental factors in relation to that concept are kusala. Do you think that is the case? > You are suggesting that these are good only when understood as being > part of the Path. That's right, because that is what the Buddha is here to teach. Look, if you and I want to have a better life and want to live with less suffering and be kind to others, there's nothing wrong with that of course! That is good, it is kusala. But that sort of intention has nothing to do with the Buddha's high purpose in being here. If he is sending two message: "here are the factors of enlightenment" and also "while you're at it be nice to others" that is fine, as long as the two are distinguished. The Buddha talked about metta and sila as serious factors to be developed, not a nice side thing. So either his teachings apply to the development of the path and that is the body of his work, or else he can be seen to have taught about this, that and the other thing that may be nice, good or whatever. I don't think that's how the body of his work is composed. > 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? Yes - as I see it, it is not the Buddha's job to talk about this that and the other thing - only the path. Otherwise it causes confusion and uncertainty about what to think or do. > > 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. Seems pretty confusing to me. Can you show me where he made this clear distinction? Anyway, kusala that is not pertinent to the path should not be emphasized - unless it is of course. > > 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. No, you can believe whatever you like. I want you to explain why the Buddha talked about them, not what you or I think. Did the Buddha appear in the world to distinguish general kusala from general akusala in relation to concepts, or did he appear to distinguish path kusala, and to show what is real and unreal? > I say > that for something to be kusala and therefore encouraged does not make > it part of the Path, Then it would not be the Buddha's job to talk about it. > 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. Do you think the Buddha had extra time inbetween teaching Dhamma and so he taught a bunch of other stuff so he could be quoted on postcards in the future: "Be kind to animals - Elsie the cow will thank you!" "Don't kill because it's not nice." "Don't drink because you may have a chariot accident!" ... > 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. Why? Because he is a nice guy? > Only that this would not be without also teaching that in fact they are > all impersonal and conditioned phenomena. I don't think that is very clear. He seems to be clearly in favor of metta, sila etc. and promotes them. He doesn't frequently say they are empty and conditioned. Do you have a handy quote? Here is the Buddha on metta:[Metta sutta] Let none deceive another, Or despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life Her child, her only child, So with a boundless heart Should one cherish all living beings: Radiating kindness over the entire world Spreading upwards to the skies, And downwards to the depths; Outwards and unbounded, Freed from hatred and ill-will. Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down Free from drowsiness, One should sustain this recollection. This is said to be the sublime abiding. By not holding to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, Being freed from all sense desires, Is not born again into this world. I fail to see the teachings on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of metta - it sounds like it is being advertised pretty strongly here. I'm sure the Buddha would also teach this to those who are at the point to understand it, but he seems to feel that metta is a supreme form of kusala in its own right, as well as all the conceptually-based things he is advocating here. > > 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? Well that's not my idea, it is more the idea of those who say that, as regards the path, we should have no relation to beings as they are illusory. > > 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. That's right. If the path is what is important, why praise an impotent form of kusala? What good does it do, really? > 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? Anytime you discern the nature of a dhamma, it is part of path development, but it is another thing to promote non-path kusala. For what reason? > > > 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? It has been said many times that to confuse non-path kusala with path kusala is very dangerous. For instance, jhana is kusala but is said to be non-path and it has been said that confusing such kusala with the path can lead to wrong view for many aeons. > > 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? No, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. I think meditation, sila, dana, metta, etc. are part of the path. But if you don't, then you have to explain why the Buddha is promoting them so much. I think it's because they lead to path development and that your view is too strict, thus ignoring all the kusala of everyday affairs. > > 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. Ha ha - okay then explain, if I am so stupid. You should be able to make it clear. > > > 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? So you would kindly promote metta and such just to create enough merit to get a better rebirth? Even if it leads to a much longer period of ignorance? Why not just teach the path and end the cycle of rebirth altogether? > > > 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. When did he dismiss Jhana as the path? I never saw any such statement. > Similarly he would dismiss what you are > suggesting. Really - that is good to know. So the Buddha was a teacher of all kinds of kusala, path and non-path. Good to know. He was just a general kusala teacher, so people could have a bit better vipaka. > > > 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. Not at the same time, he didn't. He taught about all these forms of kusala without ever saying that they were dukkha, many many times. He saved that for the advanced course. > > > 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. No you are. > 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? If he did, what would be the reason? Why? > > > 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. I think I've already explained it. They were all taught by the Buddha, who I believe taught that such kusala would lead to greater understanding and eventually to insight, when accompanied by the full range of practices he recommended - Right concentration, mindfulness, livelihood, action, etc.... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130806 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hello Ken H....... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > --------- > <. . .> > > RE: I can see you - can you see me waving? :-) > --------- > > KH: Don't look now . . . oh, too late!:-) :) Thanks for playing... > ------------- > <. . .> > > 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? None of those are examples of Eternal Atta - they are examples of everyday kandhic atta. Those are both nonexistent but not the same thing. You are equating the person "Sarah" with an eternal soul. That is not the same concept. Get your complaints straightened out please. > 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? Nobody is saying that the Buddha believed in atta. But there is a topic worthy of discussion if one had the patience to understanding it -- you don't. It is the status of everyday beings and behavior and how and why they appear and what are their true nature. The Buddha taught that their true nature was the kandhas and that they were really the result of impersonal processes. That adds up to the same thing - no such beings exist as such. But sure we experience everyday actions and people recurring. Some folks are just trying to make the point that these sorts of appearances continue based on the conditioned occurrences of the kandhas in various combinations. That is a valid point and does not constitute belief in a self, and certainly not a belief in any sort of eternal anything, since such formations are temporary and eventually disappear completely. > There is only one reason we are seeing such outrageous behaviour, There is no outrageous behavior except in the reactive formulations of your own cittas. > 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. Show me the quotes, but really - I think it is worthwhile to look at what the Buddha actually said and discuss that, rather than some other stupid thing. > ---------------------- > <. . .> > > 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. Well that's what I'm up to - I hope. > 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. I don't have the impression - after many years - that any of the players around here are particularly "Thanissaro followers." I am fine with many of his translations, but uninterested in his personal philosophy. And always happy to see an alternate translation as well. > --------------------------------- > <. . .> > > 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. Well I did say "if." I don't think you are very clear about my understanding, one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set. > 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. I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view. Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130807 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 4:16 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E. ------ <. . .> > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding, one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set. ------ KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta. I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening. ------------------ > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and ----------------- KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self. Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend. I don't know which is worse. ------------------- > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view. ------------------- KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way. ------------------------- > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-) ------------------------- KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130808 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: What I said was for Venerable Aananda the Tathaagata > existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas." ... S: I think that all ariyan disciples, even sotapannas understand that only khandhas arise and fall away and that there are no other realities at all, apart from the unconditioned dhamma, nibbanna. As discussed before, we need to consider the Teachings as a whole. SN22: 37 Ananda (Bodhi transl): The Buddha asks Ananda: " 'If, Aananda, they were to ask you: 'Friend Aananda, what are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned? (uppaada, vaya, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)' - being asked thus, how would you answer?' " ' Venerable sir, if they were to ask me this, I would answer thus: 'Friends, with form an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. With feeling....perception....volitional formations...consciousness........ These friends, are the things of which an arising is discerned..................'..... "' Good, good, Aananda! With form.....feeling....perception.. volitional formations...consciousness......Being asked thus, Aananda, you should answer in such a way.' " *** In case there is any suggestion that Ananda is just repeating what he has heard, we read in the following that he knows exactly what is right and what are ditthi (wrong views): AN V:96 Kokanada (Bodhi transl): Ananda says: " 'The world is eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong,' friend: this is a speculative view. The world is not eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view. 'The world is finite'....'The world is infinite'....'The soul and the body are the same'....'The soul is one thing, the body another'....'The Tathaagata exists after death'....'The Tathaagata does not exist after death'....'The Tatthaagata both exists and does not exist after death'....'The Tathaagata neither exists nor does not exist after death; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view. " 'To the extent, friend, that there is a speculative view, a basis for views, a foundation for views (di.t.thi.t.thaana), obsession with views, the origination of views, and the uprooting of views, I know and see this. When I know and see this, why should I say: 'I do not know and see.' I know, friend, I see." **** S: These are just the same (wrong) views referred to in SN 41:3 Isidatta (2) (Bodhi transl). We read that these views are all come about as a result of sakkaaya-di.t.thi: " 'As to the various views that arise in the world, householder, 'The world is eternal'....- these as well as the sixty-two speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajaala: when there is identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity view, these views do not come to be." S: We then read about how the uninstructed worldling "regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form" and so on for the other khandhas.The noble disciple, on the other hand, does not regard them in this way. ***** Metta & resppect Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130809 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 6:30 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, Thanks for checking the reference below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 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 > > >S: 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". ... S: From B.Bodhi's transl: " Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through greed, born of greed, caused by greed, originated by greed, ripens wherever the individual is reborn. Wherever that kamma ripens, it is there that one experiences its result, either in this very life, or in the [next] rebirth, or on some subsequent occasion." (Ya.m, bhikkhave, lobhapakata.m kamma.m lobhaja.m lobhanidaana.m lobhasamudaya.m, yatthassa attabhaavo nibbattati tattha ta.m kamma.m vipaccati. Yattha ta.m kamma.m vipaccati tattha tassa kammassa vipaaka.m pa.tisa.mvedeti, di.t.the vaa dhamme upapajja vaa apare vaa pariyaaye.) *** S: This refers to kammasakataa sammaa-di.t.thi (understanding kamma and vipaaka). The vipaka, such as seeing or hearing, that we refer to as "Tep" arises as a result of past kamma which is different from the kamma which produces vipaka now which we refer to as "Sarah". We can refer to different lives, different streams, different attabhava. In reality, just dhammas making up the rounds of kusala/akusala, kamma and vipaka. No self that makes an effort, is vigorous or develops panna. Just cittas and cetasikas arising, performing their functions and falling away. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130810 From: han tun Date: Wed May 22, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Sarah,  My stance on this issue is based on the two paragraphs of DN 16, and not on any other passage from the vast Tipitaka.  I repeat my stance 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!'  207. Atha kho aayasmaa aanando vihaara.m pavisitvaa kapisiisa.m aalambitvaa rodamaano a.t.thaasi "aha~nca vatamhi sekho sakara.niiyo, satthu ca me parinibbaana.m bhavissati, yo mama anukampako"ti.  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.'  216. Atha kho bhagavaa aayasmanta.m aananda.m aamantesi "siyaa kho panaananda, tumhaaka.m evamassa 'atiitasatthuka.m paavacana.m, natthi no satthaa'ti. Na kho paneta.m, aananda, eva.m da.t.thabba.m. Yo vo, aananda, mayaa dhammo ca vinayo ca desito pa~n~natto, so vo mamaccayenasatthaa."  Han: From the above two 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 Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a Tathaagata. To confirm this, in paragraph 5.13 Venerable Aananda called the Buddha as "My Teacher" [satthu ca me]. I do not read anything in the above two paragraphs to suggest that Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a heap of dhammas.  I am sorry to repeat my stance again.  But I want to make it clear that I am not making a general statement, but a specific  case of Venerable Aananda with regard to the two paragraphs of DN 16.  with metta and deepest respect, Your Partner Han ________________________________ From: sarah To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:11 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep  Dear Partner Han, --- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: What I said was for Venerable Aananda the Tathaagata > existed and not "no Tathaagata, only Dhammas." ... S: I think that all ariyan disciples, even sotapannas understand that only khandhas arise and fall away and that there are no other realities at all, apart from the unconditioned dhamma, nibbanna. As discussed before, we need to consider the Teachings as a whole. SN22: 37 Ananda (Bodhi transl): The Buddha asks Ananda: " 'If, Aananda, they were to ask you: 'Friend Aananda, what are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned? (uppaada, vaya, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)' - being asked thus, how would you answer?' " ' Venerable sir, if they were to ask me this, I would answer thus: 'Friends, with form an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. With feeling....perception....volitional formations...consciousness........ These friends, are the things of which an arising is discerned..................'..... "' Good, good, Aananda! With form.....feeling....perception.. volitional formations...consciousness......Being asked thus, Aananda, you should answer in such a way.' " *** In case there is any suggestion that Ananda is just repeating what he has heard, we read in the following that he knows exactly what is right and what are ditthi (wrong views): AN V:96 Kokanada (Bodhi transl): Ananda says: " 'The world is eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong,' friend: this is a speculative view. The world is not eternal; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view. 'The world is finite'....'The world is infinite'....'The soul and the body are the same'....'The soul is one thing, the body another'....'The Tathaagata exists after death'....'The Tathaagata does not exist after death'....'The Tatthaagata both exists and does not exist after death'....'The Tathaagata neither exists nor does not exist after death; this alone is true, anything else is wrong': this is a speculative view. " 'To the extent, friend, that there is a speculative view, a basis for views, a foundation for views (di.t.thi.t.thaana), obsession with views, the origination of views, and the uprooting of views, I know and see this. When I know and see this, why should I say: 'I do not know and see.' I know, friend, I see." **** S: These are just the same (wrong) views referred to in SN 41:3 Isidatta (2) (Bodhi transl). We read that these views are all come about as a result of sakkaaya-di.t.thi: " 'As to the various views that arise in the world, householder, 'The world is eternal'....- these as well as the sixty-two speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajaala: when there is identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity view, these views do not come to be." S: We then read about how the uninstructed worldling "regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form" and so on for the other khandhas.The noble disciple, on the other hand, does not regard them in this way. ***** Metta & resppect Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130811 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 22, 2013 8:40 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth anattaman Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, all - I appreciate your time and effort to discuss Nidana Sutta (AN 3.33) concerning 'attabhava'. It is useful when two different translations are compared with the Pali text. Ya.m, bhikkhave, lobhapakata.m kamma.m lobhaja.m lobhanidaana.m lobhasamudaya.m, yatthassa attabhaavo nibbattati tattha ta.m kamma.m vipaccati. Yattha ta.m kamma.m vipaccati tattha tassa kammassa vipaaka.m pa.tisa.mvedeti, di.t.the vaa dhamme upapajja vaa apare vaa pariyaaye. Bhava: "becoming," (form of) rebirth, (state of) existence, a "life." There are 3 states of existence conventionally enumd as kaamabhava, ruupabhava, aruupabhava or sensual existence, deva -- corporeal, & formless existence D ii.57; iii.216; S ii.3; iv.258; A ii.223; iii.444; Nd1 48; Nd2 s. v. dhÄtu B.; Vism 210 DA i.34; Vism 529; VbhA 204. -- Another view is represented by the division of bhava into kammaËš and upapattiËš (uppattiËš), or the active functioning of a life in relation to the fruitional, or resultant way of the next life. [PTS Dictionary] Nibbatta: existing, having existed, being reborn [PTS] Vipaccati: 1. to be cooked, i. e. to ripen J v.121; PvA 104. 2. to bear fruit D ii.266; S i.144; M i.388; Nett 37; VvA 171. [PTS] Ven. Thanissaro's rendition: "Any action performed with greed --born of greed, caused by greed, originating from greed: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence. Ven. Bodhi's rendition: " Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through greed, born of greed, caused by greed, originated by greed, ripens wherever the individual is reborn. Wherever that kamma ripens, it is there that one experiences its result, either in this very life, or in the [next] rebirth, or on some subsequent occasion." ........... > >S: 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". T: Selfhood is just a label. Please do not be too quick to reject anything that doesn't agree with your belief. Investigate carefully first! >S: From B.Bodhi's transl: This refers to kammasakataa sammaa-di.t.thi (understanding kamma and vipaaka). The vipaka, such as seeing or hearing, that we refer to as "Tep" arises as a result of past kamma which is different from the kamma which produces vipaka now which we refer to as "Sarah". We can refer to different lives, different streams, different attabhava. T: I can accept your opinion that attabhava may "refer to different lives, different streams". The important point here is: there is a unique pattern of kamma and vipaka that pertains to each individual life. That has made you and me different. I call that 'attabhava'. .... >S: In reality, just dhammas making up the rounds of kusala/akusala, kamma and vipaka. T: As explained above in the discussion of the Pali text, in reality attabhava is not separate from "the rounds of kusala/akusala, kamma and vipaka". .... >S: No self that makes an effort, is vigorous or develops panna. Just cittas and cetasikas arising, performing their functions and falling away. T: No need to repeat that mantra (it has been recited too often already) so that we may save the bandwidth. It has been clear that there is the perception of self (atta) only when there is 'attaditthi' (self-views); there should be no question about that. As explained above in the discussion of the Pali text, there is attabhava of an individual, in reality, who makes an action (kamma) --bodily, verbally and mentally. An advantage of this attabhava explanation is that it avoids the clumsy contradiction --the DSG mantra-- that says: 'only dhammas exist; there is nothing else'. Yes, there is attabhava that is impermanent and not self. Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > ... > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130812 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu May 23, 2013 12:56 am Subject: TA on vitakka sprlrt Send Email Send Email Hi, - TA on vitakka, in HH, 10th, AM-b, 7:30 - - Alberto TA: And vitakka is a factor of enlightenment too, so it's quite important to know that it's not pa~n~na, but it keeps on touching the object, whenever it arises, except in the ten ahetuka cittas; so we can know akusala vitakka, kusala vitakka without pa~n~na, and with pa~n~na until it becomes the sammasankappa factor of the eigthfold path; from not knowing anything right now until it touches and touch and touch with pa~n~na, so pa~n~na can understand whatever appears correctly, precisely, better and better. As soon as there is another object it means that vitakka takes it away, all citta and cetasikas, to other objects. It's like "come with me, to other objects" Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130813 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 3:17 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana- satipatthana moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, you wrote (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! D: I am not yet sure whether respectively where we disagree.. possibly you assume above to be applied in daily life , which of course should be aimed for , however that can only work when the framework has been established. All four frames need to be contemplated as part of the path training and on such base the development towards right /perfect mindfulness to be realized. You know that MN 10 and DN 22 starts with "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk - having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. The text is not repeated for the feeling , mind and mind objects , but I think it is clear that it serves as a frame preamble for all four , i.e. Maha Satipatthana as the 7th step of the Noble Path is a meditation/contemplation exercise and part of the samadhi traning sequence . I like to quote from my previous message: 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 ! ;-) unquote so I am far from having established the frames , not to talk about to remain focused on in- and out breathing while active with complex tasks ... interesting in this respect is a comment to DN 22 by Ven . Thanissaro : "At first glance, the four frames of reference for satipatthana practice sound like four different meditation exercises, but MN 118 makes clear that they can all center on a single practice: keeping the breath in mind. When the mind is with the breath, all four frames of reference are right there. The difference lies simply in the subtlety of one's focus. It's like learning to play the piano. As you get more proficient at playing, you also become sensitive in listening to ever more subtle levels in the music. This allows you to play even more skillfully. In the same way, as a meditator gets more skilled in staying with the breath, the practice of satipatthana gives greater sensitivity in peeling away ever more subtle layers of participation in the present moment until nothing is left standing in the way of total release." I wonder whether the Venerable refers to a time of contemplation or mindfulness of breathing as a companion of daily life. The latter seems to me reserved for the highly advanced disciple , i.e. the Noble One. with Metta Dieter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130814 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 5:28 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana- satipatthana anattaman Send Email Send Email Hi Dieter, - >>Tep: I don't have any idea why we disagree on the Satipatthana! >Dieter: I am not yet sure whether respectively where we disagree.. possibly you assume above to be applied in daily life , which of course should be aimed for , however that can only work when the framework has been established. All four frames need to be contemplated as part of the path training and on such base the development towards right /perfect mindfulness to be realized. T: Yes, I did talk about simple/daily application of the mindfulness in the body (breaths and body postures) anywhere, anytime, with the objective to reduce agitation/restlessness and to develop alertness/comprehension as I explained in the previous post. It has worked for me. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > you wrote > > (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! > > > Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130815 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 4:38 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E. > > ------ > <. . .> > > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding, > one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set. > ------ > > KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta. > > I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening. You're being arrogant Ken. I do accept anatta and understand it as well as you I am sure if not moreso. You cling to doctrine like it is anatta itself. Anatta is not a word or a thingy, it stands for no self at all. You appear to have made your version of familiar Dhamma concepts your treasured self, even though the Buddha says to cling to nothing at all, including even Right View, which is destroyed by clinging. You judge others because they don't say the right keywords and you don't understand what they are saying at all, or what they know or believe. > ------------------ > > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and > ----------------- > > KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self. You have the foolishness to think you know whether someone's own view is what they really think or not. If I say I don't believe in the existence of any form of self, you ought to take my word for it. You really don't know enough to look into someone else's mental state or understanding. > Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend. > > I don't know which is worse. You have no idea what "most meditators" think or know. You make it up to comfort yourself and go back to reciting your favorite concepts. That is no different than any meditator with a mantra. > ------------------- > > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view. > ------------------- > > KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way. > > ------------------------- > > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-) > ------------------------- > > KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that? Perhaps because you can say the right words but don't really know what they mean. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130816 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 4:54 pm Subject: Re: Buddha's Verses sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Yawares, Thanks for sharing the verses on flowers. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > 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??!! ... S: Don't worry - only an anagami has no more attachment to sense objects. This is sama (ordinary) attachment as opposed to visama (extreme) attachment that harms others, such as when breaking precepts. A sotapanna who has experienced nibbana still has plenty of sama lobha, but no more conditions for visama lobha, such as when killing or stealing. Any attachment can be the object of understanding and awareness - this is the way, not trying to avoid it. Metta Sarah > > ************* > > 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. Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130817 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Right Supports for Right Understanding sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, > T: The slightest faults in the Vinaya must be understood by all good monks, new or experienced monks, otherwise they cannot succeed. ... S: Only the one who has developed satipatthana and has become an ariyan disciple will follow the Patimokkha perfectly and easily and will succeed in the monk's way of life. Without the development of satipatthana, it is impossible to see "the slightest faults". The one who is truly restrained in body, speech and mind is the one who has learnt to see the danger 'in the slightest faults'. As we read in the Vism, 'it is the four foundations of mindfulness on which the mind is anchored.' (1, 51). As Nina wrote before: >N: With regard to the restraint of the Paatimokkha, we read in the "Book of Analysis" (Ch 12, 244): Herein a bhikkhu dwells restrained and controlled by the Paatimokkha restraint, endowed with (proper) behaviour and a (suitable) alms resort, seeing peril in (his) slightest faults, observing (the precepts) he trains himself in the precepts.... As regards restraint of the sense faculties, there are different levels of restraint. We read in the "Middle Length Sayings" (no. 27, Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint) that the Buddha spoke to the brahman Jaanussoni about the monk who has restraint as to the sense-faculties: ... Having seen visible object with the eye he is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over the organ of sight.... >N: The same is said with regard to the other senses and the mind-door. When awareness arises of visible object, sound or the other sense objects, there is no opportunity for the arising of akusala citta. At such a moment one does not harm anybody else through body or speech. When we understand which paramattha dhamma siila is, namely, citta and cetasika, it will be clear that there can be siila, even when one does not act or speak. Satipatthaana is the Buddha's teaching, and thus, satipatthaana should not be separated from the other ways of siila the monk should observe: the restraint of the 'Paatimokkha', the purity of livelihood and the use of the requisites which is purified by reflection.< *** Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (23) #130818 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 7:53 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 19. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): These four Great Elements that arise with all other ruupas are their foundation, they support them. Thus, when visible object appears, there have to be these four Great Elements together with visible object in one group, but they are not seen. Only visible object is seen at that moment. The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 100) states that the four Great Elements are "deceivers": "And just as the great creatures known as female spirits (yakkhinii) conceal their own fearfulness with a pleasing colour, shape and gesture to deceive beings, so too, these elements conceal each their own characteristics and function classed as hardness, etc., by means of a pleasing skin colour of women's and men's bodies, etc., and pleasing shapes of limbs and pleasing gestures of fingers, toes and eyebrows, and they deceive simple people by concealing their own functions and characteristics beginning with hardness and do not allow their individual essences to be seen. Thus they are great primaries (mahaa-bhuuta) in being equal to the great creatures (mahaa-bhuuta), the female spirits, since they are deceivers." Realities are not what they appear to be. Because of sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance that arises with every citta, we remember shape and form and immediately we cling to what we believe are things and persons. One may be infatuated by the beauty of men and women, but what one takes for a beautiful body are mere ruupa-elements. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130819 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 23, 2013 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > Hi Jon. > > > J: 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). ... > > RE: 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. > =============== J: What you say here is more or less my understanding of the difference between naama and ruupa when it comes to having a function (except that ruupa is not necessarily taken up by naama; rupa arises independently of being or becoming the object of a naama, remember? :-). > =============== > RE: 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: In the case of conventional objects, the perceived function depends on one's perspective: holding up the ceiling is one possible notion of the function; keeping out the cold or keeping things secure within would be others. > =============== > > J: 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. > > RE: "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. > =============== J: Yes, correct. > =============== > RE: 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. > =============== J: "Natural feature of the way they are" puts it pretty well, as I see this matter of function. > =============== > > J: The characteristic/attribute of hearing consciousness is that it experiences audible object that appears at the ear door. > > RE: 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? > =============== J: Regarding "what makes something audible is that it is heard by definition", that's not how audible object is defined in the texts. You see, whereas in the case of hearing consciousness there is a definite `match' (to use your terminology), in the sense that hearing consciousness cannot occur in the absence of an audible object as object, the `match' in the case of audible object is a potential one only. Accordingly, audible object is defined as the dhamma that is *capable of* being experienced by hearing consciousness. We have also discussed previously how audible object requires the `clashing together' of hardness ruupas in order to occur. This treats audible object from another perspective. > =============== > RE: 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? > =============== J: It's important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness. > =============== > > J: [I]f you're saying that the conventional labels are immaterial, then, yes. > > RE: 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? > =============== J: A label is something that is made up by consciousness, by thinking. So by definition labels do not occur in nature. Labels aid communication, but I don't see how they aid awareness. Regarding "What would it mean to be fully aware of audible object, as opposed to merely hearing it?", I'm afraid I don't see how this relates to the question of labels as mind-created conventions. Would you mind elaborating a little? Thanks. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130820 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 23, 2013 10:57 pm Subject: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Jon (and Robert) - Jon you wrote "It's important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness." But the Buddha taught in AN 4.24 that "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. (He doesn't construe a knower.)" With metta, Howard Nothing Beyond the Mere Object of Consciousness /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130821 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 3:44 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana- satipatthana- breathing moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Tep,( all ), you wrote: T: Yes, I did talk about simple/daily application of the mindfulness in the body (breaths and body postures) anywhere, anytime, with the objective to reduce agitation/restlessness and to develop alertness/comprehension as I explained in the previous post. It has worked for me. D: There is no doubt about the benefit of mindfulness in breathing . It is wellknown that breath and emotion are related and when one is able to remind oneself to pay attention to the breath at such state , one is are already in a favorite position. Far more difficult is to remain focused anywhere and anytimes . Now I suppose you mean that you are able to apply it in daily life , recalling the calming effect of observation , and not indicating that you keep the breathing continually in mind . (which I assume requires extensive training, many people are not able even to focus on the breath for more than a moment) Ven. Thanissaro compared that with learning to play the piano and refered to MN 118 , the Anapanasati Sutta. Interesting that you are not talking alone about the breathing , as you refer as well to body postures , the second of the 6 mentioned body contemplations. ( My respect if you are able to do (to recall) that anywhere and anytime)... And - B.T.W. - interesting furthermore to note that the breath , as the air (gas/wind) element , can be seen in relation with the three other body elements earth (solid e.g. teeth), water ( liquid e.g. blood ) and fire ( e.g . temperature) - which reminds me on the often emphasized awareness of (rupa) realities on the the list. with Metta Dieter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130822 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 5:15 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon nichiconn Send Email Send Email pardon the intrusion... AN 4.24 gets my attention. sorry & thanks. Howard quoth: "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. (He doesn't construe a knower.)" > AN 4.24 c: and we continueth from around this mid-way: iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m, di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati; So, having (1) seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees./666 666 ~ Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." sutvaa sotabba.m, suta.m na ma~n~nati, asuta.m na ma~n~nati, sotabba.m na ma~n~nati, sotaara.m na ma~n~nati; (2) as above for heard, mutvaa motabba.m, muta.m na ma~n~nati, amuta.m na ma~n~nati, motabba.m na ma~n~nati, motaara.m na ma~n~nati; and (3)sensed, vi~n~natvaa vi~n~naatabba.m, vi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati, avi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati, vi~n~naatabba.m na ma~n~nati, vi~n~naataara.m na ma~n~nati. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized, he does not misconceive the cognized, does not misconceive the uncognized, does not misconceive what can be cognized, does not misconceive one who cognizes. TB: When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. GSii: cognizing the cognizable ... he has no conceit [deeming, fancy] of the thing cognized or to be cognized or of him who has cognition. ... until we meet again, connie > With metta, > Howard > > > Nothing Beyond the Mere Object of Consciousness > > /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ > > (From the Bahiya Sutta) > #130823 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 5:27 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon nichiconn Send Email Send Email an 4.24 reader, from that mid-way to the end is not so much more. this would be part 3 of 3, so one will follow. thank you, translators. iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato di.t.thasutamutavi~n~naatabbesu dhammesu taadiiyeva taadii. tamhaa ca pana taadimhaa a~n~no taadii uttaritaro vaa pa.niitataro vaa natthiiti vadaamii"ti. Thus, Bhikkhus, being ever stable among things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, the Tathaagata is a stable one./667 And, I say, there is no stable one more excellent or sublime than that stable one. 667 ~ Nidd I 114-15 explains that an arahant is called taadii because he has transcended preferences, given up (catto) defilements, crossed (ti.n.no) the floods, and has a liberated mind; Mp: "Being ever stable ... is a stable one (ta-di-yeva ta-di-): 'Stable' means exactly the same (ekasadisataa). The T is the same both in gain and loss, fame and obscurity, blame and praise, and pleasure and pain. ... By this the plane of the stable one (taadibhuumi) has been explained. As he concluded the teaching with these five planes, on each of the five occasions the earth quaked as testimony." "ya.m ki~nci di.t.tha.mva suta.m muta.m vaa, ajjhosita.m saccamuta.m paresa.m. na tesu taadii sayasa.mvutesu, sacca.m musaa vaapi para.m daheyya. Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One Would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others./668 668 ~ di.t.thigatikaa - sayasa.mvutesu (gs: convinced; tb: self-fettered) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions ... ... "eta~nca salla.m pa.tikacca disvaa, ajjhositaa yattha pajaa visattaa. jaanaami passaami tatheva eta.m, ajjhosita.m natthi tathaagataanan"ti. catuttha.m. Since they have already seen this dart/669 {to which ppl cling and adhere, [saying] "I know, I see, it is just so," the Tathaagatas cling to nothing. gs: I long ago beheld this barb whereon mankind are hooked, impaled. I know, I see, to that cling not Tathaagatas. 669: Mp identifies the "dart" as the dart of views (di.t.thisalla). Elsewhere craving is spoken of as the dart, (snip ref's); in still other passages, the dart is sorrow, as at 5:48, 5:50. {The kamma is strong; what can i do now?} ============ connie > > Nothing Beyond the Mere Object of Consciousness > > > > /In reference to > > > > the Bahiya Sutta) Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130824 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 5:38 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon nichiconn Send Email Send Email patient reader, here we have the beginning: catukkanipaatapaa.li, 1. pa.thamapa.n.naasaka.m, 3. uruvelavaggo, 4. kaa.lakaaraamasutta.m n (AN 4.24) [Thus have I heard.]/660 24. eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa saakete viharati kaa.lakaaraame (ko.likaaraame) On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Saaketa, at Kaa.laka's Park/661. tatra kho bhagavaa bhikkhuu aamantesi — "bhikkhavo"ti. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: Bhikkhus! 661 ~ According to Mp, Kaa.laka was a wealthy financier and the father-in-law of Anaathapi.n.dika's daughter Cuu.lasubhaddaa. At the time of her marriage, he had been a devotee of the naked ascetics and knew nothing about the Buddha or his teaching. Cuu.lasubhaddaa contrived to get him to invite the Buddha & the monks for a meal offering. After the meal, the Buddha gave a discourse that established him in the fruit of stream-entry. Kaa.laka then built a monastery in his park and donated both monastery and park to the Buddha. One day, when the bhikkhus who were natives of Saaketa were sitting in the meeting hall discussing the Buddha's success in converting Kaa.laka, the Buddha read their minds and knew they were ready for a discourse that would settle them in arahantship. It would also cause the great earth to quake up to its boundaries. Hence he addressed the bhikkhus./ GSii: cf Buddh.India, 39. "bhadante"ti te bhikkhuu bhagavato paccassosu.m. bhagavaa etadavoca — Venerable Sir! those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Maara, and Brahmaa, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is *seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind -* that I know. GSii: seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, searched into, pondered over by the mind, TB: seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: "ya.m, bhikkhave, sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya *di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa,* tamaha.m jaanaami^. "ya.m, bhikkhave, <...>, tamaha.m ^abbha~n~naasi.m. Bhikkhus <...> that I have directly known. ta.m tathaagatassa ^vidita.m, ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Bodhi: It has been known by the Tathaagata,/^662 but the Tathaagata did not become subservient to it./663 TB: That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established. [hasn't taken a stance on it] GSii: ~ all that is understood by the Tathaagata, but the Tathaagata is not subject to it./ ^662 ~ Mp: "By these three terms (jaanaami, abbha~n~naasi.m, vidita.m) the plane of omniscience (sabba~n~nutabhuumi is indicated." ...cut... 663 ~ Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Mp: "The Tathaagata did not become subservient to any object at the six sense doors, that is, he did not take it up (na upaga~nchi) through craving or views. For it is said: 'The Blessed One sees a form with the eye, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind ... The Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind' (see SN 35:232; IV 164-65). By this the plane of arahantship (khii.naasavabhuumi) is indicated." GSii ~ Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Comy has na upaga~nchi (by way of the sense-doors). This is expl by the next line of the gaathas, eta.m ajjhosita.m n'atthi. The reading at UdA 130, where this passage is quoted, is ta.m Tathaagatassa na upa.t.thaasi, 'did not occur to (? was not invented or imagined by) the T.' "< snip > na jaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, ta.m mamassa musaa. < Bhikkhus, if I were to say, 'In this world with its devas ... whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind - that > I do not know,' that would be a falsehood on my part. "ya.m, bhikkhave ... pe ... tamaha.m jaanaami ca na ca jaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, ta.m p'assa taadisameva. Bhikkhus, ..snip..- that I both know and do not know,' - that too would be just the same./664 664 ~ Ta.m p'assa taadisameva. Mp: "That too would just be false speech." ya.m, bhikkhave ... pe ... tamaha.m neva jaanaami na na jaanaamiiti vadeyya.m, ta.m mamassa kali. ..snip.. - that I neither know nor do not know,' that would be a fault on my part./665 665 ~ Ta.m mam'assa kali. Mp: "That statement would be a fault of mine. With the above three statements, the plane of truth (saccabhuumi) is indicated." GSii ~ that would be a fault in me. Kali = doso, Cy. {If I were to say: "I both know it and know it not," it would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say: "I neither know it nor am ignorant of it," it would be a falsehood in me.} ======== connie > > > Nothing Beyond Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130825 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 7:10 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, Han and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Partner Sarah, >  > My stance on this issue is based on the two paragraphs of > DN 16, and not on any other passage from the vast Tipitaka. ... > 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 two 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 Venerable Aananda saw the > Tathaagata as a Tathaagata. To confirm this, in paragraph 5.13 Venerable > Aananda called the Buddha as "My Teacher" [satthu ca me]. I do not read anything in the > above two paragraphs to suggest that Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a heap > of dhammas. ------------ > ... > S: I think that all ariyan disciples, even sotapannas understand that only khandhas arise and fall away and that there are no other realities at all, apart from the unconditioned dhamma, nibbanna. As discussed before, we need to consider the Teachings as a whole. > > SN22: 37 Ananda (Bodhi transl): > > The Buddha asks Ananda: > > " 'If, Aananda, they were to ask you: 'Friend Aananda, what are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned? (uppaada, vaya, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m)' - being asked thus, how would you answer?' > > " ' Venerable sir, if they were to ask me this, I would answer thus: 'Friends, with form an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. With feeling....perception....volitional formations...consciousness........ These friends, are the things of which an arising is discerned..................'..... ... > " 'As to the various views that arise in the world, householder, 'The world is eternal'....- these as well as the sixty-two speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajaala: when there is identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity view, these views do not come to be." > > S: We then read about how the uninstructed worldling "regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form" and so on for the other khandhas.The noble disciple, on the other hand, does not regard them in this way. I have taken what I think is the essence of both arguments, both backed up by scripture, and I am interested in how they can or cannot be reconciled. I think that is of interest to everyone. It seems very clear from both excerpts above -- both accepted in the Buddha's own voice -- that the Buddha has given his assent to both of the views that are expressed in both of these suttas. You cannot say take one, and translate it into the other, and call that "regarding the teachings as a whole," because you are then discarding the part of the whole that doesn't conform to one or the other view. So what is there in these two excerpts together? What is the real "whole" of the Dhamma? The Buddha says, to paraphrase, "do not worry about losing me as Teacher; the Dhamma will be there to support you with the teachings, and the Discipline of monks will support you in carrying out the teachings." So he does not try to correct Ananda and say "don't worry, there are only dhammas anyway - no Tathagata." Why not? Because the view of the Buddha as Teacher is a valid one. Is it the Ultimate view? No, but it is valid. So this sutta supports the idea of the Two Truths and that there is a place for the conventional view as well as the Ultimate view. It is not the same, but it is similar, to a scientist who knows that everything that exists is really nothing but atoms and space, but when he orders dinner, he doesn't say "I'll have some atoms with lots of space please - bring me anything, cause it's all just atoms anyway." No he orders the vegetarian lasagna, because he's worried about his cholesterol. But when he is at the office, he doesn't see lasagna as lasagna, he sees it as atoms. So the two truths don't apply in the same setting. When Ananda is worried about losing his Teacher, the Buddha reassures him appropriately that the Teachings will still remain - conventional level but still accurate in the world of beings and teachings. When the time comes to talk about what is really existent in Ultimate terms, then the Buddha has no problem switching to dhammas and khandas and proclaiming that only dhammas or khandas are ultimately real, even the Tathagata and Ananda. But it would be foolish and cold-hearted to tell Ananda, when the Buddha is just about to leave his closest and longest student forever, "it's just dhammas, buddy - have a nice day!" Sometimes maybe the Buddha *would* even turn the tables in this way, and say "snap out of it - there are only dhammas," but only when doing so would be skillful for Ananda's development. So the Two Truths both have their place. Those who try to reduce everything to "people and places" are leaving out the Ultimate, but those who try to *always* reduce everything to dhammas are leaving out the Everyday Reality that is lived by all, and that is a big mistake too. Even the Buddha knew when to stop talking about Dhammas and talk about Monks, Householders, the Teachings and the Sangha. He didn't claim that none of these things existed, or that they weren't actual and important within the realm of people and activities. If both are not included, then the "teachings as a whole" can never be understood. The path is about dhammas, but it's also about appropriate understanding of the path in everyday life and the practice in everyday life. It's probably too complicated to understand how all of that fits together into one seamless whole, but saying it's all about dhammas and ignoring the conventional is not quite enough. And it's not how the Buddha carried on his work, nor is that reflected in the Visudhimagga or even the commentaries. They all pay appropriate service to both dhammas and the conventional aspects of the path. The only place the Two Truths are a problem is around here. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130826 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 7:30 am Subject: Re: Sila->samadhi->panna jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > 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. > =============== J: Regarding, "So the teaching is "don't cling".", it depends what you mean. Nobody can "not cling" on command! :-)) The Buddha explained the *danger* of clinging, and he also pointed out the different kinds of clinging including that of wrong view and clinging to becoming. > =============== > A: 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? > =============== J: In the teachings, "1st class" is stream entry. So the first clinging to be eradicated will be that or wrong view. And wrong view can only be countered by panna, the understanding of presently arising dhammas. > =============== > A: 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? > =============== J: The development of understanding of dhammas can begin at any time, regardless of a person's general level of sila or samadhi. It all depends on (a) the person's previously accumulated understanding (and other kusala) and (b) whether the person is fortunate enough to hear the true Dhamma and to appreciate the importance of it. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130827 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 7:58 am Subject: Re: Sila->samadhi->panna truth_aerator Send Email Send Email Dear Jon, all, >J:Regarding, "So the teaching is "don't cling".", it depends what >you mean. Nobody can "not cling" on command! :-)) >>>>>>>>>>>> And this is where training comes in. You can't let go of clinging on command just like you cannot bench press 400 pounds without years of dedicated training. >J:The Buddha explained the *danger* of clinging, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For what? He gave them the reason, the motivation to train. >J:In the teachings, "1st class" is stream entry. So the first >clinging to be eradicated will be that or wrong view. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is where sila-samadhi-panna comes in. Of course panna for stream entry and panna for Arhatship are on different level. >J:The development of understanding of dhammas can begin at any >time, >regardless of a person's general level of sila or samadhi. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. But it seems to me that if one has sufficient panna, then sila and samadhi will occur. If one can't keep sila or samadhi, then there is a chance that it is expression of weak panna. Strong sila and samadhi can be expression of strong panna. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130828 From: han tun Date: Fri May 24, 2013 8:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E,  Thank you very much for your kind comments.  Rob E: I have taken what I think is the essence of both arguments, both backed up by scripture, and I am interested in how they can or cannot be reconciled. I think that is of interest to everyone. It seems very clear from both excerpts above -- both accepted in the Buddha's own voice -- that the Buddha has given his assent to both of the views that are expressed in both of these suttas. You cannot say take one, and translate it into the other, and call that "regarding the teachings as a whole," because you are then discarding the part of the whole that doesn't conform to one or the other view.  So what is there in these two excerpts together? What is the real "whole" of the Dhamma?  The Buddha says, to paraphrase, "do not worry about losing me as Teacher; the Dhamma will be there to support you with the teachings, and the Discipline of monks will support you in carrying out the teachings."  So he does not try to correct Ananda and say "don't worry, there are only dhammas anyway - no Tathagata." Why not? Because the view of the Buddha as Teacher is a valid one. Is it the Ultimate view? No, but it is valid. So this sutta supports the idea of the Two Truths and that there is a place for the conventional view as well as the Ultimate view.  It is not the same, but it is similar, to a scientist who knows that everything that exists is really nothing but atoms and space, but when he orders dinner, he doesn't say "I'll have some atoms with lots of space please - bring me anything, cause it's all just atoms anyway." No he orders the vegetarian lasagna, because he's worried about his cholesterol.  But when he is at the office, he doesn't see lasagna as lasagna, he sees it as atoms. So the two truths don't apply in the same setting.  When Ananda is worried about losing his Teacher, the Buddha reassures him appropriately that the Teachings will still remain - conventional level but still accurate in the world of beings and teachings.  When the time comes to talk about what is really existent in Ultimate terms, then the Buddha has no problem switching to dhammas and khandas and proclaiming that only dhammas or khandas are ultimately real, even the Tathagata and Ananda. But it would be foolish and cold-hearted to tell Ananda, when the Buddha is just about to leave his closest and longest student forever, "it's just dhammas, buddy - have a nice day!"  Sometimes maybe the Buddha *would* even turn the tables in this way, and say "snap out of it - there are only dhammas," but only when doing so would be skillful for Ananda's development. So the Two Truths both have their place. Those who try to reduce everything to "people and places" are leaving out the Ultimate, but those who try to *always* reduce everything to dhammas are leaving out the Everyday Reality that is lived by all, and that is a big mistake too.  Even the Buddha knew when to stop talking about Dhammas and talk about Monks, Householders, the Teachings and the Sangha. He didn't claim that none of these things existed, or that they weren't actual and important within the realm of people and activities.  If both are not included, then the "teachings as a whole" can never be understood. The path is about dhammas, but it's also about appropriate understanding of the path in everyday life and the practice in everyday life. It's probably too complicated to understand how all of that fits together into one seamless whole, but saying it's all about dhammas and ignoring the conventional is not quite enough.  And it's not how the Buddha carried on his work, nor is that reflected in the Visudhimagga or even the commentaries. They all pay appropriate service to both dhammas and the conventional aspects of the path. The only place the Two Truths are a problem is around here.  ------------------  Han: I have no difficulty in agreeing to your above comments. I fact, I am not discarding all together the idea of “no person, dhammas only.†I have often quoted SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, which I like very much.  553 "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Maara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found.  "Ki.m nu sattoti paccesi, maara di.t.thigata.m nu te; Suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m, nayidha sattupalabbhati.  554 "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention 'a being.'  "Yathaa hi a"ngasambhaaraa, hoti saddo ratho iti; Eva.m khandhesu santesu, hoti sattoti sammuti.  555 "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.  Han: I was only pointing out that in the context of DN 16, according to the paragraphs 5.13 and 6.1, Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a Tathaagata, and he did not see the Lord as a heap of sheer formations or as only suffering or as only dhammas.  with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130829 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 11:28 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > > Jon you wrote "It's important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness." > But the Buddha taught in AN 4.24 that "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. (He doesn't construe a knower.)" > =============== J: I think you are questioning how it can be known what factors or conditions play a role in the arising of ruupas. In particular, as you have mentioned on previous occasions, you reason that as ruupas are only known as object of sense-door consciousness, any provenance they may have prior to that moment cannot be known. I would agree that as far as you or I are concerned, any views held on this point could only be speculation or, in the words of the sutta, a construing of things that are not directly experienced. However, things that are known by developed pa~n~naa are not `construing an unknown' and, since a matter such as the conditions by which ruupas arise can be directly known by highly pa~n~naa, we have the views of the Buddha and of the ancient elders as a point of reference. So when I said it was important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness, I was referring to the orthodox Theraavadin position. I do not hold any personal views on the matter (that I'm aware of). Hope this answers the point you were making in your message. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130830 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 12:13 pm Subject: Re: TA on vitakka glenjohnann Send Email Send Email Hello Alberto Thanks so much for posting this transcript as well as the one the other day of Lukas' and Achan Sujin's discussion about knowing the reality, not the name. Both very helpful. I am going to keep this short - want to see if my changes to my preferred email address on this site make a difference - and whether I can actually post again! Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi, - TA on vitakka, in HH, 10th, AM-b, 7:30 - - Alberto > > TA: And vitakka is a factor of enlightenment too, so it's quite important to know that it's not pa~n~na, but it keeps on touching the object, whenever it arises, except in the ten ahetuka cittas; so we can know akusala vitakka, kusala vitakka without pa~n~na, and with pa~n~na until it becomes the sammasankappa factor of the eigthfold path; > from not knowing anything right now until it touches and touch and touch with pa~n~na, so pa~n~na can understand whatever appears correctly, precisely, better and better. > As soon as there is another object it means that vitakka takes it away, all citta and cetasikas, to other objects. > It's like "come with me, to other objects" > Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130831 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 4:46 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ... Let's Share Examples... sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 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. ... S: When you have time, you might like to read through the long series Connie posted before from the Therigatha. It can all be found in "useful posts" under "Sisters - Therigatha". Lots and lots of helpful "real-life 'examples'" there too. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130832 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: Dissolving the self sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Tep & Jagkrit, Good qus and good answers below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > 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. .... S: Jagkrit, you asked for descriptions of anatta. When we read about the khandhas or the elements or about seeing and visible object, these are descriptions of the anatta-nature of dhmmmas. For example, now, seeing sees - nothing/no one else at all sees. Visible object is seen, no thing, no person seen at all. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.99 Gaddula Sutta The Leash (1) "Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self... "He assumes perception to be the self... "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self... "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness." ... "He keeps running around and circling around that very form...that very feeling...that very perception...those very fabrications...that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling...from perception...from fabrications...not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-99.html **** Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (11) #130833 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 24, 2013 5:45 pm Subject: right understanding - healthy food for the sick! sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, The following are some extracts from a chat between Nina and Achan Sujin in the van, returning from a lunch on 17th Jan. **** N: A few months ago when Lodewijk died, I thought I would never travel, no need for travelling and now I'm here - so strange! A: Actually (it's just one's) own world with thoughts, thinking about this and that ...... A: And actually there is no more Lodewijk at all, another person. Like we are another person from previous lives, no idea (about that). N: Yes we tend to forget. A: And it's not 'I' either - only the way each element is different all the time. No one can manage it, no one can have it at will. It has its own way. N: Sometimes it's difficult. A: Because of the idea and the clinging to the self. It is lessened only when there is the understanding of a reality as a reality. Otherwise it's always in a dream because reality does not appear as it is. And what is now would be yesterday for tomorrow, completely gone, no matter what it is, it's just experiencing something in split seconds and falls away, everything, every conditioned reality. .... N: You don't think much of it, just let go! A: Because you see visible object has gone like yesterday. Only experiencing - either it appears to right understanding or to ignorance. N: You let go easily, not thinking. A: And that's the way that panna can see the anattaness, so no conditions to choose or make a choice. Just by conditions, has arisen already. Just understand. This is the best thing otherwise there are only akusala moments. N: Like a very tiring day when we came here at the museum and it took so long.... A: That's why one can be so very patient because of understanding that everything is just temporary, it's conditioned, so why worry or be fussy about it. It's just aksuala added more and more. So right understanding saves one from akusala. And attachment just wants another object of attachment, such as about the meal in the evening. See now, whatever is object of thinking is the object of desire or attachment. It's there all the time. Big Boss! ... A: Coming home, going to the bungalow, conditioned by lobha when there is no understanding. That's why the awakened moment is only at moment when awareness arises so it can understand just a reality, no one there until everything, all kinds of thinking, whatever is understood as a reality. Get closer to have less attachment, so reality can appear as it is, because in the beginning only some realities can be the object of awareness but lots of other realities are not the object yet. That's why it grows to understand more and more realities. N: like thinking, we cling so much to thinking....it's not object of awareness, it's harder. A: That's why patience, khanti parami, viriya parami, sacca parami.... are needed. Otherwise no tool, no implement... N: ...to go to the other shore because we are like sick people. A: Not strong enough to get up to walk. So right understanding is like healthy food for the sick person! ***** Metta Sarah ====== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130834 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Kenneth, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Elder wrote: > 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? ... S: I understand it just to indicated a difference in accumulations in the development of the path. For example, now, for some faith is predominant, for others wisdom. Regardless, all those who attain stream-entry have highly developed wisdom and faith (saddha). As you point out, in fact, there are only dhammas arising and stream-entry and fruition refer to brief moments of consciousness only. <...> >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.. ... S: I'm glad to her of your studies. Perhaps you can indicate where it differs from the Sutta. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130835 From: "azita" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 6:59 pm Subject: vesak gazita2002 Send Email Send Email Hallo All, Full moon in May, Vesak. May we remember the great qualities of the Buddha, the truly amazing being or more precisely, the perfect wisdom, compassion, loving kindness etc that we call 'Buddha' for without his Dhamma, samsara never ends. may all beings be happy azita Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130836 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 8:23 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > 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? ... S: Yes, appreciating the truth by thinking wisely about it. Of course, there can be thinking about how only sounds are heard with aversion or just repeating a mantra with ignorance. So the "wisely" depends on the way of thinking in addition to what is thought about. ... > > 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...? ... S: Yes, of course. Awareness can slip in and be aware of the reality at any time at all, however. So in the midst of unwise thinking, there can be wise thinking, there can be direct awareness and understanding too. ... > > >S: 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. > >R: 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: Yes, there has to be the hearing/reading and correct thinking "in the right direction" in order for right understanding to grow and directly understand those realities. Without hearing about them (from the Buddha's Teaching), it's impossible to know seeing as seeing, an element, not someone who sees. Even Bahiya or Sariputta had to hear a few vital words. ... >R: But correct thinking and intellectual understanding lead to direct discernment? How exactly are they connected? ... S: You mean how does pariyatti (right intellectual understanding) lead to direct understanding of realities? It's just a gradual development of understanding. It doesn't mean that when there is some direct understanding of realities there is no more intellectual understanding! Even the ariyan disciples continue to listen and consider wisely in order for direct understanding to develop. ... > But right intellectualunderstanding seems to have some relation to what is being thought about - the concept involved, no? ... S: Yes, the concept about realities. For example, is it correct to say that only sound is heard, not a thing or a person? ... >R: 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. .... S: No one has said they are inconsequential! The Buddha's Teachings are concepts about realities. Not inconsequential. However, it is the way they are considered and understood now that is important. It all comes down to the present citta - kusala or akusala now.... Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130837 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 8:41 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > 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. ... S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond? Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130838 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 24, 2013 9:23 pm Subject: TA on concepts and realities sprlrt Send Email Send Email (in HH, 6th, lunch) TA: At moment of understanding that this is concept is right understanding, like we think about the world but actually if there is nothing arising there's no world; just some words like these can bring about more understanding about reality, or dhamma, or world, or life; but that is not enough because there is accumulation of wrong understanding, of taking reality for self, so it takes time to understand whatever appears as a reality; like visible object is real because it appears to seeing , not to me, but to that which sees it or to that which experiences it; different from other moments you see, so there are moments, from moment to moment, that's all, experiencing an object, from one object to another object, uncontrollable, but there can be the moment of understanding it, as not self. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130839 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 24, 2013 9:49 pm Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > > > > Jon you wrote "It's important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness." > > But the Buddha taught in AN 4.24 that "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. (He doesn't construe a knower.)" > > =============== > > J: I think you are questioning how it can be known what factors or conditions play a role in the arising of ruupas. > > In particular, as you have mentioned on previous occasions, you reason that as ruupas are only known as object of sense-door consciousness, any provenance they may have prior to that moment cannot be known. > > I would agree that as far as you or I are concerned, any views held on this point could only be speculation or, in the words of the sutta, a construing of things that are not directly experienced. > > However, things that are known by developed pa~n~naa are not `construing an unknown' and, since a matter such as the conditions by which ruupas arise can be directly known by highly pa~n~naa, we have the views of the Buddha and of the ancient elders as a point of reference. > > So when I said it was important to understand that ruupas are said to arise independently of their being the object of consciousness, I was referring to the orthodox Theraavadin position. I do not hold any personal views on the matter (that I'm aware of). > > Hope this answers the point you were making in your message. > > Jon > =============================== I'm not sure that your understanding of what I meant actually matches it exactly. I think maybe not. Let me explain further what I understand the Buddha to be saying in "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. ...": I believe that he is saying that among any of the things that might be known by him, he doesn't presume there to be self-existent entities that are known, nor self-existent unknown ones, nor ones "waiting" to be known. In short, he doesn't consider whatever might be an object of consciousness to be anything more than just that; i.e., he doesn't conceive of self-existent entities. With metta, Howard /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) P. S. An aside: In the above quote from the Bahiya Sutta, I'd be interested in knowing whether "That is how you should train yourself" is a correct translation of the Pali, for the translation urges proactivity; i.e., "doing something". Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130840 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 24, 2013 10:03 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 20 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 98) states that the four Great Elements are like the great creatures of a magician who "turns water that is not crystal into crystal, and turns a clod that is not gold into gold...." We are attached to crystal and gold, we are deceived by the outward appearance of things. When we touch crystal or gold, only hardness or cold is experienced. There is no crystal or gold in the ultimate sense, only ruupas which arise and then fall away. We cling to our body, but in reality what we take for our body are only different elements that arise and then fall away immediately. We should ask ourselves: "where is our body?" It is nowhere to be found. We learn about the different ruupas our body consist of, but intellectual understanding of what the Buddha taught is not sufficient. Acharn reminded us all the time to pay attention and investigate the reality appearing right now. What is past has gone already and the future has not come yet. Learning the characteristic of what appears at this moment is the only way to penetrate the truth of realities. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130841 From: han tun Date: Sat May 25, 2013 1:51 am Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (1) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 50. The Stream [AN 4.5 Anusota Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are to be found in the world. What four? The person who goes with the stream; one who goes against the stream; one who stands firm; and one who has crossed over and gone to the far shore, a brahmin who stands on dry land. Of what nature is the person going with the stream? It is one who indulges his sensual desire and commits wrong deeds. Of what nature is one who goes against the stream? It is one who does not indulge sensual desire and commit wrong deeds. He lives the holy life, though in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears. Of what nature is one who stands firm? It is one who, with the utter destruction of the five lower fetters, is due to be reborn spontaneously (in a celestial realm) and there attain final Nibbaana, without ever returning from that world. Of what nature is one who has crossed over and gone to the far shore, a brahmin who stands on dry land? It is one who, with the destruction of the taints, in this very life enters and dwells in the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, having realised it for himself by direct knowledge. These, monks, are the four kinds of persons to be found in the world. with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130842 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 10:51 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > > Thank you very much for your kind comments. :-) > Han: > I have no difficulty in agreeing to your above comments. > I fact, I am not discarding all together the idea of “no > person, dhammas only. In my remarks, I saw Sarah as taking the stance that only dhammas have significance for the path, and I saw you as taking the stance that the human view that Ananda had in his interaction with the Buddha as Teacher was also important. > I have often quoted SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, which I like very > much. >  > 553 "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Maara, is that your speculative view? > This is a heap of sheer formations: > Here no being is found. >  > "Ki.m nu sattoti paccesi, > maara di.t.thigata.m nu te; > Suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m, > nayidha sattupalabbhati. >  > 554 "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > So, when the aggregates exist, > There is the convention 'a being.' >  > "Yathaa hi a"ngasambhaaraa, > hoti saddo ratho iti; > Eva.m khandhesu santesu, > hoti sattoti sammuti. >  > 555 "It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls > away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases." I also like this sutta very much. Ultimately there is no person, but only rising and falling aggregates or dhammas. And yet, as you say below, we also take the human view and relate to each other as people, and the path has some relevance to how we do this as well. > Han: I was only pointing out that in the context of DN 16, according > to the paragraphs 5.13 and 6.1, Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a > Tathaagata, and he did not see the Lord as a heap of sheer formations or as > only suffering or as only dhammas. Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130843 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 10:57 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. This is a very valuable exchange for me. Thanks for clarifying the role of correct conceptual understanding in the development of direct discernment. I sometimes feel like I'm 2 or 3 people at the same time here. I may take exception to the dhamma view in one post, and seek to understand it better in another, as I do here. This is one of those exchanges that I will read several times. Thanks for putting up with this mild form of Dhamma-schizophrenia. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > 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? > ... > S: Yes, appreciating the truth by thinking wisely about it. Of course, there can be thinking about how only sounds are heard with aversion or just repeating a mantra with ignorance. So the "wisely" depends on the way of thinking in addition to what is thought about. > ... ....... Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130844 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 25, 2013 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email HI Rob E, Part 1. > > > 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. > > To me this is not about conventional thinking, but about conventional > speech on the part of a Buddha. Sure, people will think all kinds of > things, even arahant, but the Buddha *teaches.* He doesn't just engage > in normal conversation, but talks about what is important. So this is > about why the Buddha *talked* about conventional matters, not why or > whether we *think* about them. > Yes the Buddha *taught*, and he taught what no one else could. He taught the development of Right View. The Right View which understands the individual and general characteristic, and the causes and conditions of all dhammas. He also knew what to teach whom and when. For example, he pointed out not only the conditioned nature and general characteristic of Metta, but also the value / benefit of developing it. And he did this with Right View. Do you think it is wrong view the understanding that metta is kusala and beneficial both to oneself as well as other people? > > > 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? > > Again, I am looking for a coherent explanation as to why the Buddha > would talk about killing, bodies, people, drinking, playing dice, > householders, men and women, giving alms, etc. when he is *teaching.* > I would ask, why not? How else could he have talked about such things? Just because in reality there are only paramattha dhammas all of which can be identified, this does not mean that one replace everyday speech with Abhidhamma language. For someone who understands the reality of what is behind conventional descriptions, it would be unnecessary, in fact odd, to talk in terms of citta and cetasikas, would it not? How would you describe killing in Abhidhamma language? > If these are all just concepts, they are not in themselves kusala or > akusala. They are delusions. Why would He teach that one delusion is > better than another, or you should not kill a conceptual being, and > talk about them as real. > Stealing and killing for example are intentions rooted respectively, in lobha and dosa of particular intensity. For concepts to be delusion, this is due to wrong view and not because there is thinking in terms of different concepts. Those who had the panna, before knowing the characteristic of paramattha dhammas involved, knew to distinguish concept from reality. They therefore had no problem using concepts themselves, nor were they deluded when hearing the Buddha talked about such things. Certainly they had no reason to question along the same lines as you are doing here. > > > 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? > > Well if a particular situation arises, and the Buddha has a chance to > encourage metta, sila, dana and so on, maybe in that situation it is a > natural and normal thing to do, but not when the Buddha is giving a > formal talk to monks or serious lay-persons. Then it would not be > appropriate to talk about these forms of kusala without making clear > what is true and what is false; what is the path and what is not the > path. No, that would not be appropriate. > I see. You appear to suddenly acknowledge that the Buddha did encourage other kinds of kusala, although now you want to draw a line between different audiences in order that you can maintain your position. I'm not going to get involved in this new topic of debate. But let me ask you this; without the great compassion, would there have been the Bodhisatta and hence the Buddha? Without metta, is it possible to teach the Dhamma? So are compassion and metta not good dhammas to be encouraged? > > And the question remains: Jon said recently that such "auxiliary" > kusala supports the development of the path. This is a new idea which > I am still waiting to see in more detail, because normally the answer > I get is that they have *no relation* to the path at all, but are sort > of impotent kusala as far as the path is concerned. > > If they do act as supporting conditions for the development of the > path, that opens up many different possibilities, including the > referencing of concepts as part of path development, as long as the > mental factors in relation to that concept are kusala. Do you think > that is the case? > That is your discussion with Jon. We are debating whether the Buddha would point out the kusala aspect of a dhamma because kusala is kusala and should be encouraged. I say that he did, only not to someone who did not understand the reality / concept distinction and would therefore end up taking dhammas for self. I say that all kusala dhammas were encouraged even if some of them had nothing to do with the development of the Path. > > > You are suggesting that these are good only when understood as being > > part of the Path. > > That's right, because that is what the Buddha is here to teach. > This is your abstract, which according to you means that the Buddha would not therefore teach anything else. For me this does not follow given that the Path is about understanding realities, but there are functions by other dhammas which are called for during times when concepts of other beings are object of experience. You are saying that the Buddha, being the discoverer of the Path, would therefore teach only that which is related to this and not anything else, which means that when he gave teachings involving concepts, it must be something that is part of the Path, otherwise it is meaningless to teach them. > > Look, if you and I want to have a better life and want to live with > less suffering and be kind to others, there's nothing wrong with that > of course! That is good, it is kusala. > Well, the difference between someone who sees the value of kusala of other kinds but not Right View, and someone who know Right View is that in the case of the latter, these kusala while valued will not be taken for self, which actually makes the kusala more pure and grow. It means also that he develops kusala not to make his life better. So no conflict between seeing the value of say, metta, and understanding it as a conditioned reality. Encouraging the former does not imply discouraging the latter. > But that sort of intention has nothing to do with the Buddha's high > purpose in being here. If he is sending two message: "here are the > factors of enlightenment" and also "while you're at it be nice to > others" that is fine, as long as the two are distinguished. The Buddha > talked about metta and sila as serious factors to be developed, not a > nice side thing. > Why would the Buddha be sending out two messages in showing the benefit of metta as well as the need to understand it as a conditioned reality? Indeed if he did not want us to know for example, metta as different from dosa, he'd have simply pointed out nama as distinct from rupa and leave it at that, would he not? Did he not in the case of metta, refer to such benefits as, having no enemies, sleeping well, and good rebirth? And where did he say that metta is a serious factor (of the Path) to be developed? > > 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? > > Yes - as I see it, it is not the Buddha's job to talk about this that > and the other thing - only the path. Otherwise it causes confusion and > uncertainty about what to think or do. > Well, if it does not cause me confusion, why should those who were his direct audience be confused? > > > 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. > > Seems pretty confusing to me. Can you show me where he made this clear > distinction? Anyway, kusala that is not pertinent to the path should > not be emphasized - unless it is of course. > Can you show me where he said that metta and body contemplation are part of the Path? > > 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. > > No, you can believe whatever you like. I want you to explain why the > Buddha talked about them, not what you or I think. > I can't do better than what I've done. Perhaps now you can explain to me how body contemplation and kasina concentration for example, function as part of the Path? Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130845 From: han tun Date: Sat May 25, 2013 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E,  Rob E: In my remarks, I saw Sarah as taking the stance that only dhammas have significance for the path, and I saw you as taking the stance that the human view that Ananda had in his interaction with the Buddha as Teacher was also important. ---------- Rob E: I also like this sutta very much. Ultimately there is no person, but only rising and falling aggregates or dhammas. And yet, as you say below, we also take the human view and relate to each other as people, and the path has some relevance to how we do this as well. ---------- Rob E: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way.  --------------------  Han: Thank you very much for your kind understanding. I really appreciate your ideas.  As I see it, we are looking at the two sides of the same coin. When I flip the coin and see the "head" side of the coin, I do not forget the "tail" side of the coin. When I flip the coin and see the "tail" side of the coin, I do not forget the "head" side of the coin. One side of the coin cannot exist without the other side of the coin.  with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130846 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 1:05 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Htoo (and Rob E) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > 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. > =============== J: Thanks for this quote, which I find interesting. I'd like to learn more about it. Would you mind giving the reference, and sharing any information you may have as to how it is to be understood? Thanks. Nice to be talking to you again after a long absence :-)) Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130847 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Re: Sila->samadhi->panna jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > >J:Regarding, "So the teaching is "don't cling".", it depends what >you mean. Nobody can "not cling" on command! :-)) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: And this is where training comes in. You can't let go of clinging on command just like you cannot bench press 400 pounds without years of dedicated training. > =============== J: Agreed that you can't bench press a heavy weight without building up to it gradually over time. But, Alex, letting go of clinging cannot be trained for in the same way that lifting weights can. I'm afraid your analogy has no application here ;-)) To my understanding, letting go of clinging is something that happens naturally as understanding of dhammas is developed. It's not something that has to be `done' in order for that understanding to be developed. Development of the understanding of dhammas leads to magga citta, at which time certain accumulated akusala tendencies are eradicated once and for all. In the development of samatha, on the other hand, akusala tendencies are merely temporarily suppressed. There is no diminution of the underlying accumulated tendencies. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130848 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 2:33 pm Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > I'm not sure that your understanding of what I meant actually matches it exactly. I think maybe not. > Let me explain further what I understand the Buddha to be saying in "When knowing-through-any-sense-door what is to be known, he doesn't construe a known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe a to-be-known. ...": > I believe that he is saying that among any of the things that might be known by him, he doesn't presume there to be self-existent entities that are known, nor self-existent unknown ones, nor ones "waiting" to be known. In short, he doesn't consider whatever might be an object of consciousness to be anything more than just that; i.e., he doesn't conceive of self-existent entities. > =============== J: I broadly agree that the sutta describes how the Buddha does not presume or conceive of anything that is not directly known. However, the sutta does not address the question of what it is that may be directly known by a Buddha, i.e., the scope of knowledge/understanding of a Buddha (or the great arahants).. I'd have thought that knowledge of the arising of ruupas is something that would be well within the scope of a Buddha's knowledge. Is there in your view any reason to suppose otherwise? > =============== > HCW: P. S. An aside: In the above quote from the Bahiya Sutta, I'd be interested in knowing whether "That is how you should train yourself" is a correct translation of the Pali, for the translation urges proactivity; i.e., "doing something". > =============== J: The training being recommended in the Baahiya Sutta is not the *doing of something* but the *keeping in mind* of how things are in truth and reality when seen with developed panna. From the TB translation of the sutta on ati: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. I do not read this passage as an exhortation to the listener to try and see/experience things in a particular way. That would not be panna at work :-)). Rather it is indicating how things are seen/experienced when pa~n~naa has been sufficiently developed. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130849 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 25, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E (and Sukin) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sukin. > ... > RE: He seems to be clearly in favor of metta, sila etc. and promotes them. He doesn't frequently say they are empty and conditioned. Do you have a handy quote? > > Here is the Buddha on metta:[Metta sutta] > Let none deceive another, > Or despise any being in any state. > Let none through anger or ill-will > Wish harm upon another. > Even as a mother protects with her life > Her child, her only child, > So with a boundless heart > Should one cherish all living beings: > Radiating kindness over the entire world > Spreading upwards to the skies, > And downwards to the depths; > Outwards and unbounded, > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > Free from drowsiness, > One should sustain this recollection. > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > By not holding to fixed views, > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > Being freed from all sense desires, > Is not born again into this world. > > I fail to see the teachings on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of metta - it sounds like it is being advertised pretty strongly here. I'm sure the Buddha would also teach this to those who are at the point to understand it, but he seems to feel that metta is a supreme form of kusala in its own right, as well as all the conceptually-based things he is advocating here. > =============== J: I hope you don't mind me butting in here to point out an example of something I've mentioned in our recent exchanges, namely that when the Buddha spoke of non-path kusala, he did so in the context of the development of the path; he did not recommend the development of non-path kusala for its own sake alone. In the verse on metta quoted above, this can be seen in the final 4 lines, which read as follows: "By not holding to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, Being freed from all sense desires, Is not born again into this world." Here, the expressions "having clarity of vision" and "being freed from all sense desires" are references to insight and the attainment of enlightenment. So the preceding part of the verse is to be read as, in effect, metta for persons developing the path. The Buddha's message could be summarised as, "Develop metta by all means, but don't forget the development of the path.". Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130850 From: han tun Date: Sat May 25, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (2) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 71. From Darkness to Light [AN 4.85 Tamotama Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? The one heading from darkness to darkness, the one heading from darkness to light, the one heading from light to darkness, the one heading from light to light. (1) And how, monks, is a person one heading from darkness to darkness? Here some person has been reborn in a low family -- an outcast family or a family of bamboo workers or a family of hunters or a family of carters or a family of flower-scavengers -- a poor family in which there is little food and drink and which subsists with difficulty, one where food and garments are obtained with difficulty. And he is ugly, unsightly, deformed, chronically ill -- purblind or crock-armed or lame or crippled. He is not one who gains food, drink, clothing and vehicles; garlands, scents and unguents; bedding, housing and lighting. He engages in misconduct with the body, speech and mind. Having done so, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in a lower world, in hell. (2) And how, monks, is a person one heading from darkness to light? Here some person has been reborn in a low family -- an outcast family or a family of bamboo workers or a family of hunters or a family of carters or a family of flower-scavengers -- a poor family in which there is little food and drink and which subsists with difficulty, one where food and garments are obtained with difficulty. And he is ugly, unsightly, deformed, chronically ill -- purblind or crock-armed or lame or crippled. He is not one who gains food, drink, clothing and vehicles; garlands, scents and unguents; bedding, housing and lighting. He engages in good conduct with the body, speech and mind. Having done so, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. (3) And how, monks, is a person one heading from light to darkness? Here some person has been reborn in a high family -- an affluent noble, brahmin or householder family -- one which is rich, with great wealth and property, with abundant gold and silver, abundant treasures and commodities, abundant wealth and grain. And he is handsome, attractive, graceful, possessing supreme beauty of complexion. He is one who gains food, drink, clothing and vehicles; garlands, scents and unguents; bedding, housing and lighting. He engages in misconduct with the body, speech and mind. Having done so, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in a lower world, in hell. (4) And how, monks, is a person one heading from light to light? Here some person has been reborn in a high family -- an affluent noble, brahmin or householder family -- one which is rich, with great wealth and property, with abundant gold and silver, abundant treasures and commodities, abundant wealth and grain. And he is handsome, attractive, graceful, possessing supreme beauty of complexion. He is one who gains food, drink, clothing and vehicles; garlands, scents and unguents; bedding, housing and lighting. He engages in good conduct with the body, speech and mind. Having done so, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. These, monks, are the four kinds of persons found existing in the world. with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130851 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 26, 2013 4:01 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda - Veskha Puja moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, Han and all, you wrote: Rob E: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. D: appropriate , yes! .. not only because we take refuge in the Buddha (-Dhamma and Sangha) but in remembrance of the historical Teacher especially on the occasion of Vesakha/Wisakha Puja , now celebrated by the huge majority of Buddhists. with Metta Dieter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130852 From: han tun Date: Sun May 26, 2013 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda - Veskha Puja hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Dieter,  Very well said! Thank you very much.  with metta and respect, Han  ________________________________ From: Dieter Moeller  Hi Rob E, Han and all, you wrote: Rob E: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. D: appropriate , yes! .. not only because we take refuge in the Buddha (-Dhamma and Sangha) but in remembrance of the historical Teacher especially on the occasion of Vesakha/Wisakha Puja , now celebrated by the huge majority of Buddhists. with Metta Dieter #130853 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 26, 2013 9:58 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 21 jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): Hardness appears and we immediately have an idea of "my hand" or "my leg", it is not understood yet as just a reality, just a dhamma. When we think of my hand or my leg, we think of a collection of things, of a "whole", and that is a concept, not a paramattha dhamma. Hardness impinges on the ruupa that is bodysense, and then it is experienced by the citta that is body-consciousness. This is a vipaakacitta arising in a process of cittas. Cittas which experience objects through the six doors arise in a process of cittas. When, for example, body-consciousness arises, it occurs within a series or process of cittas, all of which experience tangible object while they each perform their own function. Body-consciousness is vipaakacitta, it merely experiences tangible object, it neither likes it nor dislikes it. After body-consciousness has fallen away there are, within that process, akusala cittas or kusala cittas which experience the tangible object with unwholesomeness or with wholesomeness. There are processes of cittas experiencing an object through the eye-door, the ear-door, the nose-door, the tongue-door, the body-door and the mind-door. There is a great variety of cittas: they can be kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya, which is "inoperative". Kiriyacitta is neither kusala citta nor akusala citta nor vipaakacitta[6]. After the cittas of a sense-door process have fallen away, the object is experienced by cittas arising in a mind-door process, and after that process has been completed other mind-door processes of cittas may arise which think of concepts. We may think of hardness with attachment or wrong view. We take the hardness for a hand or leg that belongs to us. [6] Kiriyacitta performs different functions within a process. The arahat has no more kusala cittas but he has kiriyacittas instead. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130854 From: han tun Date: Sun May 26, 2013 7:57 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 72. Tranquility and Insight [AN 4.94 Tatiya Samaadhi Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? Here, monks, a certain person gains internal tranquility of mind but does not gain the higher wisdom of insight into things. Another person gains the higher wisdom of insight into things but does not gain internal tranquility of mind. Another person gains neither internal tranquility of mind nor the higher wisdom of insight into things. And another person gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (1) Therein, monks, the person who gains internal tranquility of mind but not the higher wisdom of insight into things should approach one who gains the higher wisdom and inquire of him: "How, friend, should formations be seen? How should formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with insight?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "Formations should be seen in such a way; they should be explored in such a way; they should be discerned with insight in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (2) Therein, monks, the person who gains the higher wisdom of insight into things but not internal tranquility of mind should approach one who gains internal tranquility of mind and inquire of him: "How, friend, should the mind be steadied? How should the mind be composed? How should the mind be unified?How should the mind be concentrated?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "The mind should be steadied in such a way, composed in such a way, unified in such a way, concentrated in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (3) Therein, monks, the person who gains neither internal tranquility of mind nor the higher wisdom of insight into things should approach one who gains both and inquire of him: "How, friend, should the mind be steadied? How should the mind be composed? How should the mind be unified?How should the mind be concentrated? How, friend, should formations be seen? How should formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with insight?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "The mind should be steadied in such a way, composed in such a way, unified in such a way, concentrated in such a way. Formations should be seen in such a way; they should be explored in such a way; they should be discerned with insight in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (4) Therein, monks, the person gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things should establish himself in just these wholesome states and make a further effort for the destruction of the taints. with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130855 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 26, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda - Veskha Puja kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E and Dieter, ----- >> Rob E: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. > D: appropriate , yes! .. not only because we take refuge in the Buddha (-Dhamma and Sangha) but in remembrance of the historical Teacher especially on the occasion of Vesakha/Wisakha Puja , now celebrated by the huge majority of Buddhists. ------ KH: Yes, it is nice to celebrate the historical Buddha, but what if it was done without right understanding? or even worse, with wrong understanding? Surely one single moment spent knowing nama and rupa would be infinitely superior to a lifetime spent celebrating and revering the historical Buddha. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130856 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun May 26, 2013 10:55 pm Subject: TA on vinnana dhatus sprlrt Send Email Send Email (in HH, 8th, pm-A, 16m) TA: No matter if there's right understanding or no right understanding, at moment of akusala, citta and cetasikas perform their function; at moment of kusala, citta and cetasikas perform their function; at moment of seeing citta and cetasikas perform their function; where is the self here? where is I at moment of seeing, at moment of thinking; every moment is conditioned, and when there is ignorance, and attachment, and wrong view, it's I; but actually thinking cannot be I, it cannot be anyone, it cannot be anything: it is one of the seven vi~n~nana dhatu. Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130857 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 27, 2013 12:02 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Han (and all) - An interesting sutta: No purposeful action involved, though, right folks? The language used (all the should-do's) must mean something entirely different from what such language means in every other context, hmmm? Surprising, isn't it, that the Buddha didn't formulate this differently so that people would properly understand? My tongue was placed well in cheek above, but I think you may get my point, all. With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > Dear Friends, > > [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the > Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] > > 72. Tranquility and Insight [AN 4.94 Tatiya Samaadhi Sutta] > > These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in > the world. What four? > > Here, monks, a certain person gains internal tranquility of > mind but does not gain the higher wisdom of insight into things. Another person > gains the higher wisdom of insight into things but does not gain internal > tranquility of mind. Another person gains neither internal tranquility of mind > nor the higher wisdom of insight into things. And another person gains both > internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. > > (1) Therein, monks, the person who gains internal > tranquility of mind but not the higher wisdom of insight into things should > approach one who gains the higher wisdom and inquire of him: "How, friend, should formations be seen? How > should formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with > insight?" The other then answers him as > he has seen and understood the matter thus: "Formations > should be seen in such a way; they should be explored in such a way; they > should be discerned with insight in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher > wisdom of insight into things. > > (2) Therein, monks, the person who gains the higher wisdom > of insight into things but not internal tranquility of mind should approach one > who gains internal tranquility of mind and inquire of him: "How, friend, should the mind be steadied? How > should the mind be composed? How should the mind be unified?How should the mind be concentrated?" The > other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "The mind should be steadied in such a way, > composed in such a way, unified in such a way, concentrated in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal > tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. > > (3) Therein, monks, the person who gains neither internal > tranquility of mind nor the higher wisdom of insight into things should > approach one who gains both and inquire of him: "How, > friend, should the mind be steadied? How should the mind be composed? How should > the mind be unified?How should the mind be > concentrated? How, friend, should formations be seen? How should > formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with insight?" The other then answers him as he has seen and > understood the matter thus: "The mind > should be steadied in such a way, composed in such a way, unified in such a > way, concentrated in such a way. Formations should be seen in such a way; they > should be explored in such a way; they should be discerned with insight in such > a way." At a later time this one gains > both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. > > (4) Therein, monks, the person gains both internal > tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things should > establish himself in just these wholesome states and make a further effort for > the destruction of the taints. > > with metta, > Han > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130858 From: han tun Date: Mon May 27, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Howard,  I never give my personal opinion on the Buddha's words.  with metta, Han  ________________________________ From: "upasaka@..."  Hi, Han (and all) - An interesting sutta: No purposeful action involved, though, right folks? The language used (all the should-do's) must mean something entirely different from what such language means in every other context, hmmm? Surprising, isn't it, that the Buddha didn't formulate this differently so that people would properly understand? My tongue was placed well in cheek above, but I think you may get my point, all. With metta, Howard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130859 From: Sukinder Date: Mon May 27, 2013 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, Part 2. > > Did the Buddha appear in the world to distinguish general kusala from > general akusala in relation to concepts, or did he appear to > distinguish path kusala, and to show what is real and unreal? > Why the question? Why should one exclude the other? Better show me how encouraging metta and other kusala goes against the understanding that all dhammas are conditioned and beyond control, than insist that the argument revolve around the particular story about how "the Buddha being the discoverer of the Path, would therefore teach only that which is part of the Path". > > I say > > that for something to be kusala and therefore encouraged does not make > > it part of the Path, > > Then it would not be the Buddha's job to talk about it. > I'll wait to read your response to my question above. > > 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. > > Do you think the Buddha had extra time inbetween teaching Dhamma and > so he taught a bunch of other stuff so he could be quoted on postcards > in the future: > > "Be kind to animals - Elsie the cow will thank you!" > "Don't kill because it's not nice." > "Don't drink because you may have a chariot accident!" > Can you make your point without changing the implications of what I say? He taught the Path of understanding which includes not only that dhammas are conditioned and impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self, but also how each are causes leading to different results. How much time it takes to show this? > > I say that for him to teach about all kinds of kusala is inevitable. > > Why? Because he is a nice guy? > No, because he was wise and wise people teach what is good and useful. > > > Only that this would not be without also teaching that in fact they are > > all impersonal and conditioned phenomena. > > I don't think that is very clear. He seems to be clearly in favor of > metta, sila etc. and promotes them. He doesn't frequently say they are > empty and conditioned. Do you have a handy quote? > > Here is the Buddha on metta:[Metta sutta] > Let none deceive another, > Or despise any being in any state. > Let none through anger or ill-will > Wish harm upon another. > Even as a mother protects with her life > Her child, her only child, > So with a boundless heart > Should one cherish all living beings: > Radiating kindness over the entire world > Spreading upwards to the skies, > And downwards to the depths; > Outwards and unbounded, > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > Free from drowsiness, > One should sustain this recollection. > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > By not holding to fixed views, > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > Being freed from all sense desires, > Is not born again into this world. > > I fail to see the teachings on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of metta > - it sounds like it is being advertised pretty strongly here. I'm sure > the Buddha would also teach this to those who are at the point to > understand it, but he seems to feel that metta is a supreme form of > kusala in its own right, as well as all the conceptually-based things > he is advocating here. > So what are you really saying, the Buddha taught other kinds of kusala as part of the Path or did he do so regardless of whether it is? I say that he taught the kusala and akusala aspect of all dhammas with Right Understanding about its conditioned nature. You say that being the Buddha, whatever he taught must be aimed at the development of Right View. Why then do you think that the above Sutta can be read regardless of whether it is understood with Right View, namely that metta is conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta? > > 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? > > Well that's not my idea, it is more the idea of those who say that, as > regards the path, we should have no relation to beings as they are > illusory. > Well, the difference is that one encourages kusala with the understanding that it is conditioned and beyond control, whereas the other overlooks this knowledge (about which the Buddha came to teach), suggestive of "doings" with self-view (the antithesis of what the Buddha taught). > > You are saying that kusala should not be encouraged unless seen as part > > of the Path. > > That's right. If the path is what is important, why praise an impotent > form of kusala? What good does it do, really? > Were the Bodhisatta's compassion and the Buddha's kindness impotent? > > > 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? > > Anytime you discern the nature of a dhamma, it is part of path > development, but it is another thing to promote non-path kusala. For > what reason? > The development of samatha involves understanding the danger of sensuous attachment and the value of calm. Metta can be understood as calm without it also being seen as a conditioned and impersonal element. And when this happens, it is not a part of path development. But metta is metta, and this performs an important function which no other dhamma can. > > > > 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? > > It has been said many times that to confuse non-path kusala with path > kusala is very dangerous. For instance, jhana is kusala but is said to > be non-path and it has been said that confusing such kusala with the > path can lead to wrong view for many aeons. > Kusala is one thing, *taking it for the path* is another thing. The former is what it is, the latter *is* wrong view (not that it leads to it). > > > > 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? > > No, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. > You are not saying that body contemplation and everything else that the Buddha talked about are part of the Path? > I think meditation, sila, dana, metta, etc. are part of the path. > While the others are concepts that point to kusala realities about which we need to develop understanding about, beginning with pariyatti, "meditation" is a silly idea conceived of by wrong view. End of Part 2. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130860 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 2:29 am Subject: useful sutta link- moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi All, not sure whether DSG noted this link , of which I stumbled upon recently . http://www.suttacentral.net/ It shows common and PTS index ( which I have missed so far when using e.g. PTS Pali dictionary) and besides that, it may be interesting to read /compare with the listed Mahayana counterparts. with Metta Dieter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130861 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 6:35 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: 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: In the case of conventional objects, the perceived function depends on one's perspective: holding up the ceiling is one possible notion of the function; keeping out the cold or keeping things secure within would be others. That's a good point. Well don't dhammas have more than one function too? Or not? If a citta has cetasikas probing, being mindful, with sanna marking and coordinating, and all the other little things that take place, does that citta have multiple functions or not? > > =============== > > > J: 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. > > > > RE: "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. > > =============== > > J: Yes, correct. > > > =============== > > RE: 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. > > =============== > > J: "Natural feature of the way they are" puts it pretty well, as I see this matter of function. Okay. > > =============== > > > J: The characteristic/attribute of hearing consciousness is that it experiences audible object that appears at the ear door. > > > > RE: 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.... > J: Regarding "what makes something audible is that it is heard by definition", that's not how audible object is defined in the texts. > > You see, whereas in the case of hearing consciousness there is a definite `match' (to use your terminology), in the sense that hearing consciousness cannot occur in the absence of an audible object as object, the `match' in the case of audible object is a potential one only. > > Accordingly, audible object is defined as the dhamma that is *capable of* being experienced by hearing consciousness. That is a distinction as regards the rupa, but not as regards the nama. And the only real distinction is that the rupa may occur in the absence of a nama. But it still has no other event that it is designed for other than being heard. It's like a single person who is waiting by the phone to be called by their dating service, or a business person showing up to a business meeting where no one else is there to meet with. They may be all dressed up and have nowhere to go, but they are only waiting around for one thing to happen. The audible rupa also doesn't do anything else. It just arises without event unless hearing consciousness arises to meet it. > We have also discussed previously how audible object requires the `clashing together' of hardness ruupas in order to occur. This treats audible object from another perspective. That is true - it is the perspective of what conditions are necessary to cause it to arise. Cittas have equivalent conditions in order to arise as well, don't they? ... > ...What would it mean to be fully aware of audible object, as opposed to merely hearing it? > > =============== ... > Regarding "What would it mean to be fully aware of audible object, as opposed to merely hearing it?", I'm afraid I don't see how this relates to the question of labels as mind-created conventions. Would you mind elaborating a little? Thanks. I don't see them as having a connection anymore either. I'll let you know if I figure out what I was getting at... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130862 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 6:46 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > 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. > ... > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond? There is still a distinction which is the problematic one I think. Yes, ultimately that's all that exists, like atoms and their contents are the ultimate reality of all objects of science. But in the case of science we can say the chariot appears to be solid, but is really made up of atoms whirling around in empty space. In the case of dhammas, we don't say that what we see as wholes are really a bunch of momentary dhammas arising marked by sanna, etc. to create the sense of a stable whole, but instead it is said that the dhammas exist independently and the seeming larger objects are totally illusory. I think this is the real problem. Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all. The Buddha never said the chariot wasn't real, just that it was made up of infinitely less stable and more discrete parts than appeared. I think it's possible to look at the two aspects of existence - the conventional and the dhammas and see the link between them, rather than a vast separation, and much of the talk in the commentaries acknowledges this connection, from what I've seen [limited though it may be.] I think to say that only dhammas exist and thus conventional objects are wholly nonexistent may be one of the extreme views that the Buddha warned against. To say that the universe is experienced only one dhamma at a time and that we have to understand the nature of this experience with wisdom is one thing - that unwinds the human enterprise and brings it to cessation. To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall. The Buddha says that the physical universe consists of kandhas - true, but not that it doesn't exist as such. I am sure the first view that our experience only takes place one dhamma at a time is justified, but not sure the second that this is the whole of the universe and that there is no physical world other than individual rupas is not too extreme. In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130863 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 6:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > ---------- > Rob E: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see > the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very > well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is > appropriate that he saw him this way. --------------- > Han: Thank you very much for your kind understanding. > I really appreciate your ideas. Likewise, I very much appreciate this dialogue with you. > As I see it, we are looking at the two sides of the same > coin. > When I flip the coin and see the "head" side of > the coin, I do not forget the "tail" side of the coin. > When I flip the coin and see the "tail" side of > the coin, I do not forget the "head" side of the coin. > One side of the coin cannot exist without the other side of the > coin. I appreciate this image, and I agree. We spend most of our lives seeing the conventional view of reality. To see the conventional view of reality and at the same time understanding that we are really experiencing momentary dhammas, including our thoughts and perceptions that may arise with citta, is to be able to live in the everyday world and still have a greater understanding, to the extent we are able. To "not forget the tail side of the coin" while observing the head side seems like an important balance to me. Even arahants "experience the tail side of the coin" for a good part of their existence, even though they never have wrong view. So it is not just a passing thing to be able to balance both views. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130864 From: han tun Date: Mon May 27, 2013 7:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Rob E,  I thank you very much once again for your kind understanding, and your ability to explain things which I could never do satisfactorily.  I am very happy to discuss with you.  with metta and deepest respect, Han  ________________________________ From: Robert E  Hi Han. > Han: Thank you very much for your kind understanding. > I really appreciate your ideas. Likewise, I very much appreciate this dialogue with you.  > As I see it, we are looking at the two sides of the same coin. > When I flip the coin and see the "head" side of the coin, I do not forget the "tail" side of the coin. > When I flip the coin and see the "tail" side of the coin, I do not forget the "head" side of the coin. > One side of the coin cannot exist without the other side of the coin. I appreciate this image, and I agree. We spend most of our lives seeing the conventional view of reality. To see the conventional view of reality and at the same time understanding that we are really experiencing momentary dhammas, including our thoughts and perceptions that may arise with citta, is to be able to live in the everyday world and still have a greater understanding, to the extent we are able. To "not forget the tail side of the coin" while observing the head side seems like an important balance to me. Even arahants "experience the tail side of the coin" for a good part of their existence, even though they never have wrong view. So it is not just a passing thing to be able to balance both views. Best, Rob E. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130865 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 7:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Part 1. > > > > > > 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. > > > > To me this is not about conventional thinking, but about conventional > > speech on the part of a Buddha. Sure, people will think all kinds of > > things, even arahant, but the Buddha *teaches.* He doesn't just engage > > in normal conversation, but talks about what is important. So this is > > about why the Buddha *talked* about conventional matters, not why or > > whether we *think* about them. > > > > Yes the Buddha *taught*, and he taught what no one else could. He taught > the development of Right View. The Right View which understands the > individual and general characteristic, and the causes and conditions of > all dhammas. He also knew what to teach whom and when. For example, he > pointed out not only the conditioned nature and general characteristic > of Metta, but also the value / benefit of developing it. And he did this > with Right View. > > Do you think it is wrong view the understanding that metta is kusala and > beneficial both to oneself as well as other people? No, I think it is wrong view to misunderstand why the Buddha spoke and taught conventionally - it is because there is a kusala action created by his conventional words, and the conventional actions and intentions which he spurs others to take also causes kusala to arise, and that this is part of the path, not apart from the path. > > > 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? > > > > Again, I am looking for a coherent explanation as to why the Buddha > > would talk about killing, bodies, people, drinking, playing dice, > > householders, men and women, giving alms, etc. when he is *teaching.* > > > > I would ask, why not? How else could he have talked about such things? Why did he talk about them at all? If all that matters is the understanding of paramatha dhammas, it is nonsensical to tell people not to play dice! So it is up to you to explain what "dice" or "alcohol" has to do with paramatha dhammas, because it is you who claim that only paramatha dhammas are the path, and that there is nothing to do or not do in conventional terms that matters. It is my view that the Buddha taught about conventional affairs because they *are* part of the path - just a different aspect of developing the path. That the work we do - helping people or killing chickens - makes a difference in the development of the path, along with the development of correct mental factors. > Just because in reality there are only paramattha dhammas all of which > can be identified, this does not mean that one replace everyday speech > with Abhidhamma language. For someone who understands the reality of > what is behind conventional descriptions, it would be unnecessary, in > fact odd, to talk in terms of citta and cetasikas, would it not? How > would you describe killing in Abhidhamma language? Well that's a good question for you: Is there such a thing as killing or not? How *is* it understood in paramatha terms, and if not, does it take place at all, or is it a delusion? Maybe no one is ever killed at all, since there is "no being," in which case it is not a problem and no need to talk about it. Why wouldn't the Buddha talk about "cuti citta" instead of fooling people into thinking they die? I am not being frivolous. It's just that you can't have it both ways. If there is death, there is a being. If there is no being, there is no death, just a momentary arising of cuti citta. I would tell people the truth then. If the Buddha talked about death and rebirth, he must have had a point. We can't just sidestep all this conventional talk forever and just say 'well it makes sense to talk that way,' then say that the Buddha only teaches about dhammas. It can't be both. > > If these are all just concepts, they are not in themselves kusala or > > akusala. They are delusions. Why would He teach that one delusion is > > better than another, or you should not kill a conceptual being, and > > talk about them as real. > > > > Stealing and killing for example are intentions rooted respectively, in > lobha and dosa of particular intensity. For concepts to be delusion, > this is due to wrong view and not because there is thinking in terms of > different concepts. Those who had the panna, before knowing the > characteristic of paramattha dhammas involved, knew to distinguish > concept from reality. They therefore had no problem using concepts > themselves, nor were they deluded when hearing the Buddha talked about > such things. Certainly they had no reason to question along the same > lines as you are doing here. Well, in my view that leads me to understand that we can understand the path in conventional terms as well as in terms of dhammas, and that it makes sense to talk and to understand in both ways. When we have kusala cetana arise by deciding to take a job where we don't kill beings, we are developing the path, even though the object is conventional. I am not convinced that psychophysical beings do not exist at all - I don't think that is specified in the teachings, is it? Instead we are told over and over again to develop understanding, and to follow the rules of kusala living - both. > > > When a person in grief approaches the Buddha, would he not experience > > > compassion towards that person? Why? If in his wisdom he understands that being does not exist, who is having compassion for? No one? Do you have compassion for an actor on your tv screen? Maybe so, but that is an illusion that the Buddha would not indulge in. > > > Is compassion not the appropriate > > > response during such times and should it not therefore be encouraged? Why? > > > Similarly with metta, sila, dana and so on, are these not appropriate > > > responses given particular situations? Why? Why have any response at all to conventional situations, if they don't really exist? It is not a coherent view that you are espousing, saying it is appropriate on the one hand, and it is an hallucination on the other hand. Suppose you had a mental patient who thought that there were imaginary people in the room who were threatening him. Would it be "compassionate" to make believe they were there with him, or to help him understand they were illusions? You can't do both, can you? You are advocating behavior that goes against your own understanding of the teachings. > > Well if a particular situation arises, and the Buddha has a chance to > > encourage metta, sila, dana and so on, maybe in that situation it is a > > natural and normal thing to do, but not when the Buddha is giving a > > formal talk to monks or serious lay-persons. Then it would not be > > appropriate to talk about these forms of kusala without making clear > > what is true and what is false; what is the path and what is not the > > path. No, that would not be appropriate. > > > > I see. You appear to suddenly acknowledge that the Buddha did encourage > other kinds of kusala, although now you want to draw a line between > different audiences in order that you can maintain your position. I'm > not going to get involved in this new topic of debate. But let me ask > you this; without the great compassion, would there have been the > Bodhisatta and hence the Buddha? Without metta, is it possible to teach > the Dhamma? So are compassion and metta not good dhammas to be encouraged? I believe in metta, but you have to explain why it makes sense to have metta for illusory beings who have no relevance to the path. To me it does make sense, because I see beings as provisional, changing and temporary but not totally nonexistent. I see them as not having a self, but I don't think that psychophysical organisms with feelings and thoughts don't even exist at all, that there is no physical universe. In a bare universe such as you imagine, metta really has no place. It is a gesture of good will to empty space. > > And the question remains: Jon said recently that such "auxiliary" > > kusala supports the development of the path. This is a new idea which > > I am still waiting to see in more detail, because normally the answer > > I get is that they have *no relation* to the path at all, but are sort > > of impotent kusala as far as the path is concerned. > > > > If they do act as supporting conditions for the development of the > > path, that opens up many different possibilities, including the > > referencing of concepts as part of path development, as long as the > > mental factors in relation to that concept are kusala. Do you think > > that is the case? > > > > That is your discussion with Jon. What do you think about it? > We are debating whether the Buddha would point out the kusala aspect of > a dhamma because kusala is kusala and should be encouraged. I think you have to make up your mind whether the kusala aspect of a dhamma can be encouraged with reference to illusory beings and things, or whether it should be encouraged directly. If it is through conventional actions and activities and with reference to beings that do not exist, while making believe they do exist. If you think that we can encourage kusala with reference to conventional beings and activities, then we may have agreement. Otherwise you would have to explain why you can encourage kusala with reference to illusory beings while supporting the idea implicitly that they are real, leading away from understanding. > I say that > he did, only not to someone who did not understand the reality / concept > distinction and would therefore end up taking dhammas for self. So he could talk to someone who understood dhammas about efforts, lifestyle, monks' rules, householders, killing and all kinds of illusory things and they would understand he really didn't mean any of it? But if he talked to someone who was deluded, then he'd have to talk about paramatha dhammas? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It seems like the opposite of what would occur. > I say > that all kusala dhammas were encouraged even if some of them had nothing > to do with the development of the Path. Why? > > > You are suggesting that these are good only when understood as being > > > part of the Path. > > > > That's right, because that is what the Buddha is here to teach. > > > > This is your abstract, which according to you means that the Buddha > would not therefore teach anything else. For me this does not follow > given that the Path is about understanding realities, but there are > functions by other dhammas which are called for during times when > concepts of other beings are object of experience. You are saying that > the Buddha, being the discoverer of the Path, would therefore teach only > that which is related to this and not anything else, which means that > when he gave teachings involving concepts, it must be something that is > part of the Path, otherwise it is meaningless to teach them. Yes, the Buddha did not write greeting cards, he did not live as a householder and he did not have casual conversations when he was teaching a group of monks or lay followers, which is when his talks were recorded. He only taught the path. He said himself "I teach **nothing** but suffering and the cessation of suffering" - so what do you think that means? I teach that and a few other things? I teach whatever comes to mind in the moment? I teach Dhamma and also a few good cooking recipes? > > Look, if you and I want to have a better life and want to live with > > less suffering and be kind to others, there's nothing wrong with that > > of course! That is good, it is kusala. > > > > > Well, the difference between someone who sees the value of kusala of > other kinds but not Right View, and someone who know Right View is that > in the case of the latter, these kusala while valued will not be taken > for self, which actually makes the kusala more pure and grow. It means > also that he develops kusala not to make his life better. Did the Buddha provide this context when he taught metta and sila? Please provide a quote for reference, thank you. > So no conflict > between seeing the value of say, metta, and understanding it as a > conditioned reality. Encouraging the former does not imply discouraging > the latter. And not distinguishing the two, if what you are saying is correct, causes endless confusion as to what is the path! It is not so good, is it? Countless beings who continue to think that jhana is the way to enlightenment because the Buddha never mentioned that in the countless times he recommended the development of jhana that it was not the path. So either you are saying that everyone was supposed to know this, or else you are saying it doesn't matter that it was not clearly distinguished - what is path and what is non-path. Since so many are divided on these issues, I'd say it is not clear, if your view is correct. Of course, if your view is not correct, then it all makes sense. He taught jhana, sila and metta because they *are* part of the path. Then the teachings as a whole do in fact hang together. > > But that sort of intention has nothing to do with the Buddha's high > > purpose in being here. If he is sending two message: "here are the > > factors of enlightenment" and also "while you're at it be nice to > > others" that is fine, as long as the two are distinguished. The Buddha > > talked about metta and sila as serious factors to be developed, not a > > nice side thing. > > > > Why would the Buddha be sending out two messages in showing the benefit > of metta as well as the need to understand it as a conditioned reality? Because he is not distinguishing that it is not part of the path, and countless Buddhas have spent their lives fruitlessly engaging in these other kusala activities without realizing they were not developing wisdom. And all because the Buddha never made this distinction. > Indeed if he did not want us to know for example, metta as different > from dosa, he'd have simply pointed out nama as distinct from rupa and > leave it at that, would he not? Maybe he should have - would have avoided a lot of confusion. > Did he not in the case of metta, refer > to such benefits as, having no enemies, sleeping well, and good rebirth? All concepts - no dhammas. Big problem. > And where did he say that metta is a serious factor (of the Path) to be > developed? Where did he say it wasn't? Even once? Ever? Anywhere? > > > 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? > > > > Yes - as I see it, it is not the Buddha's job to talk about this that > > and the other thing - only the path. Otherwise it causes confusion and > > uncertainty about what to think or do. > > > > Well, if it does not cause me confusion, why should those who were his > direct audience be confused? Maybe you are confused and don't realize it. Otherwise a lot of other people are confused, because they disagree with the idea that metta is not part of the path. So there is confusion - either yours or theirs. You can be confused without realizing it - or perhaps they are. But not both. Most Buddhists do see the path as a whole, made up of many parts - panna and wisdom, good actions, refraining from evil actions, meditation and development of mindfulness and concentration, accumulation of merit and kusala, including metta, dana and sila. It is only a small group that discounts all these other factors and points only to panna alone by itself. > > > 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. > > > > Seems pretty confusing to me. Can you show me where he made this clear > > distinction? Anyway, kusala that is not pertinent to the path should > > not be emphasized - unless it is of course. > > > > > Can you show me where he said that metta and body contemplation are part > of the Path? Can you show me where he said they were not? He certainly encouraged and taught about them over and over again, and never said "I am teaching you this for no reason - it's not part of the path but it is nice and helpful like a good cooking recipe, so please enjoy. It won't help end the suffering of delusion, but it's a nice distraction. And you will get some useless merit out of it." > > > 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. > > > > No, you can believe whatever you like. I want you to explain why the > > Buddha talked about them, not what you or I think. > > > > > I can't do better than what I've done. Perhaps now you can explain to me > how body contemplation and kasina concentration for example, function as > part of the Path? I would follow the Buddha's example in this, and say that in doing so we develop mindfulness and concentration - two important path factors. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130866 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 11:01 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi, Howard, -------- <. . .> > H: An interesting sutta: No purposeful action involved, though, right folks? -------- KH: That's right. By "purposeful action" we mean action as it is *commonly understood* don't we? (Understood by run-of-the-mill ordinary folk.) ------------------- > H: The language used (all the should-do's) must mean something entirely different from what such language means in every other context, hmmm? -------------------- KH: Exactly! ---------------------------------- > H: Surprising, isn't it, that the Buddha didn't formulate this differently so that people would properly understand? ---------------------------------- KH: He spoke according to the capacity of his audiences to understand. Perhaps that sutta was too advanced for you. I suggest you start with explanations that are given at DSG. For example, start with the understanding that the Buddha taught something previously unknown. Is there anything previously unknown about purposeful action? No, so read the sutta again. This time be prepared to learn something profound and difficult to understand (i.e., concerning anatta). ------------------- > H: My tongue was placed well in cheek above, but I think you may get my point, all. ------------------- KH: Conventionally speaking it was your point and made by you, but in reality there was no control over your point-making, or over our point-taking, or our point-rejecting, or anything. Everything that happens is ultimately due to conditions, not to the purposeful, controlled actions of sentient beings. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130867 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 12:08 pm Subject: Re: TA on vinnana dhatus jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alberto > TA: ..........; where is the self here? where is I at moment of seeing, at moment of thinking; every moment is conditioned, JK: Thank you very much for your extraction of TA's reminders. It is very necessary to be reminded of this right views very often. >TA: and when there is ignorance, and attachment, and wrong view, it's I; but actually thinking cannot be I, it cannot be anyone, it cannot be anything: it is one of the seven vi~n~nana dhatu. JK: It is very difficult to notice each dhatu as single phenomena. We always combine every dhatu all together and believe their existent to be us. This is daily and automatically since we wake up and doing anything in daily life. Even when we study dhamma when there is a feeling of "I know". I wonder whether this insinuates how deep our wrong views is? Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130868 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 1:10 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (and Sukin) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Sukin. > > ... > > RE: He seems to be clearly in favor of metta, sila etc. and promotes them. He doesn't frequently say they are empty and conditioned. Do you have a handy quote? > > > > Here is the Buddha on metta:[Metta sutta] > > Let none deceive another, > > Or despise any being in any state. > > Let none through anger or ill-will > > Wish harm upon another. > > Even as a mother protects with her life > > Her child, her only child, > > So with a boundless heart > > Should one cherish all living beings: > > Radiating kindness over the entire world > > Spreading upwards to the skies, > > And downwards to the depths; > > Outwards and unbounded, > > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > > Free from drowsiness, > > One should sustain this recollection. > > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > > By not holding to fixed views, > > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > > Being freed from all sense desires, > > Is not born again into this world. > > > > I fail to see the teachings on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of metta - it sounds like it is being advertised pretty strongly here. I'm sure the Buddha would also teach this to those who are at the point to understand it, but he seems to feel that metta is a supreme form of kusala in its own right, as well as all the conceptually-based things he is advocating here. > > =============== > > J: I hope you don't mind me butting in here to point out an example of something I've mentioned in our recent exchanges, namely that when the Buddha spoke of non-path kusala, he did so in the context of the development of the path; he did not recommend the development of non-path kusala for its own sake alone. > > In the verse on metta quoted above, this can be seen in the final 4 lines, which read as follows: > > "By not holding to fixed views, > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > Being freed from all sense desires, > Is not born again into this world." > > Here, the expressions "having clarity of vision" and "being freed from all sense desires" are references to insight and the attainment of enlightenment. > > So the preceding part of the verse is to be read as, in effect, metta for persons developing the path. > > The Buddha's message could be summarised as, "Develop metta by all means, but don't forget the development of the path." I would never think that the Buddha would advocate metta without insight; but the question is whether the metta is a steppingstone towards enlightenment in its own right, or not. Recently you suggested that metta and other forms of high kusala could serve as supportive conditions for development of the path. If you do feel this way, could you describe what role it can play in path development? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130869 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 2:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Did the Buddha appear in the world to distinguish general kusala from > > general akusala in relation to concepts, or did he appear to > > distinguish path kusala, and to show what is real and unreal? > > > > Why the question? Why should one exclude the other? Because he is the Tathagata, not a Boy Scout leader. You are the one who has always said that the Buddha only really talks about dhammas, and that everything he says is really to be understood in terms of dhammas. Now you are saying that he talks about all sorts of other things - why not? - but that they are unrelated to the path. That makes him a general teacher of good works and the leader of a religion like many others - is that what you think he is? > Better show me how encouraging metta and other kusala goes against the > understanding that all dhammas are conditioned and beyond control, than > insist that the argument revolve around the particular story about how > "the Buddha being the discoverer of the Path, would therefore teach only > that which is part of the Path". It has obviously caused much confusion, because you are saying that he taught many things but they are not all the path; others say they are all the path, and still others say that they are supporting of the path though they are not the path; still others say that everything he taught was the path even when it seems to be about something else. Which is it? > > > I say > > > that for something to be kusala and therefore encouraged does not make > > > it part of the Path, > > > > Then it would not be the Buddha's job to talk about it. > > > > I'll wait to read your response to my question above. > > > > 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. > > > > Do you think the Buddha had extra time inbetween teaching Dhamma and > > so he taught a bunch of other stuff so he could be quoted on postcards > > in the future: > > > > "Be kind to animals - Elsie the cow will thank you!" > > "Don't kill because it's not nice." > > "Don't drink because you may have a chariot accident!" > > > > Can you make your point without changing the implications of what I say? > He taught the Path of understanding which includes not only that dhammas > are conditioned and impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self, but also > how each are causes leading to different results. How much time it takes > to show this? > > > > > I say that for him to teach about all kinds of kusala is inevitable. > > > > Why? Because he is a nice guy? > > > > No, because he was wise and wise people teach what is good and useful. Please tell me what is useful about non-path kusala? It is all temporary dressing over a wound that will not heal. What good is it? > > > Only that this would not be without also teaching that in fact they are > > > all impersonal and conditioned phenomena. > > > > I don't think that is very clear. He seems to be clearly in favor of > > metta, sila etc. and promotes them. He doesn't frequently say they are > > empty and conditioned. Do you have a handy quote? > > > > Here is the Buddha on metta:[Metta sutta] > > Let none deceive another, > > Or despise any being in any state. > > Let none through anger or ill-will > > Wish harm upon another. > > Even as a mother protects with her life > > Her child, her only child, > > So with a boundless heart > > Should one cherish all living beings: > > Radiating kindness over the entire world > > Spreading upwards to the skies, > > And downwards to the depths; > > Outwards and unbounded, > > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > > Free from drowsiness, > > One should sustain this recollection. > > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > > By not holding to fixed views, > > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > > Being freed from all sense desires, > > Is not born again into this world. > > > > I fail to see the teachings on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of metta > > - it sounds like it is being advertised pretty strongly here. I'm sure > > the Buddha would also teach this to those who are at the point to > > understand it, but he seems to feel that metta is a supreme form of > > kusala in its own right, as well as all the conceptually-based things > > he is advocating here. > > > > So what are you really saying, the Buddha taught other kinds of kusala > as part of the Path or did he do so regardless of whether it is? I am saying that he only taught the path, and that the kusala he did teach about must be part of the path. I hope that is clear. You are saying he taught about other kusala but it is not part of the path, but he taught about it anyway. I don't think that makes sense. The Buddha would cause such confusion and waste time by teaching that which would not lead to liberation from the suffering of delusion. I just don't believe that is possible. > I say > that he taught the kusala and akusala aspect of all dhammas with Right > Understanding about its conditioned nature. But he didn't just teach about kusala and akusala as conditioned dhammas. He taught about kusala as desirable and leading to development, and akusala as being undesirable and holding one back. This is what you are ignoring. And he often taught about the benefits of metta, sila and dana without saying they were merely conditioned and never said they would not lead to the path. So I think your view of Buddha's teachings on these subjects must be wrong. > You say that being the Buddha, whatever he taught must be aimed at the > development of Right View. Why then do you think that the above Sutta > can be read regardless of whether it is understood with Right View, > namely that metta is conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta? I think that such kusala leads to path development in its own right, thought it is not as powerful as direct understanding; but it will support the development of other kusala leading to the path. > > > 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? > > > > Well that's not my idea, it is more the idea of those who say that, as > > regards the path, we should have no relation to beings as they are > > illusory. > > > > Well, the difference is that one encourages kusala with the > understanding that it is conditioned and beyond control, whereas the > other overlooks this knowledge (about which the Buddha came to teach), > suggestive of "doings" with self-view (the antithesis of what the Buddha > taught). And I think that you overlook the fact that encouraging kusala leads to kusala cetana which leads to kusala action. The idea that action doesn't exist or is beside the point is wrong. > > > You are saying that kusala should not be encouraged unless seen as part > > > of the Path. > > > > That's right. If the path is what is important, why praise an impotent > > form of kusala? What good does it do, really? > > > > Were the Bodhisatta's compassion and the Buddha's kindness impotent? You tell me. Either they are path-related or impotent. Which is it? They certainly aren't pertinent to wisdom and freedom if they have no relation to the path. So it is up to you whether they are meaningful or not. > > > 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? > > > > Anytime you discern the nature of a dhamma, it is part of path > > development, but it is another thing to promote non-path kusala. For > > what reason? > > > > The development of samatha involves understanding the danger of sensuous > attachment and the value of calm. I agree. > Metta can be understood as calm > without it also being seen as a conditioned and impersonal element. And > when this happens, it is not a part of path development. But metta is > metta, and this performs an important function which no other dhamma can. What is important about it in its own right, if it is not path-related? I am trying to get clear what is important about ANYTHING if it is not path-related. Is it possible that the conceptual world, with no relation to path development, has any meaning at all? > > > > > 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? > > > > It has been said many times that to confuse non-path kusala with path > > kusala is very dangerous. For instance, jhana is kusala but is said to > > be non-path and it has been said that confusing such kusala with the > > path can lead to wrong view for many aeons. > > > > Kusala is one thing, *taking it for the path* is another thing. The > former is what it is, the latter *is* wrong view (not that it leads to it). What good is kusala if it does not lead out of the cycle of delusion and suffering? > > > > 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? > > > > No, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. > > > > You are not saying that body contemplation and everything else that the > Buddha talked about are part of the Path? Yes, I am. There is nothing of major teaching that the Buddha did, including his most important teachings on development of samatha, concentration and satipatthana that are not part of the path, and all of those involve real-world activities, meditation, etc. And so it is with sila, dana and metta. They develop selfless focus and work against the defilements, and this helps prepare citta for path development. It's all path-related, or the Buddha wouldn't have taught it. > > I think meditation, sila, dana, metta, etc. are part of the path. > > > > While the others are concepts that point to kusala realities about which > we need to develop understanding about, beginning with pariyatti, > "meditation" is a silly idea conceived of by wrong view. It's only silly if you completely misread the major teachings of the Buddha in which he advocated such activity over and over again. You are free to do so. To say that the major activity that Buddha and all the monks were involved with every day of their lives is "silly" is to be beyond silly, to the point of not being able to read. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130870 From: han tun Date: Mon May 27, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (4) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 73. One's Own Good and Another's [AN 4.96 Raagavinaya Sutta; AN 4.99 Sikkhaapada Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? There is one who lives for his own good but not for the good of others; one who lives for the good of others but not for his own good; one who lives neither for his own good nor for the good of others; and one who lives for both his own good and for the good of others. (1) (AN 4:96) And how, monks, does a person live for his own good and not for the good of others? He practises for the removal of lust, hatred, and delusion in himself, but does not encourage others in the removal of lust, hatred, and delusion. (AN 4:99) He himself abstains from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants, but he does not encourage others in such restraint. (2) (AN 4:96) And how, monks, does a person live for the good of others but not for his own? He encourages others in the removal of lust, hatred, and delusion, but he himself does not practise for their removal. (AN 4:99) He encourages others in abstention from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech and intoxicants, but he himself does not practise such restraint. (3) (AN 4:96) And how, monks, does a person live neither for his own good nor for the good of others? He neither practises for the removal of lust, hatred, and delusion himself, nor does he encourage others to do so. (AN 4:99) He neither practises abstention from killing and so forth himself, nor does he encourage others in such restraint. (4) (AN 4:96) And how, monks, does a person live both for his own good and for the good of others? He himself practises for the removal of lust, hatred, and delusion, and also encourages others to do so. (AN 4:99) He himself practises abstention from killing and so forth, and also encourages others in such restraint. with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130871 From: han tun Date: Mon May 27, 2013 6:53 pm Subject: To Rob E hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert, I just found my misplaced old file and I was reading the correspondence between you and me during the later part of the year 2010, and it brings back fond memories. I do not know whether you have read my serial presentation of Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya. So far, I have posted four messages. Apart from the useful contents of the suttas, please read the first sentence of each sutta, with the Paa.li text which I am now inserting. The first sentence represents the Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) which was spoken by Lord Buddha himself. Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (1) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130841 50. The Stream [AN 4.5 Anusota Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are to be found in the world. What four? 5. Anusotasutta.m 5. Cattaarome , bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? -------------------- Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130850 71. From Darkness to Light [AN 4.85 Tamotama Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? 5. Tamotamasutta.m 85. Cattaarome , bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? -------------------- Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130854 72. Tranquility and Insight [AN 4.94 Tatiya Samaadhi Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? 4. Tatiyasamaadhisutta.m 94. Cattaarome, bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? -------------------- Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (4) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130870 73. One's Own Good and Another's [AN 4.96 Raagavinaya Sutta; AN 4.99 Sikkhaapada Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? 6. Raagavinayasutta.m 96. Cattaarome , bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? 9. Sikkhaapadasutta.m 99. Cattaarome, bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? -------------------- Han: These words, spoken by Lord Buddha himself, represent the Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca), one side of the same coin that I had written before. Please take note of the Paa.li words, santo sa.mvijjamaanaa, which were repeated by Lord Buddha in each sutta. sant = being, existing (page 675 of PTS Dictionary) sa.mvijjati = to be found, to exist (page 657 of PTS Dictionary) Thus, the Buddha's words highlight the importance of the Conventional Truth. with metta and deepest respect, Han p.s. Are you still holding the interesting designation at Washington, D.C.? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130872 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon May 27, 2013 9:28 pm Subject: Re: TA on vinnana dhatus sprlrt Send Email Send Email Dear Jagkrit, > It is very necessary to be reminded of this right views very often. ... > Even when we study dhamma when there is a feeling of "I know". Both true, and by hearing and considering again and again Dhamma as Ajahn explains it, in plain English (or plain Thai :), is a necessary condition for seeing one own every day life, even while hearing or considering/studying the Dhamma, a little bit less as self and a little bit more as dhamma, and each of such moments is accumulated as pa~n~na parami. Alberto Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130873 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 9:53 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: The Buddha's message could be summarised as, "Develop metta by all means, but don't forget the development of the path." > > RE: I would never think that the Buddha would advocate metta without insight; but the question is whether the metta is a steppingstone towards enlightenment in its own right, or not. Recently you suggested that metta and other forms of high kusala could serve as supportive conditions for development of the path. If you do feel this way, could you describe what role it can play in path development? > =============== J: You may have missed my earlier post (#130800) where I answered a similar question from you. Here is the relevant exchange: ********************** > RE: 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. J: Correct, the other forms of kusala are not, in and of themselves, the development of the path. However, they support the development of the path in a number of ways. One way would be in contributing to rebirth in the human realm rather than in a lower realm where there is no opportunity to hear the teachings. Another would be that the person lives without regret for the past, and so is not distracted from hearing and considering the teachings. ********************** The term "supporting condition" is very broad and includes conditions that are much less direct that the term "stepping stone" would imply. I don't think metta could be described as a stepping stone to awareness/insight (sorry!:-)). Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130874 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon May 27, 2013 10:10 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Send Email Send Email Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: Well don't dhammas have more than one function too? Or not? If a citta has cetasikas probing, being mindful, with sanna marking and coordinating, and all the other little things that take place, does that citta have multiple functions or not? > =============== J: Those functions – being mindful, marking, etc. – are functions of the respective cetasikas (not of the citta). > =============== > > J: Accordingly, audible object is defined as the dhamma that is *capable of* being experienced by hearing consciousness. > > RE: That is a distinction as regards the rupa, but not as regards the nama. And the only real distinction is that the rupa may occur in the absence of a nama. But it still has no other event that it is designed for other than being heard. It's like a single person who is waiting by the phone to be called by their dating service, or a business person showing up to a business meeting where no one else is there to meet with. They may be all dressed up and have nowhere to go, but they are only waiting around for one thing to happen. The audible rupa also doesn't do anything else. It just arises without event unless hearing consciousness arises to meet it. > =============== J: Regarding, "[Audible object] has no other event that it is designed for other than being heard", rupas are not *designed for* anything (they do not have a purpose in life!) > =============== > > J: We have also discussed previously how audible object requires the `clashing together' of hardness ruupas in order to occur. This treats audible object from another perspective. > > RE: That is true - it is the perspective of what conditions are necessary to cause it to arise. Cittas have equivalent conditions in order to arise as well, don't they? > =============== J: Yes, all dhammas (except nibbana) are conditioned. The conditions for the arising of cittas include, in the case of vipaka citta, kamma and the previous arising of a ruupa that is an appropriate object. In the case of javana cittas, the conditions are quite different. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130875 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 27, 2013 11:34 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi, Howard, > > -------- > <. . .> > > H: An interesting sutta: No purposeful action involved, though, right folks? > -------- > > KH: That's right. By "purposeful action" we mean action as it is *commonly understood* don't we? (Understood by run-of-the-mill ordinary folk.) > > ------------------- > > H: The language used (all the should-do's) must mean something entirely different from what such language means in every other context, hmmm? > -------------------- > > KH: Exactly! > > ---------------------------------- > > H: Surprising, isn't it, that the Buddha didn't formulate this differently so that people would properly understand? > ---------------------------------- > > KH: He spoke according to the capacity of his audiences to understand. Perhaps that sutta was too advanced for you. I suggest you start with explanations that are given at DSG. For example, start with the understanding that the Buddha taught something previously unknown. ------------------------------ HCW: LOL! Ken, do you intentionally engage in the development of arrogance and conceit, or does it just "happen according to conditions"? When did you become a Dhamjma Master? ;-)) ------------------------------- > > Is there anything previously unknown about purposeful action? No, so read the sutta again. This time be prepared to learn something profound and difficult to understand (i.e., concerning anatta). ----------------------------- HCW: Ahh, thank you, Master Ken! ;-) ---------------------------- > > ------------------- > > H: My tongue was placed well in cheek above, but I think you may get my point, all. > ------------------- > > KH: Conventionally speaking it was your point and made by you, but in reality there was no control over your point-making, or over our point-taking, or our point-rejecting, or anything. ------------------------------ HCW: I find it amusing (at best) to observe a Buddhist who does not believe in kamma; i.e., intention and intentional action. --------------------------------- > > Everything that happens is ultimately due to conditions, not to the purposeful, controlled actions of sentient beings. --------------------------------- HCW: Willing, intending, thinking, and production of rupas conditioned by these all occur. These activities are among your worshipped "conditions," though you choose to ignore them! ---------------------------------- > > Ken H > ================================== With metta, Howard P. S. Ken, as a return "favor," I will instruct YOU in Dhamma by providing some teachings of the Buddha I think you should seriously consider IN DETAIL, looking at all the words ther Buddha uses here: /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) ______________________________ "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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130876 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 3:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > I thank you very much once again for your kind understanding, and your ability to explain things which I could never do satisfactorily. > I am very happy to discuss with you. > with metta and deepest respect, > Han ________________________________ Thank you, Han. I think it is an important area to try to investigate, and I appreciate your effort to bring out this balance of understanding. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130877 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 4:00 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, you wrote: HCW: I find it amusing (at best) to observe a Buddhist who does not believe in kamma; i.e., intention and intentional action. D: agreed and the Buddhist supposed ( 'Venerable Sir, to what extent is one a lay follower?" "Jivaka, when one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, and has gone to the Sangha for refuge, then to that extent is one a lay follower." A.N. VIII 26 ) As this discussion has always ended in a deadlock, let us try a new approach : I take the role of the devil's advocate who claims :The doctrine of dependent origination shows that the sentient being is nothing but a flow of mental and physical phenomena (dhammas) which arises and continues in dependence on conditions. How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found? with Metta Dieter The layout of these conditions brings to light the cause of suffering and shows how suffering can be ended. (Mendis) n the Abhidhammattha Sangaha there is a brief exposition of the Law of Dependent Origination, followed by a descriptive account of the Causal Relations that finds no parallel in any other philosophy. I suppose it is concluded : no self , all depending on conditions, so no control or influence.. Even if the supermundane point of view is taken , i.e. the angle of the Law of Dependent Origination , the element of cetana ( will ,volition) and its relation with kamma ( 'will is action, I say') is obvious. (cetana represented by sankhara 2nd and sankhara khanda 4th in the chain) That will itself is conditioned by ignorance , doesn't change the function : intentional action as you said. Moreover I do not understand the denial of reality of the mundane world, although the Buddha emphasized the two right views/understandings. Seeing the reality only as conditioned phenomena /dhammas Reminds me again on the atomic scientist , who insisted on only one reality, i.e. that of quantum mechanics and stumbled upon the argument ' Though given that the world of atoms is fundamental , the ant is more significant' dmental , and se claim of only physisist who What I do n, There is no who , a self (as in Sankhara and this supermundane view , no influence.. activity because of the denial of the Self which is real as long as the delusion isn't nd at best According the Buddha , a Buddhist is called who has taken one m [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130878 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 28, 2013 5:04 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > you wrote: > > HCW: I find it amusing (at best) to observe a Buddhist who does not believe in kamma; i.e., intention and intentional action. > > > D: agreed and the Buddhist supposed ( 'Venerable Sir, to what extent is one a lay follower?" "Jivaka, when one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, and has gone to the Sangha for refuge, then to that extent is one a lay follower." A.N. VIII 26 ) > As this discussion has always ended in a deadlock, let us try a new approach : > > I take the role of the devil's advocate who claims :The doctrine of dependent origination shows that the sentient being is nothing but a flow of mental and physical phenomena (dhammas) which arises and continues in dependence on conditions. > > How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found? --------------------------------- HCW: Intention has consequences which are namas and rupas. There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". -------------------------------- > > with Metta Dieter =================================== With metta, Howard P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: The Meaning of 'Self' /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130879 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 7:08 am Subject: Re: To Rob E epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > I just found my misplaced old file and I was reading the > correspondence between you and me during the later part of the year 2010, and > it brings back fond memories. Thanks for mentioning that - I enjoyed our exchanges too. :-) > I do not know whether you have read my serial presentation > of Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya. So far, I have posted four messages. Thanks for that reminder. I have been noticing that you have posted them, but have not found a good time to read them yet. However, I intend to read them, and I appreciate the index of the suttas below, not only because of your worthwhile point about the Buddha's conventional use of speech, but also as it will give me a check list for the suttas. > Apart > from the useful contents of the suttas, please read the first sentence of each sutta, > with the Paa.li text which I am now inserting. The first sentence represents > the Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) which was spoken by Lord Buddha himself. > > Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (1) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130841 > 50. The Stream [AN 4.5 Anusota Sutta] > These four kinds of persons, O monks, are to be found in the > world. What four? ... > Han: These words, spoken by Lord Buddha himself, represent > the Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca), one side of the same coin that I had > written before. > > Please take note of the Paa.li words, santo sa.mvijjamaanaa, > which were repeated by Lord Buddha in each sutta. > sant = being, existing (page 675 of PTS Dictionary) > sa.mvijjati = to be found, to exist (page 657 of PTS > Dictionary) Looking at the Pali terms for this conventionally-based sentence is especially interesting. It suggests at least that the Buddha was not merely referencing the concept of a person as a purely non-existent idea, but was in a sense underlining their provisional or conventional existence as referents by using terms like "being, to be found" or "to exist." So it shows that rather than referencing persons as "totally non-existent," he was instead referencing them as having a particular kind of existence, and it might be worthwhile to see what kind of existence is appropriately understood for such a reference. The idea that persons *do* exist and are real phenomena is incorrect, as I understand it, and is one extreme. But it is also an extreme view, as I understand it, to say that persons *do not* exist *at all* and are merely hallucinations of thought. I think the difficult middle ground of what kind of existence actually creates the appearance of coherent persons in the world is the correct ground to stay on, and to interrogate to see how dhammas relate to such an existence. We know that the existence of persons is "free of self," [anatta] and is temporary and constantly changing and shifting, [anicca,] and that they are unstable existences that eventually are gone altogether [also anicca,] and that such an existence causes suffering because of its undependability and temporary nature and because of clinging [dukkha.] The dhammas that create this existence have those characteristics, and they cause our experience of conventional objects and persons to also be unstable and unsatisfying. Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together. > Thus, the Buddha's words highlight > the importance of the Conventional Truth. Yes, that is really worth pointing out. > p.s. Are you still holding the interesting designation at Washington, > D.C.? I am still in Washington, D.C., doing my same work as an acting teacher - now in a new house, which has many new possibilities. I do not know if that covers the designation that you meant, but if not, please let me know and I will clarify further. It's interesting to be in a new larger house, after living in a small condo apartment for many years and to have all this new "space." I wonder if the dhamma of "space" and some qualities of movement and the elements would explain some of this conventional phenomena in paramatha terms? Or maybe that is on the wrong track... Best Regards, Rob E. ----------------------------------- Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130880 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 7:57 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> > H: LOL! Ken, do you intentionally engage in the development of arrogance and conceit, or does it just "happen according to conditions"? When did you become a Dhamjma Master? ;-)) ---- KH: Let me quote something Sarah said a few months ago. (I hope I get this right.) She said, "The present moment is a test." When upstart Australian twerps dare to lecture us, we shouldn't be outraged and affronted. Far worse things will certainly happen in the future. How will we react then? See this as a test. How would panna (right understanding) react on an outrageous occasion such as this? It would know the difference between concept and reality. It would know there was really no preposterous upstart presuming to give us a lecture, and there was no "us" being condescended to. There are only dhammas. Thank heavens for that! :-) -------------- > H: P. S. Ken, as a return "favor," I will instruct YOU in Dhamma by providing some teachings of the Buddha I think you should seriously consider IN DETAIL, looking at all the words ther Buddha uses here: /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) --------------- KH: I think you are asking me to deny anatta. I won't do that. Instead I will understand the sutta the way I have previously understood it: as an expression of anatta. The sutta is saying that the absence of atta does not mean the presence of nothingness. It does not mean there is no kamma or vipakka. It does not mean there is no samsara, no benefactors, no teachers and no way out. It means we have to understand those things differently. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130881 From: han tun Date: Tue May 28, 2013 8:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob E hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert,  Thank you very much for your thought-provoking comments.  Robert: Looking at the Pali terms for this conventionally-based sentence is especially interesting. It suggests at least that the Buddha was not merely referencing the concept of a person as a purely non-existent idea, but was in a sense underlining their provisional or conventional existence as referents by using terms like "being, to be found" or "to exist." So it shows that rather than referencing persons as "totally non-existent," he was instead referencing them as having a particular kind of existence, and it might be worthwhile to see what kind of existence is appropriately understood for such a reference.   The idea that persons *do* exist and are real phenomena is incorrect, as I understand it, and is one extreme.   But it is also an extreme view, as I understand it, to say that persons *do not* exist *at all* and are merely hallucinations of thought.   I think the difficult middle ground of what kind of existence actually creates the appearance of coherent persons in the world is the correct ground to stay on, and to interrogate to see how dhammas relate to such an existence.   We know that the existence of persons is "free of self," [anatta] and is temporary and constantly changing and shifting, [anicca,] and that they are unstable existences that eventually are gone altogether [also anicca,] and that such an existence causes suffering because of its undependability and temporary nature and because of clinging [dukkha.] The dhammas that create this existence have those characteristics, and they cause our experience of conventional objects and persons to also be unstable and unsatisfying.   Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together.  --------------------  Han: You are pointing out an angle which I have not seen before. I was saying the two Truths (Conventional and Ultimate) as the two sides of the same coin. But what you have written points out that it is not that simple -- it is not a clear-cut two sides, but the inter-relationship between the two sides which you said [Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together.] And you also said: [I think the difficult middle ground of what kind of existence actually creates the appearance of coherent persons in the world is the correct ground to stay on, and to interrogate to see how dhammas relate to such an existence.]  Yes, that is the point we have to investigate and understand. Right at the moment I cannot think how that can be understood. I will think some more and read some more. Thank you very much for opening the new areas to explore.  ---------------------  Robert: I am still in Washington, D.C., doing my same work as an acting teacher - now in a new house, which has many new possibilities. I do not know if that covers the designation that you meant, but if not, please let me know and I will clarify further.  Han: Yes, that is the designation I meant.  --------------------  Robert: It's interesting to be in a new larger house, after living in a small condo apartment for many years and to have all this new "space." I wonder if the dhamma of "space" and some qualities of movement and the elements would explain some of this conventional phenomena in paramatha terms? Or maybe that is on the wrong track...  Han: I think to explain every day-to-day experience in terms of conventional phenomena in paramatha terms is also another extreme :>))  with metta and deepest respect, Han   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130882 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 9:38 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Correct, the other forms of kusala are not, in and of themselves, the development of the path. > > However, they support the development of the path in a number of ways. One way would be in contributing to rebirth in the human realm rather than in a lower realm where there is no opportunity to hear the teachings. Another would be that the person lives without regret for the past, and so is not distracted from hearing and considering the teachings. > ********************** > > The term "supporting condition" is very broad and includes conditions that are much less direct that the term "stepping stone" would imply. I don't think metta could be described as a stepping stone to awareness/insight (sorry!:-)). I do remember your reply now and thanks for the reminder - my mind must have gone blank -- those gradually "aging cittas." :-) Well the supportive conditions that are created by metta and other forms of kusala do seem to at least create the potential for greater understanding. I think there are other ways in which these form supports for the path, but I can't claim that I have the specifics to any extent. My view of those things is different than the idea that only understanding leads to more understanding. I understand the teachings to say that development of positive states, suppression of defilements, practice at concentration and mindfulness will join together to form a strong support for direct understanding. I know, very conventional. But it is exactly what is said in the body of the suttas. The "exceptional teaching" of the Buddha was not something off in a completely different dimension, but a clear roadmap of how to get from this dimension to that one, using the tools at hand. Best, Rob E. #130883 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 9:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > But I want to make it clear that I am not making a general > statement, but a specific case of > Venerable Aananda with regard to the two paragraphs of DN 16. .... S: Appreciated. As usual, I don't think we can read a sutta in isolation, forgetting that the Buddha's Teachings are about ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas, which must be the objects of insight for the development of the Path. From an earlier message of Jon's: >Nyanatiloka, `Buddhist Dictionary' http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm "paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohaara-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohaara-vacana).< .... From another old post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9475 >....I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti evaruupa sammutidesanaa. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m deseti. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities.< .... S: For the wise, like Ananda, no misunderstanding about ultimate realities, no matter what language was used. Metta and deep respect Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130884 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:04 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Connie, Helpful notes, Pali and comments in your mini-series. Thank you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m, di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati; > > So, having (1) seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees./666 > > 666 ~ Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." ... Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130885 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:10 am Subject: Re: To Rob E epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: You are pointing out an angle which I have not seen > before. I was saying the two Truths (Conventional and Ultimate) as the two > sides of the same coin. But what you have written points out that it is not > that simple -- it is not a clear-cut two sides, but the inter-relationship between > the two sides which you said [Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which > ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together.] And > you also said: [I think the difficult middle ground of what kind of existence > actually creates the appearance of coherent persons in the world is the correct > ground to stay on, and to interrogate to see how dhammas relate to such an > existence.] > Yes, that is the point we have to investigate and understand. > Right at the moment I cannot think how that can be understood. I am not sure either. But I think a good place to start is to take the Buddha's word seriously, when he talks about what is conventionally wholesome and when he talks about the ultimate elements of reality. Hopefully there is room for both. > I will think > some more and read some more. Thank you very much for opening the new areas to > explore. Thank you for starting this conversation and engaging in it with me. > --------------------- > Robert: I am still in Washington, D.C., doing my same > work as an acting teacher - now in a new house, which has many new > possibilities. I do not know if that covers the designation that you meant, but > if not, please let me know and I will clarify further. > Han: Yes, that is the designation I meant. > -------------------- > Robert: It's interesting to be in a new larger house, > after living in a small condo apartment for many years and to have all this new > "space." I wonder if the dhamma of "space" and some > qualities of movement and the elements would explain some of this conventional > phenomena in paramatha terms? Or maybe that is on the wrong track... > Han: I think to explain every day-to-day experience in terms > of conventional phenomena in paramatha terms is also another extreme :>)) Good to hear - I will take that into account. > with metta and deepest respect, > Han Thanks for the good conversation! I will look forward to seeing what happens with this inquiry. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (4) #130886 From: han tun Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Sarah,  I understand very well the following two remarks of yours and Jon's earlier message. I do not disagree with what has been written *in their corresponding context*.  (1) Sarah: Appreciated. As usual, I don't think we can read a sutta in isolation, forgetting that the Buddha's Teachings are about ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas, which must be the objects of insight for the development of the Path.  (2) Sarah: For the wise, like Ananda, no misunderstanding about ultimate realities, no matter what language was used.  Han: But for me, I have no problem reading a sutta in isolation. And my stance with regard to Venerable Aananda *in the context* of DN 16 remains the same.  with metta and deepest respect, Your Partner Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130887 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:21 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, Thanks for your helpful post #130825 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > So he does not try to correct Ananda and say "don't worry, there are only dhammas anyway - no Tathagata." Why not? Because the view of the Buddha as Teacher is a valid one. Is it the Ultimate view? No, but it is valid. So this sutta supports the idea of the Two Truths and that there is a place for the conventional view as well as the Ultimate view. ... S: Yes, there are two truths - the ultimate (paramattha sacca) and the conventional (sammuti sacca). No one here suggests that there is no value in the use of sammuti sacca. Of course we have to refer to people, places and things in order to communicate. When the Buddha and Ananda discussed the needs of monks or lay people, discussed daily routines, discussed the Dhamma, they used conventional language, but with no misunderstanding at all. For us, when we talk about the Buddha, about our friends here, again we are using conventional language. Just because Jon and I know that "computer" is a concept, not a reality, doesn't mean we don't talk about computer problems and so on. For us worldlings, it just depends on the cittas at such times whether there is any misunderstanding, any wrong view arising or not. Most of the day ignorance and attachment arise a lot, but ditthi, wrong understanding about ultimate realities, only arises at such times as there really is the idea that person or computer or Tathagata exists in actuality, as a reality. > When Ananda is worried about losing his Teacher, the Buddha reassures him appropriately that the Teachings will still remain - conventional level but still accurate in the world of beings and teachings. ... S: Yes, correct conventional language. If I am distressed about losing a dear one, Jon, A.Sujin or other friends here might make similar reassurances about the Dhamma as refuge. Correct sammuti sacca, but in reality, just dhammas. ... > > When the time comes to talk about what is really existent in Ultimate terms, then the Buddha has no problem switching to dhammas and khandas and proclaiming that only dhammas or khandas are ultimately real, even the Tathagata and Ananda. But it would be foolish and cold-hearted to tell Ananda, when the Buddha is just about to leave his closest and longest student forever, "it's just dhammas, buddy - have a nice day!" ... S: So it depends on the time and person addressed what is appropriate to be said. It was understood that there are just dhammas. It's only necessary to keep repeating this when there are misunderstandings. In large sections of the suttas, such as Khandha Samyutta, the Buddha just kept stressing that the dhammas, the khandhas, are the "all", that it is the khandhas which are impermanent, unsatisfactory and anatta. ... > Even the Buddha knew when to stop talking about Dhammas and talk about Monks, Householders, the Teachings and the Sangha. He didn't claim that none of these things existed, or that they weren't actual and important within the realm of people and activities. ... S: As discussed and clarified in the Teachings, it makes no sense to say to avoid the use of conventional language. No suggestion at all that this is appropriate. ... > And it's not how the Buddha carried on his work, nor is that reflected in the Visudhimagga or even the commentaries. They all pay appropriate service to both dhammas and the conventional aspects of the path. The only place the Two Truths are a problem is around here. ... S: The Two Truths are only a problem when there is any wrong understanding about the "All", when there is the taking of sammuti sacca for paramattha sacca. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130888 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:31 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, (& Han) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > I have often quoted SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, which I like very > > much. > > > > 553 "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > > Maara, is that your speculative view? > > This is a heap of sheer formations: > > Here no being is found. > > > > "Ki.m nu sattoti paccesi, > > maara di.t.thigata.m nu te; > > Suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m, > > nayidha sattupalabbhati. > > > > 554 "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > > The word 'chariot' is used, > > So, when the aggregates exist, > > There is the convention 'a being.' > > > > "Yathaa hi a"ngasambhaaraa, > > hoti saddo ratho iti; > > Eva.m khandhesu santesu, > > hoti sattoti sammuti. > > > > 555 "It's only suffering that comes to be, > > Suffering that stands and falls > > away. > > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > > Nothing but suffering ceases." > >R: I also like this sutta very much. Ultimately there is no person, but only rising and falling aggregates or dhammas. And yet, as you say below, we also take the human view and relate to each other as people, and the path has some relevance to how we do this as well. ... S: There is a common idea that when there is a greater appreciation that in truth there are only dhammas, khandhas, arising and falling away, no person, that this means there will be more difficulty in relating to other people. Sukin has gone to great pains to explain to you why this is not so. Quite the opposite. As we can see in the Buddha's example, he taught the Truth and yet had the greatest compassion and metta and with his omniscient powers could understand all tendencies, all latent problems. The only confusion or difficulty is on our minds when we have this mis-conception that understanding realities means that somehow we function less well in our daily lives. ... > > > Han: I was only pointing out that in the context of DN 16, according > > to the paragraphs 5.13 and 6.1, Venerable Aananda saw the Tathaagata as a > > Tathaagata, and he did not see the Lord as a heap of sheer formations or as > > only suffering or as only dhammas. > >R: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. ... S: There was no misunderstanding at all that there is anything at all apart from conditioned sankhara dhammas (and unconditioned nibbana). All wrong views had been eradicated. No conflict at all in seeing and addressing the Tathagata as Lord or Teacher! Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130889 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:34 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > This is a very valuable exchange for me. Thanks for clarifying the role of correct conceptual understanding in the development of direct discernment. > > I sometimes feel like I'm 2 or 3 people at the same time here. I may take exception to the dhamma view in one post, and seek to understand it better in another, as I do here. This is one of those exchanges that I will read several times. > > Thanks for putting up with this mild form of Dhamma-schizophrenia. ... S: Thanks for your kind note. I always enjoy and appreciate our discussions, even the "Dhamma-schizophrenia". Rumour has it that even Alex talks about ultimate realities and the Abhidhamma elsewhere:-)) Thanks to you all for putting up with putting up with the DSG "mantra" and continuing to discuss the Teachings with me and others:-)) Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130890 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 18 sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Der Friends, Lots of good reminders in Nina's recent series which Jon is posting from our discussions with Achan Sujin last January: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Visible object, sound and the other sense objects that appear are present only for an extremely short while. As soon as they have been experienced they are gone already, never to return. Visible object falls away and then a different visible object arises and falls away again. It seems as if visible object can stay for a while. We cling to shape and form and we are taken in by the outward appearance of things. It seems that we see people and things, but this is a delusion. ... Metta Sarah ======= Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130891 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:04 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > ---- > <. . .> > > H: LOL! Ken, do you intentionally engage in the development of arrogance and conceit, or does it just "happen according to conditions"? When did you become a Dhamjma Master? ;-)) > ---- > > KH: Let me quote something Sarah said a few months ago. (I hope I get this right.) She said, "The present moment is a test." > > When upstart Australian twerps dare to lecture us, we shouldn't be outraged and affronted. Far worse things will certainly happen in the future. How will we react then? > > See this as a test. How would panna (right understanding) react on an outrageous occasion such as this? It would know the difference between concept and reality. It would know there was really no preposterous upstart presuming to give us a lecture, and there was no "us" being condescended to. There are only dhammas. > > Thank heavens for that! :-) > > -------------- > > H: P. S. Ken, as a return "favor," I will instruct YOU in Dhamma by providing some teachings of the Buddha I think you should seriously consider IN DETAIL, looking at all the words ther Buddha uses here: > > /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ > > (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) > --------------- > > KH: I think you are asking me to deny anatta. ------------------------------- HCW: Nope! ------------------------------ I won't do that. ------------------------------ HCW: Good! --------------------------- Instead I will understand the sutta the way I have previously understood it: as an expression of anatta. > > The sutta is saying that the absence of atta does not mean the presence of nothingness. It does not mean there is no kamma or vipakka. It does not mean there is no samsara, no benefactors, no teachers and no way out. > > It means we have to understand those things differently. ------------------------------ HCW: And that other way involves realizing that collections of interrelated, elementary phenomena are not nothing-at-all. To think that they are nothing-at-all is to deny realtionships, and is not the middle way but a for of nihilism, an extreme. ------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130892 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:29 am Subject: Pitti (joy) or Somanassa (pleasant feeling)? Qu to A.Sujin (1) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, There was an excellent discussion between Tam Bach & friends and Ajahn Sujin on 18th Jan in "Tuscany", Thailand. Here is the first part: ****** T: I'd like to ask about piiti (joy) and somanassa (pleasant feeling). Like when we arrived here at first.....after the moment of seeing, we know by theory it's somanassa, feelings arise and then piiti when piiti bomes the object of citta , right? AS: are you sure it's piiti? Or you think about piiti. T: I think about piiti, just try to understand a little. AS: So it's self, right? So the self is trying. How can the self know reality as it is? Can you tell the difference between somanassa and piiti? They arise together, so at the moment of thinking about piiti, it's more difficult because usually the vedanaa (feelings) appear, not the piiti appears. T: Ajahn just said abut vedanaa appears but piiti doesn't appear? AS: I think the names cover up the truth. You think about vedanaa while there is seeing. That moment is only thinking about the past or the nimitta (sign) of vedanaa and it's still you, see? So it's not the direct understanding. T: We can know when there's somanassa with the name but we know the difference whent he cittas feel happy and when the cittas (moments of consciousness) feel unhappy so in that case it's somanassa or piiti. AS: Yes, but while there's no direct understanding of citta, like you just said, it's impossible to know about other realities like cetasikas (mental factors). But you know from the book at the moment when pleasant feeling arises, because everyone knows that moment, sadness or pleasant feeling. You take it for a reality by name only, not at the moment of understanding it as not self. So the intellectual understanding is not the level of direct understanding, but it will bring right understanding to develop to that degree to understand whatever appears as it is. So one should know the difference between the intellectual understanding and the direct understanding of whatever appears by conditions because at this level there is also sati at the moment of listening. It's not you or anyone. All dhammas all day from birth up 'til now, unknown. So by understanding there is not 'me' and now there are realities around us - but no one knows until there is understanding from hearing and hearing and hearing on and on until the characteristic appears to awareness, direct awareness. So one knows the difference between the intellectual understanding or the intellectual sati because there must be sati at the moment of understanding, but sati at the level of understanding is not known at all - (not known) that it's there and it is aware of whatever is heard. And at the moment of understanding it's there, but at the moment of experiencing realitiy right now, without conditions, right awareess cannot arise at all. So what's the difference between right awareness of the 8fold and when its not? T: right awareness of the noble 8fold path has the pa~n~naa (understanding) which understands realities as they are. AS: Right now or what? Because now there is understanding too? T: Understanding of the intellectual level. AS: So thinking of piiti is not at the moment piiti appears at all. Thinking of citta, that which is now experiencing visible object, is not that which really experiences visible object. **** S: This also touches on the points raised in the extract Alberto gave the other day - the importance of understanding dhammas as anatta from the start, rather than trying to determine what kind of mental factors are arising or whether the citta now is kusala or akusala. Metta Sarah ===== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130893 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:29 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, Part 3. Rob E: But if you don't, then you have to explain why the Buddha is promoting them so much. I think it's because they lead to path development and that your view is too strict, thus ignoring all the kusala of everyday affairs. Su: Well, in some cases he referred to those activities in the same way as he did with such things as walking, sitting, eating, defecating etc. namely, that the listener should be mindful of the realities experienced through the five senses and the mind. Now for some of us, it is clear that no matter what situation, the message is the same, namely the development of understanding with regard to namas and rupas. So really it is you who is saying that the Buddha is sending two messages by suggesting the he prescribed other practices. He encouraged all forms of kusala, but not as a practice / Path. === > 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? Rob E: So you would kindly promote metta and such just to create enough merit to get a better rebirth? Even if it leads to a much longer period of ignorance? Why not just teach the path and end the cycle of rebirth altogether? Su: Being kind and understanding at the same time, that kindness is a conditioned reality encourages not only more kindness, but also the Path leading to the end of samsara. The kindness itself of course, is not the Path. Was the Buddha encouraging longer period of ignorance when he referred to one of the benefits of metta being rebirth in a good plane of existence? ==== > 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. Rob E: When did he dismiss Jhana as the path? I never saw any such statement. Su: What do you think is the significance of the Bodhisatta's resolve to sit under the Bodhi tree until he came to see the Truth and finally becoming enlightened? Did he not do this in reaction to the perception that all those Jhana practices out there which he followed and was more than successful at, were *not* the way? Is the Noble Eightfold Path not different from Jhana which is the result of the development of samatha? Are samatha and vipassana not different from each other? === > Similarly he would dismiss what you are suggesting. Rob E: Really - that is good to know. So the Buddha was a teacher of all kinds of kusala, path and non-path. Good to know. He was just a general kusala teacher, so people could have a bit better vipaka. Su: The development of the Perfections requires wisdom which knows the nature of the particular kind of kusala, or else it is done with the aim of benefiting other beings. The Buddha would not promote kusala so that one might think to have better rebirth. Do you perform good deeds because you want something for yourself? === > 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. Rob E: Not at the same time, he didn't. He taught about all these forms of kusala without ever saying that they were dukkha, many many times. He saved that for the advanced course. Su: Not always at the same time perhaps, but neither would he teach them to people who would take the particular dhammas for "self". This means that they would have already understood the basic teachings. So you think it does not matter that someone would take dana, sila, metta and so on for "self"? Please explain. === > > > 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. Rob E: No you are. Su: I never suggested that the Buddha chose his audiences and taught accordingly, one, the Path, and the other, kusala. What I said with regard to time for kusala of other kinds and the Path is in relation to objects of experience for any given person (and I've explained this more than once!!). Therefore your characterization of the Buddha as "politician" is your projection. === > 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? Rob E: If he did, what would be the reason? Why? Su: Because metta, karuna, mudita and uppekha are good dhammas to always be encouraged when thinking in terms of other beings. == > 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. Rob E: I think I've already explained it. They were all taught by the Buddha, who I believe taught that such kusala would lead to greater understanding and eventually to insight, when accompanied by the full range of practices he recommended - Right concentration, mindfulness, livelihood, action, etc.... Su: I was not looking for the kind of explanation where you put forward a general opinion about the teachings as a whole from which you draw a conclusion. I was asking about how the different kinds of kusala function in relation to the Path and what your understanding exactly is with regard to the latter. In relation to what you wrote above, you can also answer as to why are the eight "Rights" as individual practices, separated from the other practices such as metta, karuna, mudita, uppekha, dana, sila, body contemplation, kasina concentration, Jhana and so on? Metta, Sukin Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130894 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:52 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > > > J: We have also discussed previously how audible object requires the `clashing together' of hardness ruupas in order to occur. This treats audible object from another perspective. > > > > RE: That is true - it is the perspective of what conditions are necessary to cause it to arise. Cittas have equivalent conditions in order to arise as well, don't they? > > =============== > > J: Yes, all dhammas (except nibbana) are conditioned. The conditions for the arising of cittas include, in the case of vipaka citta, kamma and the previous arising of a ruupa that is an appropriate object. In the case of javana cittas, the conditions are quite different. Thanks for the review of the conditions for vipaka cittas to arise. In the case of cittas that are not the result of past kamma, could you give me an idea of the conditions for them to arise? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130895 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:59 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > P. S. Ken, as a return "favor," I will instruct YOU in Dhamma by providing some teachings of the Buddha I think you should seriously consider IN DETAIL, looking at all the words ther Buddha uses here: > > /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ > > (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) > > ______________________________ > "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) Did you ever see the Peanuts tv specials where every time a grownup talks the kids hear: "Wah wah wah wah." I'm afraid that is how Ken H. will hear these suttas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130896 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 12:37 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: As discussed and clarified in the Teachings, it makes no sense to say to avoid the use of conventional language. No suggestion at all that this is appropriate. > ... > > > And it's not how the Buddha carried on his work, nor is that reflected in the Visudhimagga or even the commentaries. They all pay appropriate service to both dhammas and the conventional aspects of the path. The only place the Two Truths are a problem is around here. > ... > S: The Two Truths are only a problem when there is any wrong understanding about the "All", when there is the taking of sammuti sacca for paramattha sacca. Thanks for your response - I appreciate the dialogue. On the face of it I think everything you say makes sense to me and accords with my understanding. However, it seems to become a problem when we talk about conventional activities and other kinds of kusala, including conventional applications of the Dhamma. It seems in these issues there is more disagreement about whether kusala dhammas are reflected in everyday things and that sort of thing. There is a conclusion drawn from "only dhammas" that ordinary activities and intentions are somehow wrong and do not reflect realities. Thus meditation and other forms are dismissed. I think that the intention even to do ordinary things reflects some sort of cetana and that the activities can be the expression of that cetana, even if it is not thought of in terms of dhammas at the time. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130897 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 1:02 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: Yes, it is very significant that he did not only see the Tathagata as "a heap of sheer formations," as you put it very well, but also as his teacher, and the source of the teachings. Somehow, it is appropriate that he saw him this way. > ... > S: There was no misunderstanding at all that there is anything at all apart from conditioned sankhara dhammas (and unconditioned nibbana). All wrong views had been eradicated. > > No conflict at all in seeing and addressing the Tathagata as Lord or Teacher! Please explain to me why there is no conflict in addressing the Tathagata as Teacher, and even moreso, having feelings of regret or caring about him as a person, source of teachings etc., with the understanding that there is nothing there but the arising of impersonal dhammas. Where is the detachment there, and if there is detachment, how does that also include or allow for the personal relationships between beings which is obviously part of Ananda's sentiment? Perhaps you can clarify this for me a little bit? Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130898 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 1:12 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Thanks for your kind note. I always enjoy and appreciate our discussions, even the "Dhamma-schizophrenia". Rumour has it that even Alex talks about ultimate realities and the Abhidhamma elsewhere:-)) > > Thanks to you all for putting up with putting up with the DSG "mantra" and continuing to discuss the Teachings with me and others:-)) Thank you Sarah. That is very nice of you. Thanks for your patience this past decade or so! [I guess it must be longer...] Best Regards, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130899 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 1:51 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > Now for some of us, it is clear that no matter what situation, the message is the same, namely the development of understanding with regard to namas and rupas. So really it is you who is saying that the Buddha is sending two messages by suggesting the he prescribed other practices. No, I am saying that those practices which he did in fact encourage and teach, are part of the path. This is despite your understanding that he didn't mean it when he taught those things. > He encouraged all forms of kusala, but not as a practice / Path. That is not what he said, it is what you are saying. > === > > 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? > > Rob E: > So you would kindly promote metta and such just to create enough merit to get a better rebirth? Even if it leads to a much longer period of ignorance? Why not just teach the path and end the cycle of rebirth altogether? > > Su: Being kind and understanding at the same time, that kindness is a conditioned reality encourages not only more kindness, but also the Path leading to the end of samsara. The kindness itself of course, is not the Path. If such kindness encourages the Path, then such kindness is a supporting condition for the development of the path. > Was the Buddha encouraging longer period of ignorance when he referred to one of the benefits of metta being rebirth in a good plane of existence? No he was encouraging kusala dhammas which would support and lead to the development of the path. The various kusala factors that replace defilements with kusala open a door for path development. > ==== > > 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. > > Rob E: > When did he dismiss Jhana as the path? I never saw any such statement. > > Su: What do you think is the significance of the Bodhisatta's resolve to sit under the Bodhi tree until he came to see the Truth and finally becoming enlightened? Considering that sitting under the Bodhi tree in order to realize the Truth was a form of Formal Meditation taken to an extreme, I suppose you must thing the Buddha was indulging in wrong view when he felt he had to sit still under a tree to reach enlightenment. Why on earth would he do something like that when you say that he dismissed all forms of meditation? That doesn't make sense, does it? Why didn't the Buddha follow the principles of Buddhism as you understand them? > Did he not do this in reaction to the perception that all those Jhana practices out there which he followed and was more than successful at, were *not* the way? Is the Noble Eightfold Path not different from Jhana which is the result of the development of samatha? Are samatha and vipassana not different from each other? Now this really astounds me. Not only did the Buddha realize full enlightenment while *in the jhanas* and not only did he continue to practice jhana in his sitting under the Bodhi tree, reaching all of the higher jhanas, including the formless states which led to his enlightenment -- which apparently you are denying her? -- but he continued to practice the jhanas *after* his enlightenment, teach them to his followers, praise them, utilize them as objects of insight in the final stages of the path leading to enlightenment for all the monks he instructed, but he also maintained his status as the greatest of the Jhana Masters and made a point of going through all the jhanas forwards and backwards with perfect skill in his final moments -- the most important demonstration of his entire career -- before exiting this worldly existence into his parinibbana. He never ever said anything like you say above, but instead continued to teach and praise the jhanas his entire life. It was the centerpiece of his practice and that of every monk that ever followed him, and he taught a most skillful use of samatha and jhana, to be developed in tandem in order to realize the deepest levels of insight with jhana as object. Even those here who are adherents of the 'dry insight' philosophy that is popular here freely admit that the *deepest and most profound enlightenment is gained through, with and because of* the use of the jhanas, for those who can attain them. You are so very wrong in saying that the Buddha somehow substituted panna for jhana, and that they are two separate paths. He used them together. He never said a cross word about jhana his entire life. How can you possibly hold such a view? It is unbelievable. It makes me think that those who believe in "insight only" and are so against samatha and so sure in this philosophy that they do not or cannot read what the Buddha has said on this subject. You cannot develop vipassana without a requisite degree of samatha. The skill of calming the mind, concentrating the mind and focusing the mind on what is present to achieve sati sampajanna and beyond all work together. Without some requisite samatha you have nothing. Insight will not arise for a mind that is so defiled that it jumps all over the place. This is basic common sense, but in the wonderful world of magical cittas and inexplicable arising dhammas it all happens by magic. > === > > Similarly he would dismiss what you are suggesting. > > Rob E: > Really - that is good to know. So the Buddha was a teacher of all kinds of kusala, path and non-path. Good to know. He was just a general kusala teacher, so people could have a bit better vipaka. > > Su: The development of the Perfections requires wisdom which knows the nature of the particular kind of kusala, or else it is done with the aim of benefiting other beings. The Buddha would not promote kusala so that one might think to have better rebirth. Then why did he advertise it? Jon has recently said that having a better rebirth is a supporting condition for hearing the Dhamma and thus developing the path. Maybe this is what the Buddha had in mind? > Do you perform good deeds because you want something for yourself? Depends on the occasion I am sure. > === > > 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. > > Rob E: > Not at the same time, he didn't. He taught about all these forms of kusala without ever saying that they were dukkha, many many times. He saved that for the advanced course. > > Su: Not always at the same time perhaps, but neither would he teach them to people who would take the particular dhammas for "self". This means that they would have already understood the basic teachings. > > So you think it does not matter that someone would take dana, sila, metta and so on for "self"? Please explain. I think that he taught them because they are kusala and that this kusala would support the path. You inject the question of self into every issue, but the Buddha did not see the need for that. When one truly realizes metta, at that moment one has no sense of self-concept, but is open to kusala towards that which is outside of self. It is positive in its own right and leads towards enlightenment. I do not agree with your interpretation that only by coldly seeing that metta has this or that technical specification can metta lead to the path of knowing what is beyond self. I believe that the Buddha taught metta because it *is* beyond self concept in its own right, sila because it leads to eradicating defilements which are obstacles to the path, and dana because it also goes beyond the self. There's no room for such ideas however in your philosophy that is only about cold understanding of cold dhammas and nothing else. > === > > > > 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. > > Rob E: > No you are. > > Su: I never suggested that the Buddha chose his audiences and taught accordingly, one, the Path, and the other, kusala. Neither did I. Kusala is part of the path. > What I said with regard to time for kusala of other kinds and the Path is in relation to objects of experience for any given person (and I've explained this more than once!!). Therefore your characterization of the Buddha as "politician" is your projection. I am sarcastically saying that this is the implication of your view that such teachings were 'non-path' and yet the Buddha taught them anyway. I am not espousing such a thing as a doctrine or saying seriously that the Buddha would do such. I'm saying since he *wouldn't* do such, it is wrong to say that he was teaching non-path knowledge. > === > > 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? > > Rob E: > If he did, what would be the reason? Why? > > Su: Because metta, karuna, mudita and uppekha are good dhammas to always be encouraged when thinking in terms of other beings. I don't agree that his motivation was that arbitrary. He did not teach the general good. He taught the path, and such factors support the path. All good supports the development of the necessary kusala for the path. > == > > 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. > > Rob E: > I think I've already explained it. They were all taught by the Buddha, who I believe taught that such kusala would lead to greater understanding and eventually to insight, when accompanied by the full range of practices he recommended - Right concentration, mindfulness, livelihood, action, etc.... > > Su: I was not looking for the kind of explanation where you put forward a general opinion about the teachings as a whole from which you draw a conclusion. I was asking about how the different kinds of kusala function in relation to the Path and what your understanding exactly is with regard to the latter. I don't have that exact an understanding. If you don't agree with the above then we will have to disagree. > In relation to what you wrote above, you can also answer as to why are the eight "Rights" as individual practices, separated from the other practices such as metta, karuna, mudita, uppekha, dana, sila, body contemplation, kasina concentration, Jhana and so on? I don't know which categories these are all in, but the Buddha did teach them. As for Jhana it is defined *by the Buddha* *as* Right Concentration itself on many occasions. Are you purposely ignoring that? The Buddha also taught that breath and body contemplation would not only lead to development of insight but to *all* the path factors and full enlightenment if followed as he described, in the anapanasati sutta, and kayagatasati sutta, so that is Right Mindfulness right there. Are you purposely ignoring that as well? When the Buddha said that Body Contemplation is an ultimate form of meditation that will lead to enlightenment, do you think he really meant something else? I guess ignoring the Buddha's words is okay as long as you are sure your philosophy is correct. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130900 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H" wrote: > ... The dhammas that the Buddha taught (the eye, eye consciousness, eye contact, feeling . . .) were absolutely real. ... To say 'they are absolutely real' is certainly not the Buddha dhammas. This is because the Samyutta Sutta records the Buddha as saying that they (the compounded nature or phenomena) are conditioned arising and ceasing, which are devoid of the two extremes: the self-based view of existence and the self-based view of non-existence; they are not-self. Thomas Law Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130901 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 3:57 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email > Ken H: ... 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?" Yes, I think it does mean that. Conditioned dhammas (phenomena) neither exist nor do not exist. They are conditioned arising and ceasing, devoid of the two extremes (the self-based view of both existence and non-existence). Thomas Law Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130902 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 5:02 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Kenneth, Thanks for joining in: ------ >> KH: ... The dhammas that the Buddha taught (the eye, eye consciousness, eye contact, feeling . . .) were absolutely real. ... > Kenneth: To say 'they are absolutely real' is certainly not the Buddha dhammas. This is because the Samyutta Sutta records the Buddha as saying that they (the compounded nature or phenomena) are conditioned arising and ceasing, ------ KH: I am sure they don't say dhammas *are* arising and ceasing. I am sure they say dhammas are *realities that* arise and cease. In the Useful Posts folder there is a message from Robert K in which he quotes: > Samyutta nikaya Khandhavagga (37(5)Ananda P880 Bodhi translation "the blessed one said to Ananda "if Ananda they were to ask you 'Friend Ananda, what are the things of whcih an arising is discerned,a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which STANDS(thitassa annathattam) is discerned? Being asked thus, how would you answer?"endquote [Ananda says the five khandas are those things that have these qualities (of arising, alteration while STANDING and dissolution). KH: So can you see the difference? Conditioned dhammas are realities that arise and cease; they are not *the* arising and ceasing. ------- > Kenneth: which are devoid of the two extremes: the self-based view of existence and the self-based view of non-existence; they are not-self. ------ KH: The self-based view of existence is the view of eternal atta. The self-based view of non-existence is the view of annihilated atta. Those are the two extremes – the self exists, and the self does not exist. In each of them "self" refers to atta. As we all know, there is another use of the word "self." When we say, for example, "Alcohol *itself* is not a problem. ..," we are not referring to atta (a permanent soul); we are saying "alcohol per se" or "alcohol as such" "intrinsically" "in its own right" and so on. So there are two uses of the word "self." Only the former – the one meaning "soul" or "lasting entity" – is the one that translates as "atta." Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130903 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 8:24 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 22. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): The teaching about the different processes of cittas helps us to understand that cittas arise and fall away in succession extremely rapidly. The processes take their course according to conditions and we cannot do anything about them and this shows their nature of non-self (in Pali: anattaa). When we listen again and again to the explanation of naama and ruupa which are conditioned dhammas, non-self, there may be conditions for the arising of sati that is mindful, for example, of the characteristic of hardness. At that moment pa~n~naa can begin to investigate that reality so that it will be understood as only a dhamma. Acharn explained that when hardness appears and there can be awareness of it, it is not the ordinary experience of it by body-consciousness. The object is the same, but it appears more clearly. At that moment there is not vipaakacitta but kusala citta accompanied by sati. When direct awareness of a reality arises there is no thinking about it. When we are thinking about realities there usually is an idea of self, we take that reality for something or someone. We can learn the difference between the moments with sati and without sati. When sati arises pa~n~naa can begin to know its characteristic, it can understand it as only a reality that does not belong to anyone. When hardness appears we tend to think that it can stay, but it arises and falls away. We may say that there is no self, but what is it that is non-self? We may use the names naama and ruupa, but more important is knowing their characteristics when they appear at the present moment. We can learn that what experiences and that what is experienced are different characteristics, without naming them naama and ruupa. Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130904 From: han tun Date: Tue May 28, 2013 9:58 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 74. Four Thoroughbreds [AN 4.113 Patoda Sutta] Four good, thoroughbred horses, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? (1) There is one good, thoroughbred horse which just on seeing the shadow of the goad is alerted and feels stirred, thinking, "What task will my trainer set me today? Shouldn't I obey him?" This is the first good, thoroughbred horse found in the world. (2) Again, monks, there is one good, thoroughbred horse that is not alerted and stirred by merely seeing the shadow of the goad, but when his hair is touched with the goad he is alerted and stirred, thinking, "What task will my trainer set me today? Shouldn't I obey him?" This is the second good, thoroughbred horse found in the world. (3) Again, monks, there is one good, thoroughbred horse that is not yet alerted and stirred by seeing the shadow of the goad nor when his hair is touched by it, but when his skin is pricked by the goad he becomes alerted and stirred, thinking, "What task will my trainer set me today? Shouldn't I obey him?" This is the third good, thoroughbred horse found in the world. (4) Again, monks, there is one good, thoroughbred horse that is not yet alerted and stirred by seeing the shadow of the goad nor when his hair is touched or his skin pricked by it; but when pierced by the goad to the very bone, he is alerted and stirred, thinking, "What task will my trainer set me today? Shouldn't I obey him?" This is the fourth good, thoroughbred horse found in the world. These, monks, are the four good, thoroughbred horses found existing in the world. -------------------- Similarly, O monks, four good, thoroughbred persons can be found existing in the world. What four? (1) In this case, monks, there is a good, thoroughbred person who hears it said, "In such a village or town, a woman or man is ailing or has died." Thereby he is moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives earnestly. With his mind fully dedicated, he realises in his own person the supreme truth (Nibbaana) and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred when he sees the shadow of the goad. This is the first good, thoroughbred person found in the world. (2) Again, monks, there is another good, thoroughbred person who does not hear it said, but who sees for himself that in such a village or town a woman or man is ailing or has died. Thereby he is moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives earnestly. With his mind fully dedicated, he realises in his own person the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred only when his hair is touched. This is the second good, thoroughbred person found in the world. (3) Again, monks, there is another good, thoroughbred person who neither hears nor sees that some woman or man is ailing or has died; but a kinsman of his, a close relation, is ailing or has died. Thereby he is moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives earnestly. With his mind fully dedicated, he realises in his own person the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred only when his skin is pricked. This is the third good, thoroughbred person found in the world. (4) Again, monks, there is another good, thoroughbred person who neither hears it said nor sees that some woman or man is ailing or has died, nor did this happen to a kinsman of his, a close relation; but he himself becomes afflicted with great bodily pains that are severe, sharp, piercing, utterly unpleasant and disagreeable, endangering his life. Thereby he is moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives earnestly. With his mind fully dedicated, he realises in his own person the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred only when he is pierced by the goad to the very bone. This, is the fourth good, thoroughbred person found in the world. These, monks, are the four good, thoroughbred persons found existing in the world. with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130905 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:27 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han, Thank you very much for sharing these suttas. As you've said, they are spoken in conventional language. Here's a good example: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Similarly, O monks, four good, thoroughbred persons can be > found existing in the world. What four? > > (1) In this case, monks, there is a good, thoroughbred > person who hears it said, "In such a > village or town, a woman or man is ailing or has died." Thereby he is moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives earnestly. With his > mind fully dedicated, he realises in his own person the supreme truth (Nibbaana) > and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. .... S: In his recent translaion of AN, Bodhi has a slightly different translation. Interesting to compare: "(1) Here, bhikkhus, one kind of excellent thoroughbred person hears: 'In such and such a village or town some woman or man has fallen ill or died.' He is stirred by this and acquires a sense of urgency. Stirred, he strives carefully. Resolute, he realizes the supreme truth with the body and, having pierced it through with wisdom, he sees it." .... S: Conventional language. We know in reality that it is cittas, cetasikas (conditioned dhammas) and nibbana (the unconditioned dhamma) which are being referred to. Indeed, Bodhi adds a footnote with the Pali and comy note in case there is any doubt about this: " 'Pahitatto kaayena c'eva paramasacca.m sacchikaroti, pa~n~naaya ca ativijjha passati' Mp explains 'body' as the mental body (naamakaayena), the supreme truth as nibbaana, and wisdom as the wisdom of the path together with insight." .... Thank you again for all your extracts and comments in other threads. Metta and respect Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130906 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 28, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Re: Effort Is the Root of All Attainments! ... Chain of Rebirth sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > As explained above in the discussion of the Pali text, there is attabhava of an individual, in reality, who makes an action (kamma) --bodily, verbally and mentally. An advantage of this attabhava explanation is that it avoids the clumsy contradiction --the DSG mantra-- that says: 'only dhammas exist; there is nothing else'. Yes, there is attabhava that is impermanent and not self. .... S: Do you have any comments on the following from the Vism (Nanamoli transl) with a footnotei: "VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11)" "(11: "Person (attabhava)" is the states other than the already-mentioned life, feeling and consciousness. The words "just these alone" mean that it is unmixed with self (atta) or permanence. Attabhava as used in the Suttas and in this work is more or less a synonym for sakkaya in the sense of person (body and mind) or personality, or individual form. ... "When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead": just as in the case of the death-consciousness, this world is also called "dead" in the highest (ultimate) sense with the arrival of any consciousness whatever at its dissolution, since its cessation has no rebirth-linking (is "cessation never to return"). Nevertheless though this is so, "the highest sense this concept will allow (pa~n~natti paramatthiyaa) --the ultimate sense will allow this concept of continuity, which is what the expression of common usage "Tissa lives, Phussa lives" refers to, and which is based on consciousness [momentarily] existing along with a physical support; this belongs to the ultimate sense here, since, as they say "It is not the name and surname that lives."... .... Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (13) #130907 From: han tun Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah,  Thank you very much for your kind interest in my presentations.  -------------------  Han: I copied these suttas from the book by Nyanaponila Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi. But some of them were translated by Nyanaponika Thera, and some by Bhikkhu Bodhi.  -------------------  Han: The text for which you mentioned the foot-note is:  [Resolute, he realizes "the supreme truth" with the "body" and, having pierced it through with "wisdom", he sees it.] [Note 795]  Note 795. 'Pahitatto kaayena c'eva paramasacca.m sacchikaroti, pa~n~naaya ca ativijjha passati' Mp explains "body" as the mental body (naamakaayena), "the supreme truth" as nibbaana, and "wisdom" as the wisdom of the path together with insight."  Han: Mp explains the meanings of "body", "the supreme truth", and "wisdom." The Note does not explain the meaning of "he" of "he sees it." The question is "who" sees the supreme truth with the body and wisdom? "He" sees it. Who is "he"?  So the Note does not say anything of the Conventional use of the word "he." So all my previous comments about "a person", in a conventional use, remains the same.  Anyway, thank you very much all the same.  with metta and respect. Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130908 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 28, 2013 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Robert (and Ken) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Howard. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > P. S. Ken, as a return "favor," I will instruct YOU in Dhamma by providing some teachings of the Buddha I think you should seriously consider IN DETAIL, looking at all the words ther Buddha uses here: > > > > /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ > > > > (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) > > > > ______________________________ > > "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) > > Did you ever see the Peanuts tv specials where every time a grownup talks the kids hear: "Wah wah wah wah." I'm afraid that is how Ken H. will hear these suttas. ------------------------------- LOLOL! I think you're correct. (Of course, I have no doubt that Ken thinks the same of me!) ------------------------------- > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130909 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 12:36 am Subject: Re: A Difference in Perspective on the Independence of Rupas/Jon nichiconn Send Email Send Email hi Sarah, boys, > Helpful notes, Pali and comments in your mini-series. Thank you. hmm...lol: "Wah wah wah wah." yes, very good stuff. thanks again, translators and commentaries; also DPPN: It was this sutta which helped Maharakkhita to convert the country of the Yonakas (Sp.i.67; Mhv.xii.39; Mbv.114; Dpv.viii.9). The sutta was also preached by Kala Buddharakkhita at the Cetiyapabbata to a concourse of people, among whom King Tissa (probably Saddha-Tissa) was also present. MA.i.470. no peace, connie > > > > 666 ~ Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." > ... > Reply | Messages in this Topic (9) #130910 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 2:14 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, sorry to cut your comment into pieces .. but as you know :the devil is in the details ;-) you wrote: (D:I take the role of the devil's advocate who claims :The doctrine of dependent origination shows that the sentient being is nothing but a flow of mental and physical phenomena (dhammas) which arises and continues in dependence on conditions. > > How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found?) --------------------------------- HCW: Intention has consequences which are namas and rupas. -------------------------------- D (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger? HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". D () : proved by what? HCW:At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". D ():not clear to me , do I understand you right : you call the thinking I or (my)self ? with Metta Dieter HCW:P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: The Meaning of 'Self' /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ D : agreed but not fitting when I and thinking are synonym . (refers b.t.w. to Descartes .. his opponent Pascal claimed feeling ) My perspective on self is the fiction which stands for : I .. want ... do not want (i.e. moha, lobha, dosa : tanha the thirst) (which would contradict your quote : The Meaning of 'Self') /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ D (): defintion of Self agreed except sep [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130911 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 29, 2013 5:37 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > sorry to cut your comment into pieces .. but as you know :the devil is in the details ;-) > > you wrote: > > (D:I take the role of the devil's advocate who claims :The doctrine of dependent origination shows that the sentient being is nothing but a flow of mental and physical phenomena (dhammas) which arises and continues in dependence on conditions. > > > > How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found?) > --------------------------------- > > HCW: > Intention has consequences which are namas and rupas. -------------------------------- > > > > D (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger? > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > D () : proved by what? ------------------------------ HCW: It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of one who claims an actor is required. Why would a self be required? To paraphrase Buddhaghosa, "There is action but no actor." (For me, action is nothing other than conditionality.) ------------------------------- > > > HCW:At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". > > > D ():not clear to me , do I understand you right : you call the thinking I or (my)self ? -------------------------------- HCW: As I see it, the use of "I" and "mine" may be innocent or defiled. The innocent usage involves thinking within (and speaking produced within) the flow of conditions conventionally identified as "oneself" for the purpose of distinguishing that stream of namas and rupas from others. When I'm talking to you, that distinguishing is requisite for understanding, and our language must support that. The defiled usage is based on considering a stream to be a single entity (rather than a collection of interrelated dhammas)or based on a belief that there lies some unchanging, unitary core of identity and agency within that stream either in addition to the dhammas or identified as one type of dhamma such as thinking or knowing or feeling or, especially, willing. -------------------------------- > > with Metta Dieter > > > > HCW:P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: > > The Meaning of 'Self' > > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > D : agreed but not fitting when I and thinking are synonym . (refers b.t.w. to Descartes .. his opponent Pascal claimed feeling ) > > My perspective on self is the fiction which stands for : I .. want ... do not want (i.e. moha, lobha, dosa : tanha the thirst) --------------------------- HCW: There is wanting but no desirer (for presence/absence of something.) I do agree that desire always involves the sense of self, but I don't quite share your perspective, because even when there is no desire, there may well still be, and usually is, a sense of personal self: of "me" or of an actor (or both). ------------------------------ > > > > > (which would contradict your quote : The Meaning of 'Self') > > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > D (): defintion of Self agreed except sep ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130912 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 10:28 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Dear Ken H, KH: I am sure they don't say dhammas *are* arising and ceasing. I am sure they say dhammas are *realities that* arise and cease. T: Dhammas "are" arising and ceasing, according to the Samyutta Sutta. Also, what is the Pali term for "realities" you refer to here? ----------- KH: In the Useful Posts folder there is a message from Robert K in which he quotes: Samyutta nikaya Khandhavagga (37(5)Ananda ... the five khandas are those things that have these qualities (of arising, alteration while STANDING and dissolution). So can you see the difference? Conditioned dhammas are realities that arise and cease; they are not *the* arising and ceasing. T: The text does not have the term or meaning for "realities". What is the Pali term for "realities" you refer to? ----------- KH: The self-based view of existence is the view of eternal atta. The self-based view of non-existence is the view of annihilated atta. Those are the two extremes – the self exists, and the self does not exist. T: According to SN 22.90, it refers also to these two extremes: "everything exists" (sabbam atthiiti), "everything does not exist" (sabbam natthiiti). So, the text says "when suffering arises, it arises; when suffering ceases, it ceases". The term "sabba" refers to both the six internal and six external sense spheres, according to SN 35.23. Thomas #130913 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 11:17 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Kenneth, > > Thanks for joining in: > > .... The person who responds to your dhamma views was me (not Kenneth). Thomas Law Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130914 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Tanha as close friend. jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear friends Some reminders of Than Acharn in Thai dhamma discussion last weekend (translated): - Tanha (attachment) is like close friend who always brings pleasure to things and spawns satisfaction on and on. Thus, tanha is a friendship of keeping us endure in samsara. - Indeed living alone but wanting to be this or that. Keep thinking and contentment. Look who whispers us to think of that and hope of this. Doing that and doing this. It is not anyone but namma-dhamma called "Tanha". Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130915 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention rjkjp1 Send Email Send Email Sounds good to me Howard robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Dieter - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > sorry to cut your comment into pieces .. but as you know :the devil is in the details ;-) > > > > you wrote: > > > > (D:I take the role of the devil's advocate who claims :The doctrine of dependent origination shows that the sentient being is nothing but a flow of mental and physical phenomena (dhammas) which arises and continues in dependence on conditions. > > > > > > How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found?) > > --------------------------------- > > > > HCW: > > Intention has consequences which are namas and rupas. > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > > D (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger? > > > > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > > > D () : proved by what? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of one who claims an actor is required. Why would a self be required? To paraphrase Buddhaghosa, "There is action but no actor." (For me, action is nothing other than conditionality.) > ------------------------------- > > > > > > HCW:At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". > > > > > > D ():not clear to me , do I understand you right : you call the thinking I or (my)self ? > -------------------------------- > HCW: > As I see it, the use of "I" and "mine" may be innocent or defiled. > The innocent usage involves thinking within (and speaking produced within) the flow of conditions conventionally identified as "oneself" for the purpose of distinguishing that stream of namas and rupas from others. When I'm talking to you, that distinguishing is requisite for understanding, and our language must support that. > The defiled usage is based on considering a stream to be a single entity (rather than a collection of interrelated dhammas)or based on a belief that there lies some unchanging, unitary core of identity and agency within that stream either in addition to the dhammas or identified as one type of dhamma such as thinking or knowing or feeling or, especially, willing. > -------------------------------- > > > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > > > > HCW:P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: > > > > The Meaning of 'Self' > > > > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > > > D : agreed but not fitting when I and thinking are synonym . (refers b.t.w. to Descartes .. his opponent Pascal claimed feeling ) > > > > My perspective on self is the fiction which stands for : I .. want ... do not want (i.e. moha, lobha, dosa : tanha the thirst) > --------------------------- > HCW: > There is wanting but no desirer (for presence/absence of something.) > I do agree that desire always involves the sense of self, but I don't quite share your perspective, because even when there is no desire, there may well still be, and usually is, a sense of personal self: of "me" or of an actor (or both). > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > (which would contradict your quote : The Meaning of 'Self') > > > > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > > > D (): defintion of Self agreed except sep > ==================================== > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130916 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sarah, and Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in > the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of > it, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned > ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. I am wondering, for those who had not yet penetrated and to whom the Buddha communicated the Dhamma in conventional language, and who then penetrated the meaning, what was it in the conventional language the Buddha used that allowed them to penetrate to the realization of ultimate realities? In addition it strikes me as noteworthy that according to the above, the Buddha would speak to those who had not yet penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas in conventional language, and only after they had penetrated the meaning would he communicate to them in terms of ultimate realities. So it seems to follow that perhaps we should do the same thing. It has been said recently that the Buddha communicated to those who had deeper understanding in conventional language since they all understood the real meaning, and that it is only necessary to speak in direct dhamma language to those who cannot understand that conventional speech actually refers to ultimate realities. It seems that the commentary here is saying that it works in the opposite order. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130917 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, Sorry for confusing you with Kenneth. ----- >> Ken H: ... 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?" > T: Yes, I think it does mean that. Conditioned dhammas (phenomena) neither exist nor do not exist. ------ KH: How can something neither exist nor not exist? Isn't that a logical absurdity? Surely any purported thing must be one way or the other! We hear some modern-day Buddhists saying that the Buddha refused to give an opinion on whether the self existed or did not exist. But that is wrong; he clearly did say the self (atta) did not exist. The various wrong views listed in the suttas, including "the self exists" " the self does not exist" " the self both . . ." . . . neither . . ." were all labelled "wrong" because they were held by people who could not see the middle way. Even when they said "the self does not exist" they had the idea of a preexisting self that had since become annihilated. ------------------ > T: They are conditioned arising and ceasing, ---------------------- KH: I responded to that in my reply to your previous message, but I will ask again, "arising and ceasing" of what? The Abhidhamma is precise and logically consistent; it does not deal in riddles. It does not say there can be an arising and ceasing without a thing that arises and ceases – just as it does not say something can be neither existent nor non-existent. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130918 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, ------- >> KH: I am sure they don't say dhammas *are* arising and ceasing. I am sure they say dhammas are *realities that* arise and cease. > T: Dhammas "are" arising and ceasing, according to the Samyutta Sutta. ---------- KH: Sorry if I have not been keeping up with the thread: which Samyutta sutta were we discussing? ------------------- > T: Also, what is the Pali term for "realities" you refer to here? ------------------- KH: I don't speak Pali, but I believe the most common word for reality (thing, phenomenon) is "dhamma." ---------------- >> KH: In the Useful Posts folder there is a message from Robert K in which he quotes: >> Samyutta nikaya Khandhavagga (37(5)Ananda ... the five khandas are those things that have these qualities (of arising, alteration while STANDING and dissolution). <. . .> >> So can you see the difference? Conditioned dhammas are realities that arise and cease; they are not *the* arising and ceasing. > T: The text does not have the term or meaning for "realities". > What is the Pali term for "realities" you refer to? ----------- KH: Perhaps you could look it up. The English translation of the above sutta goes: "the five khandhas are those *things* . . ." Perhaps you could look at the Pali and see which word coincided with "things." --------------- <. . .> >> KH: Those are the two extremes – the self exists, and the self does not exist. > T: According to SN 22.90, it refers also to these two extremes: "everything exists" (sabbam atthiiti), "everything does not exist" (sabbam natthiiti). --------------- KH: According to my understanding of the sutta it is talking about "everything that is known to uninstructed worldlings." (There might be another interpretation that I am unaware of, but whatever the right interpretation is, it will be consistent with the Dhamma as a whole. It will be consistent with the notion that only dhammas exist, concepts do not exist.) --------------- > T: So, the text says "when suffering arises, it arises; when suffering ceases, it ceases". --------------- KH: Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. ----------------- > T: The term "sabba" refers to both the six internal and six external sense spheres, according to SN 35.23. ----------------- KH: Again, I don't speak Pali, but I suspect sabba means "all" "everything" "the universe." (I've just checked with Nyanatiloka and "sabba loka" means "the whole world." So I was close.) When the Buddha was asked what he meant by "sabba loka" he answered as you have said: "the six worlds of the sense bases." However, when an uninstructed worldling says "The whole world exists / does not exist" he is not talking about the six worlds of the senses bases, is he? Only the Buddha taught in those terms. Worldlings are thinking of the conventionally known world (of people, places and things to do). Whatever their ultimate view of that kind of world might be, it is sure to be wrong. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130919 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Re: Pitti (joy) or Somanassa (pleasant feeling)? Qu to A.Sujin (2) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, This is a continuation of the discussion. ************* Sarah: For example, in India, when people talk about about such great pitti (joy), mostly it's somanassa (happy feeling) then. A.Sujin: (They) just talk about that which has fallen away all the time, because at the moment of thinking (that) it's piiti, it is not the experience of piiti. So at the moment when reality appears to right understanding, (there is) no word at all, because at that moment right understanding understands that which appears without words. At the moment of thinking, it's not the moment of experiencing reality as it is. Tam B: ....What has been experienced has gone, but we have to ask about what has been experienced before - maybe not very clearly, but there was something, so that's why the question is asked, but it's true it's gone already. AS: By knowing so you know what is real is only at the moment of experiencing directly. T: Right. AS: Many, many realities. So what is the object of right understanding, of awareness when it arises? (It must be) very natural. Like thinking can think and that is not thinking in words, but it is the understanding of what one has heard a lot about visible object and whatever appears. (Right understanding) just inserts in after seeing, hearing. It follows instantly, as seeing and hearing seem (that) they arise together right now. Actually one is a reality and the other is awareness and right understanding. (They) almost appear right at the same time, but actually not (so), but they are there together, like hardness here, it's touched. Without awareness it's hard, but when there's awareness, it doesn't change its characteristic at all. It's still hard, but understanding is there and one begins to know it's not usual because (usually) there is no understanding of anything around, but at that moment right understanding, (it) understands just a reality. So it's very precise at that moment what is the object of right understanding. So when we talk about piiti , can anyone have piiti as object with right awareness and right understanding right now? T: No only at the moment when it arises. AS: So (it's) only thinking about different realities. ****** Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130920 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 4:51 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, KH: How can something neither exist nor not exist? Isn't that a logical absurdity? Surely any purported thing must be one way or the other! T: Whether the teachings of the middle way (according to the SN suttas) are logical is not the point here. The main issue is clearly and precisely to know what the suttas have recorded the Dhammas/Teachings of the Buddha. We are not talking about our own Dhammas. But my understanding of the middle way is that all conditioned things (such as the six internal and six external sense spheres), being not real, arise; being not real, cease. It is a result of previous action, but there is no absolute entity (attan/atman). ------------ KH: We hear some modern-day Buddhists saying that the Buddha refused to give an opinion on whether the self existed or did not exist. But that is wrong; he clearly did say the self (atta) did not exist. The various wrong views listed in the suttas, including "the self exists" " the self does not exist" " the self both . . ." . . . neither . . ." were all labelled "wrong" because they were held by people who could not see the middle way. Even when they said "the self does not exist" they had the idea of a preexisting self that had since become annihilated. T: I certainly agree with you on these views, according to the Samyutta Sutta. As SN 22.90 states: "… when suffering (dukkha) arises, it arises; when suffering ceases, it ceases. … Everything exists, this is one extreme. Everything does not exist, this is the other extreme. …". Accordingly, one may consider that dukkha (suffering) exists, this is one extreme; dukkha does not exist, this is the other extreme. Phenomena (dhammas), including dhkkha, are arisen by causal condition (pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa) (SN 12.20); they are impermanent, neither self nor belonging to self. ------------ KH: T: They are conditioned arising and ceasing KH: I responded to that in my reply to your previous message, but I will ask again, "arising and ceasing" of what? T: E.g. the arising and ceasing of dukkha, of the six internal and six external sense spheres, or of phenomena arisen by causal condition (pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa). ------------ KH: The Abhidhamma is precise and logically consistent; it does not deal in riddles. It does not say there can be an arising and ceasing without a thing that arises and ceases – just as it does not say something can be neither existent nor non-existent. T: The teachings of the middle way shown in the Samyutta Sutta are not riddles. The teachings in the suttas clearly indicate what "things" are arisen and ceased. By the way, for understanding the fundamental teachings of Early Buddhism, I usually follow closely the so-called `sutta-anga' portion of Samyutta-nikaya (of this, see Choong Mun-keat 2000, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). The collection topics (such as khandha, salayatana, nidana, … the path) in the portion are also regarded as matika/matrka in the Abhidhammas (such as Vibhanga). Thus, they are the core teachings of Early Buddhism and early Abhidhamma Buddhism. Regards, Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130921 From: han tun Date: Wed May 29, 2013 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert,   Very good comments, Robert!  I like your remark [In addition it strikes me as noteworthy that according to the above, the Buddha would speak to those who had not yet penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas in conventional language, and only after they had penetrated the meaning would he communicate to them in terms of ultimate realities.]  I have learnt that the Buddha used the method of Gradual Training called Aanupubbii-kathaa: 1. Daana-kathaa (generosity), 2. Siila-kathaa (virtue), 3. Sagga-kathaa (heaven), 4. Aadinava-kathaa (drawbacks), 5. Nekkhamma-kathaa (renunciation), 6. Ariya Sacca-kathaa (Four Noble Truths)  In Buddhist Dictionary, Venerable Nyanatiloka gives its definition as:  Aanupubbii-kathaa: 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon; given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths. The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows:  "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', daana), on moral conduct (siila) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (Buddhaana.m samukka.msikaa desanaa), that is: suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path."  with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Robert E  Hi Sarah, and Han. --- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in > the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. <--> I am wondering, for those who had not yet penetrated and to whom the Buddha communicated the Dhamma in conventional language, and who then penetrated the meaning, what was it in the conventional language the Buddha used that allowed them to penetrate to the realization of ultimate realities? In addition it strikes me as noteworthy that according to the above, the Buddha would speak to those who had not yet penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas in conventional language, and only after they had penetrated the meaning would he communicate to them in terms of ultimate realities. So it seems to follow that perhaps we should do the same thing. It has been said recently that the Buddha communicated to those who had deeper understanding in conventional language since they all understood the real meaning, and that it is only necessary to speak in direct dhamma language to those who cannot understand that conventional speech actually refers to ultimate realities. It seems that the commentary here is saying that it works in the opposite order. - - - - - - - - - - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130922 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, KH: I don't speak Pali, … the most common word for reality (thing, phenomenon) is "dhamma." … Again, I don't speak Pali, but I suspect sabba means "all" "everything" "the universe." … T: I suggest that if you really want to discuss, or strongly argue about your understanding and views on the teachings of the Buddha, you really need to have some "basic" knowledge of Buddhist "textual studies", particularly Pali texts. Do not just use English words without considering the actual terms and meanings being used in the texts you refer to. Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130923 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 6:08 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond? .... >R:....Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all. ... S: Remember the suttas in which we read about mirages and conjuring tricks? It is not the conventional objects which are of the nature of hallucinations, but it is the mis-perceiving of realities that does the hallucinating - taking what is not real for being real. Here's a good example which was recently quoted in Nina's series: >The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 100) states that the four Great Elements are "deceivers": "And just as the great creatures known as female spirits (yakkhinii) conceal their own fearfulness with a pleasing colour, shape and gesture to deceive beings, so too, these elements conceal each their own characteristics and function classed as hardness, etc., by means of a pleasing skin colour of women's and men's bodies, etc., and pleasing shapes of limbs and pleasing gestures of fingers, toes and eyebrows, and they deceive simple people by concealing their own functions and characteristics beginning with hardness and do not allow their individual essences to be seen. Thus they are great primaries (mahaa-bhuuta) in being equal to the great creatures (mahaa-bhuuta), the female spirits, since they are deceivers." >Realities are not what they appear to be. Because of sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance that arises with every citta, we remember shape and form and immediately we cling to what we believe are things and persons. >One may be infatuated by the beauty of men and women, but what one takes for a beautiful body are mere ruupa-elements.< **** >R:... To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall. .... S: >The Blessed Buddha replied: It is, Vaccha, because of neither knowing form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor mental construction, nor consciousness, nor the cause of origin of form, feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness, nor the cause of ceasing of form, feeling, perception, construction, and consciousness, nor the way to cease form, feeling, perception, construction, & consciousness that these various speculative views, such as: "This Universe is eternal, finite etc. " arise in the world! This ignorance, this not seeing, blindness, this not understanding, this not fully knowing, this not breaking through, this not comprehending, this not penetrating, this not discerning, this not discriminating, this not differentiating, this not closely investigating, this not directly experiencing and realizing, friend Vaccha, is the cause, and is the reason, why those various speculative views arise in this world!< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/122306 S: Remember that the Buddha taught the "All" - just the ayatanas meeting together now, just paramattha dhammas. ... > In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case. .... S: The Buddha's omniscient wisdom knew about all and any realities attended to. This should never be underestimated. Metta Sarah p.s. Off to Thailand early in the morning, so some delay in replies. ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (27) #130924 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 6:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: The text for which you mentioned the foot-note is: >  > [Resolute, he realizes "the supreme truth" with > the "body" and, having pierced it through with "wisdom", he > sees it.] [Note 795] >  > Note 795. 'Pahitatto kaayena c'eva paramasacca.m > sacchikaroti, pa~n~naaya ca ativijjha passati' Mp explains "body" as > the mental body (naamakaayena), "the supreme truth" as nibbaana, and "wisdom" > as the wisdom of the path together with insight." >  > Han: Mp explains the meanings of "body", "the > supreme truth", and "wisdom." > The Note does not explain the meaning of "he" of "he > sees it." > The question is "who" sees the supreme truth with > the body and wisdom? > "He" sees it. Who is "he"? .... S: It is the "mental body" (naamakaayena), i.e. right understanding, accompanied by the other factors of the noble eightfold path. "He" is just conventional usage. ... >H: So the Note does not say anything of the Conventional use of > the word "he." > So all my previous comments about "a person", in a > conventional use, remains the same. .... S: As you know, many of the suttas in AN are repeated in the Puggala Pa~n~natti, the Abhidhamma text. I quoted the following before from the introduction by Bimala Charan Law to his translation of this text. I think it's relevant: "The title consists of two words: puggala and pa~n~natti. The word 'puggala' means an individual or a person, as opposed to a multitude or class, a creature, a being, a man (Childer's Paali Dictionary). Buddhism distinguishes altogether twelve classes of intelligent beings or puggala -viz., four of the average ordinary class (puthujjanaa) and eight of the elect class (ariyaa). "According to the Buddhists, the individual has no real existence. The term 'puggala' does not mean anything real. It is only sammutisacca (apparent truth) as opposed to paramatthasacca (real truth). 'Just as it is by the condition precedent of the co-existence of its various parts that the word 'chariot' is used, just so is it that when the khandhas are there, we talk of a 'being' ' (The Questions of King Milinda, S.B.E., vol xxxv., p, 45, quoting Samyutta I, 135). "A Puggalavaadin's view is that the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is not known in the same way as other real and ultimate facts are known.['Points of Controversy, pp 8-9.] ....." "Pa~n~natti means 'notion,' 'designation,' etc. 'It means what the mind both conceives and renders articulate.' ['Expositor', vol ii, p.499, n.3] It is stated in the 'Compendium of Philosophy'[p.4] that Pa~n~natti is twofold according as it is known (pa~n~naapiyatiiti) or as it makes (things) known (pa~n~naapetiiti)....... " 'In the highest sense we do not find these distinctions to exist, but nevertheless as modes of shadowing forth the meaning (of things), they become objects of thought-genesis (as our ideas). And the idea is referred to, derived from, or determined by, this or that (thing), and is called idea of thing because it is conceived and reckoned, named, currently expressed, or made known. The idea of thing is designated 'atthapa~n~natti' because it is made known (by term, word, or sign),' "[Compendium of Philosophy, i.e. 'Kathavatthu', p.199]. "...Hence, according to the commentarial tradition, puggalapa~n~natti means 'pointing out,' 'showing,' 'exposition,' 'establishing,' and deposition of persons; or it may also mean 'notion' or 'designation' of types of persons." **** S: As I also wrote before: The text (Puggala-Pa~n~natti) introduces 'puggala-pa~n~natti' with: "In what ways is there a designation of human types? 1- Grouping of Human Types by One. "(1) One who is emancipated in season (samayavimutto) (2) One who is emancipated out of season (asamayavimutto) (3) One of perturbable nature.(kuppadhammo) (4) One of imperturbably nature.(akuppadhammo) (5) One liable to fall away (gotrabhuu)......" ... S: So you might ask who is this "One" who is emancipated and so on. Surely there is still a person involved.... So, in reality, are these people or cittas? The notes and commentary detail make it clear that these refer to: (1) The path cittas of the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami, i.e to sotapatti-magga citta and so on. (2) The path cittas of the sukkhavipassaka-khii.naasavas (Arahants who do not practise Jhaana - comy) (3) The cittas of the putthujana,sotapanna and sakadagami having attained the 8 samaapattis (absorptions/jhanas) (4) The cittas of the anagami or arahant having attained the 8 samaapatis. (5) The citta which is succeeded by the ariyan magga citta, referring here, 'According to the Commentary....to a person who has reached the family, circle, or designation of Ariyas....'. Again, this is referring in an absolute sense to a series of cittas only. In other words, all sammuti sacca using various pa~n~natti, but always to designate and point again to absolute realities. The same applies to whatever we read in AN or any other texts. ***** Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130925 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 7:02 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Kenneth, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Elder wrote: > > > 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? > ... > S: I understand it just to indicated a difference in accumulations in the development of the path. For example, now, for some faith is predominant, for others wisdom. Regardless, all those who attain stream-entry have highly developed wisdom and faith (saddha). ... S: See also these messages I wrote before: #60469, #104418 and the one I just sent to Han. Probably more in U.P. Why not tell us a little more about your background and your Abhidhamma classes in Texas? Tep also lives in Texas. Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (48) #130926 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2013 7:07 pm Subject: Dhamma Vinaya as Teacher sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han & Friends, (From a post I wrote before, for your interest): >From the beginning of part 6 of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the last words of the Buddha, transl. by Sister Vajiraa and Francis Story (BPS): "Now, the Blessed One spoke to the venerable Aananda saying: 'It may be, Aananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Aananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone." From the commentary to the last sentence above, taken from the beginning of Ch VI, Commentary on the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta, transl. by Yang-Gyu An (PTS) in "The Buddha's Last Days": " 'That which was taught and made known (pa~n~natta)': The Dhamma is both taught and made known. The Vinaya is also both taught and made known. 'Made known' means set up, established. 'That is your teacher, after I am gone': The Dhamma and the Vinaya are your teacher after I am gone. While I remained alive, I taught you: 'This is slight (lahuka); this is serious (garuka); this is curable (satekiccha); this is incurable (atekiccha); this is what is to be avoided by the world (loka-vajja); this is what is to be avoided by specific precept (pa~n~natti-vajja); this offence (aapatti) is removable in the presence of an individual (puggala) this offence is removable in the presence of a group (ga.na); this offence is removable in the presence of the Order (sa"ngha).' Thus concerning the subject matter handed down as seven groups of offences (aapatti-kkhandha), I have taught what is called the Vinaya: the Khandhaka, the Parivaara and the two Vibha"ngas. All of that, the basket of the Vinaya, will perform the role of Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. "And during my life, I have taught these: the four foundations of mindfulness (satipa.t.thaana), the four right efforts (sammapphadhaana), the four roads to supernormal power (iddhipaada), the five spiritual faculties (indriya), the five mental powers (bala), the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjha"nga), the noble eightfold path (magga). In various ways I have analysed these doctrinal matters and have taught the basket of Suttanta. All of that basket of Suttanta will peform the role of Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. "And during my life, I have taught these: the five aggregates, twelve sphere (aayatana), eighteeen elements (dhaatu), four truths (sacca), twenty-two faculites (indriya), nine causes (hetu), four foods (aahaara), seven contacts (phassa), seven feelings (vedanaa), seven perceptions (sa~n~naa), seven intentions (cetanaa), seven thoughts (citta). And here too, a certain number of things are of the sensual realm (kaamaavacara), a certain number are of the form realm (ruupaavacara), and a ceertain number are of the formless realm (aruupaavacara); a certain number are included (pariyaapanna), a certain number are not included (apariyaapanna); a certain number are mundane (lokika), a certain number are supramundane (lokuttara). "I have analysed these things in detail and taught the Abhidhamma-pi.taka, which is adorned by the Mahaapa.t.thaana with its countless methods and its twenty-fourfold complete origin (samantapa.t.thaana). All of that, the basket of the Abhidhamma, will perform the role of the Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. " Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine branches (a"nga), eight-four thousand groups of dhamma: these are the major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, will advise and instruct you. "Thus giving many reasons, the Blessed One advised: 'It is your Teacher after I am gone....' "< .... Metta Sarah ==== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130927 From: han tun Date: Wed May 29, 2013 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah,  Han: The question is "who" sees the supreme truth with the body and wisdom? "He" sees it. Who is "he"?  Sarah: It is the "mental body" (naamakaayena), i.e. right understanding, accompanied by the other factors of the noble eightfold path. "He" is just conventional usage.  Han: No, I do not agree. I look at the Text again that you produced in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130905 "(1) Here, bhikkhus, one kind of excellent thoroughbred person hears: 'In such and such a village or town some woman or man has fallen ill or died.' He is stirred by this and acquires a sense of urgency. Stirred, he strives carefully. Resolute, he realizes the supreme truth with the body and, having pierced it through with wisdom, he sees it."  Han: In the above paragraph, if the questions are asked the answers will be: Who hears the news? The excellent thoroughbred person. Who is stirred by this news? The excellent thoroughbred person. Who acquires a sense of urgency? The excellent thoroughbred person. Who strives carefully? The excellent thoroughbred person. Who realizes the supreme truth? The excellent thoroughbred person. Who sees it? The excellent thoroughbred person.  --------------------  Han: The explanations about puggalapa~n~natti are not new to me. You had explained this to me a few years ago when I mentioned that even in Abhidhamma, out of the seven books, one of them is Puggalapa~n~natti.  The introduction by Bimala Charan Law may well be taken up by you, but I consider the conventional usage of such expressions as man, woman, deva, individual etc., are very important because although they have no existence in reality, but nevertheless they are essential for communication of thoughts.  Different individuals have different ideas and interpretations. But it is important that one should respect the other's opinion. One may produce textual references, and again the interpretation of those references will depend on the individuals. Who is right and who is wrong no one can tell as long as we are not Arahants.  with metta and respect, Han     [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130928 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: The question is "who" sees the supreme truth > with the body and wisdom? > "He" sees it. Who is "he"? >...but I consider the conventional usage of such expressions as man, > woman, deva, individual etc., are very important because although they have no > existence in reality, but nevertheless they are essential for communication of > thoughts. ... S: Exactly! No one denies these conventional terms are important. So se agree "they have no existence in reality, but nevertheless they are essential for communication of thoughts." So, in conventional terms, the "who?" or "he" refer to the one who sees the truth, the ariyan disciple. In ultimate terms, there is no "who?" or "he" - these are terms used for "communication of thoughts". ... > Different individuals have different ideas and interpretations. > But it is important that one should respect the other's > opinion. ... S: I certainly agree with this and never intend to show any disrespect to yours or anyone else's opinion. Of course there are bound to be different ideas and interpretations. ... >Who is right and who is wrong > no one can tell as long as we are not Arahants. .... S: I think we study and discuss the Teachings because we can come closer and closer to understanding dhammas as anatta even now. For example, now there is seeing - no person who sees in reality at all. Thank you for the discussion which I always appreciate. I look forward to reading any more suttas which you care to share. With metta and respect Your Partner Sarah ============ Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130929 From: han tun Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:28 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (6) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 77. The Jhaanas and Rebirth [AN 4.123 Pathama Naanaakara.na Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? (1) Here, monks, some person enters and dwells in the First Jhaana, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. He relishes it, longs for it and finds satisfaction in it. Having become steady in it, resolved on it, often dwelling in it, without falling away from it, on passing away he is reborn in the company of the devas of Brahma's Company. The measure of the lifespan of those devas is an aeon. The worldling remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he goes to hell or to the animal realm or to the sphere of ghosts. But the disciple of the Blessed One remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he attains final Nibbaana. This, monks, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling, that is, in regard to destination and rebirth. (2) Further, monks, some person here, with the subsiding of thought and examination, enters and dwells in the Second Jhaana, which has internal confidence and unification of mind, is without thought and examination, and has rapture and happiness born of concentration. He relishes it, longs for it and finds satisfaction in it. Having become steady in it, resolved on it, often dwelling in it, without falling away from it, on passing away he is reborn in the company of the devas of Streaming Radiance. The measure of the lifespan of those devas is two aeons. The worldling remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he goes to hell or to the animal realm or to the sphere of ghosts. But the disciple of the Blessed One remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he attains final Nibbaana. This, monks, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling, that is, in regard to destination and rebirth. (3) Further, monks, some person here, with the fading away as well of rapture, dwells equanimous and, mindful and clearly comprehending, he experiences happiness with the body; he enters and dwells in the Third Jhaana of which the noble ones declare: "He is equanimous, mindful, one who dwells happily." He relishes it, longs for it and finds satisfaction in it. Having become steady in it, resolved on it, often dwelling in it, without falling away from it, on passing away he is reborn in the company of the devas of Refulgent Glory. The measure of the lifespan of those devas is four aeons. The worldling remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he goes to hell or to the animal realm or to the sphere of ghosts. But the disciple of the Blessed One remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he attains final Nibbaana. This, monks, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling, that is, in regard to destination and rebirth. (4) Further, monks, some person here, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and sadness, enters and dwells in the Fourth Jhaana, which is neither painful nor pleasant and includes the purification of mindfulness by equanimity. He relishes it, longs for it and finds satisfaction in it. Having become steady in it, resolved on it, often dwelling in it, without falling away from it, on passing away he is reborn in the company of the devas of Great Fruit. The measure of the lifespan of those devas is five hundred aeons. The worldling remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he goes to hell or to the animal realm or to the sphere of ghosts. But the disciple of the Blessed One remains there for the full lifespan, and then, after completing the lifespan of those devas, he attains final Nibbaana. This, monks, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling, that is, in regard to destination and rebirth. These are the four kinds of persons found existing in the world. With metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130930 From: han tun Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (5) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Partner Sarah,  Han: Different individuals have different ideas and interpretations. But it is important that one should respect the other's opinion.  Sarah: I certainly agree with this and never intend to show any disrespect to yours or anyone else's opinion. Of course there are bound to be different ideas and interpretations.  Han: Yes, I know that you are very patient and forgiving with me -- a born-rebel. I also apologize if I have said something improper.  --------------------  Han: Who is right and who is wrong no one can tell as long as we are not Arahants.  Sarah: I think we study and discuss the Teachings because we can come closer and closer to understanding dhammas as anatta even now. For example, now there is seeing - no person who sees in reality at all.  Han: Again, you are forcing on others with what you believe:>))  --------------------  Thank you for the discussion which I always appreciate. I look forward to reading any more suttas which you care to share. With metta and respect Your Partner Sarah  Han: Yes, I will continue to post.  with metta and deepest respect, Your Partner Han  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (7) #130931 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 29, 2013 10:22 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 23. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): Knowing a characteristic is more important than knowing the name of a reality. I had a beneficial conversation with Acharn about concepts we are dreaming of and the understanding of realities. Nina: "I am absorbed in stories, thinking, "O, I would have liked to share this experience with Lodewijk. He would have liked this so much. Now I cannot share this with Lodewijk." Acharn: "There is no Lodewijk after his death and not even while he was alive." Nina: "I am thinking in that way because it is conditioned." Acharn: Then you are not living alone. In the lone world there is no one." Nina: "When he was alive I tried to remember that there was no Lodewijk. There is a great deal of thinking, clinging to concepts and dreaming about them." Acharn: "How rare it is to just be aware of a reality. That can happen when there is more intellctual understanding, sufficient to be a condition for right awareness. By developing more understanding one will let go of the idea of trying to know. One may be thinking of the self and trying to understand what does not appear." Nina: "When people have worries or dreams you will always point to the present reality. That is the only solution to our problems." Acharn: "You want to have the solution with the idea of self and that cannot be a solution at all." Nina: "That is quite true, we cling to an idea of how I can solve this problem while having dreams all the time, sadness all the time." Acharn: "Actually, whose problem?" Nina: "Self, self." It was most beneficial that Acharn reminded us to what extent we cling to a self. We do not want sadness which is akusala and we try to find methods not to have it. There is no method. When it appears it can be understood as just a conditioned dhamma. We should not try to change the reality that appears already because of conditions. Ignorance of realities can be eliminated, but courage and patience are needed to continue developing understanding of realities. (To be continued) Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130932 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 12:49 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: The self-based view of existence is the view of eternal atta. The self-based view of non-existence is the view of annihilated atta. > > Those are the two extremes – the self exists, and the self does not exist. In each of them "self" refers to atta. > > As we all know, there is another use of the word "self." When we say, for example, "Alcohol *itself* is not a problem. ..," we are not referring to atta (a permanent soul); we are saying "alcohol per se" or "alcohol as such" "intrinsically" "in its own right" and so on. > > So there are two uses of the word "self." Only the former – the one meaning "soul" or "lasting entity" – is the one that translates as "atta." There is also a third use of the word "self," meaning one's everyday personal identity. That does not imply a lasting, permanent soul or self. Maybe that meaning of self should not be called "atta," if you are right that "atta" only stands for the permanent spiritual soul or self, Self with a capitol S. The ordinary everyday use of self to mean, Ken, Rob, Alex is used by atheists who do not believe in any kind of soul or afterlife, or any kind of inner self, and is used to stand for the body and personality of the person. Atheists believe the person is made up of biological processes, purely physical, with no soul or inner self of any kind. In any case, this everyday use of self is the *most common* use of self by people both religious and non-religious. It does not fall into the extremes of eternal soul or annihilation of soul. So in your opinion, what is the Buddha's stand on the everyday ordinary self? I will tell you what I think the Buddha thought about the everyday ordinary self. He said that there is no entity or being within the "human being," but only kandhas, impersonal processes that shift and change and cause the illusion of selfhood because we assume someone is willing or controlling some of the things we do, such as deciding to get up and take a walk, or drink some milk. But in truth there is no "self," no being or entity in those actions. They just happen due to conditions. They are just made up of impersonal "heaps," processes or actions. The processes that take place, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, are real, but the sense that there is a self involved in this is false. Do you agree with this? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130933 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu May 30, 2013 2:32 am Subject: TA on meditation sprlrt Send Email Send Email (in HH, 10th, am-B, 27m) TA: In a meditation center I think one is told to do, not to understand anything, but now no one is told to do or to sit at all, so here is no meditation centre. What is the difference between meditation centre and here? No discussion in a meditation centre. Daily life or unusual life? Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130934 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 3:01 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, you wrote: HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > D () : proved by what? ------------------------------ HCW: It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of one who claims an actor is required. Why would a self be required? To paraphrase Buddhaghosa, "There is action but no actor." (For me, action is nothing other than conditionality.) ------------------------------- D(D.A.hc.) : well , common view is the existence of I,Self . "I am thinking therefore I am " (cogito ergo sum) is fundamental in Western philosophy. Descartes: "But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. " (source Wiki) what is the proof of your proposition ' none is required for any 'actions' ? following above , the existing Howard says 'for me action is nothing other than conditionality ' The statement of Buddhaghosa: "There is action but no actor" , similar 'there is suffering but no sufferer can be found ' , assumes the view taken from an ' ultimate 'point of truth , i.e. may not be taken a priori . The Buddha stated : 'for the suffering being I teach' > HCW:At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". > > > D ():not clear to me , do I understand you right : you call the thinking I or (my)self ? -------------------------------- HCW: As I see it, the use of "I" and "mine" may be innocent or defiled. The innocent usage involves thinking within (and speaking produced within) the flow of conditions conventionally identified as "oneself" for the purpose of distinguishing that stream of namas and rupas from others. When I'm talking to you, that distinguishing is requisite for understanding, and our language must support that. HCW:The defiled usage is based on considering a stream to be a single entity (rather than a collection of interrelated dhammas)or based on a belief that there lies some unchanging, unitary core of identity and agency within that stream either in addition to the dhammas or identified as one type of dhamma such as thinking or knowing or feeling or, especially, willing. -------------------------------- D(): the distinction between innocent and defiled usuage makes no sense to the 'cogito' . When you mention 'especially willing' , we are back to my orginal question: How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found? The 'conditionality ' is willing ? by what? with Metta Dieter > HCW:P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: > The Meaning of 'Self'> > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > D : agreed but not fitting when I and thinking are synonym . (refers b.t.w. to Descartes .. his opponent Pascal claimed feeling )> > My perspective on self is the fiction which stands for : I .. want ... do not want (i.e. moha, lobha, dosa : tanha the thirst) --------------------------- HCW: There is wanting but no desirer (for presence/absence of something.) I do agree that desire always involves the sense of self, but I don't quite share your perspective, because even when there is no desire, there may well still be, and usually is, a sense of personal self: of "me" or of an actor (or both). ------------------------------ D: there ís I (delusion,moha) -want (greed/lobha) -do not want (hate/dosa) ..a trinity of urge (thirst ,tanha) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130935 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 4:06 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way nichiconn Send Email Send Email hi RobE, > > The processes that take place, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, are real, but the sense that there is a self involved in this is false. Do you agree with this? > c: sorta; seeing, etc. being instances of short-lived sentient beings/organisms - in the case of seeing, visible object, eye-sense/pasada, phassa... voila! & the seeing "process" over/dead-gone. what is continuity? connie Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130936 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 30, 2013 5:18 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > you wrote: > > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > > > D () : proved by what? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of one who claims an actor is required. Why would a self be required? To paraphrase Buddhaghosa, "There is action but no actor." (For me, action is nothing other than conditionality.) > ------------------------------- > > > > D(D.A.hc.) : well , common view is the existence of I,Self . > "I am thinking therefore I am " (cogito ergo sum) is fundamental in Western philosophy. --------------------------------- HCW: Yes, it is a common view. So, how are we all doing, suffereing-wise? LOL! ---------------------------------- > Descartes: "But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. " (source Wiki) > > what is the proof of your proposition ' none is required for any 'actions' ? following above , the existing Howard says 'for me action is nothing other than conditionality ' > > > > The statement of Buddhaghosa: "There is action but no actor" , similar 'there is suffering but no sufferer can be found ' , assumes the view taken from an ' ultimate 'point of truth , i.e. may not be taken a priori . The Buddha stated : 'for the suffering being I teach' -------------------------------- HCW: If everything is explainable without the presumption of self, why presume self? -------------------------------- > > > > > > > HCW:At least that is how I see matters; i.e., that is the thinking that typically arises in the dhamma-stream I call "me". > > > > > > D ():not clear to me , do I understand you right : you call the thinking I or (my)self ? > -------------------------------- > HCW: > As I see it, the use of "I" and "mine" may be innocent or defiled. > The innocent usage involves thinking within (and speaking produced within) the flow of conditions conventionally identified as "oneself" for the purpose of distinguishing that stream of namas and rupas from others. When I'm talking to you, that distinguishing is requisite for understanding, and our language must support that. > > HCW:The defiled usage is based on considering a stream to be a single entity (rather than a collection of interrelated dhammas)or based on a belief that there lies some unchanging, unitary core of identity and agency within that stream either in addition to the dhammas or identified as one type of dhamma such as thinking or knowing or feeling or, especially, willing. > -------------------------------- > > D(): the distinction between innocent and defiled usuage makes no sense to the 'cogito' . ------------------------------- HCW: Here you presume an "I think" (a.k.a., "a thinker"), and say that "the thinker" can't understand this usage. If there WERE a thinker, indeed it wouldn't understand the distinction, but there isn't such an agent, or at least none need be presumed. There is just thinking, and sometimes that activity is correct thinking and sometimes incorrect. Do we KNOW which is which? I don't think so. But I accept the principle that when the alleged existence of something is unnecessary for explaining the things we see occur, a principle of simplicity (Occam's razor) leads me to reject an assumption of the unnecessary alleged existent. ------------------------------- > > When you mention 'especially willing' , we are back to my orginal question: How do you explain intentional action, when no self can be found? ----------------------------- HCW: Willing is an event that sometimes accompanies knowing (another event). I see no need for it to be the functioning of an entity. -------------------------------- > The 'conditionality ' is willing ? by what? ------------------------------ HCW: Again, you are assuming an agent/actor. We all, I included, fall prey to a sense of such, but I see no reason whatsoever for the existence of such to be a fact, and I don't believe in actual agents. Convenience of speech isn't an adequate reason. -------------------------------- > > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > HCW:P. S. The following explains my perspective on "self" that is actually a fiction: > > The Meaning of 'Self'> > > /'Self' alleges to refer to "a thing that has own-nature and own-being (i.e., identity), or is an agent of action (i.e., acts or "performs its function"), and is a real, separate entity" - or "a core in anything of own-nature and own being, or agency of action, reality, or separate essence."/ > > > > D : agreed but not fitting when I and thinking are synonym . (refers b.t.w. to Descartes .. his opponent Pascal claimed feeling )> > > My perspective on self is the fiction which stands for : I .. want ... do not want (i.e. moha, lobha, dosa : tanha the thirst) > --------------------------- > HCW: > There is wanting but no desirer (for presence/absence of something.) > I do agree that desire always involves the sense of self, but I don't quite share your perspective, because even when there is no desire, there may well still be, and usually is, a sense of personal self: of "me" or of an actor (or both). > ------------------------------ > > D: there ís I (delusion,moha) -want (greed/lobha) -do not want (hate/dosa) ..a trinity of urge (thirst ,tanha) ============================== With metta, Howard No Self to Be Found in Any Dhamma or Any Stream of Dhammas /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130937 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 8:13 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, ------- <. . .> T: Whether the teachings of the middle way (according to the SN suttas) are logical is not the point here. The main issue is clearly and precisely to know what the suttas have recorded the Dhammas/Teachings of the Buddha. --------- KH: And how do we know the suttas have recorded the true teachings? The answer is we know by verifying them for ourselves. Right from the start the suttas tell us there are realities in the present moment that can be known *now*. Do you agree there are realities in the present moment that can be known now? I do. It seems a perfectly believable proposition to me. Maybe I can't verify it directly now, but I can verify it by logic. On the other hand I can't see how everything could be a delusion and there could be no absolute reality to be known now. I think that sort of illogical nonsense belongs to blind-faith teachings. And I am not interested in them. ----------------- > T: We are not talking about our own Dhammas. ---------------- KH: Let's hope not. But there are many Buddhists who will tell you the path can be found only by their own efforts. They see the Tipitaka as a verification of their own meditation experiences. --------------- > T: But my understanding of the middle way is that all conditioned things (such as the six internal and six external sense spheres), being not real, arise; being not real, cease. It is a result of previous action, but there is no absolute entity (attan/atman). --------------- KH: I think you have picked up a wrong understanding of the term "not real" in the context of the suttas. Conditioned reality is deceiving. It gives the impression of being a lasting reality. But that impression is false. Nibbana (the unconditioned reality) is the only truly lasting reality. That's what the suttas mean on those isolated occasions where they say conditioned dhammas are "not real." ---------------------- <. . .> > T: Accordingly, one may consider that dukkha (suffering) exists, this is one extreme; dukkha does not exist, this is the other extreme. Phenomena (dhammas), including dhkkha, are arisen by causal condition (pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa) (SN 12.20); they are impermanent, neither self nor belonging to self. ----------------------- KH: That is what Nagarjuna wanted us to believe. He caused a schism in the sangha. Those who believed anatta meant "no soul" went one way (Theravada) and those who believed anatta meant "no conditioned realities" went the other way (Mahayana). ------------------------------- <. . .> > T: By the way, for understanding the fundamental teachings of Early Buddhism, I usually follow closely the so-called `sutta-anga' portion of Samyutta-nikaya (of this, see Choong Mun-keat 2000, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). The collection topics (such as khandha, salayatana, nidana, … the path) in the portion are also regarded as matika/matrka in the Abhidhammas (such as Vibhanga). Thus, they are the core teachings of Early Buddhism and early Abhidhamma Buddhism. ------------------------------- KH: Does Choon Mun-keat meditate? Does he, for example, concentrate on the act of walking ("foot goes up . . . foot goes forward . . . foot goes down")? And does he claim that is the sort of thing the Buddha taught? If so, I would steer clear of his interpretations. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130938 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 10:09 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, KH: .... Right from the start the suttas tell us there are realities in the present moment that can be known *now*. ... Nibbana (the unconditioned reality) is the only truly lasting reality. ... T: What is the Pali term for reality/realities you refer to in the suttas? Are you just making up for your Dhammas? ---------- KH: .... That is what Nagarjuna wanted us to believe. He caused a schism in the sangha. Those who believed anatta meant "no soul" went one way (Theravada) and those who believed anatta meant "no conditioned realities" went the other way (Mahayana). ... T: Are you also just making up for your Buddhist history in India? --------- Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130939 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 10:15 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> > RE: There is also a third use of the word "self," meaning one's everyday personal identity. That does not imply a lasting, permanent soul or self. --------- KH: It doesn't *necessarily* imply it. But I wonder how many people, if you asked them, would say there was nothing about their everyday identity that continued on from one moment to the next. ------------------- > RE: Maybe that meaning of self should not be called "atta," if you are right that "atta" only stands for the permanent spiritual soul or self, Self with a capitol S. ------------------- KH: I am always right :-) If there is an idea of something about ourselves that continued on from moment to moment, that would be an atta-idea. I think it is called atta-sanna. And if there is an actual belief in that idea then it would be called atta-ditthi. -------------------------------- > RE: The ordinary everyday use of self to mean, Ken, Rob, Alex is used by atheists who do not believe in any kind of soul or afterlife, or any kind of inner self, and is used to stand for the body and personality of the person. Atheists believe the person is made up of biological processes, purely physical, with no soul or inner self of any kind. -------------------------------- KH: Yes, I think atheists do believe the self is made of those things. Their sort of belief is a bit different from the theist's atta-ditthi but, even so, it is atta-ditthi. ----------------------------------------- > RE: In any case, this everyday use of self is the *most common* use of self by people both religious and non-religious. It does not fall into the extremes of eternal soul or annihilation of soul. ----------------------------------------- KH: I agree, it doesn't. For as long as the everyday self is not thought to be an ultimate reality (as distinct from a concept) there is no problem with it. ------------- > RE: So in your opinion, what is the Buddha's stand on the everyday ordinary self? ------------- KH: Sorry to be pedantic, but he didn't have a stand on the everyday ordinary self. All he taught was that, in ultimate reality, there was no self: there were only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. ----------------------- < RE: I will tell you what I think the Buddha thought about the everyday ordinary self. He said that there is no entity or being within the "human being," but only kandhas, impersonal processes that shift and change and cause the illusion of selfhood because we assume someone is willing or controlling some of the things we do, such as deciding to get up and take a walk, or drink some milk. But in truth there is no "self," no being or entity in those actions. They just happen due to conditions. They are just made up of impersonal "heaps," processes or actions. The processes that take place, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, are real, but the sense that there is a self involved in this is false. Do you agree with this? ------------------- KH: I know from experience that our understandings are very different. At first inspection I would pretty much agree with what you have said – maybe change a word here or there - but beneath the surface we have a fundamental disagreement. As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. I know you disagree with that, and it sometimes makes you angry (maybe even a trifle obnoxious). :-) But there it is. Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130940 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 10:28 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, KH: As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. T: How do you know this view is the Buddha taught? Which sutta (s) you refer to? Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130941 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 11:10 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H, ----------- KH: T: By the way, for understanding the fundamental teachings of Early Buddhism, I usually follow closely the so-called `sutta-anga' portion of Samyutta-nikaya (of this, see Choong Mun-keat 2000, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).The collection topics (such as khandha, salayatana, nidana, … the path) in the portion are also regarded as matika/matrka in the Abhidhammas (such as Vibhanga). Thus, they are the core teachings of Early Buddhism and early Abhidhamma Buddhism. KH: Does Choon Mun-keat meditate? Does he, for example, concentrate on the act of walking ("foot goes up . . . foot goes forward . . . foot goes down")? And does he claim that is the sort of thing the Buddha taught? If so, I would steer clear of his interpretations. ----------- T: I can only guess he possibly does. He teaches "Buddhism: A history" and "Meditation in Eastern Religions" at University of New England (Australia). But, for reading any books on Early Buddhism do we really need to know whether or not the author (s) meditates? Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130942 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 1:10 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, --------- <. . .> > T: But, for reading any books on Early Buddhism do we really need to know whether or not the author (s) meditates? ---------- KH: Yes, I think we do. If 'Early Buddhism' means `the original teaching of the Buddha' an aspiring author would need to know what the Buddha taught. Most people today believe the Buddha taught religious rites and rituals. They think, just as Jesus (for example) taught that prayer, meditation and commandment-keeping would get us to heaven, so too the Buddha taught that meditation and precept-keeping would get us to Nibbana. I gather your author practices walking meditation and sitting meditation etc., on the assumption it is what the Buddha taught. Then he is writing a treatise on when, in his opinion, this rite-and-ritual teaching began and when it ended – on which suttas it was contained in and which suttas it was not contained in. What use are any of those opinions if the assumption on which they were based was wrong? And it was wrong! Ken H #130943 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 2:05 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, -------------- >> KH: As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. > T: How do you know this view is the Buddha taught? -------------- KH: I know it after joining DSG about twelve years ago, where I have spent a lot of time hearing the Dhamma *as it is found in the three Pali pitakas *and* the ancient commentaries.* In the twenty five years before that I followed religious rites and rituals in the mistaken belief they were what the Buddha taught. That wasted activity was encouraged by several well-known Buddhist authors. -------------------- > T: Which sutta (s) you refer to? -------------------- KH: Having at last heard the Dhamma as it was originally taught, I now find it in every sutta. Nowhere in the Pali texts do I see any evidence of religious rites and rituals. All I see are conditioned dhammas arising and falling by conditions (without being controlled in any way by anyone). Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130944 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 3:35 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H, ----- KH: As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. T: How do you know this view is the Buddha taught? KH: I know it after joining DSG about twelve years ago, where I have spent a lot of time hearing the Dhamma *as it is found in the three Pali pitakas *and* the ancient commentaries.* In the twenty five years before that I followed religious rites and rituals in the mistaken belief they were what the Buddha taught. That wasted activity was encouraged by several well-known Buddhist authors. T: Your experiences do not actually confirm that your view on "... reality ... Everything that ultimately exists ... will similarly ... " is the Buddha taught. ---------- KH: T: Which sutta (s) you refer to? KH: Having at last heard the Dhamma as it was originally taught, I now find it in every sutta. T: I do not think so regarding that "the Dhamma as it was originally taught" [by the Buddha] in "every sutta"? ---------- KH: Nowhere in the Pali texts do I see any evidence of religious rites and rituals.All I see are conditioned dhammas arising and falling by conditions (without being controlled in any way by anyone). T: I did not question about any evidence of religious rites and rituals in the Pali texts. I certainly have no disagreement regarding phenomena (dhammas) arisen and ceased by causal condition. But your expression "without being controlled in any way by anyone" is not clear to me. A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. ---------- Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130945 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu May 30, 2013 3:38 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H, ------- > T: But, for reading any books on Early Buddhism do we really need to know whether or not the author (s) meditates? > > KH: Yes, I think we do. > > If 'Early Buddhism' means `the original teaching of the Buddha' an aspiring author would need to know what the Buddha taught. > > Most people today believe the Buddha taught religious rites and rituals. They think, just as Jesus (for example) taught that prayer, meditation and commandment-keeping would get us to heaven, so too the Buddha taught that meditation and precept-keeping would get us to Nibbana. > > I gather your author practices walking meditation and sitting meditation etc., on the assumption it is what the Buddha taught. Then he is writing a treatise on when, in his opinion, this rite-and-ritual teaching began and when it ended – on which suttas it was contained in and which suttas it was not contained in. > > What use are any of those opinions if the assumption on which they were based was wrong? > > And it was wrong! > T: Sorry, I disagree with your opinions, which are deficient in clarity, consistency, coherence, logic, and other essential qualities. --------- Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130946 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 30, 2013 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > > Yes the Buddha *taught*, and he taught what no one else could. He > taught > > the development of Right View. The Right View which understands the > > individual and general characteristic, and the causes and conditions of > > all dhammas. He also knew what to teach whom and when. For example, he > > pointed out not only the conditioned nature and general characteristic > > of Metta, but also the value / benefit of developing it. And he did > this > > with Right View. > > > > Do you think it is wrong view the understanding that metta is kusala > and > > beneficial both to oneself as well as other people? > > No, I think it is wrong view to misunderstand why the Buddha spoke and > taught conventionally - it is because there is a kusala action created > by his conventional words, and the conventional actions and intentions > which he spurs others to take also causes kusala to arise, and that > this is part of the path, not apart from the path. > Instead of simply repeating your position, can you answer my question? And maybe you can also tell me how it is wrong view to believe that kusala or akusala, right or wrong, are reference to citta and cetasikas and not to conventional activities? === > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Again, I am looking for a coherent explanation as to why the Buddha > > > would talk about killing, bodies, people, drinking, playing dice, > > > householders, men and women, giving alms, etc. when he is *teaching.* > > > > > > > I would ask, why not? How else could he have talked about such things? > > Why did he talk about them at all? If all that matters is the > understanding of paramatha dhammas, it is nonsensical to tell people > not to play dice! So it is up to you to explain what "dice" or > "alcohol" has to do with paramatha dhammas, because it is you who > claim that only paramatha dhammas are the path, and that there is > nothing to do or not do in conventional terms that matters. > The Buddha came not to make a difference to how people expressed themselves, but how they understood their experiences. People refer to the khandhas in their speech all day, with or without the Dhamma. We say such things as, "I remember watching that film", "You have a short temper", "The room is hot", "I enjoyed the cake" etc. These are reference to matter, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, i.e. the Five Aggregates, using every day speech. Before the Dhamma, these thoughts are motivated by ignorance (with the exception of kusala thinking), with attachment, aversion, conceit and sometimes with wrong view, but never with Right View. After hearing the Dhamma instead of Wrong View, sometimes there is Right View. So the conventional speech and reference continues exactly as before, i.e. we still say, "I remember watching the film" or "The room is hot", the only difference is that now there can be understanding with regard to the nature of paramattha dhammas in between. === > > > It is my view that the Buddha taught about conventional affairs > because they *are* part of the path - just a different aspect of > developing the path. That the work we do - helping people or killing > chickens - makes a difference in the development of the path, along > with the development of correct mental factors. > What understanding with regard to the nature of the khandhas is your view based upon? Why do you refer to mental factors when making a statement about the Path, but when it comes to those so-called conventional practices, you appear not to consider the citta and cetasikas? === > > Just because in reality there are only paramattha dhammas all of which > > can be identified, this does not mean that one replace everyday speech > > with Abhidhamma language. For someone who understands the reality of > > what is behind conventional descriptions, it would be unnecessary, in > > fact odd, to talk in terms of citta and cetasikas, would it not? How > > would you describe killing in Abhidhamma language? > > Well that's a good question for you: Is there such a thing as killing > or not? How *is* it understood in paramatha terms, and if not, does it > take place at all, or is it a delusion? > The original question is for you, who is saying that if the message is the understanding of paramattha dhammas, then abhidhamma language should be used. Don't evade the question by asking me another one. Killing is real. It is the strong intention around the concept of another being which conditions bodily action and resulting in the death of that other being. it takes place all the time every where. === > Maybe no one is ever killed at all, since there is "no being," in > which case it is not a problem and no need to talk about it. Why > wouldn't the Buddha talk about "cuti citta" instead of fooling people > into thinking they die? > You mean the Buddha could refer to cuti citta without expecting that the listener refer to a conventional idea with regard to his own or someone else death in his mind? === > > I am not being frivolous. It's just that you can't have it both ways. > If there is death, there is a being. If there is no being, there is no > death, just a momentary arising of cuti citta. > Your not being frivolous, you are just trying very hard to defend your position with regard to "conventional practices" motivated by ignorance and attachment. Cuti citta *is* death. What problem do you have with this suggestion? === > I would tell people the truth then. If the Buddha talked about death > and rebirth, he must have had a point. > Rebirth is patisandhi citta. Where is the conflict? === > > > Stealing and killing for example are intentions rooted respectively, in > > lobha and dosa of particular intensity. For concepts to be delusion, > > this is due to wrong view and not because there is thinking in terms of > > different concepts. Those who had the panna, before knowing the > > characteristic of paramattha dhammas involved, knew to distinguish > > concept from reality. They therefore had no problem using concepts > > themselves, nor were they deluded when hearing the Buddha talked about > > such things. Certainly they had no reason to question along the same > > lines as you are doing here. > > Well, in my view that leads me to understand that we can understand > the path in conventional terms as well as in terms of dhammas, and > that it makes sense to talk and to understand in both ways. > But is the object of panna a paramattha dhamma or conventional object? The Buddha's disciples having made the concept / reality distinction, understood the former when hearing him talk in terms of conventional reality, you on the other hand keep saying that concepts are objects of understanding. === > > When we have kusala cetana arise by deciding to take a job where we > don't kill beings, we are developing the path, even though the object > is conventional. > When a conventional reality is the object of experience, that moment it is thinking with kusala or akusala, not the understanding of a reality, therefore definitely *not* the Path. If you think that it is sila simply to intend and consequently take up a particular job without taking into consideration that sila is the actual moment of restraint, chances are that you are motivated by strong attachment and wrong view in choosing that job. === > I am not convinced that psychophysical beings do not exist at all - I > don't think that is specified in the teachings, is it? Instead we are > told over and over again to develop understanding, and to follow the > rules of kusala living - both. > Why do you talk as if kusala is being denied when conventional practices are rejected? You appear to do this deliberately in an attempt to justify your own attachment to those practices! === > > > > > When a person in grief approaches the Buddha, would he not > experience > > > > compassion towards that person? > > Why? If in his wisdom he understands that being does not exist, who is > having compassion for? No one? Do you have compassion for an actor on > your tv screen? Maybe so, but that is an illusion that the Buddha > would not indulge in. > TV screen and the images are rupa. A person on the screen, unlike the one outside of it, cannot react with attachment / aversion, pleasant / unpleasant feelings or have intentions towards anything that I do. Attachment, aversion, kindness, compassion, seeing, visible object, thinking, feeling, intention etc. are realities! Thinking in terms of the other person is conditioned, so is any aversion or compassion following it. I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat such things to you. Well, that is a matter of conditions, beyond control.... === > > > > > Is compassion not the appropriate > > > > response during such times and should it not therefore be > encouraged? > > Why? > Because it is a reality which arises by conditions and performs a particular function, and that which panna does not perform. Indeed if panna arose, instead of compassion, there may be equanimity. But this equanimity performs yet another function, different from panna and from compassion. And would you also question this? === > > > > > > Similarly with metta, sila, dana and so on, are these not > appropriate > > > > responses given particular situations? > > Why? Why have any response at all to conventional situations, if they > don't really exist? It is not a coherent view that you are espousing, > saying it is appropriate on the one hand, and it is an hallucination > on the other hand. > It is part of the Natural Order of Consciousness that citta MUST THINK and have concepts as object of experience. I pointed this out from the very beginning of our discussions. Do you have a problem with this suggestion or will you keep asking as if you've not heard me and take the discussion another step back instead of moving forward? And it is not a hallucination to think in terms of concepts! === > > Suppose you had a mental patient who thought that there were imaginary > people in the room who were threatening him. Would it be > "compassionate" to make believe they were there with him, or to help > him understand they were illusions? > This one too, I've pointed out more than once, thinking in terms of concepts and taking concept for reality are two very different things. Do you understand this and want to answer, or will you continue ignoring it so as to be able to continue misrepresent things so as to be able to use that to argue? Don't you have anything else to base your argument upon? === > > You can't do both, can you? You are advocating behavior that goes > against your own understanding of the teachings. > Look, you've been here for longer than I have. Thousand of times have an explanation been given. I'm beginning to perceive myself as a mad man trying to convince another mad man. I'll let someone else interact with you. Best, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130947 From: han tun Date: Thu May 30, 2013 7:28 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (7) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] I. No Other Form (AN 1.1 to AN 1.10 Ruupaadi vagga) Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Saavatthii Jeta's Grove, Anaathapi.n.dika's Park. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus!" "Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: (1) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other form that so obsesses the mind of a man as the form of a woman. The form of a woman obsesses the mind of a man." (2) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other sound that so obsesses the mind of a man as the sound of a woman. The sound of a woman obsesses the mind of a man." (3) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other odor that so obsesses the mind of a man as the odor of a woman. The odor of a woman obsesses the mind of a man." (4) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other taste that so obsesses the mind of a man as the taste of a woman. The taste of a woman obsesses the mind of a man." (5) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other touch that so obsesses the mind of a man as the touch of a woman. The touch of a woman obsesses the mind of a man." -------------------- (6) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other form that so obsesses the mind of a woman as the form of a man. The form of a man obsesses the mind of a woman." (7) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other sound that so obsesses the mind of a woman as the sound of a man. The sound of a man obsesses the mind of a woman." (8) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other odor that so obsesses the mind of a woman as the odor of a man. The odor of a man obsesses the mind of a woman." (9) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other taste that so obsesses the mind of a woman as the taste of a man. The taste of a man obsesses the mind of a woman." (10) "Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other touch that so obsesses the mind of a woman as the touch of a man. The touch of a man obsesses the mind of a woman." with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130948 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 12:42 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard , All, I stumbled upon an interesting study related to our present discussion . Instead of directly responding to your last mail , I like to suggest to involve following extract, supposing it may enrich our conversation. Comments very wellcome. with Metta Dieter extract : http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/budfree.htm BUDDHISM AND THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL: PALI AND MAHAYANIST RESPONSES THE PALI SELF AS FUNCTIONALIST The Buddha's response to the Axial Age's discovery of the self was strik­ingly unique: he proposed the doctrine of no-self (anatman), which literally means no atman, the Hindu soul substance. This conceptual innovation was so provocative that it was bound to invite misinterpreta­tion, and unfounded charges of Buddhist "nihilism" continue even to this day. The Buddha an­ticipated Hume's view that the self is an ensemble of feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and awareness (the skandhas) that is the center of agency and moral responsibility.22 The Buddha's view, however, is different from Hume's, primarily because the Buddha appeared to support real causal efficacy among internally related phenomena. (We believe that Hume may have been misled by the current scientific model of externally related atoms.) While Hume decon­structed any theory of causality, the Buddha reconstructed causal relations with his theory of inter­dependent coorigination. The Buddha agrees with Hume about the absence of causal power but disagrees with him about the absence of causal relations. As the Pali philosopher Buddhaghosa said: "There is no real production; there is only interdependence."23 The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. (This of course assumes the truth of compatiblism.) This view of the self is also fully somatic, giving full value to the body and the emotions. At the same time it is embedded in a social and organic nexus of cosmic relations. Hindu philosopher Surendra Verma is unduly puzzled when he asks how it was possible for the Buddha to be filled with thoughts and emotions and "at the same time preaching. . . the nonexistence of the soul."26 Like many other commentators, Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way, in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other. What appears not only puzzling but impossible is for the Hindu atman, a Stoic soul, or a Kantian noumenal self--pure spiritual substances all--to have any relation at all with the finite world, let alone with the emotions and the body. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130949 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 1:07 am Subject: Fw: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention -Self moellerdieter Send Email Send Email sorry , I missed a small part of the extract (the Pali Self as Functionalist) - herewith added ----- Original Message ----- From: Dieter Moeller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention Hi Howard , All, I stumbled upon an interesting study related to our present discussion . Instead of directly responding to your last mail , I like to suggest to involve following extract, supposing it may enrich our conversation. Comments very wellcome. with Metta Dieter extract : http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/budfree.htm BUDDHISM AND THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL: PALI AND MAHAYANIST RESPONSES THE PALI SELF AS FUNCTIONALIST The Buddha's response to the Axial Age's discovery of the self was strik­ingly unique: he proposed the doctrine of no-self (anatman), which literally means no atman, the Hindu soul substance. This conceptual innovation was so provocative that it was bound to invite misinterpreta­tion, and unfounded charges of Buddhist "nihilism" continue even to this day. The Buddha an­ticipated Hume's view that the self is an ensemble of feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and awareness (the skandhas) that is the center of agency and moral responsibility.22 The Buddha's view, however, is different from Hume's, primarily because the Buddha appeared to support real causal efficacy among internally related phenomena. (We believe that Hume may have been misled by the current scientific model of externally related atoms.) While Hume decon­structed any theory of causality, the Buddha reconstructed causal relations with his theory of inter­dependent coorigination. The Buddha agrees with Hume about the absence of causal power but disagrees with him about the absence of causal relations. As the Pali philosopher Buddhaghosa said: "There is no real production; there is only interdependence."23 The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. (This of course assumes the truth of compatiblism.) This view of the self is also fully somatic, giving full value to the body and the emotions. At the same time it is embedded in a social and organic nexus of cosmic relations. Hindu philosopher Surendra Verma is unduly puzzled when he asks how it was possible for the Buddha to be filled with thoughts and emotions and "at the same time preaching. . . the nonexistence of the soul."26 Like many other commentators, Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way, in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other. What appears not only puzzling but impossible is for the Hindu atman, a Stoic soul, or a Kantian noumenal self--pure spiritual substances all--to have any relation at all with the finite world, let alone with the emotions and the body. In his very instructive comparison between Aristotle and the Buddha, Damien Keown proposes that the function of moral choice is found in prohairesis and cetana respectively. Both of these terms have been connected with the European will, but no simple identity can be assumed. (The etymology of cetana gives the root as cit, which means "to think," and its basic meaning is "visible" or "distinguished," as in that which appears in the mind.) Both of them are neither emotive nor cognitive; rather, they operate as a fusion of the two. Aristotle's description of prohairesis as either "intelligence motivated by desire or desire operating through thought"27 can also be applied to the Buddhist cetana, which, as Keown states, "would . . . embrace a continuum that runs from predisposition through choice to action."28 As one of our readers suggested, cetana combines thinking and desire, a project that the Japanese Buddhist Nishida attempts in An Inquiry Into the Good.29 Both Aristotle and the Buddha refuse to dichotomize the self and to compartmentalize a flow of experience that resists such divisions. That is why cetana is sometimes identified with karma itself (as we have seen, deliberate intentions are the only karmic actions) or with the skandha ofsanskara, a person's dispositions that carry karma from one life to another. Therefore, both Aristotelian and Buddhist philosophy operates very nicely without a concept of the will. Such a strategy does better justice to experience and does not generate unnecessary philosophical problems, a primary one being the freedom of an alleged independent, self-determining will. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130950 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 31, 2013 3:23 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard , All, > > I stumbled upon an interesting study related to our present discussion . > Instead of directly responding to your last mail , I like to suggest to involve following extract, supposing it may enrich our conversation. > Comments very wellcome. > > with Metta Dieter > > > extract : http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/budfree.htm > > BUDDHISM AND THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL: > > PALI AND MAHAYANIST RESPONSES =================================== Dieter, I'm reading this post of yours on the DSG website, but I've saved it for convenience on my computer (for subsequent study and discussion). With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130951 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 7:47 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, --------- <. . .> > T: I did not question about any evidence of religious rites and rituals in the Pali texts. > I certainly have no disagreement regarding phenomena (dhammas) arisen and ceased by causal condition. > But your expression "without being controlled in any way by anyone" is not clear to me. ----------- KH: I am glad we agree on religious rites and rituals. But can we forget the word religious, and just consider rites and rituals? In everyday society we engage in ritual activities. For example, when businesspeople want to enter into a business arrangement they don't just start talking business; they meet at an appropriate time and place, then they exchange greetings and pleasantries, and *then* they discuss business. So there are rituals involved. The rituals don't actually contribute to the business dealings, but they are carried out. Similarly you will find modern-day Buddhists engaging in rituals. They might go to a special meditation place, sit in a special way and prepare a special state of mind. And *then* they hope to experience right mindfulness. I am suggesting that those rituals did not exist in the original teaching of the Buddha. Furthermore, I am suggesting that belief in the efficacy of such rituals was an impediment or "fetter" that had to be overcome before Stream Entry. That means, for Stream Entry, there couldn't be any belief *at all* in the efficacy of rituals. There couldn't be even the slightest hint of belief. So my question is: how can that wrong belief be overcome? Do you agree it can only be overcome by right understanding? It can't be overcome by trying not to engage in rituals – that would be a ritual in itself. It can only be overcome by right understanding of the way things are in ultimate reality. ---------------- > T: A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. ---------------- KH: Now it's my turn to be not clear about what you are saying. What do you mean "a person a can be factor in phenomena?" What is a factor in phenomena? Do we agree that the only phenomena referred to in satipatthana are cittas, cetasikas and rupas? Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130952 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 8:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - > that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', daana), on moral conduct (siila) > and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity > of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. When the Blessed One > perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, > elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular > to the Buddhas (Buddhaana.m samukka.msikaa desanaa), that is: suffering, its > cause, its ceasing, and the path." This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130953 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 9:01 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > hi RobE, > > > > > The processes that take place, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, are real, but the sense that there is a self involved in this is false. Do you agree with this? > > > > c: sorta; seeing, etc. being instances of short-lived sentient beings/organisms - in the case of seeing, visible object, eye-sense/pasada, phassa... voila! & the seeing "process" over/dead-gone. > what is continuity? First of all, I didn't say anything about continuity, so not exactly sure why you bring this up at this time. The Buddha described the kandhas as shifting and changing "heaps" of phenomena. That's his way of describing it, not mine. As for continuity, there would be no samsara and no delusion and no suffering if there were not kamma and vipaka, accumulations and tendencies, which magically arise and re-arise and arise again with quite a bit of continuity in the content of their arisings. Sanna creates continuity through marking and then "remembering" "past" experiences, etc., etc., so there is plenty of continuity, which I guess you can choose to ignore if you prefer the magical moment of arising and falling away, but it's not me that is putting continuity in there to these processes, it is the Buddha and the Abhidhamma. And I didn't bring it up, must said the kandhas were 'actual' and the self was not, which we should be able to agree on without adding some other factor into the mix immediately. I love how folks who are such serious students can cling to that which they prefer of the Dhamma and ignore the rest. It's almost as amazing as samsara itself. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130954 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 9:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > Yes the Buddha *taught*, and he taught what no one else could. He > > taught > > > the development of Right View. The Right View which understands the > > > individual and general characteristic, and the causes and conditions of > > > all dhammas. He also knew what to teach whom and when. For example, he > > > pointed out not only the conditioned nature and general characteristic > > > of Metta, but also the value / benefit of developing it. And he did > > this > > > with Right View. > > > > > > Do you think it is wrong view the understanding that metta is kusala > > and > > > beneficial both to oneself as well as other people? > > > > No, I think it is wrong view to misunderstand why the Buddha spoke and > > taught conventionally - it is because there is a kusala action created > > by his conventional words, and the conventional actions and intentions > > which he spurs others to take also causes kusala to arise, and that > > this is part of the path, not apart from the path. > > > > Instead of simply repeating your position, can you answer my question? Uh...I did answer your question. The answer was "No." Then I went on to say what I did think was wrong view - part 2 of my answer. > And maybe you can also tell me how it is wrong view to believe that > kusala or akusala, right or wrong, are reference to citta and cetasikas > and not to conventional activities? I didn't exactly say that. I said it was wrong view to think that conventional life was neither implicated or included in the Path. That is something which I think is incorrect. Hope that is clear. > === > > > > Again, I am looking for a coherent explanation as to why the Buddha > > > > would talk about killing, bodies, people, drinking, playing dice, > > > > householders, men and women, giving alms, etc. when he is *teaching.* > > > > > > > > > > I would ask, why not? How else could he have talked about such things? > > > > Why did he talk about them at all? If all that matters is the > > understanding of paramatha dhammas, it is nonsensical to tell people > > not to play dice! So it is up to you to explain what "dice" or > > "alcohol" has to do with paramatha dhammas, because it is you who > > claim that only paramatha dhammas are the path, and that there is > > nothing to do or not do in conventional terms that matters. > > > > The Buddha came not to make a difference to how people expressed > themselves, but how they understood their experiences. So one can say anything in any language and people will understand what their experiences are? That doesn't make any sense. If he wanted them to understand their experience in terms of dhammas, he would talk about it in terms of dhammas. What did people understand by him talking about conventional activities? Can you answer that? > People refer to > the khandhas in their speech all day, with or without the Dhamma. We say > such things as, "I remember watching that film", "You have a short > temper", "The room is hot", "I enjoyed the cake" etc. These are > reference to matter, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental > formations, i.e. the Five Aggregates, using every day speech. In that case the Abhidhamma is unnecessary, and conventional objects and experiences contain the dhammas, so ordinary people must understand what dhammas are correctly without any special teaching. That is great! > Before the > Dhamma, these thoughts are motivated by ignorance (with the exception of > kusala thinking), with attachment, aversion, conceit and sometimes with > wrong view, but never with Right View. After hearing the Dhamma instead > of Wrong View, sometimes there is Right View. So the conventional speech > and reference continues exactly as before, i.e. we still say, "I > remember watching the film" or "The room is hot", the only difference is > that now there can be understanding with regard to the nature of > paramattha dhammas in between. Or we can mouth the correct language without understanding anything at all. Or we can directly understand dhammas without saying the right words. So really the description must be meaningless. In that case, how did the Buddha teach? Not through what he said? > === > > It is my view that the Buddha taught about conventional affairs > > because they *are* part of the path - just a different aspect of > > developing the path. That the work we do - helping people or killing > > chickens - makes a difference in the development of the path, along > > with the development of correct mental factors. > > > > What understanding with regard to the nature of the khandhas is your > view based upon? Why do you refer to mental factors when making a > statement about the Path, but when it comes to those so-called > conventional practices, you appear not to consider the citta and cetasikas? I don't especially understand the question. I think I've made my view clear. The kandhas are selfless and make up the experiences of everyday life, with more or less clarity. When there is less clarity we are mostly involved with thought forms. When there is more clarity we have a sense of the momentary experiences through which we encounter the qualities of things, but those qualities may pertain to ordinary objects and activities, or may be experienced through everyday experiences, because everyday experiences are not imaginary, just not fully accurate. > > > Just because in reality there are only paramattha dhammas all of which > > > can be identified, this does not mean that one replace everyday speech > > > with Abhidhamma language. For someone who understands the reality of > > > what is behind conventional descriptions, it would be unnecessary, in > > > fact odd, to talk in terms of citta and cetasikas, would it not? How > > > would you describe killing in Abhidhamma language? > > > > Well that's a good question for you: Is there such a thing as killing > > or not? How *is* it understood in paramatha terms, and if not, does it > > take place at all, or is it a delusion? > > > > > The original question is for you, who is saying that if the message is > the understanding of paramattha dhammas, then abhidhamma language should > be used. Don't evade the question by asking me another one. I think that is a good question as regards the possible relationship, or not, of important conventional experiences, such as death, to what are understood as the actual dhammas involved. > Killing is real. It is the strong intention around the concept of > another being which conditions bodily action and resulting in the death > of that other being. it takes place all the time every where. What does it mean for another being to die? Is there a being to die, or is this just an illusion? > === > > > Maybe no one is ever killed at all, since there is "no being," in > > which case it is not a problem and no need to talk about it. Why > > wouldn't the Buddha talk about "cuti citta" instead of fooling people > > into thinking they die? > > > > You mean the Buddha could refer to cuti citta without expecting that the > listener refer to a conventional idea with regard to his own or someone > else death in his mind? I don't care about what could be expected. I am asking about the actual reality involved. This idea that "people think in conventional terms all the time" doesn't answer any questions about what is real. > === > > > > I am not being frivolous. It's just that you can't have it both ways. > > If there is death, there is a being. If there is no being, there is no > > death, just a momentary arising of cuti citta. > > > > Your not being frivolous, you are just trying very hard to defend your > position with regard to "conventional practices" motivated by ignorance > and attachment. In your enlightened view you mean? Since only the Buddha really understands other people's mental states directly, I guess this is a little bit presumptuous. My ignorance and attachment is my business, thank you very much, and your is...well, that is more appropriate for you to focus on. The other alternative to my ignorance and attachment is that you could be wrong. I guess that wouldn't occur to you. > Cuti citta *is* death. What problem do you have with > this suggestion? My problem is with the definition. Is a being killed in cuti citta, or is the only thing that dies the idea of the being that is held by the cittas up to that point. What dies when cuti citta occurs? > === > > > I would tell people the truth then. If the Buddha talked about death > > and rebirth, he must have had a point. > > > > Rebirth is patisandhi citta. Where is the conflict? The conflict is with all the other things that take place along with this. Rebirth in auspicious circumstances, specific vipakas that take place because of specific kammas. Etc. > === > > > > > Stealing and killing for example are intentions rooted respectively, in > > > lobha and dosa of particular intensity. For concepts to be delusion, > > > this is due to wrong view and not because there is thinking in terms of > > > different concepts. Those who had the panna, before knowing the > > > characteristic of paramattha dhammas involved, knew to distinguish > > > concept from reality. They therefore had no problem using concepts > > > themselves, nor were they deluded when hearing the Buddha talked about > > > such things. Certainly they had no reason to question along the same > > > lines as you are doing here. > > > > Well, in my view that leads me to understand that we can understand > > the path in conventional terms as well as in terms of dhammas, and > > that it makes sense to talk and to understand in both ways. > > > > But is the object of panna a paramattha dhamma or conventional object? Lately I have been led to understand that panna can arise in relation to a concept as well. What do you think? > The Buddha's disciples having made the concept / reality distinction, > understood the former when hearing him talk in terms of conventional > reality, you on the other hand keep saying that concepts are objects of > understanding. I believe that Jon and others have said this recently as well. > > When we have kusala cetana arise by deciding to take a job where we > > don't kill beings, we are developing the path, even though the object > > is conventional. > > > > When a conventional reality is the object of experience, that moment it > is thinking with kusala or akusala, not the understanding of a reality, > therefore definitely *not* the Path. That is a view, but not necessarily complete and correct understanding. If you think that knowing a dhamma directly is the entire path, I can understand why you would not agree with this. > If you think that it is sila simply > to intend and consequently take up a particular job without taking into > consideration that sila is the actual moment of restraint, chances are > that you are motivated by strong attachment and wrong view in choosing > that job. That is used as an excuse not to follow the conventional teachings. Everything that is done has its consequences. > === > > > I am not convinced that psychophysical beings do not exist at all - I > > don't think that is specified in the teachings, is it? Instead we are > > told over and over again to develop understanding, and to follow the > > rules of kusala living - both. > > > > Why do you talk as if kusala is being denied when conventional practices > are rejected? You appear to do this deliberately in an attempt to > justify your own attachment to those practices! That's a foolish opinion on your part. You don't really need to mind-read my motives since you are most likely wrong and just making it up. I say it because that is what I think is the case, not because I am mired in some imagined attachments that you are making up. Argue on the merits and don't guess exactly how deluded I am as an excuse to dismiss what I say. > === > > > > > > > When a person in grief approaches the Buddha, would he not > > experience > > > > > compassion towards that person? > > > > Why? If in his wisdom he understands that being does not exist, who is > > having compassion for? No one? Do you have compassion for an actor on > > your tv screen? Maybe so, but that is an illusion that the Buddha > > would not indulge in. > > > > TV screen and the images are rupa. A person on the screen, unlike the > one outside of it, cannot react with attachment / aversion, pleasant / > unpleasant feelings or have intentions towards anything that I do. > Attachment, aversion, kindness, compassion, seeing, visible object, > thinking, feeling, intention etc. are realities! Thinking in terms of > the other person is conditioned, so is any aversion or compassion > following it. I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat such things to > you. Well, that is a matter of conditions, beyond control.... You are not getting the point, or addressing the point. You say "it's conditioned." So what? The question is why would someone, especially the Buddha, who is not subject to delusions, have metta or compassion for a tv image? A person who does not exist? I'm not asking why would a tv image have compassion. That is ridiculous. If beings do not exist, why would an arahant have compassion for such a non-existent concept? Can you answer this directly? > === > > > > > > > Is compassion not the appropriate > > > > > response during such times and should it not therefore be > > encouraged? > > > > Why? > > > > Because it is a reality which arises by conditions and performs a > particular function, and that which panna does not perform. Indeed if > panna arose, instead of compassion, there may be equanimity. But this > equanimity performs yet another function, different from panna and from > compassion. And would you also question this? Yes, compassion does what function? Why would it arise with panna, when beings are delusions? That doesn't make any sense if beings are real. To say it performs a function does not explain why it has this function or how it can possibly arise with panna if it is *delusory* by nature. > === > > > > > > > > > Similarly with metta, sila, dana and so on, are these not > > appropriate > > > > > responses given particular situations? > > > > Why? Why have any response at all to conventional situations, if they > > don't really exist? It is not a coherent view that you are espousing, > > saying it is appropriate on the one hand, and it is an hallucination > > on the other hand. > > > > It is part of the Natural Order of Consciousness that citta MUST THINK > and have concepts as object of experience. I pointed this out from the > very beginning of our discussions. Do you have a problem with this > suggestion or will you keep asking as if you've not heard me and take > the discussion another step back instead of moving forward? And it is > not a hallucination to think in terms of concepts! I will keep asking until you stop criticizing the question, understand it and answer it. Sorry you are suffering from impatience and lack of understanding of the nature of the question. You said those responses are appropriate. How are they appropriate in any way if beings are purely delusions? Why have compassion for a piece of cardboard? [That is a metaphor, not literal.] > === > > > > Suppose you had a mental patient who thought that there were imaginary > > people in the room who were threatening him. Would it be > > "compassionate" to make believe they were there with him, or to help > > him understand they were illusions? > > > > This one too, I've pointed out more than once, thinking in terms of > concepts and taking concept for reality are two very different things. > Do you understand this and want to answer, or will you continue ignoring > it so as to be able to continue misrepresent things so as to be able to > use that to argue? Don't you have anything else to base your argument upon? No, it's a very important point. We are talking about someone who is *deluded* who is being taught by *the Buddha.* Why would the Buddha teach that person that they should have compassion for *an imaginary being.* I am not accusing *the Buddha* of not understanding. I am asking why he would not teach that beings were illusory if they are indeed totally unreal? Just because you don't understand a question doesn't mean it is what you think it is. > === > > > > You can't do both, can you? You are advocating behavior that goes > > against your own understanding of the teachings. > > > > Look, you've been here for longer than I have. Thousand of times have an > explanation been given. Give a better one and answer the question. > I'm beginning to perceive myself as a mad man > trying to convince another mad man. > that may be the beginning of wisdom. :-) I'll let someone else interact with you. That's fine with me. Before getting so frustrated though, you might try reading the actual questions and understand their intention before you throw a fit. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130955 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 9:38 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. > > I know you disagree with that, and it sometimes makes you angry (maybe even a trifle obnoxious). :-) But there it is. Well it doesn't have to make you obnoxious, because that would be redundant! :-) More of substance later. Have a nice day! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130956 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 10:59 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way nichiconn Send Email Send Email Interesting, Rob. thanks, i think. what's second? the continuity question was an after thought. connie > First of all, I didn't say anything about continuity, so not exactly sure why you bring this up at this time. Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130957 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 12:37 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, -------- > KH: … In everyday society … ritual activities… Similarly you will find modern-day Buddhists engaging in rituals. … I am suggesting that those rituals did not exist in the original teaching of the Buddha. … Stream Entry. … couldn't be any belief *at all*. … So my question is: how can that wrong belief be overcome? Do you agree it can only be overcome by right understanding? It can't be overcome by trying not to engage in rituals – that would be a ritual in itself.It can only be overcome by right understanding of the way things are in ultimate reality. T: I think you really need to overcome your wrong belief in "ultimate reality" by right understanding, seeing yourself as you really are. --------- KH: > T: A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. > KH: Now it's my turn to be not clear about what you are saying. What do you mean "a person a can be factor in phenomena?" What is a factor in phenomena? Do we agree that the only phenomena referred to in satipatthana are cittas, cetasikas and rupas? T: Your questions on "phenomena" are not clear to me. -------- Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130958 From: Sukinder Date: Fri May 31, 2013 1:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, I'll respond to one thing at a time. Maybe I'll not get so frustrated and angry then. And maybe if you see my point (or I do yours) and agree, the other responses would also become more clear. > > > > It is part of the Natural Order of Consciousness that citta MUST THINK > > and have concepts as object of experience. I pointed this out from the > > very beginning of our discussions. Do you have a problem with this > > suggestion or will you keep asking as if you've not heard me and take > > the discussion another step back instead of moving forward? And it is > > not a hallucination to think in terms of concepts! > > I will keep asking until you stop criticizing the question, understand > it and answer it. Sorry you are suffering from impatience and lack of > understanding of the nature of the question. > > You said those responses are appropriate. How are they appropriate in > any way if beings are purely delusions? Why have compassion for a > piece of cardboard? [That is a metaphor, not literal.] > What is the nature of your question "why"? In responding to the question as in, "why think in terms of other beings when understanding paramattha dhammas is the Path", what I said above and previously, is that thinking is part and parcel of who we are. This means that insight into the nature of paramattha dhammas can't happen all the time. Given that thinking must happen, thinking in terms of other beings is inevitable. And given that in thinking in terms of other beings happens either with kusala or akusala, kusala is preferable. Therefore when it is the perception of the other living being experiencing suffering, compassion is appropriate since this is aimed at alleviating that suffering. If your "why" revolves around the idea that "other being" is concept therefore unreal, why then consider it appropriate? This is answered by the above response in part, and in part, by the suggestion that there is nothing wrong in thinking in terms of concept of beings, but that only wrong view is a problem. In other words, although concepts are not real, thinking in terms of it is not wrong. Therefore the question "why" should be between Right View vs. Wrong View and not Right View vs. thinking in terms of concepts. If your question "why" is based on the idea that compassion is justified only if "other beings" are real, then I must ask you to justify this. As I suggested, it is the way things are that citta must think and thinking is based on memory. Compassion is a reality and its object can only be the concept of another being (suffering), this is thinking based on memory. There is no requirement for the object to be real. Indeed you can have compassion towards the concept of a suffering person who has just died but you are not aware of this. I'll add here that concepts are based on reality, in other words, without reality, there are no concepts. So there are the realities experienced through the five senses and the mind that give rise to the concept of another being. That we are able to distinguish a dead person from a living one is because of the difference in some of these experiences. Have I missed your point entirely? If so please explain. Sorry to have expressed frustration in my last message. Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130959 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > --------- > <. . .> > > RE: There is also a third use of the word "self," meaning one's everyday personal identity. That does not imply a lasting, permanent soul or self. > --------- > > KH: It doesn't *necessarily* imply it. But I wonder how many people, if you asked them, would say there was nothing about their everyday identity that continued on from one moment to the next. We do have a little bit of a different understanding about the kandhas. Of course we only experience one moment at a time, and we only experience anything through the six senses, 5 + citta. One of the Buddha's great teachings that is obvious but ignored most of the time is that we are sentient beings and only exist through those six senses, from moment to moment. The object of controversy is whether there is a little "dhamma" bullet that is catapulted into independent existence by conditions that it leaves behind so it can create it's own little beautiful arc, all by itself, then die away like a fireworks, then followed by the next launch. That is not how conditionality works. It doesn't stop and start and take breaks so that the dhamma can arise all by itself. I have pointed out to you that even in the Abhidhamma there are three phases of change that each dhamma goes through and the conditionality continues at all points in its existence. Moments of experience may fall away completely, but they are followed each time by newly conditioned cittas that carry all the experience of the citta before it, so there is a process and there is continuity, passed on from one dhamma to the next. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge this and insist that each dhamma is totally isolated, which it is not. > ------------------- > > RE: Maybe that meaning of self should not be called "atta," if you are right that "atta" only stands for the permanent spiritual soul or self, Self with a capitol S. > ------------------- > > KH: I am always right :-) Well, that's true. > If there is an idea of something about ourselves that continued on from moment to moment, that would be an atta-idea. I think it is called atta-sanna. The idea of self *does* continue from one citta to the next; otherwise the next citta to arise would be enlightened. > And if there is an actual belief in that idea then it would be called atta-ditthi. The idea that the self-concept is a real entity is atta-dithi, belief in a self. Believing that the self-concept arises with each citta is just common sense and has nothing to do with a self being real. The self is seen as just a concept, not a reality, though a sticky one. > -------------------------------- > > RE: The ordinary everyday use of self to mean, Ken, Rob, Alex is used by atheists who do not believe in any kind of soul or afterlife, or any kind of inner self, and is used to stand for the body and personality of the person. Atheists believe the person is made up of biological processes, purely physical, with no soul or inner self of any kind. > -------------------------------- > > KH: Yes, I think atheists do believe the self is made of those things. Their sort of belief is a bit different from the theist's atta-ditthi but, even so, it is atta-ditthi. Many of them don't believe in a self at all, just biological and chemical processes. It's not a correct view, but it's also not a belief in self. > ----------------------------------------- > > RE: In any case, this everyday use of self is the *most common* use of self by people both religious and non-religious. It does not fall into the extremes of eternal soul or annihilation of soul. > ----------------------------------------- > > KH: I agree, it doesn't. For as long as the everyday self is not thought to be an ultimate reality (as distinct from a concept) there is no problem with it. > > ------------- > > RE: So in your opinion, what is the Buddha's stand on the everyday ordinary self? > ------------- > > KH: Sorry to be pedantic, but he didn't have a stand on the everyday ordinary self. All he taught was that, in ultimate reality, there was no self: there were only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. He taught that "that which we take for self," the various processes of experiencing and action, is actually composed of the kandhas, and is impersonal and free of self. He didn't have 'no stand' on the everyday self at all. He said all the ordinary processes we are familiar with which we take for self are not-self. > ----------------------- > < RE: I will tell you what I think the Buddha thought about the everyday ordinary self. He said that there is no entity or being within the "human being," but only kandhas, impersonal processes that shift and change and cause the illusion of selfhood because we assume someone is willing or controlling some of the things we do, such as deciding to get up and take a walk, or drink some milk. But in truth there is no "self," no being or entity in those actions. They just happen due to conditions. They are just made up of impersonal "heaps," processes or actions. The processes that take place, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, are real, but the sense that there is a self involved in this is false. Do you agree with this? > ------------------- > > KH: I know from experience that our understandings are very different. At first inspection I would pretty much agree with what you have said – maybe change a word here or there - but beneath the surface we have a fundamental disagreement. > > As far as I am concerned the Buddha taught a reality in which there were only the presently arisen dhammas. Everything that ultimately exists is in those dhammas. Everything that *potentially* exists (in the future) will similarly arise, function and cease *entirely* in one, single, moment. > > I know you disagree with that, and it sometimes makes you angry (maybe even a trifle obnoxious). :-) But there it is. The fact you acknowledge present and future dhammas shows that there are more than one, just not at the same time. It's a hair-splitting distinction, but keeps you from seeing the obvious importance of ongoing arising conditions, influences of one dhamma to the next and the role of accumulations and tendencies which are passed on from one dhamma to the next. Without them there would not only be no samsara, but no enlightenment either, which are dependent on bhavana - development. That was not nice to say I was obnoxious. You hurt my feelings. :-( Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130960 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 2:17 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > Interesting, Rob. > thanks, i think. > what's second? > the continuity question was an after thought. Well, apparently it triggered a latent tendency in me! > > First of all, I didn't say anything about continuity, so not exactly sure why you bring this up at this time. As for "what's second," that's a really good question. I have no idea! [First time I've been lacking for something to say, so congratulations.] Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130961 From: han tun Date: Fri May 31, 2013 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert,  Robert: This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context?  Han: If I may repeat the six kathaas, 1. Daana-kathaa (generosity), 2. Siila-kathaa (virtue), 3. Sagga-kathaa (heaven), 4. Aadinava-kathaa (drawbacks), 5. Nekkhamma-kathaa (renunciation), 6. Ariya Sacca-kathaa (Four Noble Truths)  Han: The gist of these steps is explained in the following text,  [The gradual training begins with the practice of (1) Generosity, which helps begin the long process of weakening the unawakened practitioner's habitual tendencies to cling -- to views, to sensuality, and to unskillful modes of thought and behavior. This is followed by the development of (2) Virtue, the basic level of sense-restraint that helps the practitioner develop a healthy and trustworthy sense of self. The peace of mind born from this level of self-respect provides the foundation for all further progress along the path. The practitioner now understands that some kinds of happiness are deeper and more dependable than anything that sense-gratification can ever provide; the happiness born of generosity and virtue can even lead to (3) Rebirth in heaven -- either literal or metaphorical. But eventually the practitioner begins to recognize the intrinsic (4) Drawbacks of even this kind of happiness: as good as rebirth in wholesome states may be, the happiness it brings is not a true and lasting one, for it relies on conditions over which he or she ultimately has no control. This marks a crucial turning point in the training, when the practitioner begins to grasp that true happiness will never be found in the realm of the physical and sensual world. The only possible route to an unconditioned happiness lies in (5) Renunciation, in turning away from the sensual realm, by trading the familiar, lower forms of happiness for something far more rewarding and noble. Now, at last, the practitioner is ripe to receive the teachings on the (6) Four Noble Truths, which spell out the course of mental training required to realize the highest happiness: Nibbaana.] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/index.html  Han: If I may explain this in a very un-scholarly language, steps (3) and (4) are like Carrot and Stick Approach. If you do daana and siila you may be reborn in the realms of devas. This is the incentive or the Carrot approach, the Sagga-kathaa. However, the happiness in the realms of devas is not a true happiness. It has all the drawbacks and explains all these drawbacks. This is the Stick approach. When the listener becomes afraid of these drawbacks, not to worry: -- there is an escape. This is the Renunciation or the Nekkhamma-kathaa.  with metta and respect, Han   From: Robert E epsteinrob@... When the Blessed One > perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, > elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular > to the Buddhas (Buddhaana.m samukka.msikaa desanaa), that is: suffering, its > cause, its ceasing, and the path." This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - -  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130962 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Hi Sukin. Thanks for re-engaging with this issue. I'll see if I can make any sense out of my own view. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: Rob E.: > > You said those responses are appropriate. How are they appropriate in > > any way if beings are purely delusions? Why have compassion for a > > piece of cardboard? [That is a metaphor, not literal.] > What is the nature of your question "why"? My view, I hope, is relatively simple: 1. Say you are on the path of knowledge. In order to reach enlightenment, you have to, above all, distinguish between what is real and unreal. 2. If you are busy seeing illusions as real, you cannot have correct understanding. Delusion is the opposite of panna. 3. If you are the teacher of those who seek wisdom, and you tell them they should have compassion for imaginary beings, you are teaching them a deluded view. You are teaching them that such beings are real. Therefore, you would be taking them off the path of knowledge and leading them away from enlightenment. 4. The Buddha would never do that. 5. If the Buddha taught metta, then metta must lead towards enlightenment, not away from it. Same for sila and dana. So, if we agree that metta, sila and dana, in and of themselves, do not directly give understanding of realities, then what are they for? Why did the Buddha teach them? 6. It is my contention that these kusala factors are supporting conditions for development of enlightenment, and that is why the Buddha taught them. 7. I think the Buddha taught that the existence of human beings was conditional, not imaginary; temporary, not nonexistent, and that is why it is okay to teach compassion and metta towards such beings. While there is no "self" within the individual, there is a suffering mind and body, and those experiences are real. One can have compassion for the provisional being who has those experiences of suffering. Anyway, that's an idea of what I think. I think the view that conventional reality is totally false is an extreme view. I think the view that conventional reality is exactly as it seems and is a true reality is also an extreme view. The view I think is in the middle is that conditional reality is temporary, unstable, shifting processes [kandhas] and thus is anicca, anatta and dukkha. I think that those conventional realities really reflect the arising of dhammas or shifting of kandhas and thus partake of the three marks in that way. 8. My view of the Dhamma is that the conventional teachings and the ultimate teachings live side by side and reflect each other - different levels of the same thing. I realize this view puts me at odds with many folks here. I hope this covers the questions you asked to some extent. > I'll add here that concepts are based on reality, in other words, > without reality, there are no concepts. So there are the realities > experienced through the five senses and the mind that give rise to the > concept of another being. I think the above statement gives a glimmer of what I am also talking about when I say that conventional truths and situations are based on, or reflect, the reality of underlying dhammas. > Sorry to have expressed frustration in my last message. That is very kind of you, Sukin. I can also obviously get overheated at times, so I appreciate your coming back to talk! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130963 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 2:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Thank you, Han. This very cogent explanation really clarifies this gradual path for me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, >  > Robert: This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? >  > Han: If I may repeat the six kathaas, > 1. Daana-kathaa (generosity), > 2. Siila-kathaa (virtue), > 3. Sagga-kathaa (heaven), > 4. Aadinava-kathaa (drawbacks), > 5. Nekkhamma-kathaa (renunciation), > 6. Ariya Sacca-kathaa (Four Noble Truths) >  > Han: The gist of these steps is explained in the following text... Can you tell me please where the text is from? It's a very good explanation. I guess there are different types of teachings for different temperaments? I am wondering how this gradual path fits in with those who would study Dhamma and take the path of pariyatti, or those who would sit to develop Jhana and that path, etc. It seems almost like a whole different sequence than the ones I am familiar with. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130964 From: han tun Date: Fri May 31, 2013 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert,  It is from , under subject index, under Gradual instruction.  Gradual instruction (anupubbi-katha). Mentioned in: Ud 5.3 The Path to Freedom pages See each of its constituent topics: Dana (generosity), Sila (virtue), Sagga (heaven), Adinava (drawbacks), Nekkhamma (renunciation), Four Noble Truths. See the chapter "Dhamma" in Refuge: An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha (Thanissaro)  Han: I then click on The Path to Freedom pages http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/index.html Dhamma dhamma © 2005–2013 A Gradual Training [Author unknown]  with metta and respect, Han From: Robert E epsteinrob@...  Thank you, Han. This very cogent explanation really clarifies this gradual path for me. Can you tell me please where the text is from? It's a very good explanation. I guess there are different types of teachings for different temperaments? I am wondering how this gradual path fits in with those who would study Dhamma and take the path of pariyatti, or those who would sit to develop Jhana and that path, etc. It seems almost like a whole different sequence than the ones I am familiar with. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130965 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 3:39 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 24. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): We tend to hold on to thoughts about the past, but then we should remember that what we find so important today will be yesterday tomorrow. It is completely gone. We have no idea who we were in the past life. All realities we take for a person arise and fall away never to come back. I had a conversation with Acharn about this subject: Acharn: "It is not I, only the way elements are, different all the time. No one can manage them or have them at will." Nina: "I can accept this, but it is difficult for me." Acharn: "That is because of clinging to the self. This will decrease only when there is understanding of a reality as a reality. Otherwise we are always living in a dream. Reality does not appear as it is. Today will be yesterday tomorrow, completely gone, of no importance. No matter what it is. It experiences something and then it falls away." Nina: "The second day I was In Thailand I heard that Ivan had died and we all went to the temple. I never thought that this would happen." Acharn: "Today will be yesterday tomorrow and then you do not think much about it. Just let it go. You see visible object and then it is gone, like yesterday. Remembering this helps to understand anattaa. There are no conditions to choose, realities have arisen already. Understanding this is the best in life, otherwise there is only akusala." Nina: "It was a very long, tiring day to come here, to Wang Nam Khiao." Acharn: "One can be very patient because of understanding. Everything is just temporary, it is conditioned. Why worry about it. Right understanding saves one from akusala." (To be continued) Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130966 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 31, 2013 4:31 pm Subject: TA on dream sprlrt Send Email Send Email (10th, am-D, 1m) TA: Life keeps on going, like yesterday's dream is not today's dream at all, and a dream is a dream; and what is the awakening moment which is not dream; without understanding what happens in a day, it passes, it never exists anymore, as soon as it has arisen it falls away instantly, like now, each moment is a dream, not only the whole day, is yesterday dream, because it's gone completely, and today's dream has not ended yet, it's going to end, but it's only a dream, each moment is like a dream; so, when is not the moment of a dream? Or just always in a dream, from life to life; only a moment of being aware of a reality, and it knows that that moment is not a dream because it's not thinking about whatever appears, but it's only the moment of discerning the true nature of it as just a reality, it is the way to become awakened, from dream. Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130967 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 5:12 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, -------- <. . .> T: I think you really need to overcome your wrong belief in "ultimate reality" by right understanding, seeing yourself as you really are. --------- KH: OK, but please explain what you mean. How should I see myself as I really am? ------------- >>> T: A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. >> KH: Now it's my turn to be not clear about what you are saying. What do you mean "a person a can be factor in phenomena?" What is a factor in phenomena? Do we agree that the only phenomena referred to in satipatthana are cittas, cetasikas and rupas? > T: Your questions on "phenomena" are not clear to me. -------- KH: I don't know how to make them any clearer. Perhaps we should skip those questions and just settle the matter of "how I really am." Ken H Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130968 From: han tun Date: Fri May 31, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (8) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] Han: So far, I have presented some of the suttas where Lord Buddha speaks of the persons who are found existing in the world (puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m). I will now present some of the suttas about Lord Buddha. I have absolute faith in Lord Buddha and His immeasurable Sabba~n~n uta ~Naa.na. In my heart Lord Buddha is still living as the Blessed One, the Arahant (the Exalted One), the Fully Enlightened One, and the Omniscient One. By presenting the suttas about Lord Buddha, I pay my highest homage to Him. Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One -------------------- 8. One Person [Excerpts from AN 1.13 Ekapuggala vagga] Monks, there is one person whose arising in the world is for the welfare of the multitude, for the happiness of the multitude, who comes out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare and happiness of devas and humans. Who is that one person? It is the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. This is that one person. Monks, there is one person arising in the world who is unique, without a peer, without counterpart, incomparable, unequalled, matchless, unrivalled, the best of humans. Who is that one person? It is the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. This is that one person. Monks, the manifestation of one person is the manifestation of great vision, of great light, of great radiance; it is the manifestation of the six things unsurpassed; the realisation of the four analytical knowledges; the penetration of the various elements, of the diversity of elements; it is the realisation of the fruit of knowledge and liberation; the realisation of the fruits of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arahatship. Who is that one person? It is the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. This is that one person. With metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130969 From: han tun Date: Fri May 31, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Robert, >.>. Han: You are pointing out an angle which I have not seen before. I was saying the two Truths (Conventional and Ultimate) as the two sides of the same coin. But what you have written points out that it is not that simple -- it is not a clear-cut two sides, but the inter-relationship between the two sides which you said [Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together.] And you also said: [I think the difficult middle ground of what kind of existence actually creates the appearance of coherent persons in the world is the correct ground to stay on, and to interrogate to see how dhammas relate to such an existence.] Yes, that is the point we have to investigate and understand. Right at the moment I cannot think how that can be understood. I will think some more and read some more. Thank you very much for opening the new areas to explore. >. Robert: Thanks for the good conversation! I will look forward to seeing what happens with this inquiry. Han: As a follow-up to our conversation, I have written the following letter to my most Respected Venerable. -------------------- Venerable Bhante, In our Discussion Group, we are discussing the meaning of a "being." [A] In SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, it says: 553 "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Maara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations [suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m]: Here no being is found. 555 "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." So there is no being. ---------- [B] Whereas, in many suttas in A"nguttara Nikaaya it starts with the sentence, for example, AN 4.5 Anusota Sutta: The Stream, These four kinds of persons, O monks, are to be found in the world. What four? 5. Anusotasutta.m 5. Cattaarome , bhikkhave, puggalaa santo sa.mvijjamaanaa lokasmi.m. Katame cattaaro? So there is a being. ---------- Now, how to reconcile between the two Truths? I said it is like two sides of the same coin. But a friend pointed out that it is not that simple. There must be an inter-relationship between the two sides. They cannot be a clear-cut two sides. He said [Somewhere in there is the middle ground in which ultimate existence and conventional existence are both understood together.] I cannot think anything more at this point. Sir, I will be most grateful if you could kindly advise me on this issue. -------------------- Han: I received the following reply. ====================== [[I don't particularly like the distinction between "the two truths," which is a commentarial innovation not found in the Nikayas themselves. I see the distinction to be between satta understood as "a self" (the position repudiated by Sister Vajira in the verse from SN 5.10) and satta as a term of conventional usage, which is commonly found in the suttas. In the Vajira Sutta, Mara is taking satta as a self, but Vajira rejects this by pointing out that what is referred to as a satta is just a collection of sankhaaras. The Buddha and the arahants (as well as knowledgeable disciples) can use such terms as satta, puggala, purisa, etc., without clinging to them, without mistaking them as a self. They even use the term attaa, attabhaava, and atta-patilaabha, as well as "aham" and "mama"--"I" and "mine"--without misapprehending them. See Potthapada Sutta, Digha Nikaya no. 9, section 440 in the Chattha Sangayana edition: Imaa kho citta, lokasama~n~naa lokaniruttiyo lokavohaaraa lokapa~n~nattiyo, yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasan"ti. "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them."]] ===================== Han: This is for your information. Please note that "Citta" in the above text is not "consciousness." Citta was the name of the son of the elephant-trainer in DN 9. I am very happy with the reply. It points out the weakness in my stance on this issue so that I can think it all over again. with metta and respect, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (19) #130970 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > S: As discussed and clarified in the Teachings, it makes no sense to say to avoid the use of conventional language. No suggestion at all that this is appropriate. ... >R: There is a conclusion drawn from "only dhammas" that ordinary activities and intentions are somehow wrong and do not reflect realities. ..... S: I think it's the other way round. There are only realities and what we refer to as "ordinary activities and intentions" reflect those realities. They are stories about those realities. ... >Thus meditation and other forms are dismissed. .... S: The question always comes back to "what is meditation?" What is the reality now? .... >I think that the intention even to do ordinary things reflects some sort of cetana and that the activities can be the expression of that cetana, even if it is not thought of in terms of dhammas at the time. .... S: Like an intention to go shopping? Usually, no idea about dhammas, just thinking about various ideas - like a dream, with no understanding at all. Usually at such a time, there's just lots of ignorance and attachment, but understanding can begin to know any dhammas that appear if there has been sufficient wise attention and consideration. Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130971 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: The term "supporting condition" is very broad and includes conditions that are much less direct that the term "stepping stone" would imply. I don't think metta could be described as a stepping stone to awareness/insight (sorry!:-)). > > RE: Well the supportive conditions that are created by metta and other forms of kusala do seem to at least create the potential for greater understanding. I think there are other ways in which these form supports for the path, but I can't claim that I have the specifics to any extent. My view of those things is different than the idea that only understanding leads to more understanding. > =============== J: Regarding, "the idea that only understanding leads to more understanding", the arising of understanding requires a number of conditions, not just (already accumulated) understanding. But, yes, previously developed understanding will be a significant factor in how readily understanding will arise in the present lifetime. As I see it, understanding is no different from the other wholesome (or, for that matter, the unwholesome) tendencies. All such tendencies are accumulated with each arising and, having been accumulated, lie latent except when conditioned to manifest. They remain accumulated until, in the case of the unwholesome ones, they are eradicated progressively at the 4 stages of enlightenment or until, in the case of the wholesome ones, parinibbaana is attained. I don't know whether this notion of accumulated tendencies is one that you accept, but I see it as being fundamental to the teachings as a whole. > =============== > RE: I understand the teachings to say that development of positive states, suppression of defilements, practice at concentration and mindfulness will join together to form a strong support for direct understanding. > > I know, very conventional. But it is exactly what is said in the body of the suttas. > =============== J: If you'll pardon the observation, Rob, you are strong on generalisations about what the suttas say, but noticeably short on actual sutta quotes to support those generalisations :-)). This makes meaningful discussion rather difficult. You've listed some things that you say are mentioned in the suttas as things that "join together to form a strong support for direct understanding". These include: - development of positive states, - suppression of defilements, - practice at concentration - practice at mindfulness It seems to me that at a moment of awareness/mindfulness, all 4 of these factors would be present. Would you agree with this? The problem is knowing exactly what is meant in the suttas by awareness/mindfulness. This I think would be a fruitful area for discussion. This is one of those things of which there needs to be a good intellectual understanding if there is to be any development, not least because of the danger of taking for awareness/mindfulness something that is not. My suggestion would be, less talk about how to `practice' and more discussion about dhammas and their characteristics. > =============== > RE: The "exceptional teaching" of the Buddha was not something off in a completely different dimension, but a clear roadmap of how to get from this dimension to that one, using the tools at hand. > =============== J: If you'll excuse another observation, characterisations such as the one above tend to detract from the importance of understanding in depth what is being said in the suttas, in favour of taking up a practice. In my view, there can be no benefit from a `practice' if there's no clear intellectual understanding of the nature of conditioned dhammas and, in particular, of the awareness or understanding that is being spoken of by the Buddha. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130972 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 11:02 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: There was no misunderstanding at all that there is anything at all apart from conditioned sankhara dhammas (and unconditioned nibbana). All wrong views had been eradicated. > > > > No conflict at all in seeing and addressing the Tathagata as Lord or Teacher! .... >R: Please explain to me why there is no conflict in addressing the Tathagata as Teacher, and even moreso, having feelings of regret or caring about him as a person, source of teachings etc., with the understanding that there is nothing there but the arising of impersonal dhammas. .... S: When there is an understanding that there is "nothing there but the arising of impersonal dhammas", it is clear that no matter the circumstances, no matter the way of speech, no matter the feelings, the attachments, whatever is one's daily life, there are just the arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas. Even if there is thinking and doubt about this, these too can be known as conditioned dhammas - no self at all. ... >Where is the detachment there, and if there is detachment, how does that also include or allow for the personal relationships between beings which is obviously part of Ananda's sentiment? Perhaps you can clarify this for me a little bit? ... S: Good qus. There cannot be detachment all the time (except in the case of an arahat - and even then, alobha (non-attachment) doesn't arise at moments of seeing or hearing, for example. In the case of a sotapanna like Ananda at the time, (let alone worldlings), there is bound to be lots of attachment throughout the day. Detachment only arises with moments of kusala. At moments of attachment, there is no detachment, there is no right understanding. For worldlings, wrong view of self (atta) can also arise with attachment when there is the idea of a a person or a thing as really existing in some way. However, in the case of a sotapanna, like Ananda, such a wrong view has been eradicated - it will never arise again, so it is just ordinary attachment, clinging that arises, without any wrong view at all. The sotapanna is no longer confused about the round of rebirths or about the goal, nibbana, which has been experienced. We read in the Vism (as quoted before by Larry & NIna) about when there is confusion and the idea of a lasting being: N:> Vis. Ch XVII, 115 and Tiika: Text vis.: 115. When he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: The endless chain of aggregates, Of elements, of bases too, That carries on unbrokenly Is what is called 'the round of births', he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world. --------- >N: The Tiika states with regards to the expression: a lasting being (aya.m satto), that this means that he believes: this is myself, I am the owner, I am existing, I am the doer, and I am a person who feels. This also means that a (lasting) being dies and is reborn. The Tiika explains that the expression and so on (aadi) that is added in the text, summarizes his belief that he is created by a lord creator or by Brahma. ...***** Metta Sarah ===== Mail kenhowardau · kenhowardau@yahoo.com.au | Group Member - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups | Find a Yahoo! Group dhammastudygroup · Dhamma Study Group (DSG) My Groups Home Messages Post Files Photos Links Calendar The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog Check it out! Info Settings Group Information Members: 807 Category: Buddhism Founded: Dec 28, 1999 Language: English Yahoo! Groups Tips Did you know... Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin. Messages Message # Search: Advanced Messages Help Messages Topics Hot Topics Messages 130973 - 131003 of 132054 Oldest | < Older | Newer > | Newest Start Topic Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^ #130973 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 11:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > liberality ('giving', daana), > on moral conduct (siila) > > and on the heaven (sagga); > he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity > > of sensual pleasures, > and the advantage of renunciation. <...> > This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? .... S: You might like to read what I wrote and quote before on this subject, especially this part on sagga (heaven) and then "severing the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated" in the same context: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92417 ... >S: In the Udaana commentary, Sona chapter, #3 "Leper", about Suppabuddha, there are a lot of details on the progressive talk (aanupubbikatha.m) <....> >S: I was interested to know why the section on 'heaven' was included after the sections on almsgiving (daanakatha.m) and morality (siilakatha.m)and this is what the text states: "...Moreover, he talked talk on heaven immediately preceded by that on morality in order to indicate that it is dependent upon such morality that that heaven is obtained. 'Talk on heaven (saggakatha.m)': talk associated with the virtues of heaven such as 'Heaven is a name for that which is desirable, for that which is pleasing, for that which is charming. Permanently here (there is) sporting, permanent the excellences obtained: the devas belonging to the realm of the Four Great Kings acquire heavenly happiness, heavenly excellence, for ninety hundred thousand years, those of the Thirty-three for three ko.tis of years plus sixty hundred thousand years (besides)' and so on, for the mouth fails to suffice when Buddhas talk on heavenly excellence. "And this also is said: 'In countless ways, monks, could I talk talk on heaven' and so forth. Having thus enticed him with talk on heaven together with its root-cause, he next, as though severing the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated, talked of the peril, the degradation, the corruption of sense-desires after the manner of 'Of little sweet taste are sense-desires, of much dukkha, of much despair' more so is the peril herein' (M i 130) and so on with the aim of showing even such heaven to be impermanent, unstable, (and) that yearning and lust ought not to be exercised in that direction. Herein: " 'The peril (aadiinava.m)': the blemish. 'The degradation (okaara.m)': that which is in its own nature despicable, meaning that which is, in its own nature, base is a thing to be pursued by those other than the best (of folk), not a thing to be pursued by the best (of folk). 'The corruption (sa"nkilesam)': the defiling within sa.msaara of beings by way of these, for which same reason 'Truly, sir, do beings become defiled' was said." S: Having talked about the danger of sense-desires, "severing the trunk of the elephant he had just decorated", the talk continues with the advantages of renunciation and when the listener was receptive, in this case Suppabuddha the leper, the teaching on the Four Noble Truths - 'Dukkha, uprising, cessation (and the) path'. <....> ****** Metta Sarah ==== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130974 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 11:21 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Thomas, You wrote to Ken H: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > But your expression "without being controlled in any way by anyone" is not clear to me. A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. .... S: Didn't the Buddha teach there are only khandhas, only dhatus (elements) which are conditioned to arise and fall away (apart from nibbana, of course)? When you read the Anattalakkhana Sutta, isn't it very clear that such khandhas, such dhammas (realities) cannot be controlled in any way by anyone? I remembered that you live in NSW, Australia. Do you ever visit Sydney? If so, you're most welcome to visit us in Manly. We don't have a car, so tend not to travel far. Metta Sarah (now in Bangkok). ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130975 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Howard (and Han Tun) 130857 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Han (and all) - > > An interesting sutta: No purposeful action involved, though, right folks? The language used (all the should-do's) must mean something entirely different from what such language means in every other context, hmmm? Surprising, isn't it, that the Buddha didn't formulate this differently so that people would properly understand? > My tongue was placed well in cheek above, but I think you may get my point, all. > =============== J: I can see only one "should-do" of relevance stated by the Buddha in the sutta. For each of the first 3 types of person (the 4th type has no immediate relevance to us), it is said that the person "should approach" another person and inquire of him certain things about the development of insight or concentration (or both). If you wish to take that as a conventional action to be undertaken, you will need to add the rider, 'if and when, that is, the appropriate occasion occurs'. And that's rather a big `if'. Because the opportunity for such an action to be undertaken will require both certain kusala kamma having been done in the past (i.e., in order to meet a person of the appropriate attainments) and a certain level of understanding (i.e., in order to recognise such a person when we meet him/her, and to be able to tell apart those who may appear to have attainments but in fact do not). Jon [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 72. Tranquility and Insight [AN 4.94 Tatiya Samaadhi Sutta] These four kinds of persons, O monks, are found existing in the world. What four? Here, monks, a certain person gains internal tranquility of mind but does not gain the higher wisdom of insight into things. Another person gains the higher wisdom of insight into things but does not gain internal tranquility of mind. Another person gains neither internal tranquility of mind nor the higher wisdom of insight into things. And another person gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (1) Therein, monks, the person who gains internal tranquility of mind but not the higher wisdom of insight into things *should approach* one who gains the higher wisdom and inquire of him: "How, friend, should formations be seen? How should formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with insight?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "Formations should be seen in such a way; they should be explored in such a way; they should be discerned with insight in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (2) Therein, monks, the person who gains the higher wisdom of insight into things but not internal tranquility of mind should approach one who gains internal tranquility of mind and inquire of him: "How, friend, should the mind be steadied? How should the mind be composed? How should the mind be unified?How should the mind be concentrated?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "The mind should be steadied in such a way, composed in such a way, unified in such a way, concentrated in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (3) Therein, monks, the person who gains neither internal tranquility of mind nor the higher wisdom of insight into things should approach one who gains both and inquire of him: "How, friend, should the mind be steadied? How should the mind be composed? How should the mind be unified?How should the mind be concentrated? How, friend, should formations be seen? How should formations be explored? How should constructions be discerned with insight?" The other then answers him as he has seen and understood the matter thus: "The mind should be steadied in such a way, composed in such a way, unified in such a way, concentrated in such a way. Formations should be seen in such a way; they should be explored in such a way; they should be discerned with insight in such a way." At a later time this one gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things. (4) Therein, monks, the person gains both internal tranquility of mind and the higher wisdom of insight into things should establish himself in just these wholesome states and make a further effort for the destruction of the taints. Reply | Messages in this Topic (12) #130976 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 31, 2013 11:47 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of > > it, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned > > ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > > > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain > > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. .... >R: I am wondering, for those who had not yet penetrated and to whom the Buddha communicated the Dhamma in conventional language, and who then penetrated the meaning, what was it in the conventional language the Buddha used that allowed them to penetrate to the realization of ultimate realities? .... S: It was due to their accumulated wisdom that when they heard the Teachings in ordinary language, expounded perfectly by the Buddha, that the truths about ultimate realities became clear. Like now - we've heard a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, for example - just dhammas. So whatever we read in the newspaper or whatever we hear on TV, we know there are just conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Even though the Buddha used conventional language in most the suttas, it was made very clear that there are only khandhas, only elements arising and falling away. No self involved. ... > > In addition it strikes me as noteworthy that according to the above, the Buddha would speak to those who had not yet penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas in conventional language, and only after they had penetrated the meaning would he communicate to them in terms of ultimate realities. .... S: I think that those who've not yet "penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas" need to hear a lot of detail, a lot of reminders about khandhas, dhatus, present realities, anatta and so on. When there is no doubt about such realities, it doesn't matter what language is used. In the Buddha's time, there were so many disciples who only needed to hear a very little, like Bahiya or Sariputta. They had accumulated a lot of wisdom in past lives. Just a sentence about realities was enough. It's not like that for us. .... > > So it seems to follow that perhaps we should do the same thing. It has been said recently that the Buddha communicated to those who had deeper understanding in conventional language since they all understood the real meaning, and that it is only necessary to speak in direct dhamma language to those who cannot understand that conventional speech actually refers to ultimate realities. It seems that the commentary here is saying that it works in the opposite order. .... S: If we never hear that there are just those kinds of dhammas which can experience an object and those kinds of dhammas which never experience an object, will there ever be the understanding of realities as not-self? Of course, the "penny drops" at different times and in different ways for us all. I found it so helpful to hear about how only visible object is seen, how only sound is heard and how this is followed by long stories. It became so obvious that no one could select what was seen or heard or what experience would arise next. It also became obvious that it was totally useless to focus on an object, to try to be aware of any object at all. Awareness and understanding could arise anytime at all. Without hearing about dhammas (realities) as anatta, it's impossible to discover this for ourselves. Metta Sarah ===== Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130977 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 2:09 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard (all), I like to come back to D (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger? > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". D: no 'trigger ? (and I am not say 'self ' here) . How do you explain the stated " element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?" the Attakari Sutta below .. interesting too the notes by the translator (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html ). with Metta Dieter AN 6.38 PTS: A iii 337 Attakari Sutta: The Self-Doer translated from the Pali by K. Nizamis © 2011-2013 Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus: "Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.'"[1] "I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one - moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] - say: 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer'? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?"[3] "Just so, Venerable Sir." "When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?" "Just so, Venerable Sir." "So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5] "What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?" [10] "Just so, Venerable Sir." "When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?" "Just so, Venerable Sir." "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one - moving forward by himself, moving back by himself - say 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer'?" "Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: 'Those who have eyes see forms!' Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130978 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 7:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Send Email Send Email Thank you, Han. I will look it up to read further. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > It is from , under subject index, under Gradual instruction. > Gradual instruction (anupubbi-katha). > Mentioned in: Ud 5.3 > The Path to Freedom pages > See each of its constituent topics: Dana (generosity), Sila (virtue), Sagga (heaven), Adinava (drawbacks), Nekkhamma (renunciation), Four Noble Truths. > See the chapter "Dhamma" in Refuge: An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha (Thanissaro) Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130979 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 7:53 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard (all), > > I like to come back to > > D (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger? ------------------------------- HCW: I presume that by "trigger" you mean an immediate or predominant condition leading to the event. What's the problem? -------------------------------- > > > > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > D: no 'trigger ? (and I am not say 'self ' here) . ------------------------------- HCW: It seems that by "trigger" maybe you must mean something other than what I spoke of above. --------------------------------- How do you explain the stated " element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?" --------------------------------- HCW: I did ... above, as best as I understand the term. ----------------------------------- > > the Attakari Sutta below .. interesting too the notes by the translator (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html ). ---------------------------------- HCW: I don't see anything mysterious in the following. The "doing by oneself" or "doing by another" is merely the arising of some dhamma such as viriya or cetana or any number of things. Conditions arising within a namarupic stream are referred to, within (or with respect to)that stream, as "self-doing". But from the perspective of that stream, conditions that arise within another stream are considered "other-doing". Namarupic streams, though interacting with each, and hence not "separate", yet do not share dhammas, and are thus distinguishable. Also, with regard to the following, the Buddha may have understood the brahman to be enmeshed in "mudane wrong view" believing perhaps that even in conventional terms it is wrong to distinguish persons and to distinguish the kammas (actions)of different persons, and, as we know, the Buddha has taught the each person is heir to his own kamma. ------------------------------------- > > with Metta Dieter > > AN 6.38 PTS: A iii 337 > > Attakari Sutta: The Self-Doer > > translated from the Pali by > > K. Nizamis > > © 2011-2013 > > Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus: > > "Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.'"[1] > > "I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one - moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] - say: 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer'? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?"[3] > > "Just so, Venerable Sir." > > "When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?" > > "Just so, Venerable Sir." > > "So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5] > > "What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?" [10] > > "Just so, Venerable Sir." > > "When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?" > > "Just so, Venerable Sir." > > "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one - moving forward by himself, moving back by himself - say 'There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer'?" > > "Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: 'Those who have eyes see forms!' Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge." ================================= With metta, Howard Mundane Wrong View /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) Reply | Messages in this Topic (2) #130980 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Send Email Send Email Hi Rob E, > Thanks for re-engaging with this issue. I'll see if I can make any > sense out of my own view. > Thank you for trying to make things more clear. I'll have to respond point by point, which will make the post longer than I would like, but lets see what happens. > > My view, I hope, is relatively simple: > 1. Say you are on the path of knowledge. In order to reach > enlightenment, you have to, above all, distinguish between what is > real and unreal. > I'm happy to hear this. > 2. If you are busy seeing illusions as real, you cannot have correct > understanding. Delusion is the opposite of panna. > Seeing delusion as real is the function of wrong view. Wrong view is the opposite of panna. > 3. If you are the teacher of those who seek wisdom, and you tell them > they should have compassion for imaginary beings, you are teaching > them a deluded view. > Compassion is kusala and therefore can't be rooted in any of the unwholesome roots or accompanied by wrong view. > You are teaching them that such beings are real. > It is a teaching about compassion, nothing to do with whether the object is a reality or not. The nature of the object, right or wrong, is the function of view and this does not arise with compassion. When taught by other teachers, chances are that the teaching about the value of compassion comes together with belief in self / soul, and therefore the compassion is subsequently taken for "self". But even in their case, the compassion itself is devoid of ignorance, not to speak of self-view. The Buddha's teachings on the other hand, being about dhammas and therefore anatta, not only is the compassion not corrupted as a result of self-view arisen before or after, but in fact purified when understood as only an element. > Therefore, you would be taking them off the path of knowledge and > leading them away from enlightenment. > Compassion has as object a living being. If this living being is taken for real, this would be a totally different citta with wrong view, after (or before) the compassion. > 4. The Buddha would never do that. > He would encourage compassion as well as the development of the Path. By pointing out that compassion is non-self, he was encouraging the Path, but not discouraging compassion. > 5. If the Buddha taught metta, then metta must lead towards > enlightenment, not away from it. Same for sila and dana. So, if we > agree that metta, sila and dana, in and of themselves, do not directly > give understanding of realities, then what are they for? Why did the > Buddha teach them? > If you now agree that concepts are not themselves misleading, but that this is due to wrong view, would you still go along with the above line of reasoning? > 6. It is my contention that these kusala factors are supporting > conditions for development of enlightenment, and that is why the > Buddha taught them. > Same as above. > 7. I think the Buddha taught that the existence of human beings was > conditional, not imaginary; temporary, not nonexistent, and that is > why it is okay to teach compassion and metta towards such beings. > I think he encouraged kusala and discouraged akusala. And he knew that some of these had concept of living beings as object of experience. He also know that self-view is another reality which functions to pervert the object, and this can be a reality or a concept. So apparently what you express above about the nature of human being, is in fact wrong view..... > While there is no "self" within the individual, there is a suffering > mind and body, and those experiences are real. One can have compassion > for the provisional being who has those experiences of suffering. > Frankly, this sounds like an attempt by self-view to find legitimate ground for existence. This "provisional being", is it a reference to the five khandhas? If so, then it must be fleeting, otherwise it is not a reality, but a concept. Likewise the "suffering mind and body" must be a reference to fleeting nama and rupa, but is this what is being referred to here? > > Anyway, that's an idea of what I think. I think the view that > conventional reality is totally false is an extreme view. > Either it is real or it is not. If what you have in mind is something lasting in time, that would be wrong view behind the thinking. If you think it is the five khandhas, why not then just refer to the reality of the moment, instead of thinking in terms of what a human being or any conventional object is made up of? There is a difference between the understanding that human beings are made up of the five khandhas and that the fleeting five khandhas give rise to the idea of human being. > I think the view that conventional reality is exactly as it seems and > is a true reality is also an extreme view. > Conventional reality is concept, period. Either you understand this or you don't. What is in between is another idea, this one however is concocted by self-view. > The view I think is in the middle is that conditional reality is > temporary, unstable, shifting processes [kandhas] and thus is anicca, > anatta and dukkha. > The Middle-Way is that of Right Understanding, and this right understanding knows ultimate reality as distinct from concepts. > I think that those conventional realities really reflect the arising > of dhammas or shifting of kandhas and thus partake of the three marks > in that way. > Conventional reality gives off the impression of permanence and of self, unless there is the understanding of what actually takes place through the five senses and the mind. For someone who has not heard and understood the Dhamma, conventional realities are therefore misleading. For someone who has understood the Dhamma, these conventional realities can act as reminders about the ultimate realities. That beings are born, grow old and die, these are reflections of what happens at the paramattha level, but it is only at this paramattha level that development of wisdom take place, not when thinking in terms of conventional objects. > 8. My view of the Dhamma is that the conventional teachings and the > ultimate teachings live side by side and reflect each other - > different levels of the same thing. > My view is that the Dhamma is about ultimate realities *only*. > > I realize this view puts me at odds with many folks here. > > I hope this covers the questions you asked to some extent. > Thank you again for trying to make your point more clearly. > > > I'll add here that concepts are based on reality, in other words, > > without reality, there are no concepts. So there are the realities > > experienced through the five senses and the mind that give rise to the > > concept of another being. > > I think the above statement gives a glimmer of what I am also talking > about when I say that conventional truths and situations are based on, > or reflect, the reality of underlying dhammas. > Yes, but you go on to to think that conventional truths can be the object of the development of wisdom, which I think is wrong. As I said, they can be reminders about the existence and hence the need to better understand ultimate realities. > > > Sorry to have expressed frustration in my last message. > > That is very kind of you, Sukin. I can also obviously get overheated > at times, so I appreciate your coming back to talk! > :-) Metta, Sukin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (438) #130981 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Sarah, ------- > But your expression "without being controlled in any way by anyone" is not clear to me. A person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena. > .... > S: Didn't the Buddha teach there are only khandhas, only dhatus (elements) which are conditioned to arise and fall away (apart from nibbana, of course)? > > When you read the Anattalakkhana Sutta, isn't it very clear that such khandhas, such dhammas (realities) cannot be controlled in any way by anyone? > T: I think it means they (khandhas, dhatus) are not belonging to self. ------- > I remembered that you live in NSW, Australia. Do you ever visit Sydney? If so, you're most welcome to visit us in Manly. We don't have a car, so tend not to travel far. > T: What is your address in Manly? -------- Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130982 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Ken H, >KH: Perhaps we should skip those questions and just settle the matter of "how I really am." > T: You may find out yourself by studying "right view" (sammaditthi)and "the middle way" in the Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism. Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (53) #130983 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 6:32 pm Subject: TA intro to Dhamma sprlrt Send Email Send Email (in HH, 11th, am-A, 8.30m, talking to Thomas - 1) TA: Is there seeing right now? Is it self? Seeing arises and falls away, or a moment of hearing, there cannot be seeing and hearing together, at this very moment of seeing; it cannot just arise by itself, but even just a moment of seeing is conditioned. For example without the eye-base and without the visible object, without that which can experience it or see it, visible object or whatever appears now cannot appear at all, right? And I think that that's the meaning of no self, who can't do anything for seeing to arise; because without the element which can experience, the world would not appear at all, but since there is another element which is different from that which cannot experience anything at all, so that element arises when is conditioned to experience a reality, which can be object of its experience. For example now, what is seeing, the absolute reality, what is seeing now, at this moment? Can hardness be seen? Can softness be seen? No, only that which can impinge on the eye-base can condition a moment of seeing to arise, to see it, and then they are gone, instantly, so very rapidly, what is left is only the succession of the arising and falling away, so very rapidly that it condition some idea about sign or marks of that which appears now as eye brow or table and things, otherwise there would be no such idea, without any absolute realities at all. So I think that, the absolute reality, we don't have to name it or call it anything, but it's there, for anyone who considers it, to understand it as it is, as seeing, as just a moment in which visible object appears; and hearing is another moment in which sound can appear, without hearing there's no sound appearing at all; and these are no self, they are just conditioned realities different from time to time; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all; and that's what is meant by reality or dhamma, we can say that there are two categories, one is that which arises but it cannot experience anything at all, and the other one whenever it arises it has to experience, because its characteristic is experiencing, whenever it arises. That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment? Reply | Messages in this Topic (29) #130984 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 9:48 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma jagkrit2012 Send Email Send Email Dear Alberto > TA: ; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all; > That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment? Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit Reply | Messages in this Topic (29) #130985 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 12:16 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 25. jonoabb Send Email Send Email By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 3, 'No Return' (cont'd): It is helpful to be reminded that sad events that happened the day before are all gone. When a dear person is gone for good and will never return we should remember that whatever reality appears now falls away and will never return. Seeing that appears now falls away and will never return. What we take for a person is only citta, cetasika and rupa, elements that are beyond control. When Acharn says that we should understand a dhamma that appears as just a dhamma, it means that we should not take it for self or a person. Instead of thinking of a person who will never return we should remember that each citta and each ruupa that arises now falls away never to return again. Instead of holding on to the world of concepts and situations, to our dreamworld, we can develop understanding of realities so that we will see them as elements that are beyond control. Even when we think of sad events, the thinking is only a citta that arises because of conditions, there is not a person who thinks. (End of Chapter 3) (To be continued) Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130986 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 12:49 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard , All, > > I stumbled upon an interesting study related to our present discussion . > Instead of directly responding to your last mail , I like to suggest to involve following extract, supposing it may enrich our conversation. > Comments very wellcome. > > with Metta Dieter > > > extract : http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/budfree.htm ------------------------------ HCW: Some comments below in context: ------------------------------ > > BUDDHISM AND THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL: > > PALI AND MAHAYANIST RESPONSES > > > > > THE PALI SELF AS FUNCTIONALIST --------------------------- HCW: The title itself is a bit off-putting, as there is no "Pali self"! LOL! --------------------------- > > The Buddha's response to the Axial Age's discovery of the self was strik­ingly unique: he proposed the doctrine of no-self (anatman), which literally means no atman, the Hindu soul substance. This conceptual innovation was so provocative that it was bound to invite misinterpreta­tion, and unfounded charges of Buddhist "nihilism" continue even to this day. The Buddha an­ticipated Hume's view that the self is an ensemble of feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and awareness (the skandhas) that is the center of agency and moral responsibility.22 The Buddha's view, however, is different from Hume's, primarily because the Buddha appeared to support real causal efficacy among internally related phenomena. (We believe that Hume may have been misled by the current scientific model of externally related atoms.) While Hume decon­structed any theory of causality, the Buddha reconstructed causal relations with his theory of inter­dependent coorigination. The Buddha agrees with Hume about the absence of causal power but disagrees with him about the absence of causal relations. ---------------------------- HCW: I think this last is a fair assessment. But I'm wary about the assertion that "the self" is an assembly of dhammas. It would be better to say the Buddha taught that there are assemblies of dhammas, but none constitutes a self or includes a self. --------------------------- As the Pali philosopher Buddhaghosa said: "There is no real production; there is only interdependence."23 ------------------------- HCW: I didn't know that Buddhaghosa said that. It is also what Nagarjuna later taught, and I like it. --------------------------- > > The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. --------------------------- HCW: No, they don't hold that, because they do not accept ANY self except as convenient, everyday terminology. --------------------------- (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. -------------------------- HCW: I would sooner say that these assemblages, being collections of closely interelated phenomena, are not total fictions. However, I hasten to add that 1)they are not individuals, 2)they are not cognizable without thinking, and, 3)they are NOT selves nor does any have a self. -------------------------- This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. ------------------------- HCW: Such assemblages are normally called "persons" and not "selves," and none has a self, own-being, or identity (in the philosophical sense of the term 'identity'). -------------------------- > > Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. ----------------------- HCW: Yes, a function, or, better, I think: an occurrence/event. (When one hears "function," one is inclined to ask "Function of what?".) ------------------------ As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. > > From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. --------------------------- HCW: This is merely a useful mode of conventional speech but taken literally, IMO, is simply false. ------------------------- (This of course assumes the truth of compatiblism.) This view of the self is also fully somatic, giving full value to the body and the emotions. At the same time it is embedded in a social and organic nexus of cosmic relations. Hindu philosopher Surendra Verma is unduly puzzled when he asks how it was possible for the Buddha to be filled with thoughts and emotions and "at the same time preaching. . . the nonexistence of the soul."26 Like many other commentators, Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way, in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other. What appears not only puzzling but impossible is for the Hindu atman, a Stoic soul, or a Kantian noumenal self--pure spiritual substances all--to have any relation at all with the finite world, let alone with the emotions and the body. =============================== With metta, Howard P. S. The world of conditioned dhammas, as it actually is, I believe is a world without selves and without substance - a world of mere empty appearance, and when not viewed as such is samsara, is a realm of suffering. /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) Reply | Messages in this Topic (20) #130988 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 3:21 am Subject: Fw: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger moellerdieter Send Email Send Email previous message deleted because I pushed the send button by accident .. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dieter Moeller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger Hi Howard , (all), you wrote: ( (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger?) ------------------------------ HCW: I presume that by "trigger" you mean an immediate or predominant condition leading to the event. What's the problem? D: no real problem, though my wishful thinking involves the possibility to support better understanding of the atta/anatta issue which is the core of numerous disputes of DSG discussions , not to talk about condemnation for heresy. HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > D: no 'trigger ? (and I am not say 'self ' here) . ------------------------------- HCW: It seems that by "trigger" maybe you must mean something other than what I spoke of above. --------------------------------- D:how do you explain the stated " element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?" --------------------------------- HCW: I did ... above, as best as I understand the term. ----------------------------------- > > the Attakari Sutta below .. interesting too the notes by the translator (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html ). ---------------------------------- HCW: I don't see anything mysterious in the following. The "doing by oneself" or "doing by another" is merely the arising of some dhamma such as viriya or cetana or any number of things. Conditions arising within a namarupic stream are referred to, within (or with respect to)that stream, as "self-doing". But from the perspective of that stream, conditions that arise within another stream are considered "other-doing". Namarupic streams, though interacting with each, and hence not "separate", yet do not share dhammas, and are thus distinguishable. D: explained by that , the view 'nothing can/should be done' (except mindfulness of the dhammas/realities here and now -at least that is how I understand some of our friends ) is not contradicted, is it? In respect to no self doer or no another doer ,we may keep in mind that the Law of Dependent Originates takes a middle between 'no self exists' and 'a self exists' , by -as you say - conditioned arising within a nama/rupic stream . I.e. a process of arising and ceasing instead of a substantial self , assumed due to identification/attachment. Therefore this process is only anatta so far as a (lasting) core is excluded. The full realization of anatta is equal to detachment whereas the stream describes the still delusioned being wandering in circles of birth and death(samsara). Instead of speaking of 'merely the arising of some dhamma such as viriya or cetana' I would prefer to speak of an ignorant will (avijja- sankhara ) , or better ignorant volition because of the directed energy involved . (Therefore some translators prefer kamma formation or kamma force for sankhara. The Buddha emphasized that cetana and kamma cannot be separated , hence cetana is here synonym with sankhara ). HCW:Also, with regard to the following, the Buddha may have understood the brahman to be enmeshed in "mudane wrong view" believing perhaps that even in conventional terms it is wrong to distinguish persons and to distinguish the kammas (actions)of different persons, and, as we know, the Buddha has taught the each person is heir to his own kamma. ------------------------------------- D: I don't think so .. let us have a look what the sutta translator , K.Nizamis, comments , see below (The mundane wrong understanding /view , you quoted in P.S., is seemingly shared by some members) with Metta Dieter otes 1.“Natthi attakÄro, natthi parakÄro.†Some people might have expected the Buddha to have approved highly of this naïve negative doctrine. The fact that he very succinctly and effectively refutes it is extremely instructive and of great significance for gaining a better understanding of the depth, subtlety, and holism of the Buddha’s actual teaching. Although the Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal, immutable, independently-existing core “self†(attÄ), he also taught that there is “action†or “doingâ€, and that it is therefore meaningful to speak of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions and deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable being. It should be quite clear from its usage in this sutta, and from the argument of this sutta, that kÄra in atta-kÄra must be an agent noun, “doer, makerâ€: this is strongly entailed, for example, by the Buddha’s statement: “Ärabbhavanto sattÄ paññÄyanti, ayaṃ sattÄnaṃ attakÄro ayaṃ parakÄroâ€, “initiating beings are clearly discerned: of (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer†(AN iii.338). (This is perhaps even clearer than the term hÄra in bhÄra-hÄra meaning “bearer†(“burden-bearerâ€) in SN 22.22 (BhÄra Sutta: The Burden; PTS SN iii.25). SN 22.22, which describes the “bearer†of the “burden†of the “five clung-to aggregates†(pañc-upÄdÄna-kkhandhÄ) as the “person†(puggala), is arguably very closely related to AN 6.38 in meaning and implications. See SN 22.22 and also SN 12.61, note 1.) Atta-kÄra could mean that one motivates oneself, or that one acts upon oneself; para-kÄra could refer to the atta-kÄra as seen from a third-person perspective, or to one who acts upon another being or thing. In each one of these cases, there is necessarily an all-important moment of initiation of action (see also footnotes 2 and 3, below). As for the form of the term atta-kÄrÄ«, which occurs in the title of this sutta, compare the expression: “yathÄ-vÄdÄ« tathÄ-kÄrÄ«â€, “one who speaks thus, one who does thusâ€; or, in other words, “he does as he saysâ€, “he practises what he preaches†(compare, for example, PTS DN iii.135, AN ii.24, Sn 359). 2.Sayaṃ abhikkamanto: “moving forward by oneselfâ€; sayaṃ paá¹­ikkamanto: “moving backward by oneselfâ€. Sayaṃ means “self; by oneselfâ€. The example seems to suggest the action of someone who intentionally takes a step forward, and then intentionally takes a step back again. This example leads directly to the next statement, and thus emphasises the idea of initiating an action (see [3] below): when someone takes a step forward or backward, the origin and impetus of this action must, so to speak, come from “somewhere†or “somethingâ€. In other words, it really is an intentionally initiated action (kiriya, kriyÄ), and not merely the arbitrary mechanical “effect†of some prior mechanical “cause†in a deterministic chain of mechanical push-and-pull. The sense, here, can be better understood if one also consults AN 2.33 (Aññataro BrÄhmaṇo: A Certain Brahmin; PTS AN i.62), where the Buddha describes himself thus: “I am one who asserts that which ought to be done... and one who asserts that which ought not to be done.†(“KiriyavÄdÄ« cÄhaṃ... akiriyavÄdÄ« cÄ'ti.â€) There, it is made very clear that doing and non-doing are morally significant and morally effective. Similarly, in several other suttas, such as in MN 95 (Caá¹…kÄ« Sutta; PTS MN ii.164), the Buddha is described thus: “The venerable recluse Gotama is truly one who asserts the doctrine of kamma, one who asserts the doctrine of what ought to be done. . .†(“Samaṇo khalu bho gotamo kammavÄdÄ« kiriyavÄdÄ«. . .†(MN ii.167).) Again, in MN 71 (Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta; PTS MN i.481), the Buddha humorously recounts that in the last ninety-one aeons, no Äjivaka, or “fatalist†who denies the power of volitional acts, has ever gone to heaven, except one, who happened to follow the doctrine of kamma and of morally effective deeds (“sopÄsi kammavÄdÄ« kiriyavÄdÄ«â€, MN i.483). 3.Ä€rabbha-dhÄtÅ«. DhÄtÅ« can mean “constituent element, property, natural condition, state, root principleâ€. Ä€rabbha (also spelt Ärambha) has the primary meaning of “beginning, undertakingâ€. In Sanskrit, the verbal root Ä-rabh means “to take hold of; gain a footing; undertake, beginâ€; and in both Sanskrit and Pali Ärambha has the meaning of “beginning, origin, commencement; inception of energyâ€; it can also mean “effort, exertionâ€. The commentary glosses Ärambha-dhÄtÅ« with “Ärabhanavasena pavattavÄ«riyaṃâ€, “the energy of setting something in motion by means of the power of beginning or initiating it†(PTS Mp iii.366). etc. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130989 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 3:44 am Subject: Fw: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger upasaka_howard Send Email Send Email Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > previous message deleted because I pushed the send button by accident .. ------------------------ HCW: :-) ----------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dieter Moeller > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:16 PM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger > > > Hi Howard , (all), > > you wrote: > > > ( (D.A.hc.) : it is understood that action ( by body , speech and mind ) has consequences of bodily /mental experiences in a more or less closer future. But what does it say about a/the trigger?) > ------------------------------ > HCW: > I presume that by "trigger" you mean an immediate or predominant condition leading to the event. What's the problem? > > > D: no real problem, though my wishful thinking involves the possibility to support better understanding of the atta/anatta issue which is the core of numerous disputes of DSG discussions , not to talk about condemnation for heresy. > > > HCW: There is so "self" as a thing-in-itself or as a characteristic of any dhammas or assenmblages of dhammas, and none is required for any "actions". > > > > D: no 'trigger ? (and I am not say 'self ' here) . > ------------------------------- > HCW: > It seems that by "trigger" maybe you must mean something other than what I spoke of above. > --------------------------------- > > D:how do you explain the stated " element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?" > --------------------------------- > HCW: > I did ... above, as best as I understand the term. > ----------------------------------- > > > > the Attakari Sutta below .. interesting too the notes by the translator (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html ). > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't see anything mysterious in the following. The "doing by oneself" or "doing by another" is merely the arising of some dhamma such as viriya or cetana or any number of things. Conditions arising within a namarupic stream are referred to, within (or with respect to)that stream, as "self-doing". But from the perspective of that stream, conditions that arise within another stream are considered "other-doing". Namarupic streams, though interacting with each, and hence not "separate", yet do not share dhammas, and are thus distinguishable. > > > D: explained by that , the view 'nothing can/should be done' (except mindfulness of the dhammas/realities here and now -at least that is how I understand some of our friends ) is not contradicted, is it? ------------------------------ HCW: I think it IS contradicted. "Things should be done (by the person addressed)" I take to mean an urging for volitional action of a certain sort. "It WILL be done by a person" reduces (in reality) to nothing more than that volition and subsequent volitional action occurring within the "person", i.e., namarupic stream, involved. That "doing" is still, except in a manner of speaking (and thinking), a matter of nothing more than a sequence of impersonal and self-less namas and rupas. (I have no comments below.) ------------------------------ > In respect to no self doer or no another doer ,we may keep in mind that the Law of Dependent Originates takes a middle between 'no self exists' and 'a self exists' , by -as you say - conditioned arising within a nama/rupic stream . > I.e. a process of arising and ceasing instead of a substantial self , assumed due to identification/attachment. Therefore this process is only anatta so far as a (lasting) core is excluded. > The full realization of anatta is equal to detachment whereas the stream describes the still delusioned being wandering in circles of birth and death(samsara). > > Instead of speaking of 'merely the arising of some dhamma such as viriya or cetana' I would prefer to speak of an ignorant will (avijja- sankhara ) , or better ignorant volition because of the directed energy involved . (Therefore some translators prefer kamma formation or kamma force for sankhara. The Buddha emphasized that cetana and kamma cannot be separated , hence cetana is here synonym with sankhara ). > > > HCW:Also, with regard to the following, the Buddha may have understood the brahman to be enmeshed in "mudane wrong view" believing perhaps that even in conventional terms it is wrong to distinguish persons and to distinguish the kammas (actions)of different persons, and, as we know, the Buddha has taught the each person is heir to his own kamma. > ------------------------------------- ======================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Reply | Messages in this Topic (3) #130990 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E kenhowardau Send Email Send Email Hi Robert E, -------------- <. . .> > RE: . .. so there is a process and there is continuity, passed on from one dhamma to the next. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge this and insist that each dhamma is totally isolated, which it is not. -------------- KH: Thanks for the reminder; that is what in insist on, more or less. Each moment of citta, cetasika and rupa *is* totally isolated. It is the entire universe. ---------------------- <. . .> RE: The idea of self *does* continue from one citta to the next; otherwise the next citta to arise would be enlightened. ---------------------- KH: As we have been reminded recently, dreaming can continue on. But that's different from a reality continuing on. Dreaming (thinking about conventional things) is a function performed by mind-door cittas. --------- <. . .> >> KH: … he didn't have a stand on the everyday ordinary self. All he taught was that, in ultimate reality, there was no self: there were only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. > S: He taught that "that which we take for self," the various processes of experiencing and action, is actually composed of the kandhas, and is impersonal and free of self. He didn't have 'no stand' on the everyday self at all. He said all the ordinary processes we are familiar with which we take for self are not-self. --------- KH: I see Sukin has explained, once and for all, the difference between saying "the self is the khandhas" and saying "the self is a conventional name used by the Buddha to designate the khandhas." Or, as Han has quoted: > "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them." > KH: So that's all straightened out now. Isn't it? :-) -------------------- >> KH: Yes, I think atheists do believe the self is made of those things. Their sort of belief is a bit different from the theist's atta-ditthi but, even so, it is atta-ditthi. > RE: Many of them don't believe in a self at all, just biological and chemical processes. It's not a correct view, but it's also not a belief in self. --------------------- KH: According to my understanding every ultimate-reality belief, other than the Middle Way, involves some kind of atta belief. Even if we just believe in "the trigger." :-) If you don't mind my asking, Robert, how did you come to be studying Buddhism? Were you a religious believer at the time, or were you an atheist? ------------------ <. . .> > RE: The fact you acknowledge present and future dhammas shows that there are more than one, just not at the same time. It's a hair-splitting distinction, but keeps you from seeing the obvious importance of ongoing arising conditions, influences of one dhamma to the next and the role of accumulations and tendencies which are passed on from one dhamma to the next. Without them there would not only be no samsara, but no enlightenment either, which are dependent on bhavana - development. --------------------- KH: Like it or not, the universe does last for just one moment of citta. The Big Bang, the Big Crunch and everything in between: they all take place in the present moment. Ken H > RE: That was not nice to say I was obnoxious. You hurt my feelings. :-( KH: I beg your humble pardon. :-) Reply | Messages in this Topic (19) #130991 From: "azita" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 9:46 am Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma gazita2002 Send Email Send Email Hallo Alberto, thank you for this, I look forward to reading these talks that you have been posting. Really very beneficial for the development of understanding. Anumodana, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > (in HH, 11th, am-A, 8.30m, talking to Thomas - 1) > > TA: Is there seeing right now? Is it self? > Seeing arises and falls away, or a moment of hearing, there cannot be seeing and hearing together, at this very moment of seeing; it cannot just arise by itself, but even just a moment of seeing is conditioned. > For example without the eye-base and without the visible object, without that which can experience it or see it, visible object or whatever appears now cannot appear at all, right? > And I think that that's the meaning of no self, who can't do anything for seeing to arise; because without the element which can experience, the world would not appear at all, but since there is another element which is different from that which cannot experience anything at all, so that element arises when is conditioned to experience a reality, which can be object of its experience. > For example now, what is seeing, the absolute reality, what is seeing now, at this moment? > Can hardness be seen? Can softness be seen? > No, only that which can impinge on the eye-base can condition a moment of seeing to arise, to see it, and then they are gone, instantly, so very rapidly, what is left is only the succession of the arising and falling away, so very rapidly that it condition some idea about sign or marks of that which appears now as eye brow or table and things, otherwise there would be no such idea, without any absolute realities at all. > So I think that, the absolute reality, we don't have to name it or call it anything, but it's there, for anyone who considers it, to understand it as it is, as seeing, as just a moment in which visible object appears; and hearing is another moment in which sound can appear, without hearing there's no sound appearing at all; and these are no self, they are just conditioned realities different from time to time; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all; and that's what is meant by reality or dhamma, we can say that there are two categories, one is that which arises but it cannot experience anything at all, and the other one whenever it arises it has to experience, because its characteristic is experiencing, whenever it arises. > That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment? > Reply | Messages in this Topic (29) #130992 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 1:13 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma thomaslaw03 Send Email Send Email Dear Dhamma friends, I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). The English world reality also means in philosophy "that which exists independently of all other things; an ultimate thing which produces derivatives" (cf. Macquarie Dictionary). This is a metaphysical idea of entity. It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". Any arguments? Thomas Reply | Messages in this Topic (29) #130993 From: han tun Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 1:33 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (9) hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] [Han: In my last post I have presented the sutta which mentions the arising in the world of the Tathaagata. The arising of the Tathaagata is one of the six rarities.] 33. Six Rarities [AN 6.96 Paatubhaava Sutta] These six things, O monks, rarely appear in the world. What six? Channa.m , bhikkhave, paatubhaavo dullabho lokasmi.m. Katamesa.m channa.m? (1) Rare in the world is the appearance of a Tathaagata. Tathaagatassa arahato sammaasambuddhassa paatubhaavo dullabho lokasmi.m (2) Rare in the world is the appearance of one who teaches the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathaagata. tathaagatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa desetaa puggalo dullabho lokasmi.m (3) Rare in the world is it to be reborn in the land of the noble ones. ariyaayatane paccaajaati dullabhaa lokasmi.m (4) Rare in the world is the possession of unimpaired physical and mental faculties. indriyaana.m avekallataa dullabhaa lokasmi.m (5) Rare in the world is absence of stupidity and dullness. aja.lataa ane.lamuugataa dullabhaa lokasmi.m (6) Rare in the world is a desire for wholesome qualities. kusale dhamme chando dullabho lokasmi.m with metta, Han [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130994 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 1:44 pm Subject: Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin, Annie, Lan and other friends sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Friends, Annie from Sydney and Lan from Hanoi joined our discussion at the Foundation for the first time. Lan had met A.Sujin before and was already an "expert" in the "hot seat", but for Annie, it was her first time in "the hot seat". We had lively discussions about momentary dhammas as anatta (not self), about the meaning of mind, purification and cleansing of the mind, those dhammas which experience and object and those which never experience an object. Lan also had many questions about "how to" get from intellectual understanding to direct understanding (pariyatti to patipatti) and "what to do?" - always an idea of self wanting to do something! As it happened, Annie had come to Bangkok after finishing a Buddhist retreat in Phuket, S.Thailand and Lan had come from spending a couple of weeks on retreat in a temple in Chengmai, N. Thailand. So this was the topic of the very start of the discussion between A.Sujin and Annie: ***** AS: Is retreat better than non-retreat/ Annie: The retreat was very rewarding and challenging and I found it very difficult to leave the retreat. I could have stayed there for much, much longer. I therefore found it very hard to get back into daily life. AS: So what's the difference between retreat and non-retreat? A: For me it was the silence, it was a silent retreat. AS: And do you have any idea what silence is? A: Not silence in my head, but external silence. AS: is there no attachment to silence? A: I think I got very attached to silence. AS: So you want more attachment because you don't want to leave retreat, right? A: Yes. I was clinging to silence. AS: It's good to know it's clinging. It's not understanding at all. And that's why people like so much to have attachment and being afraid to lose pleasant feeling or what one is attached to. ***** Metta Sarah p.s Welcome home and back to DSG, Nina! ================================= [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (1) #130995 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 10:02 pm Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E sarahprocter... Send Email Send Email Dear Han, Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: I received the following reply. > The Buddha and the arahants (as well as knowledgeable disciples) can use such terms as satta, puggala, purisa, etc., without clinging to them, without mistaking them as a self. They even use the term attaa, attabhaava, and atta-patilaabha, as well as "aham" and "mama"--"I" and "mine"--without misapprehending them. See Potthapada Sutta, Digha Nikaya no. 9, section 440 in the Chattha Sangayana edition: Imaa kho citta, lokasama~n~naa lokaniruttiyo lokavohaaraa lokapa~n~nattiyo, yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasan"ti. "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them."]] ... S: Many thanks for sharing your helpful correspondence with the Ven. From a post I wrote before in a discussion with a friend, DC Wijeratna: groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76213 ***** "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." SN 1:25 This is in Samyutta Nikaya 1, Devatasamyutta,Ch 3,A Sword, #25 'The Arahant'. I was using B.Bodhi's translation and way of referring to suttas in English. Here is a further note to it from the commentary: [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: "Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them."} ..... >DC: 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. > I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless > acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > misapprehending them." So the word used is present. > > Previous paragraph gives the example of cow, milk, curds and so on. So I > understand the "atta" that way. I have a bigger problem here. I cannot > understand the three different "attas." .... S: <...> >"....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them," (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." ..... >DC: The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it > in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not > connected with truth. > > It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, > only the Theravadins have it. > > Word paramattha is also like the above. .... S: Yes, different words are used to express the same meaning in different contexts/texts. This is what a friend wrote here before: Rob Ed: "Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) **** Metta Sarah ====== Reply | Messages in this Topic (19) #130996 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep jonoabb Send Email Send Email Hi Han Tun and Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Robert: This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? > > Han: If I may repeat the six kathaas, > 1. Daana-kathaa (generosity), > 2. Siila-kathaa (virtue), > 3. Sagga-kathaa (heaven), > 4. Aadinava-kathaa (drawbacks), > 5. Nekkhamma-kathaa (renunciation), > 6. Ariya Sacca-kathaa (Four Noble Truths) > > Han: The gist of these steps is explained in the following text, > =============== J: I'd like to clarify something of the context here. As the entry in Nyanatiloka's `Buddhist Dictionary' explains, the term aanupubbii-kathaa -- meaning 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon -- was a teaching "given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths." (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/aanupubbii_kathaa.htm) In other words, it was an immediate prelude to a teaching on the Four Noble Truths. NBD goes on to explain: *************************************************** The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dana), on moral conduct (sila) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. "When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhanam samukkamsika desana), that is: suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path." *************************************************** Note that the purpose of the teaching was to prepare the listener's mind to receive the teaching on the Four Noble Truths. I believe that all the instances of the gradual instruction found in the suttas are instances where (a) the person was hearing the teaching for the first time (in that lifetime) and (b) the person in fact became enlightened on hearing the teaching on the FNT. So it seems it was a teaching reserved by the Buddha for use in cases where he knew that a person who had not so far heard the teachings was capable of attaining enlightenment on hearing about the FNT for the first time. This is possible where understanding of dhammas has been developed in previous lifetimes to a very high degree, such that the person is on the very verge of enlightenment. As far as I can tell, it was not given as a practice of any kind, whether for the listener or for any other person, nor a description of progress along the path to enlightenment. Jon Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130997 From: han tun Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Jon,  I am giving Rob E the information that I found in the books. I do not have my own opinion on the texts that I have forwarded. But I have noted your kind comments for which I thank you very much. . with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: jonoabb To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 8:08 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep  Hi Han Tun and Rob E --- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Robert: This sequence of gradual teaching is very interesting. I am a little surprised to see sagga as one of the main components of the teaching. Do you have an idea of how this fit into the teaching? Was this connected to a good rebirth in the arupa realms, or was it some other context? > > Han: If I may repeat the six kathaas, > 1. Daana-kathaa (generosity), > 2. Siila-kathaa (virtue), > 3. Sagga-kathaa (heaven), > 4. Aadinava-kathaa (drawbacks), > 5. Nekkhamma-kathaa (renunciation), > 6. Ariya Sacca-kathaa (Four Noble Truths) > > Han: The gist of these steps is explained in the following text, > =============== J: I'd like to clarify something of the context here. As the entry in Nyanatiloka's `Buddhist Dictionary' explains, the term aanupubbii-kathaa -- meaning 'gradual instruction', progressive sermon -- was a teaching "given by the Buddha when it was necessary to prepare first the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths." (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/aanupubbii_kathaa.htm) In other words, it was an immediate prelude to a teaching on the Four Noble Truths. NBD goes on to explain: *************************************************** The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dÄna), on moral conduct (sÄ«la) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. "When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhÄnam sÄmukkamsikÄ desanÄ), that is: suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path." *************************************************** Note that the purpose of the teaching was to prepare the listener's mind to receive the teaching on the Four Noble Truths. I believe that all the instances of the gradual instruction found in the suttas are instances where (a) the person was hearing the teaching for the first time (in that lifetime) and (b) the person in fact became enlightened on hearing the teaching on the FNT. So it seems it was a teaching reserved by the Buddha for use in cases where he knew that a person who had not so far heard the teachings was capable of attaining enlightenment on hearing about the FNT for the first time. This is possible where understanding of dhammas has been developed in previous lifetimes to a very high degree, such that the person is on the very verge of enlightenment. As far as I can tell, it was not given as a practice of any kind, whether for the listener or for any other person, nor a description of progress along the path to enlightenment. Jon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (50) #130998 From: han tun Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Send Email Send Email Dear Sarah,  Thank you very much for your very useful comments, which I have noted for future reference.  with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: sarah To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:02 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E  Dear Han, Rob E & all, --- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Han: I received the following reply. > The Buddha and the arahants (as well as knowledgeable disciples) can use such terms as satta, puggala, purisa, etc., without clinging to them, without mistaking them as a self. They even use the term attaa, attabhaava, and atta-patilaabha, as well as "aham" and "mama"--"I" and "mine"--without misapprehending them. See Potthapada Sutta, Digha Nikaya no. 9, section 440 in the Chattha Sangayana edition: Imaa kho citta, lokasama~n~naa lokaniruttiyo lokavohaaraa lokapa~n~nattiyo, yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasan"ti. "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them."]] ... S: Many thanks for sharing your helpful correspondence with the Ven. From a post I wrote before in a discussion with a friend, DC Wijeratna: groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76213 ***** "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." SN 1:25 This is in Samyutta Nikaya 1, Devatasamyutta,Ch 3,A Sword, #25 'The Arahant'. I was using B.Bodhi's translation and way of referring to suttas in English. Here is a further note to it from the commentary: [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: "Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them."} ..... >DC: 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. > I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless > acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > misapprehending them." So the word used is present. > > Previous paragraph gives the example of cow, milk, curds and so on. So I > understand the "atta" that way. I have a bigger problem here. I cannot > understand the three different "attas." .... S: <...> >"....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them," (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." ..... >DC: The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it > in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not > connected with truth. > > It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, > only the Theravadins have it. > > Word paramattha is also like the above. .... S: Yes, different words are used to express the same meaning in different contexts/texts. This is what a friend wrote here before: Rob Ed: "Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) **** Metta Sarah ====== [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Messages in this Topic (19) #130999 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 1:35 am Subject: Re: Fw: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention trigger moellerdieter Send Email Send Email Hi Howard, you wrote: D: explained by that , the view 'nothing can/should be done' (except mindfulness of the dhammas/realities here and now -at least that is how I understand some of our friends ) is not contradicted, is it? ------------------------------ HCW: I think it IS contradicted. Things should be done (by the person addressed)" I take to mean an urging for volitional action of a certain sort. "It WILL be done by a person" reduces (in reality) to nothing more than that volition and subsequent volitional action occurring within the "person", i.e., namarupic stream, involved. That "doing" is still, except in a manner of speaking (and thinking), a matter of nothing more than a sequence of impersonal and self-less namas and rupas. (I have no comments below D: no objection with this background I think we agree that action and volition can not be separated , at least not as D.O. is concerned. It is an urge as you say , .i.e. an energy translated into action , which conditions the 'living being' , represented by the khandhas . The stream or process of D.O. continues (6 senses -contact -feeling-etc) but as you stated is occuring within the person . Therefore we need to correct the imagination of a linear course of the chain. (you may recall this point from a previous conversation) To use a simile of the khandhas , the person may be compared with a running cart . But not like the Mars rover , no other- doer can be found other than tanha , of which a certain pattern (character, type) rules the direction life after life. with Metta Dieter