#131400 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma free pdf download nilovg Dear pt, as pdf I cannot read it, not in Unicode. But in the links section it may be easier? Nina. Op 23-jun-2013, om 12:45 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Also added to the Links section here on dsg. #131401 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:36 am Subject: Re: TA on non-process and process cittas philofillet Dear Group Thanks Alberto > before anything appears there must be that citta, bhavanga, so it can be named first citta because nothing appears yet; but when something appears, like seeing or hearing, all these moments are dutiya, the second citta; and the last one is the last moment of arahatta, that's all. > This sums up what happens in one's life, And yet we make such a big deal out of it! Phil #131402 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: TA on not understanding philofillet Dear group I add these words from T.A to this great thread. what is the difference between understanding of a dhamma for one who has heard the Dhamma and one who hasn't? Acharn: For someone who has not listened to the teachings there is dhamma, reality, but he does not know that it is dhamma. He clings to it as self and does not know the truth. When one has listened to the teachings one can understand that it is a reality that appears, no self. Each word he hears he should carefully consider, he does not have to believe blindly what he hears. What appears now is dhamma, we cannot choose what appears. Who could select the appearance of seeing or hearing? Dhamma does not stay, it falls away very rapidly. It disappears and does not return. Phil --- #131403 From: "Alan" Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:15 am Subject: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases drampsych I am puzzled. With respect to the sense bases, what kind of knowing is it to know the form and the organ? I understand that eye-consciousness arises through the interaction of form and the eye. But to know the sense bases (form and eye), is this mind consciousness? Is this a conceptual knowing, although not conventional? Is it nevertheless an experiential form of knowing as opposed to simply an understanding of the doctrine? Alan #131404 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:52 am Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear All, > > -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > ...... > > S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada. > > ...... > Furthermore, In SN 12.2 the analysis (vibhaga) on tanha `craving', one of the 12 factors (of Dependent Origination), it lists six classes of craving (cha tanhakaya): Bhikkhu Bodhi: "craving for froms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental phenomena." (Nidana Samyutta, The Connected Discourses of The Buddha, p. 535) Choong Mun-keat: "craving for visible things (rupa-tanha), craving for sounds (sadda-tanha), craving for odours (gandha-tanha), craving for tastes (rasa-tanha), craving for tangible things (photthabba-tanha), craving for mental objects (ideas) (dhamma-tanha)" (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 165). Thus, both Buddhist scholars (Bhikkhu Bodhi and Choong Mun-keat) in the item dhamma-tanha translate dhamma as "mental phenomena" and "mental objects (ideas)" respectively. Thomas #131405 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases nilovg Dear Alan D, I did not see your name before, so, welcome to the group. Your question is good. Op 23-jun-2013, om 22:15 heeft Alan het volgende geschreven: > I am puzzled. With respect to the sense bases, what kind of knowing > is it to know the form and the organ? > > I understand that eye-consciousness arises through the interaction > of form and the eye. But to know the sense bases (form and eye), is > this mind consciousness? > ------ N: The translation sense base may be confusing. Aayatana is sometimes translated as sense base. Actually, eyesense is the ruupa (physical reality) that is impinged on by an object, by visible object, that which can be seen. Seeing-consciousness sees visible object but there is a whole process or series of cittas that experience visible object, each performing their own function. -------- > A: Is this a conceptual knowing, although not conventional? Is it > nevertheless an experiential form of knowing as opposed to simply > an understanding of the doctrine? > -------- N: Seeing cognizes or knows visible object, but it is different from understanding visible object as only a dhamma, a reality, non-self. Later on kusala cittas with mindfulness and understanding may arise that understand visible object as not a person, not a self. It seems that we always see people and things, but in reality that is thinking arising after the seeing. Seeing can only see what impinges on the eyesense, visible object or colour. Each citta (moment of consciousness) arises and then falls away immediately, nobody can be master of it. Thus, understanding, pa~n~naa, that may accompany kusala citta (wholesome moment of consciousness) cannot arise at will. It really is anattaa, non-self. I like to requote what Phil wrote, repeating Acharn Sujin's words: Do not hesitate to ask if anything is not clear, NIna. > __ > #131406 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments. sprlrt Hi RobE (Nina), > > I think that if you say that only the single dhamma has any > importance that is really wrong. I don't think the path makes any > sense, logically or otherwise, so that we can understand what the > heck is going on, if we don't get some understanding of those multi- > moment operations. Maybe that is intellectual, but can we have > pariyatti ever if we don't know what's happening? ------ > N: I know what you mean. When I said: let us forget about conventional understanding, it may be misunderstood. I meant it as a reminder to pay attention to what is really there. ... > N: Names and concepts are not really there. Do we want to understand what is not really there? ... I think that conventional understanding is usually associated with avijja, ignorance (a linguistic paradox/ambiguity); ignorance can know and understand anything but realities, which, by definition, don't make sense to avijja, only pa~n~na can understand conditioned realities, little by little, step by step, as their individual characteristics appears to pa~n~na, one at a time, by conditions only, by hearing or reading the truth explained by words, the means/object condition for more understanding of realities as conditioned to arise and considering (conceptually but not conventionally) them accordingly, again and again, understanding what is real in the absolute sense just a little bit better than last week, ..., last aeon, what can only appear now just for an instant before disappearing for good, understanding which can only develop naturally, only by conditions rather than by a conventional self *trying* to understand, by ignorance (itself a condition as hetu and other paccayas, the first link of paticca-samuppada/samsara/1st and 2nd NT); and I think that as consequence of any level of understanding realities for what they are by conditions, there is also more understanding of concepts like the self as well, for what they are(n't). Like now there is seeing/cakkhu-vinnana, it arises by conditions like the eye base (vatthu), like visible object/form (rupa-arammana) and by other conditions as well (kamma is another). Is a self required for seeing to see visible object? or conditions are enough, all that is needed for these realities to arise briefly and perform their functions and then fall away, in succession? And for thinking, which must follow each eye-door process, after bhavangas/life-continuum, it's the same, arising by conditions only, several of them, more than for seeing to arise, to carry out its function, but still no self is required, no self really needs to appear, again just realities or paramattha dhammas arising and falling away, usually with concepts (which are included in mental objects, dhamma-arammana) as its object. Alberto #131407 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma free pdf download ptaus1 Hi Nina, > as pdf I cannot read it, not in Unicode. But in the links section it > may be easier? Probably not, as it is the same link to the same file as in the original message. If you've downloaded the pdf file to your hard drive, try opening it with Adobe Reader instead of Preview (which I think is the default pdf reader on Macs). If it still doesn't work even through Adobe, then lets wait and see if someone else with a Mac can open the file or not and maybe give us some pointers. Best wishes pt #131408 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments. philofillet Hi Alberto, Rob E, Nina > > > > I think that if you say that only the single dhamma has any > > importance that is really wrong. I don't think the path makes any > > sense, logically or otherwise, so that we can understand what the > > heck is going on, if we don't get some understanding of those multi- > > moment operations. Maybe that is intellectual, but can we have > > pariyatti ever if we don't know what's happening? > ------ > > N: I know what you mean. When I said: let us forget about > conventional understanding, it may be misunderstood. I meant it as a > reminder to pay attention to what is really there. > ... > > N: Names and concepts are not really there. Do we want to understand > what is not really there? > ... > > I think that conventional understanding is usually associated with avijja, ignorance (a linguistic paradox/ambiguity); ignorance can know and understand anything but realities, which, by definition, don't make sense to avijja, only pa~n~na can understand conditioned realities, little by little, step by step, as their individual characteristics appears to pa~n~na, one at a time, by conditions only, by hearing or reading the truth explained by words, the means/object condition for more understanding of realities as conditioned to arise and considering (conceptually but not conventionally) them accordingly, again and again, understanding what is real in the absolute sense just a little bit better than last week, ..., Ph: I wonder if we can appreciate that the purpose the Buddha explained about realities is for the liberation of the listener, not to explain the way things work like a scientist does? The context is always about anatta and developing detachment not just for the sake of understanding how things work, so to speak. So seeming contradiction between a scientific explanation and the Dhamma don't concern me. Although understanding science should also help to develop detachment. So Ibthinkbsometimes people get caught up, for example, in scientific explanations if perception or cognition that can be thought about logically based on what we have learned about them in school or elsewhere and it can muddle our understanding of Dhamma and dhammas. Maybe it is wrong if me to say that, just proposing it. I think Robert K has sritten that there is difference in the ways science and Dhamma explain things but what I've written above is my gut feeling that I have trouble explaining. I think there is a world soteriological that means pertaining to liberation/salvation, so Dhamma is soteriological and scientific explanations and reasoning are not, something like that... Phil last aeon, what can only appear now just for an instant before disappearing for good, understanding which can only develop naturally, only by conditions rather than by a conventional self *trying* to understand, by ignorance (itself a condition as hetu and other paccayas, the first link of paticca-samuppada/samsara/1st and 2nd NT); and I think that as consequence of any level of understanding realities for what they are by conditions, there is also more understanding of concepts like the self as well, for what they are(n't). > Like now there is seeing/cakkhu-vinnana, it arises by conditions like the eye base (vatthu), like visible object/form (rupa-arammana) and by other conditions as well (kamma is another). > Is a self required for seeing to see visible object? or conditions are enough, all that is #131409 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma free pdf download sarahprocter... Hi Pt & Nina, I find it easy to open on my Mac, but cannot copy and paste. I think Jon said there is an on-line version that one can buy for a very small amount and then be able to do this. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > as pdf I cannot read it, not in Unicode. But in the links section it > > may be easier? > > Probably not, as it is the same link to the same file as in the original message. If you've downloaded the pdf file to your hard drive, try opening it with Adobe Reader instead of Preview (which I think is the default pdf reader on Macs). If it still doesn't work even through Adobe, then lets wait and see if someone else with a Mac can open the file or not and maybe give us some pointers. ======== #131410 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:54 am Subject: Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases sarahprocter... Dear Alan (& Nina & Thomas), Good to see you back after quite a long break! Nina, this is Alan McAllister who you've written to before (I had to check to remember and be reminded that Alan is a semi-retired psychologist in Ontario, Canada.) Nina's already answered your qus, Alan. I look forward to reading and discussing any more. What are your views on "practise" these days? I think that both you and Thomas would find CMA very helpful. Pt recently gave the on-line link. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" wrote: > > I am puzzled. With respect to the sense bases, what kind of knowing is it to know the form and the organ? > > I understand that eye-consciousness arises through the interaction of form and the eye. But to know the sense bases (form and eye), is this mind consciousness? Is this a conceptual knowing, although not conventional? Is it nevertheless an experiential form of knowing as opposed to simply an understanding of the doctrine? #131411 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:16 am Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > Furthermore, > > In SN 12.2 the analysis (vibhaga) on tanha `craving', one of the 12 factors (of Dependent Origination), it lists six classes of craving (cha tanhakaya): > > Bhikkhu Bodhi: "craving for froms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental phenomena." (Nidana Samyutta, The Connected Discourses of The Buddha, p. 535) > > Choong Mun-keat: "craving for visible things (rupa-tanha), craving for sounds (sadda-tanha), craving for odours (gandha-tanha), craving for tastes (rasa-tanha), craving for tangible things (photthabba-tanha), craving for mental objects (ideas) (dhamma-tanha)" (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 165). > > Thus, both Buddhist scholars (Bhikkhu Bodhi and Choong Mun-keat) in the item dhamma-tanha translate dhamma as "mental phenomena" and "mental objects (ideas)" respectively. ... S: As I've said, it's not so much an issue of translations that is important but of understanding what is meant. So, for example, in this context above, dhamma-tanha refers to craving for any objects (except lokuttara dhammas) experienced through the mind-door. These are dhamma-arammana and may be concepts or realities. In other contexts you've given, such as when referring to dependently-arisen dhammas, dhammas only refer to realities. It's essential to understand the difference and the distinction between concepts and realities. If you'd like me to explain more, I'm happy to do so. As I just mentioned in another post, I think you'd find the first couple of chapters in CMA very helpful in this regard. Metta Sarah ===== #131412 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:28 am Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > About a quotation from the suttas of Nidana Samyutta on the term dhammas meaning phenomena, the following translations of one sutta may be useful: > > SN 12.20: > > - Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Bhikkhus, I will teach you dependent origination and dependently arisen phenomena. " (The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 550) ... S: Yes, here dhammas (phenomena) refer to the conditioned realities "dependently arisen", not to all objects experienced through the mind-door which may be clung to (as in the last sutta). The conditioned realities are avijja (ignorance), sankhara, i.e. cetana cetasika (formations), vinnana, i.e vipaka cittas (consciousness) and so on. Without some understanding of the Abhidhamma, it's impossible to begin to understand Nidanasamyutta. So now, what has arisen are dhammas such as seeing consciousness and visible object. What is clung to now may be these same dhammas or may be concepts about them, ideas about computers or waves or roses. Metta Sarah ==== #131413 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments. philofillet Hi again Just re-read my post and it's unclear what I'm getting at. I guess I mean that when we think in terms of the conventional we are likely to be thinking in terms of the scientific explanations we have been conditioned by our education to think in, but the Dhamma explanation, while consistent with the scientific explanation generally, has a different focus and purpose or something like that. Correction. Robert K has written that there *isn't* any difference between science and Dhamma...and maybe that is the right way to understand it, I don't know. Making a vague effort to wrestle with an idea a la Rob E more than I usual do... Phil #131414 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:07 am Subject: Re: An apology from the arising of hiri and otappa or just clinging to self image? philofillet Hi all I will bump this apology one more time The initial impulse still seems to be appearing quite often, although the motivation cannot be clearly understood. Kusala or akusala? Doesn't really matter in this case. I think an impulse towards harmlessness is beneficial even if rooted (as it almost surely is) in lobha. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear all > > I don't know which (see subject) it is, no way to know, but there is an impulse to post an apology and a wish that all sentient beings (except mosquitoes) feel free to participate here. I will stop scolding people and just avoid threads that go against what I consider common sense. ( Which is to say people who don't accept the dhamma theory debating those that do) > > I promise to behave better. I will stop bullying people. > > > The impulse has already fallen away of course but thinking is operating in a way that permits the posting of this apology, subject to countless conditions and therefore utterly unreliable. > > Metta, > > Phil > > P.S As a bonus offering, I give you 48 hours of Phil shutting up. > #131415 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:23 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 43. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Chapter 5, `Momentary death' (cont'd): So long as ignorance and clinging have not been eradicated we continue being in sa.msaara. If we do not develop insight, vipassanaa, the number of rebirths will be endless. It was out of compassion that the Buddha spoke about the dangers of rebirth; he wanted to encourage people to develop right understanding of the reality appearing at this moment. Acharn was emphasizing all the time the value of understanding this moment of seeing, hearing, thinking and all realities that appear. This helped me to see the disadvantage of being absorbed in sad events that happened in the past and of clinging to what has fallen away and will never return. Such ways of thinking are conditioned and instead of trying to avoid thinking we can learn that also the thinking that arises can be understood in order to know it as not "mine", as only a dhamma. The contrast between living in a dreamworld while clinging to the past and beginning to understand the world of paramattha dhammas became more obvious to me than before. The difference between those two worlds is actually most striking. I am very grateful to Acharn for pointing this out time and again, in many different ways. We listen to the Dhamma in order to have more understanding of the present moment. During this journey it became clearer to me that listening to the Dhamma is the most precious in life. ******* (End of the series) #131416 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:24 am Subject: Re: An apology from the arising of hiri and otappa or just clinging to self image? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I will bump this apology one more time The initial impulse still seems to be appearing quite often, although the motivation cannot be clearly understood. Kusala or akusala? Doesn't really matter in this case. I think an impulse towards harmlessness is beneficial even if rooted (as it almost surely is) in lobha. > ... S: Yes, always different kinds of cittas, but must be some kindness (alobha and adosa) involved in the "impulse towards harmlessness" and this is always praiseworthy, so we can appreciate this and no need to try and 'work out' the rest! Always back to this moment.... Metta Sarah ==== #131417 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:30 am Subject: Visits with us and Ajahn Sujin to Kaeng Krachan. sarahprocter... Dear Friends, If any of you are interested to join Jon & I and Ajhan Sujin for a few days in Kaeng Krachan country park (about 3 hrs from Bangkok) either during the last week August or last week September, please let me know. It's a very special opportunity to have small group, more intimate Dhamma discussions with A.Sujin in beautiful surroundings and at low cost. (Tadao & Kevin will be joining us for the first trip and there's a small chance that Phil may be able to join the second one). Metta Sarah #131418 From: Alan McAllister Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:10 pm Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases alanpmcallister Nina, Sarah and others: Yes, I am that psychologist in the north woods. Thank you for the welcome back. Sometimes I retreat after coming on the list to reflect on the responses I receive. Sometimes it takes years. Nina, am I correct in taking it that the knowing of the sense bases is knowing the non-self characteristics, in the case of seeing, of the eye organ and the form and knowing their arising and passing away? Does this mean that, in contemplation of the sense bases, what is to be known are the general characteristics (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self) rather than anything specific, such as an essence, qualia or so on? My friend, Jerome, with whom I have many long discussions, is wondering how could one possibly discern the rise and fall of the eye (or forms)? However, he is not wondering how one can discern the rise and fall of eye-consciousness, feelings, cravings. Here is a quote he thinks is in support of this claimed possibility to directly experience the eye: "If anyone says, 'The eye is self,' that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: 'My self rises and falls.' That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say 'The eye is self.' Thus the eye is not self." MN148 He asks, how is it possible, then, to observe the eye? Best wishes to all, Alan On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:54 PM, sarah wrote: > ** > > > Dear Alan (& Nina & Thomas), > > Good to see you back after quite a long break! Nina, this is Alan > McAllister who you've written to before (I had to check to remember and be > reminded that Alan is a semi-retired psychologist in Ontario, Canada.) > > Nina's already answered your qus, Alan. I look forward to reading and > discussing any more. > > What are your views on "practise" these days? > > I think that both you and Thomas would find CMA very helpful. Pt recently > gave the on-line link. > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" wrote: > > > > I am puzzled. With respect to the sense bases, what kind of knowing is > it to know the form and the organ? > > > > I understand that eye-consciousness arises through the interaction of > form and the eye. But to know the sense bases (form and eye), is this mind > consciousness? Is this a conceptual knowing, although not conventional? Is > it nevertheless an experiential form of knowing as opposed to simply an > understanding of the doctrine? > > > -- Dr. Alan McAllister, C.Psych. 91 Chemaushgon, Box 459 Bancroft, Ontario K0L 1C0 613-332-3115 #131419 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Worry conditioning kusala ( wasRe: Worry philofillet Dear group Worried by a situation at work than self identifies with and blows out of proportion, helpful to read a useful post from Rob M laying out the paramattha of what we call "worry." I pick out one part: > There are two ways in which worry can condition the arising of a > kusala citta: > - Object condition: When one comprehends by means of insight that > worry leads to unhappy states > - Natural Decisive Support Condition: When worry motivates one to do > good deeds We do know that the ignorant worldling knows no way out of unpleasant feeling than by pursuing pleasant feeling so a good chance that the "insight that worry leads to unhappy states" will actually be performed by lobha seeking escape from unpleasant mind states but if course that wholesome understanding can arise as well, with alobha. Tempting to say that the more often we listen to the Dhamma the more often that wholesome understanding will arise. Very tempting... Please enjoy the rest of the post which explains the characteristics of the various relevant realities. Phil P.s is there agreement on the paccayas Rob M lays out? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" > wrote: > > In my Bhikkhu Bodhi edited Abhidhammattha Sangaha, worry > (kukkucca) > > is defined as "worry or remorse after having done wrong" (p 84). > On > > the one hand, I can see that this type of worry is a gross form of > > dukkha and fittingly akusala. > > On the other hand, it seems to be a good support for shame and > fear > > of wrongdoing, both beautiful cetasikas. > > ===== > > You are correct that worry can be good support for shame and fear of > wrongdoing, but they don't arise in the same citta. We have to keep > each mind-moment separate. There is one moment with worry with an > uncomfortable mental feeling (this is an akusala citta). Following > this akusala citta *could* be another mind moment which is wholesome > (a kusala citta). All kusala cittas contain shame and fear of > wrongdoing. > > There are two ways in which worry can condition the arising of a > kusala citta: > - Object condition: When one comprehends by means of insight that > worry leads to unhappy states > - Natural Decisive Support Condition: When worry motivates one to do > good deeds > > Unfortunately, more often than not, worry is a condition for more > dosa-mula cittas; dissatisfaction with the current situation, anger > with the person making us worry, etc. A process called mental > proliferation (papanca) takes over and akusala "multiplies"; > delusion feeds on itself. > > ===== > > > Both shame and worry are backward-looking (ie into past events), > so > > why is one kusala and the other akusala? > > ===== > > One of the challenges in dealing with a translated work is that > there is rarely a "perfect" translation. For clarity, the > commentaries describe each cetasika in terms of its: > - characterisitic (main quality, essential property, specific or > generic attribute) > - Function (performance of a task, achievement of goal) > - Manifestation (how it presents itself in an experience, the effect > it has) > - Proximate Cause (conditions upon which it depends) > > You are asking the difference between hiri (moral shame / > conscience / scruples / modesty) and Kukkucca (remorse / worry / > regret / brooding). > > Here is how hiri is defined: > - Characteristic: Disgust at bodily and verbal misconduct > - Function: Not doing evil because of modesty > - Manifestation: Shrinking from evil because of modesty > - Proximate Cause: Self-respect > > Here is how kukkucca is defined: > - Characteristic: Subsequent regret; repentance > - Function: Sorrow over what has and what has not been done; sorrow > at deeds of commission and omission > - Manifestation: Remorse; regret > - Proximate Cause: Wrongs of commission and omission; akusala kamma > that has been committed and kusala kamma that has been omitted > > Hopefully, this additional information answers your question. > > ===== > > > What about people who do wrong and have no worry or shame at all? > Do > > such people exist or is it merely that their worry is too fleeting > to > > be noticed by themselves or other worldlings? > > ===== > > All unwholesome states of mind will include Ahirika (shamelessness / > lack of moral shame / impudence / no conscience) and kukkucca. I > gave the details on kukkucca above; here are the details for ahirika: > - Characteristic: Absence of disgust at bodily and verbal > misconduct; immodesty > - Function: Doing evil things without shame > - Manifestation: Not shrinking away from evil > - Proximate Cause: Lack of respect for self (Consider that the > opposite, moral shame, is internally focused) > > Hope that the above helps. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > #131420 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments. sukinderpal Hi Phil, all, Some comments. > Ph: I wonder if we can appreciate that the purpose the Buddha > explained about realities is for the liberation of the listener, not > to explain the way things work like a scientist does? The context is > always about anatta and developing detachment not just for the sake of > understanding how things work, so to speak. > I think the Buddha did teach the way things are, and he did this for the sake of liberation. Science is based on observation of and thinking about the conventional world and is very good at that. The concepts arrived at may or may not reflect what goes on at the paramattha level, but in no way are they about reality / the way things are. Understanding the Dhamma begins with the distinction between reality and concept which science does not in fact make. Indeed science must rely totally on concepts otherwise it would be the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma is description of the way things are. > So seeming contradiction between a scientific explanation and the > Dhamma don't concern me. > It does not concern me either. But this is not because science describes the way things are whereas the Dhamma is for the sake of liberation, but because one is about ultimate realities and the other is about conventional reality. That science has discovered for example, the existence of fundamental particles whose behavior is in accord with what is taught in the Dhamma, this is reflection of the truth of Dhamma and not of science. Which in fact is no different from ordinary observations by those untrained in the subject, such as that, every "thing" is impermanent, nothing lasts. But you and I know that this is only reflection of one of the three general characteristics of paramattha dhammas, namely anicca, something which can be known only by the development of wisdom. > Although understanding science should also help to develop detachment. > Detachment as in holding on to a philosophical position and not that which is the result of the development of right understanding. The latter understands anatta whereas the former falls back on atta of one kind or the other. > So I think sometimes people get caught up, for example, in scientific > explanations if perception or cognition that can be thought about > logically based on what we have learned about them in school or > elsewhere and it can muddle our understanding of Dhamma and dhammas. > Yes this happens quiet often with me, especially when thinking about kalapas. But this is because the understanding is still only at the kindergarten level. > Maybe it is wrong if me to say that, just proposing it. I think Robert > K has sritten that there is difference in the ways science and Dhamma > explain things but what I've written above is my gut feeling that I > have trouble explaining. I think there is a world soteriological that > means pertaining to liberation/salvation, so Dhamma is soteriological > and scientific explanations and reasoning are not, something like that... > I think Robert would agree that science deals with shadows of reality, but not the reality itself. Metta, Sukin #131421 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Worry conditioning kusala ( wasRe: Worry sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > P.s is there agreement on the paccayas Rob M lays out? ... S: I might use different wording in the descriptions, but if they weren't the correct paccayas and if the detail wasn't mostly right, you wouldn't have found it in U.P! Good post to re-quote. Good to remember that any dhamma, any reality can be the object of right understanding now (at whatever level) by arammana (object) condition. Also good to remember that whilst generally kusala leads to more kusala and akusala to more akusala by way of pakatupanissaya paccaya (decisive support condition), in fact akusala can lead to kusala and vice versa. There can be wise consideration of one's aversion and there can be attachment to one's generosity, for example. Metta Sarah ==== #131422 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:34 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Sarah, ... > T: What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana? ... > S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. > If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail. I'm a bit short of time right now, otherwise might quote here. T: The Pali term for `reality' you used here is paramattha, which is translated as `ultimate reality' in the book CMA (p. 25). Such a term (paramattha) and its contents (cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) are in fact not found in Nidana Samyutta (and indeed the whole suttas of Samyutta Nikaya). As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha. Regards, Thomas #131423 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:52 pm Subject: Worry conditioning kusala ( wasRe: Worry philofillet Hi Sarah > in fact akusala can lead to kusala and vice versa. There can be wise consideration of one's aversion and there can be attachment to one's generosity. So can we also agree with meditators who say that desire for results can lead to bhavana? I'm not really comfortable with saying aversion "leads to" wise consideration cuz it implies a predictable cause result relationship. Can't we instead say " wise consideration may arise as a result of aversion" I guess that isn't any different from what you wrote above, is it? Somehow saying akusala can lead to kusala challenges my understanding's comfort zone but if that's what Abhidhamma says, that's what Abhidhamma says. And maybe common sense says it too. But if I am upset and want the feeling to change, that must be aversion leading to a different kind of akusala, yes? No? No rule? Phil n #131424 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:05 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 43. glenjohnann Dear NIna --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > By Nina van Gorkom > > Chapter 5, `Momentary death' (cont'd): > > The contrast between living in a dreamworld while clinging to the past and beginning to understand the world of paramattha dhammas became more obvious to me than before. The difference between those two worlds is actually most striking. I am very grateful to Acharn for pointing this out time and again, in many different ways. > We listen to the Dhamma in order to have more understanding of the present moment. During this journey it became clearer to me that listening to the Dhamma is the most precious in life. Ann: Well said, Nina. I found something similar - in that we live for the very most past in a dream world - ideas of the past, the present and the future. Only hearing and understanding the Dhamma, at some level, can show us the difference between the world of paramatta Dhammas and the on-going dreams and movies that are thinking, all produced from moments of seeing, hearing, etc., none of which have concepts as objects. I agree fully that listening to the Dhamma is the most precious thing in life - and the development of understanding which cannot come without hearing the true Dhamma. We are indeed fortunate. Ann #131425 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:35 pm Subject: Worry conditioning kusala ( wasRe: Worry sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > in fact akusala can lead to kusala and vice versa. There can > be wise consideration of one's aversion and there can be attachment to one's > generosity. > >P: So can we also agree with meditators who say that desire for results can lead to bhavana? ... S: 'Can', but only if that desire is understood for what it is - a conditioned dhamma and the cause of all suffering. Usually, there's no understanding at all. If one were to pursue such desire because one had read that akusala can condition kusala by way of decisive support condition, it would be completely wrong understanding. ... >I'm not really comfortable with saying aversion "leads to" wise consideration cuz it implies a predictable cause result relationship. Can't we instead say " wise consideration may arise as a result of aversion" I guess that isn't any different from what you wrote above, is it? .... S: Again, it's the understanding, not the words that is important. Any dhamma may be a condition for any other dhamma, that's all. ... > Somehow saying akusala can lead to kusala challenges my understanding's comfort zone but if that's what Abhidhamma says, that's what Abhidhamma says. And maybe common sense says it too. ... S: 'can lead to' just means 'conditions' here in context. We've given examples from the Patthana before. Like jhana cittas may arise and then because attachment hasn't been eradicated, they condition attachment. ... > > But if I am upset and want the feeling to change, that must be aversion leading to a different kind of akusala, yes? No? No rule? ... S: Sounds like some dosa and lobha for sure - of course they condition each other all the time. No rule! There can be understanding of the dosa instead of attachment or more dosa. Cittas follow so quickly, no use trying to catch them or 'work it out' however, otherwise just more lobha, more stories about 'me and my cittas'! Metta Sarah ==== #131426 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:04 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > T: What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana? > ... > > S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. > > > If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail. ... > T: The Pali term for `reality' you used here is paramattha, which is translated as `ultimate reality' in the book CMA (p. 25). Such a term (paramattha) and its contents (cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) are in fact not found in Nidana Samyutta (and indeed the whole suttas of Samyutta Nikaya). ... S: As it says in the Guide to this section: "Ultimate realities, in contrast (to conventional realities), are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final , irreducible components of existence, te ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience." Whatever terms are used, ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements). ... > > As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha. .. S: Yes, but you seemed to have the (erroneous) idea that conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas. In fact they are just the same cittas, cetasikas and rupas referred to above. They are not the same as the dhammarammana (mental objects) referred to in your other post (also translated as 'phenomena') that are thought about, because in this later case, realities or concepts can be the objects of mind door processes. Metta Sarah ==== #131427 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:11 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Sarah, ------- > ... > S: ... ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements). T: The term paramattha `ultimate reality' is not found in all suttas, including SN, which record the teachings of the Buddha. -------- > T: As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha. > > S: Yes, but you seemed to have the (erroneous) idea that conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas. In fact they are just the same cittas, cetasikas and rupas referred to above. They are not the same as the dhammarammana (mental objects) referred to in your other post (also translated as 'phenomena') that are thought about, because in this later case, realities or concepts can be the objects of mind door processes. > T: According to the Nidana suttas, conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas, cittas and rupas, which are phenomena (dhammas).The term dhammarammana is not found in the Nidana suttas. Regards, Thomas #131428 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:34 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > S: ... ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements). > > T: The term paramattha `ultimate reality' is not found in all suttas, including SN, which record the teachings of the Buddha. ... S: Is ignorance 'found' in the suttas? Ignorance is a paramattha dhamma. Is attachment discussed? Is seeing discussed? Visible object? Contact? These are the same dhammas, the same paramattha dhammas that we find throughout the Tipitaka, the Teachings of the Buddha. ... > T: According to the Nidana suttas, conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas, cittas and rupas, which are phenomena (dhammas).The term dhammarammana is not found in the Nidana suttas. ... S: Please give me an example of a conditioned dhamma that refers to a concept or idea that is mentioned in any sutta and we can discuss it further. So far you have only referred to objects of thinking experienced through the mind door. Such concepts are not said to be conditioned anywhere. Take the idea of 'computer'.... What is seen now is visible object. Seeing is real, it is conditioned. Visible object is real, it is also conditioned. What is touched now is hardness. The touching is real, the hardness is real, they are also conditioned. However, 'computer' is only thought about. Thinking is real and conditioned, computer is not. Metta Sarah ===== #131429 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:40 pm Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases nilovg Dear Alan Mac, Op 25-jun-2013, om 4:10 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > Nina, am I correct in taking it that the knowing of the sense bases is > knowing the non-self characteristics, in the case of seeing, of the > eye > organ and the form and knowing their arising and passing away? > Does this > mean that, in contemplation of the sense bases, what is to be known > are the > general characteristics (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non- > self) > rather than anything specific, such as an essence, qualia or so on? ------ N: Before pa~n~naa can understand the general characteristics of realities, it knows different dhammas appearing now as just a conditioned dhamma; either a dhamma that knows or experiences something or a dhamma that does not know anything. Insight develops in stages and the first stage is discerning the difference between naama and ruupa. This is not theory, it concerns whatever appears right now. That is enough for the moment. Otherwise we just speculate about what has not come yet. ------- > > A: My friend, Jerome, with whom I have many long discussions, is > wondering how > could one possibly discern the rise and fall of the eye (or forms)? > However, he is not wondering how one can discern the rise and fall of > eye-consciousness, feelings, cravings. ------ N: Acharn Sujin reminded us that each time we ask: how can... there is an idea of self who wants to know. It is best not to think of the future. When pa~n~naa has been developed it can understand both naama and ruupa. Not "we" who can discern anything. The quote confirms this. ------ Nina. #131430 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 43. nilovg Dear Ann, Op 25-jun-2013, om 6:05 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > Only hearing and understanding the Dhamma, at some level, can show > us the difference between the world of paramatta Dhammas and the on- > going dreams and movies that are thinking, all produced from > moments of seeing, hearing, etc., none of which have concepts as > objects. I agree fully that listening to the Dhamma is the most > precious thing in life - and the development of understanding which > cannot come without hearing the true Dhamma. We are indeed fortunate. ----- N: We can compare the siuation now, having listened to the Dhamma, with the siuation before when we had not listened and had no idea about the difference between concepts and realities. We can prove that listening and considering is the only way to have more understanding of realities. ----- Nina. #131431 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:37 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > S: The following which I quoted recently from an old post may help: > > 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), � > > 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) ... > > ... 'Things with a specific nature' are dhatus, khandhas with characterisitics, functions, proximate causes and characteristics. in processes of experiences and arise and fall away.... ... >T: The term, paramattha sacca `truth in the ultimate meaning' (or "truth in the highest sense") mentioned in the Commentaries is not found in the suttas. However, the meaning is surely in the suttas. That is, "dhammas (phenomena, such as the sense spheres, the khandhas) are impermanent, empty of self or of anything belonging to self". Note: it does not mean "dhammas that exist absolutely (in ultimate reality)"; it means `self' does not exist in those phenomena, which is the so-called paramattha sacca in the Commentaries. ... S: it means those dhammas, those paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities), are real. They arise and fall away. Each one is anatta. ... > >T: Also, the notion of paramattha sacca explained in your reply here is very similar to "the Discourse on Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning" in one of the Samyukta-agama texts: SA 335, which, however, has no Pali counterpart (See, Choong Mun-keat, 2000. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 95-6). ... S: I doubt it. Metta Sarah ==== #131432 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... sarahprocter... Hi Alex (& Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >Phil: why do you stay here. > > If I were healthy, I wouldn't. I'd be blissing out in meditation. Unfortunately I am not gifted in samatha and my pain interferes. ... S: Maybe it's fortunate in this sense that you're not healthy because then you wouldn't be hearing any good Dhamma (even if you disagree with it)! Seriously, what is samatha? Is there samatha now? Is the aim to "bliss out?" Metta Sarah ==== #131433 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > Leaving self leaving identity leaving life leaving > individual one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'. Continuously means uninterruptedly from wake to retiring sleep. .... S: This idea of "one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'' sounds strange to me. No self to see anything and impossible for panna to "continuously see". Such an idea is bound to lead to efforts to try and be aware continuously with an idea of self, surely? Metta ==== #131434 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... sarahprocter... Correction of typo: (only now reading through posts sent by me and others just before we left Hong Kong): --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: So seeing now is vipaka. We cannot say that the visible object seen at this moment is wholesome or unwholesome vipaka (result of good or bad deeds). We do know that moments of seeing are always accompanied by neutral feeling, however. So no "unpleasant vipaka" when seeing or hearing. ... New S: the last "unpleasant vipaka" should read "unpleasant feeling". Sarah ===== #131435 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:07 pm Subject: Re: Quote from Survey. 2. sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, Thank you for your long reply. Just picking up a few small points and qus only: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > leaves the question open, why , if 'personality/individuality ' means ' more conventional modes of expression ' , why these individuals are described > by Abhidhamma's "Puggalapannatti " An enumeration of the qualities of certain different 'personality types'. These types were believed to be useful in formulating teachings to which an individual would respond positively" (Wiki) ... S: Just like in the suttas, the terms people or puggala are used, but the text makes it very clear that these are just conventional ways of describing paramattha dhammas, realities - cittas, cetasikas and rupas. When there is understanding about such realities, there is no confusion whatever language is used. ... > S: > The Dhammayoga bhikkus (the ones dedicated to Dhamma or the Scholars) "penetrate the deep meaning of the khandas (aggregates), the dhatus > (elements) the ayatanas (sense fields). They clearly see it by magga-citta (i.e the citta that experiences nibbana) together with vipassana panna. > But here it should be panna which penetrates by considering, and also panna on the level of asking questions and learning" Commentary ends. >The last part of the sutta about the Dhammayoga Bhikkhus says 'Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom (panna) > clearly understand a difficult subject' (i.e realize nibbana). > > So both groups are enlightened but presumably only the second group have attained jhanas. Obviously there is no suggestion that for the first group > this is merely an intellectual approach. > How could Nibbana be realized if it were? Likewise, Those who have jhana experience and have attained at least the first stage of enlightenment > should be highly respected.< > ***** > > D: The point of the 'Dhammayoga Bhikkhus' seems to me that they have no chance to get a glimpse of Nibbana on their way to liberation. ... S: I don't understand your comment. Regardless of whether jhanas have been attained or not, regardless of whether jhanas are the 'base' of enlightenment, there must be the development of insight, the vipassana nanas, the attainment of sotapatti magga and phala (with nibbana as object), the attainments of the sakadagami and anagami, then full liberation at stage of arahat. Nibbana is the object of all lokuttara cittas regardless. ... > S: Any noble or wholesome qualities should be praised and respected and no one has suggested that jhana attainment or the development of samatha > should not be included in this.< (end old post) > ..... > D: yes..and I would wish that comments like ' meditation is useless or a wrong path ' are ceasing and replaced by respect for an approach which concerns the samadhi sequence of the Noble Path training ... S: The question is whether any meditation as taught today does concern samadhi of the Noble Path. What do you mean by "the samadhi sequence"? Are you suggesting path factors arise in sequence or steps? I thought such an idea of sequence/steps has been discussed and shown to be erroneous before. What is Noble Path training - now? .... D:...likewise the second group should show openness for the teaching of Abhidhamma and 'ultimate reality' ... S: Anyone following the path and becoming enlightened has to understand ultimate realities, present realities. ... > Learning from eachother... isn't that the core of Mahaacunda Sutta? ... S: Praising what is 'right' and learning what is praiseworthy. While I agree with you that disagreements should be courteous and respectful, this doesn't mean there should be compromise over what is taught by the Buddha. Metta Sarah ===== #131436 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:10 pm Subject: Re: TA on not understanding sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Why do I feel happy to read how weak panna is? I guess there is clinging to thinking about a story about panna developing very gradually. (Can there be clinging to a story or only to dhammas?) ... S: Clinging can cling to anything except the lokuttara dhammas. Metta Sarah ==== #131437 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:31 pm Subject: Re: Ann's amazing conversation, reading quotes to me. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Ann, I'm glad you appreciated the passage I transcribed and that Ann selected it to read out to you. I wouldn't have known if you hadn't requoted part of it. It's good to encourage each other with transcribing. We also found the passage very useful. Here are the links again (I split it into two as it was such a long passage) for anyone who missed it the first time. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130892 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130919 Ann, Tam and others - why not select some passages to transcribe as well? Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > more quotes. > 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. ==== #131438 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:25 pm Subject: Dhamma truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:Maybe it's fortunate in this sense that you're not healthy because >then you wouldn't be hearing any good Dhamma (even if you disagree with >it)! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could be so. >Seriously, what is samatha? Is there samatha now? Is the aim to >"bliss out?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samatha is stilling of the mind. In order to still it, one needs to have enough mindfulness to notice that it is not still, and enough wisdom to know how to properly deal with hindrances. As for "blissing out". Maybe it is its own reward. With best wishes, Alex #131439 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:04 am Subject: Worry conditioning kusala ( wasRe: Worry philofillet Hi Sarah > > > > in fact akusala can lead to kusala and vice versa. There can > > be wise consideration of one's aversion and there can be attachment to one's > > generosity. > > > >P: So can we also agree with meditators who say that desire for results can lead to bhavana? > ... > S: 'Can', but only if that desire is understood for what it is - a conditioned dhamma and the cause of all suffering. Usually, there's no understanding at all. Ph: Understod intellectually. It's very easy to say and is probably true that one understands intellectually that desire is " a conditioned Dhamma and the cause of all suffering." But people will say (championed by TB as I know vey well) that desire (not kusala chanda) can be useful fuel on the path. What is the degree of understanding that really feels the danger of this thinking? Especially when there is a sutta which seems to support TB? You know I quite often I say that it has to "click" with people. I guess the click is related to understanding Jacyra really is the source of all suffering. For example when you were being misled (and starved!) by the Mahasi organization was there a particular moment when it clicked with you that this was all wrong. This is all a story. Not as valuable as just studying the characteristics of whatever reality is arising now. > >I'm not really comfortable with saying aversion "leads to" wise consideration cuz it implies a predictable cause result relationship. Can't we instead say " wise consideration may arise as a result of aversion" I guess that isn't any different from what you wrote above, is it? > .... > S: Again, it's the understanding, not the words that is important. Any dhamma may be a condition for any other dhamma, that's all. Ph; Yes so much of what we write at DSG falls under " just words." What about the realities when we are writing? The realities that are arising as we write (thinking hardness seeing visible object hearing sound etc) are more valuable for understanding than content of what we write, probably. But just more words and speculation there as well. Ajahn is so good at pulling us out of that back to the presently arising realities. Phil #131440 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments. philofillet Hi Sukin Thanks for your comments. Nothing to add, really, Except to pick up on "I'm sure Robert would say science deals with the shadows of realities not the realities themselves." I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. But maybe I have that wrong. What wonderful push of conditionality would lead to Robert writing at length again here? At least we have him in the UPs. Phil #131441 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:38 am Subject: science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Phil, RobertE, all, >Nothing to add, really, Except to pick up on "I'm sure Robert would >say science deals with the shadows of realities not the realities >themselves." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science deals with phenomena given to the senses. Philosophy speculates about the "realities". >I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that >there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality >and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is BIG difference, and I hope that people stop trying to compare obsolete, 5th century Indian science with modern 21st century Science. With best wishes, Alex #131442 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:41 am Subject: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases truth_aerator Hello Alan, all, >Alan:My friend, Jerome, with whom I have many long discussions, is >wondering how could one possibly discern the rise and fall of the >eye(or forms)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will all die, and the eye will go the way a corpse does. So this is the fall of eye. The birth of a baby (or certain stage of embryo) is the origination of eye. As for visible objects, we can see them break, and if we don't, then we know that they will cease one day. Our Earth, sun and all the stars will. With best wishes, Alex #131443 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:27 am Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix philofillet Hi Alex > Science deals with phenomena given to the senses. Philosophy speculates about the "realities". In the other thread you said that what is seen by the eye eventually breaks or something like that. So you believe that a dish, or a computer is what is seen, rather than visible object. (Colour.) That is a perfectly natural way to see things. And you insist on it. But don't you want to develop understanding in line with the tipi tipitika? That's what I don't understand. Why reject the Dhamma in favour of the understanding you've had since you were a baby? Why not place value on the gradual development of a liberating understanding? The problem is you reject Abhidhamma, and obviously you are not alone there. As long as you reject Abhidhamma you must continue to see the world with baby eyes. With Abhidhamma you can begin little by little by little to approach what is seen heard tasted etc with big boy eyes. Some students of AS will say you don't need Abhidhamma, realities (paramattha dhammas) are clear enough in the suttanta. But I think Abhidhamma elucidates better. For example in SN 35 we have "no form leads the mind astray like the form of a woman. (paraphrase) Without Abhidhamma you will believe that what is seen is a woman rather than visible object/colour. Your understanding of seeing as explained by the Buddha and elucidated by Abhidhamma (in my current opinion Abhidhamma came later but is still indispensable for properly understanding Dhamma) will forever remain undeveloped. I believe that until people accept Abhidhamma they cannot share an understanding of Dhamma with people that do, so agree to disagree applies as usual with you ( and anyone else who doesn't fully accept Abhidhamma) Lastword to you. (Please always remember in the future when I don't respond to your posts a sensible a2d is in effect. Thanks. Phil > > >I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that >there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality >and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is BIG difference, and I hope that people stop trying to compare obsolete, 5th century Indian science with modern 21st century Science. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #131444 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:33 am Subject: science rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Hi Sukin > > Thanks for your comments. Nothing to add, really, Except to pick up on "I'm sure Robert would say science deals with the shadows of realities not the realities themselves." I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. But maybe I have that wrong. > > What wonderful push of conditionality would lead to Robert writing at length again here? At least we have him in the UPs. > > Phil > dear Phil thanks for the mention. here is an old post i wrote I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a claim. Again I would say that there are many traditions with many doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, long time ago. =============== Dear He..., I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and mor profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. . #131445 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:35 am Subject: Re: science rjkjp1 this post lost some of the editing due to yahoo groups archaic format. rhe first part was another member, the second was me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Sukin > > > > Thanks for your comments. Nothing to add, really, Except to pick up on "I'm sure Robert would say science deals with the shadows of realities not the realities themselves." I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. But maybe I have that wrong. > > > > What wonderful push of conditionality would lead to Robert writing at length again here? At least we have him in the UPs. > > > > Phil > > > dear Phil > thanks for the mention. > here is an old post i wrote > I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a claim. Again I would say that there are many traditions with many doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, long time ago. > > =============== > > Dear He..., > > I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and mor profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. . > #131446 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:37 am Subject: science2 rjkjp1 Thanks. It is true isn't it- nothing lasts at all. This type of consideration about anicca is useful. The more we accept that the better. Thinking alone isn't enough but at least seeing that everything must accord with the nature of parammattha dhammas helps us to see things in this light to some extent. Scientists have gradually uncovered that matter is almost nothing, simply space and very tiny particles changing rapidly: this is still a conceptual understanding but it accords with the way things really are (which if it is true it must). They know that every piece of matter is changing at a fanatstic rate. However, even the best scientists can't become enlightened by this knowledge as only direct experience of dhammas leads to the deepest type of wisdom. I saw a passage in a book that included an interview with the head of the physics department at the University of Chicago (where they first started making the atomic bomb). It was in the 1930's and he was telling someone that they now knew that all matter was so ephemeral. He said he found it hard to accept that the very floor they were standing on was just space and particles in flux - nevertheless that is what they had found. We accept this easily now because of our education but it is not so easy to see. The actual change is much more radical than even scientsits can realise; it all passes away completely and arises again billions of times in a split second according to the scriptures. Robert #131447 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:39 am Subject: science3 rjkjp1 H: There are many people who understand that there is no self at the helm of all that takes place. David Hume, for one, wrote about this at length. It is not a slight on the Buddha to suggest that others come to similar realizations as him, independently'' //////////////////////////////// robert:As you say Hume did reach conclusions that bear some (superficial) resemblance to the teaching of anatta. "for my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other never can catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception" (Hume). However, anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be results and then other conditions coming together to assist the kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. It shatters illusion but it doesn't in any way lead to ethical nihilism because while there are still conditions there must be rebirth and the fruition of results.I would say kamma and rebirth are unavoidable aspects of anatta. And the incredible thing is someone (the Buddha) could comprehand the various conditioned and conditioning factors with detail and precision. Far, far above any ideas Hume ever had. ////// QUOTE Jp :"Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him the relation between science and buddhism."" /////////////////// Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an interest in Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think these are great for those scientists but it would be very much a one-way street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard to insight into mind. Philosopher of mind Collin McGinn writes in his summary of the different ideas: "The head spins in theoretical disarray; no explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre ontologies loom. There is a feeling of intense confusion, but no clear idea of where the confusion lies" (1993,). My favourite quote is the definition of consciousness in the International Dictionary of Psychology: "Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it" (cited in Crick, 1994, vii) #131448 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:40 am Subject: science4 rjkjp1 I started this letter to Herman because I think he feels the Dhamma should be amenable to western science. Herman:"As long as I can think scientifically, I will apply scientific standards, ". I have to be upfront and say I am not especially impressed by science. It is surely the outstanding cutural achievement of the west - but when I compare it with the Dhamma of the Buddha it seems more like stamp collecting than an investigation into what is real and crucial. I am also convinced that the ancient sangha, including the monks at the Mahavihara in Sri lanka preserved the true Dhamma: I value their words far, far more than that of historians of the 20th century. Now to the main discussion. Herman, you have written that you don't believe in rebirth. You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after deathut would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). He finds it "odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function" (p.37). However, Batchelors reliance on science for answers about what happens after death etc. has its own problems. Scientists, despite their metaphysically neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was a chance occurence. The big bang occured (no one knows why or what were the conditions ) and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter came together to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form amino acids. These then formed complex proteins, which later formed bacteria. Life all arose out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why? Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). Recently Dighanaka gave us a link to one of Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) book, and it is useful to know what Dawkins beliefs are as I want to compare them later with Dighanaka's comments about the Aganna sutta. Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, pp.344-345). Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). So this is where we (the 'west') have arrived at in our thinking. It is not a pretty, or even philosphically sound, place in my opinion. . RobertK #131449 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:54 am Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >So you believe that a dish, or a computer is what is seen, rather >than visible object. (Colour.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. We don't just see a collection of colors. That is why we can recognize one object from another rather than see some meaningless set of colors that we can't make sense of. We can see open door from a wall, even if we don't think. That is why we can walk through the door, rather than smash into a wall. When someone says something to you, you don't need to make intentional effort to recognize the word. It is done automatically. I think that all this paramattha business, which isn't even in Canonical Abhidhamma, is conceptual... >That is a perfectly natural way to see things. And you insist on it. >But don't you want to develop understanding in line with the tipi >tipitika? That's what I don't understand. >>>>>>>>>>>> Tipitaka does talk about people, villages (being swept as example of impermanence), and other "conventional" things. >Why reject the Dhamma in favour of the understanding you've had since >you were a baby? >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't reject those aspects of Dhamma. >Without Abhidhamma you will believe that what is seen is a woman >rather than visible object/colour. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We may differ, but I think that remembering what her body is going to be like in grave, or the excrement in her intestines,-> it can help dealing with lust. >Please always remember in the future when I don't respond to your ?>posts a sensible a2d is in effect. Thanks. What is a2d? Alex #131450 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:03 am Subject: Re: science philofillet Hi Robert > dear Phil > thanks for the mention. You're welcome. Your old posts from the early days of DSG that I come across in UPs are really splendid. Sorry to have mis-remembered what I thought you said about Dhamma and science. I won't read it all (always on an iPhone these days) but I like to note those scientists in the 30s who had trouble accepting that they were standing on (however you described the atomic reality) even though their discoveries had led them to that understanding. It should be easier than that for people to understand that what is seen is visible object, not a computer etc. Phil > here is an old post i wrote > ago. > > =============== > > Dear He..., > > I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and mor profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. . > #131451 From: Alan McAllister Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:21 am Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases alanpmcallister Nina: Do you mean that prior to knowing the three characteristics, panna knows the eye and form as rupa and eye-consciousness as nama (knows the distinction between materiality and mentality)? Alan On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Dear Alan Mac, > Op 25-jun-2013, om 4:10 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > > > Nina, am I correct in taking it that the knowing of the sense bases is > > knowing the non-self characteristics, in the case of seeing, of the > > eye > > organ and the form and knowing their arising and passing away? > > Does this > > mean that, in contemplation of the sense bases, what is to be known > > are the > > general characteristics (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non- > > self) > > rather than anything specific, such as an essence, qualia or so on? > ------ > N: Before pa~n~naa can understand the general characteristics of > realities, it knows different dhammas appearing now as just a > conditioned dhamma; either a dhamma that knows or experiences > something or a dhamma that does not know anything. Insight develops > in stages and the first stage is discerning the difference between > naama and ruupa. > This is not theory, it concerns whatever appears right now. That is > enough for the moment. Otherwise we just speculate about what has not > come yet. > ------- > > > > A: My friend, Jerome, with whom I have many long discussions, is > > wondering how > > could one possibly discern the rise and fall of the eye (or forms)? > > However, he is not wondering how one can discern the rise and fall of > > eye-consciousness, feelings, cravings. > ------ > N: Acharn Sujin reminded us that each time we ask: how can... there > is an idea of self who wants to know. > It is best not to think of the future. When pa~n~naa has been > developed it can understand both naama and ruupa. Not "we" who can > discern anything. The quote confirms this. > ------ > Nina. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Dr. Alan McAllister, C.Psych. 91 Chemaushgon, Box 459 Bancroft, Ontario K0L 1C0 613-332-3115 #131452 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hi Alex, (and Phil) > > >I wonder if that is true? I seem to remember that he stressed that > >there is no difference between the way science teaches about reality > >and the way Dhamma teaches about reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is BIG difference, and I hope that people stop trying to compare > obsolete, 5th century Indian science with modern 21st century Science. > The science of 5th century India must most of it be obsolete and unreliable. But Abhidhamma is not science. Please show me how the idea of seeing being a kind of consciousness which experiences visible object, a physical phenomena conditioned by the four primary elements, is wrong and obsolete? And please show me how talking about the characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause of feeling, is science? Metta, Sukin #131453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases nilovg Dear Alan Mc, Op 26-jun-2013, om 3:21 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > Do you mean that prior to knowing the three characteristics, panna > knows > the eye and form as rupa and eye-consciousness as nama (knows the > distinction between materiality and mentality)? ------ N: Well said. The arising and falling away, thus, impermanence, cannot precisely be understood if naama and ruupa are not clearly distinguished. See, the arising and falling away of what exactly? Not of a mass, but of one reality at a time, the reality appearing at this very moment. If naama and ruupa are not clearly distinguished, understanding is very vague. One reality experiences, such as seeing, and one reality does not know anything, such as visible object or colour. But it takes long before this is known. All that can be done now is attending to the characteristic of this moment as it appears one at a time through one of the six doors. Such a moment is different from thinking of persons or things we believe we see. Awareness of one rality cannot be induced, it is dependent on conditions: listening, considering, understanding that it is anattaa. ------ Nina. #131454 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:55 pm Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases nilovg Dear Alex. Op 25-jun-2013, om 23:41 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > We will all die, and the eye will go the way a corpse does. So this > is the fall of eye. The birth of a baby (or certain stage of > embryo) is the origination of eye. > > As for visible objects, we can see them break, and if we don't, > then we know that they will cease one day. Our Earth, sun and all > the stars will. ------ N: The direct realization of one reality at a time as impermanent is different from thinking of the truth of impermanece. ------ NIna. #131455 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Hello Sukin, all, > >The science of 5th century India must most of it be obsolete and >unreliable. But Abhidhamma is not science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it is religion, which is even less reliable. >Please show me how the idea of seeing being a kind of consciousness >which experiences visible object, a physical phenomena conditioned by >the four primary elements, is wrong and obsolete? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In those times they didn't know about the brain, its role and processes happening in it. The commentarial Abhidhamma sounds too much like common-sense (naive) realism with its [I don't want to break right speech] idea that color is somehow located outside the mind from its own side. Same with other 4 sense stuff. Modern science knows far more about external phenomena than ancient one. With best wishes, Alex #131456 From: sprlrt@... Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:12 pm Subject: TA on the purpose of studying Dhamma sprlrt (Than Acharn, in Olsztyn - Poland, 10th am-B, 2m) TA: What's the purpose of studying Dhamma? not to be painful, or what? or, just want to understand. Because people expect a lot from studying Dhamma, so highly, to the moment when there's no pain at all, no unpleasant things; but studying means that, whatever one studies, the result is the understanding of whatever one has studied, right? if you've studied medicine you understand what medicine is, if you've studied cooking you know how to cook: (you) just know and understand what you've learnt. But when you think that you're studying the Teachings, the best or the good ones, and it will bring you something, but what is 'something' in your mind, peace of heart, peace of mind, or no pain, no worries, or what? But if one says that one studies, the purpose should be just one thing: to understand what one studies. So when one comes to hear the teachings about life, or philosophy, or about how life should be from then (on), after finishing (studying), or reading a lot - that is not what the Bhuddist Teaching's about. The Buddhist Teaching is about the truth, the absolute truth, the ultimate truth: nobody can change the way it is. So at moment of studying the Teachings no expectations of not having pain, and worries and anything, but just to understand, so you won't be disappointed, whenever there is the understanding of it; like now, there are many things appearing, is there any time to think - what is this and what is that; because there are many things; like the lake - it's not a human being, it's not table; what realities are there, in the absolute sense, in the absolute truth; if you don't mind (about that), you just see and think, and like it or dislike it, in a day, from day to day, that's all; but if you'd like to understand, or have understanding, because life is moment of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; more than that? or, each day life is (to) wake up, eat, work, or sleep, and (be) attached; (do you) just want to eat, sleep, and be attached? everyday; one has to eat many times a day, and then sleep, and in between that, among that - attachment, it's always there; and it comes (every) day of that life, and it starts again, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching - eating, sleeping, attachment. Is that enough? not knowing anything at all, while there can be many things to be known and understood; for example, everyone has to die sooner or later, with ignorance or with some understanding; when it's with some understanding we can have some understanding, no matter (if it's) very little or very much; but it is the right understanding of whatever appears in one's life, don't just live without any understanding. So I think that if one studies the Teachings of the Buddha, which talk about the truth of every moment and every thing, one learns to know and understand, that's all; no expectations to reach that degree, or to have less of what you want to have less: just understand; for example, now there is seeing, should we understand seeing? there is thinking, shouldn't there be the understanding of thinking? there is visible object, do we know enough about it, or not knowing that which appears yet; just having ignorance, and sometimes misunderstanding about it. For example when one is asked what does one see, 'table'; can there be more understanding than that? #131457 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hi Alex, What according to you does it mean for the Buddha to be the Perfectly Enlightened One? Or do you think that the Buddha was in fact not fully enlightened? Did he teach wrong view when stating that eye consciousness arises with the contact of visible object at the eye? Metta, Sukin > Hello Sukin, all, > > > > >The science of 5th century India must most of it be obsolete and > >unreliable. But Abhidhamma is not science. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Then it is religion, which is even less reliable. > > >Please show me how the idea of seeing being a kind of consciousness > >which experiences visible object, a physical phenomena conditioned by > >the four primary elements, is wrong and obsolete? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In those times they didn't know about the brain, its role and > processes happening in it. > > The commentarial Abhidhamma sounds too much like common-sense (naive) > realism with its [I don't want to break right speech] idea that color > is somehow located outside the mind from its own side. Same with other > 4 sense stuff. > > Modern science knows far more about external phenomena than ancient one. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > > #131458 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Hello Sukinder, all, >What according to you does it mean for the Buddha to be the Perfectly >Enlightened One? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that he removed all suffering from His life. Alex #131459 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix nilovg Dear Alex, Op 26-jun-2013, om 13:43 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > The commentarial Abhidhamma sounds too much like common-sense (naive) > realism with its [I don't want to break right speech] idea that > color is somehow located outside the mind from its own side. Same > with other 4 sense stuff. > > Modern science knows far more about external phenomena than ancient > one. ------- N: But what does it know? With what purpose, to become detached? Colour does not know anything, it is indeed not in the mind. It is different, it can be known by citta. Alberto gave us today such a good quote, I like to share it with you. It is worth while considering it and then one may be less inclined to compare Buddhism with science. Let me know whether this makes sense to you, Alex. Acharn: ------- Nina. #131460 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > >What according to you does it mean for the Buddha to be the Perfectly > >Enlightened One? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It means that he removed all suffering from His life. > "Enlightened" would be, to understand fully. What did the Buddha fully understand? Metta, Sukin #131461 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Hi Sukin, all, >"Enlightened" would be, to understand fully. What did the Buddha fully >understand? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suffering and how to end it. If I am going to have to believe in eclipse as demon Rahu swallowing the Moon, Rain & Wind Gods, and fish ~5,000km in length, then I am not a Buddhist (in that sense). With best wishes, Alex #131462 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, I hope you are recovering well from your accident. I think that it is better to keep Dhamma as far away from science as possible. Dhamma, IMHO, should be taken as psychological training to remove dukkha. Various technical teachings can have or had their use which could be to motivate a person to practice, and to show not-self. I don't think that those teaching are magical in themselves (or even correct), rather it is their use that can be helpful. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #131463 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:13 am Subject: Re: TA on the purpose of studying Dhamma philofillet Dear group > Because people expect a lot from studying Dhamma, so highly, to the moment when there's no pain at all, no unpleasant things; but studying means that, whatever one studies, the result is the understanding of whatever one has studied, right? if you've studied medicine you understand what medicine is, if you've studied cooking you know how to cook: (you) just know and understand what you've learnt. > But when you think that you're studying the Teachings, the best or the good ones, and it will bring you something, but what is 'something' in your mind, peace of heart, peace of mind, or no pain, no worries, or what? Such an important point. I feel I am also wanting to be happy by listening to Dhamma, that desire is always always lurking. A principal material of the dome of lobha, me me me wanting to be happy. Wanting to escape unpleasant mental feeling which of course includes the second arrow of mental aversion to bodily unpleasant feeling. Ignorance is at the root of dukkha so understanding is the way to the end of dukkha? Phil #131464 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:31 am Subject: Re: sila/satipatthana/karaoke philofillet Dear group A post from Robert K about appearances. So easy to think that when a person is moving slowly and serenely and purposefully he has a lot of sati, but in Visuddhimagga a monk who behaves in this manner is used as an example of a monk with a lot of lobha. At the end this question: >Which is better: 1. a few moments of true sati and > sampajanna (even if only very weak) coming in at a > time when we are highly agitated and seemingly > distracted, or 2.a whole year of calm and serenity but > with no real sati and panna? Please read the whole post below. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > Dear group, > Thank you for the fine answers to my question (about > how satipatthana can occur at a karoke)from Alex, mn, > and Kom. Kom you explain things very, very well. > > I was interested in this from Alex: "we should not be > fooled by the look of a > karaoke attendant. He may look serene, or agitated, > but maybe his sati is > very strong at that moment." > This is indeed possible. The fact that you understand > this Alex is rather wonderful. As we have mentioned a > few times (repeatedly?) on this list, cittas are > changing fast. In between moments with akusala > cittas(unwholesome moments) panna and sati can be > popping in and out that are aware very briefly of some > reality. And we cannot tell by looking at someone > whether this is occuring. In the visuddhimagga they > give an example of the type of monk who has very > strong tendencies towords lobha (desire, attachment). > This type of monk walks very carefully and studiously. > He moves beautifully and his robe is always kept > properly and so on. As I read it this monk has all > the outer appearance that we might expect of an > arahant. We can see that we can't know about people by > outer behaviour. > We can only know ourselves- and in the begginning the > moments of sati may be so few and so weak that it is > not clear even to ourselves. > Which is better: 1. a few moments of true sati and > sampajanna (even if only very weak) coming in at a > time when we are highly agitated and seemingly > distracted, or 2.a whole year of calm and serenity but > with no real sati and panna? > > Robert > (If you went for the serenity take off three marks.) > > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > Dear > group, > > > > More on sila. Most of us think that we are keeping > > sila whenever we are not breaking the precepts. > > However, sila ( a type of cetasika ) - arises only > > for > > an extremely short moment and then falls away. When > > we > > are not doing anything bad , for example sitting > > cross-legged watching the breath is there sila? It > > depends. Moha is not sila, nor is lobha. If we are > > concentrated on the breath with subtle attachment > > then > > there is no sila. > > When a mosquito comes and we deliberately don't kill > > it then those moments of abstaining from killing are > > sila. But are they kusala with panna or kusala > > without > > panna?. If we heard from our teacher that we > > shouldn't > > kill them (and follow simply because we think that > > the > > practice depends on it we are doing it without > > wisdom). > > > > If we abstain because we have heard about the > > teachings of kamma (for example) then there is a > > level > > of wisdom that is higher. There are higher levels > > again if there has been penetration at the level of > > satipatthana. Or if there is understanding at the > > level of sammattha one will see that killing is > > rooted > > in dosa, or that it is conditioned by attachment to > > self. > > > > There are so many ways that sila can be kept. > > Someone might not kill because they think god will > > punish them. Or someone might not kill because it is > > a > > bad omen. In these examples the condition for > > abstaining from killing was miccha-ditthi, wrong > > view. > > Does it surprise us that miccha-ditthi can condition > > kusala? This has all been explained in intricate > > detail in the Patthana - and we can see that it is > > just like this in daily life. For what reasons do we > > keep the precepts? We should examine carefully and > > learn about our motivations - who knows what reasons > > we will find. > > > > In the visudhimagga (I,18 ) it talks about sila as > > restraint and one of the ways is restraint by > > mindfulness. With regard to this factor it says "he > > guards the eye faculty, enters upon restraint of the > > eye faculty," and it repeats for the other doors. > > And > > later it says I42 "On seeing a visible object with > > the > > eye, he apprehends neither the signs nor the > > particulars through which , if he left the eye > > faculty > > unguarded, evil an unprofitable states of > > covetnousness and grief might invade him, he enters > > upon the way of its restraint.."..And it goes on and > > then repeats for the other doorways. > > This is sila at the level of satipatthana. When we > > are > > lost in the world of concept then the "eyefaculty is > > unguarded" Note that these quotes all come from the > > beginning of the section about sila in the > > visuddhimagga (the Visuddhimagga is divided into > > three > > sections -sila, samadhi and panna). It might seem > > when > > we see this division and hear that sila is the > > foundation that first we perfect sila, then samattha > > and later panna. However, as we see, right at the > > beginning of sila we have satipatthana explained. > > > > What does it mean "On seeing a visible object with > > the > > eye, he apprehends neither the signs nor the > > particulars through which , if he left the eye > > faculty > > unguarded, evil an unprofitable states of > > covetnousness and grief might invade ". This is our > > normal life - after seeing immediately concepts are > > formed up of people and things. It is avijja - no > > sila. But when there is the satipatthana, even at > > the > > very beginning level, there is some understanding of > > the visible object as merely visible object, colours > > (no being, no object). And that is sila of a high > > degree. > > > > When can we have this type of sila? Whenever there > > is > > this level of understanding. > > Once I was speaking to some friends in thailand > > about > > aspects of the Dhamma. When it was time to leave one > > of them asked me what I was doing that evening. I > > knew > > she had a certain conception of how a "Dhamma" > > person > > should act so I said "I might go to a karaoke". She > > thought I was joking but I said I was certainly > > serious. She said she was very disapointed.(I > > should > > add that karaoke in thailand tend to be rather > > salacious -with most of the videos having bikini > > clad > > woman) I said nothing then but the next time we met > > I > > talked a little more about the nature of > > satipatthana. > > That it can arise anywhere. And if it arises in a > > karaoke then that is a moment of adhisila(higher > > sila) > > and that is more valuable than any outward > > appearance > > of sila. > > Now, to conclude this long story, how can > > satipatthana > > arise in a karaoke? > > > > It is past my bedtime. Would anyone else care to > > give > > an answer? mn, Alex, O, Shin, leonardo, Kom, Sukin? > > see you tommorow > > Robert > & > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > #131465 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:26 am Subject: Re: sila/satipatthana/karaoke truth_aerator Phil, #2 is better >Which is better: 1. a few moments of true sati and sampajanna (even if >only very weak) coming in at a time when we are highly agitated and >seemingly distracted, or 2.a whole year of calm and serenity but >with no real sati and panna? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't have true calm without sati and panna. The way the critique of 2nd option is made is totally incorrect and strawman. With best wishes, Alex #131466 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:05 am Subject: Re: sila/satipatthana/karaoke philofillet Hi Alex (*) > You can't have true calm without sati and panna. The way the critique of 2nd option is made is totally incorrect and strawman. > There is "true calm" with every moment of kusala. The characteristic of "true calm" is not the characteristic of acting calm with desire for the benefits of being calm. If you want to call a lifetime of the latter (choice #2) which is to say a lifetime of accumulating lobha moha and dying without having heard the true Dhamma a strawman, that's your choice. As always, final word to you. Phil * If I'm not mistaken the Alex referred to in the post is Robert's son. Last so #131467 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:29 am Subject: Re: sila/satipatthana/karaoke truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >There is "true calm" with every moment of kusala. And meditation, *if* it is properly done is kusala. >The characteristic of "true calm" is not the characteristic of acting ?>calm with desire for the benefits of being calm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chanda does not have to be akusala, it can be kusala. With best wishes, Alex #131468 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:23 am Subject: Re: sila/satipatthana/karaoke philofillet Hi Alex > > Chanda does not have to be akusala, it can be kusala. > True. Chanda is not necessarily akusala. Phil P.s I didn't give you the last word. What are the factors that conditioned the physical intimation of writing. No way to know. Is 'no way to know' a problem? Why let 'no way to know' whether the motivation to meditate is kusala or not get in the way of just plunking down on a cushion and getting to work on it? Maybe the meditation itself will reveal the nature of the motivation. Panna that is developed through meditation will naturally take care of seeing through any akusala motivations, and they will be transcended. I can understand the appeal of this kind of thinking. (Not that it's yours necessarily.) I can also understand the appeal of warm bubble baths and other comforting things to do to deal with the hardships and stress of life. Yes, I know, the zbuddha didn't praise bubble baths. Phil #131469 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:32 am Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 Dear all, --- "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > Science deals with phenomena given to the senses. Philosophy speculates about the "realities". > Such a philosophical speculation about `realities' (metaphysical conjecture) obviously does not belong to the Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (cf. pp. 34, 52-3, 192-196). The teachings of the Buddha centre mainly on practice and experience (phenomenon), a psychological level of how to deal with the issues of suffering (dukkha) in human conditions. This requires that one `knows' (jaanaati) and `sees' (passati) `things as they really are' (yathaabhuuta) (= `yourself as you really are'). It can be useful for some people. Regards, Thomas #131470 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > >"Enlightened" would be, to understand fully. What did the Buddha fully > >understand? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Suffering and how to end it. > In other words, he was enlightened to the nature of conditioned phenomena which make up samsara, and the Path leading out of it. Is this psychology, and is it science? Does the Four Noble Truths not cover all there is? And does science even slightly touch upon this? > > If I am going to have to believe in eclipse as demon Rahu swallowing > the Moon, Rain & Wind Gods, and fish ~5,000km in length, then I am not > a Buddhist (in that sense). > But is this what you'd identify as the Buddha's teachings? Perhaps you should comment on my statement above regarding the 4NT covering all there is. And perhaps also whether if the Buddha made a mistake in not having referred to the role of the brain? Metta, Sukin #131471 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hello Thomas, > Such a philosophical speculation about `realities' (metaphysical > conjecture) obviously does not belong to the Fundamental Teachings of > Early Buddhism (cf. pp. 34, 52-3, 192-196). The teachings of the > Buddha centre mainly on practice and experience (phenomenon), a > psychological level of how to deal with the issues of suffering > (dukkha) in human conditions. This requires that one `knows' > (jaanaati) and `sees' (passati) `things as they really are' > (yathaabhuuta) (= `yourself as you really are'). It can be useful for > some people. > So there is no need to point out the existence of citta, cetasika and rupa in order that one may begin to see that there is no "I" to be understood or not understood......? Metta, Sukin #131472 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:55 pm Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 Hi Sukin, and all, --- Sukinder wrote: > > In other words, he was enlightened to the nature of conditioned > phenomena which make up samsara, and the Path leading out of it. Is this psychology, and is it science? Does the Four Noble Truths not cover all there is? And does science even slightly touch upon this? The term 'samsara' is not found in the four noble truths. Regards, Thomas #131473 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science and Dhamma don't mix sukinderpal Hello Thomas > > In other words, he was enlightened to the nature of conditioned > > phenomena which make up samsara, and the Path leading out of it. Is > this psychology, and is it science? Does the Four Noble Truths not > cover all there is? And does science even slightly touch upon this? > > The term 'samsara' is not found in the four noble truths. > Does this make my statement wrong? If so, please explain how? Metta, Sukin #131474 From: "Alan" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:00 pm Subject: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases drampsych Nina: So far panna only knows generalities: three marks, distinction between mentality and materiality. What precedes these? Are there not characteristics specific to the eye and to the form that are to be known? What might these characteristics be? Alan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: <...> > N: Well said. The arising and falling away, thus, impermanence, > cannot precisely be understood if naama and ruupa are not clearly > distinguished. See, the arising and falling away of what exactly? Not > of a mass, but of one reality at a time, the reality appearing at > this very moment. > If naama and ruupa are not clearly distinguished, understanding is > very vague. One reality experiences, such as seeing, and one reality > does not know anything, such as visible object or colour. But it > takes long before this is known. All that can be done now is > attending to the characteristic of this moment as it appears one at a > time through one of the six doors. Such a moment is different from > thinking of persons or things we believe we see. Awareness of one > rality cannot be induced, it is dependent on conditions: listening, > considering, understanding that it is anattaa. <...> #131475 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix nilovg Dear Alex, Op 26-jun-2013, om 16:57 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > I hope you are recovering well from your accident. ------ N: Thanks for your concern. Yes, slowly I do make progress. It is still "my progress", self belief is so deeply engrained. -------- > > A:I think that it is better to keep Dhamma as far away from science > as possible. ------- N: Yes, entirely different fields. Science does not teach us that seeing or visible object appearing now is only a dhamma. It does not teach anything about kusala and akusala. -------- > > A: Dhamma, IMHO, should be taken as psychological training to > remove dukkha. ----- N: The Dhamma teaches us to develop right understanding of realities to eliminate ignorance. ------ > > A: Various technical teachings can have or had their use which > could be to motivate a person to practice, and to show not-self. I > don't think that those teaching are magical in themselves (or even > correct), rather it is their use that can be helpful. ------- N: How could what is not the truth be helpful? The truth can be proven, and only the truth of the reality appearing now. As Acharn always reminds us: back to the reality appearing now, it is not in the book. ------- Nina. #131476 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >Phil: What are the factors that conditioned the physical intimation of >writing. No way to know. Is 'no way to know' a problem? Why let 'no way >to know' whether the motivation to meditate is kusala or not get in the >way of just plunking down on a cushion and getting to work on it? Maybe >the meditation itself will reveal the nature of the motivation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct. But the thing is that some people on this board seem to telepathically know that all meditation is wrong. As if they can see the mind of those meditators... With best wishes, Alex #131477 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Hi Sukin, all, >In other words, he was enlightened to the nature of conditioned >phenomena which make up samsara, and the Path leading out of it. Is >this psychology, and is it science? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conditioned phenomena, I believe mostly refers to psychological states especially of suffering. >Does the Four Noble Truths not cover all there is? It covers psychology of dukkha and its cessation. With best wishes, Alex #131478 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [dsg] Re: puzzled by fourth foundation--sense bases nilovg Dear Alan Mc, Op 27-jun-2013, om 5:00 heeft Alan het volgende geschreven: > So far panna only knows generalities: three marks, distinction > between mentality and materiality. What precedes these? Are there > not characteristics specific to the eye and to the form that are to > be known? What might these characteristics be? ------- N: That is right, first specific characteristics have to be known before the three general characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, non- self) are realized as they are. This takes place in the course of the development of insight in different stages. In the beginning different realities are to be known as just a dhamma, a conditioned dhamma which is not a person, not a thing that exists. Thus, there is a beginning to understand that they are beyond control, non-self. There is seeing now, it appears and very gradually we can become used to its characteristic: it sees visible object or colour, it is different from thinking of a person or thing. Visible object is just that which is seen, it is not a person or thing. We cannot select what appears now, it all depends on conditions. ------ Nina. #131479 From: "Tony H" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:07 pm Subject: Heat and its appearance... - Sarah tony.humphreys First of all apologies for not replying sooner. Its a particularly busy time of year for me... S: So you would say here that 'heat' is included in 'nothing'. You'd also say 'cooker' is included in 'nothing'. T: Does heat exist without experience, without a mind to apprehend it? Or is heat there waiting to be experienced? Heat is experienced via the tactile senses and the cooker via the eye conciousness. Both are dependent related phenomena and mere appearances to the mind. They have no independent existence in and of themselves. Yet this is how they appear. S: So you would say 'heat' does not exist independently and therefore heat lacks "inherent existence"? T: Yes S: Does this mean that when touching the stove, there is no heat experienced? T: Try it see what you think? :) S: Or what does it mean? If heat is not felt, then what is touched? T: I am really struggling to think of another way to articulate this....everything you are describing are appearances to your mind. You label these appearances and then believe them to exist in the way that they appear. Pure illusion. S: You would make no distinction in this context between 'heat' and 'cooker' (or 'stove'). You would say that 'cooker' lacks "inherent existence" as well. T: 'Cooker' is a label given to the minds experience of the grouping of certain causes and conditions. Its not a thing. Its a collection labeled 'cooker'. Then we believe that there is a 'cooker' out there somehow. S: Would you agree that heat arises by conditions, whereas 'cooker' cannot be said to arise by conditions? Would you agree that what arises must exist at such a time of arising? T: How can a cooker appear other than as a result of causes and conditions? This would imply that it has either always been there, or that it has magically appeared out of thin air. ... S: So, sticking to the examples of 'heat' and 'cooker', you'd make no distinction. You'd say both 'heat' and 'cooker' exist, but not "as they appear". You would say they both only "appear" to the mind. T: Exactly S: So let me ask you again, at the moment of touching the hot cooker, is any heat experienced through the body-sense or does it just "appear to the mind"? T: Where is touching experienced? In the mind. Is the mind touched? No, its an appearance to the mind. S: And what does this mean - "appear to the mind"? Does it mean no heat was ever really experienced, only an imaginary idea of 'heat' was thought about? T: You still want me to admit that there is 'real' heat rather than the appearance to the mind of heat. S: What is "the mind"? T: The mind is a clarity that has the ability to cognize. S: What is "an appearance"? T: Thats too generic a question. There can be invalid appearances, like the rope that looks like a snake. Or Valid appearances of real snakes. S: So you are saying that 'heat' is "illusory". Is that correct? What is a "mode of existence" otherwise? T: No heat isn't illusory. It hurts. However, the belief that heat exists as an independent phenomena is illusory. Unfortunately this is how it and all phenomena appear to our minds. Including 'self/other'. S: Are you saying that heat is 'illusory' because of 'the logic of irreducibility"? What does this mean? Can we agree that heat is an element which cannot be 'reduced'? If so, why does this make it illusory? T: See above :) S: Let's take the example of 'heat' as you include 'ultimate realities'. What does it mean to say "the mode of existence of heat is illusory"? As for heat, cold etc, these "ultimate things," what kind of "ultimate things" are they? S: You didn't answer my question. T: The way heat appears to the mind via the sense doorways is that it exists as an independent thing (element) that requires nothing to sustain its existence. This is its appearance, which is by any stretch of the imagination deciving. Its mode of existence is as a dependent related phenomena that exists as a result of certain causes and conditions. But again, this is not how it appears to the mind. T: Piatigorsky, in his studies of the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka texts... S: I'll wait for you to answer my unanswered qu in your own words first. (Btw, I knew the author a little a long time ago in London. I had started an MA at SOAS in his department before moving to Aus. Could have been lively!) T: Indeed! S: Back to 'heat'. We agree that 'heat' is 'empty of self', i.e. anatta. OK. Heat is not an 'ultimate thing', it is an element (dhatu), a khandha, a paramattha dhamma. T: I guess so... S: We agree that heat cannot arise on its own, there must be conditions. This does not mean that 'heat', the 'dhamma of heat' is only 'a way of talking' about a 'relational flow...'. It arises with other dhammas or elements, each one anatta, each one falling away by conditions too. T: I think I agree, so long as we can also agree that its not a question of whether these things exist. Of course they do. Its the mode of existence that we are struggling to agree about. Metta Tony... #131482 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, > N: How could what is not the truth be helpful? If it still elicits nibbida and cessation of tanha. With best wishes, Alex #131483 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix philofillet Hi Alex (Nina) > > > N: How could what is not the truth be helpful? > > If it still elicits nibbida and cessation of tanha. > > Interesting point. But without understanding the truth how can one (cittas performing functions) be sure one is not just being content with a pleasant lobha-rooted imitation/facsimile of cessation? Phil #131484 From: Alex Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Phil, Nina, all >N:How could what is not the truth be helpful? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: If it still elicits nibbida and cessation of tanha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Phil: Interesting point. But without understanding the truth how can one (cittas performing functions) be sure one is not just being content with a pleasant lobha-rooted imitation/facsimile of cessation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "truth" is for the purpose of letting go of clinging. The truth is not some magic password to nibbana that you "dial in" and enter it. The truth is what it does, nibbida->viraga->vimutti, etc. That is what matters. With best wishes, Alex #131485 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:49 pm Subject: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >Phil: What are the factors that conditioned the physical intimation of >writing. No way to know. Is 'no way to know' a problem? Why let 'no way >to know' whether the motivation to meditate is kusala or not get in the >way of just plunking down on a cushion and getting to work on it? Maybe >the meditation itself will reveal the nature of the motivation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct. But the thing is that some people on this board seem to telepathically know that all meditation is wrong. As if they can see the mind of those meditators... With best wishes, Alex #131486 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TA on not understanding sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > >...when students of Ajahn Sujin have said "every word in the tipitika is about satipatthana (i.e the presently arisen reality.) There are so many suttas that are clearly not. ( I personally think of the obese king and his bucket of grub.)... .... S: I think your quote from A.Sujin may help make the meaning clearer: "Acharn: For someone who has not listened to the teachings there is dhamma, reality, but he does not know that it is dhamma. He clings to it as self and does not know the truth. When one has listened to the teachings one can understand that it is a reality that appears, no self. " S: In other words, whatever the Buddha spoke about, it is about realities, no matter the language or topic, because the Truths were thoroughly penetrated. For the listener, it depends on the understanding as to whether there is any understanding of realities or just the reading of a conventional story. The same applies when reading the newspaper or anything else. Metta Sarah ==== #131487 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix philofillet Hi again Alex > >Phil: Interesting point. But without understanding the truth how can one (cittas performing functions) be sure one is not just being content with a pleasant lobha-rooted imitation/facsimile of cessation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I repeat my question, which may or not be relevant. I ask because as one who uses (as yoga for the health) the "meditation" that is taught by TB I know first-hand the trap, which I have so far successfully evaded. I experience very deep, blissful mind-states using the method of breath manipulation/visualization which I could have easily believed to be jhanas but which I know to be lobha-rooted. If not for an interest in the truth taught by Abhidhamma, I would be a contented goner blathering about jhanas... Phil > > > The "truth" is for the purpose of letting go of clinging. The truth is not some magic password to nibbana that you "dial in" and enter it. > > The truth is what it does, nibbida->viraga->vimutti, etc. That is what matters.  > > With best wishes, > Alex > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #131488 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:29 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. philofillet Hi Alex all > > >Phil: What are the factors that conditioned the physical intimation of >writing. No way to know. Is 'no way to know' a problem? Why let 'no way >to know' whether the motivation to meditate is kusala or not get in the >way of just plunking down on a cushion and getting to work on it? Maybe >the meditation itself will reveal the nature of the motivation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > You are correct. But the thing is that some people on this board seem to telepathically know that all meditation is wrong. As if they can see the mind of those meditators... > To point out - not that it matters because this is just words words words - but the above is quoted out of context. I was laying out that line of thinking as an example of what could go through the meditators mind to justify disregarding greed. Yes it does seem that meditation is automatically written off by students of AS. Some of us have experienced enough to know where the fault lies. For example Sarah who was almost starved to serious illness as a hard core Mahasi devotee. (If I recall correctly she was working in slo mo to serve meals to other "yogis" so didn't have time for her own slo mo munching.) Anyways the meditation debate is really a waste of time because what is important is to develop understanding of the arisen dhamma. . If people wanted to meditate and think it's kusala fine go ahead just don't foist it on others. Actually there aren't many people who do that here. It seems the biggest advocates of meditation here are people such as yourself who don't actually meditate. Which makes sense since if you were actually a serious meditator you wouldn't be here on the Internet all the time. Phil #131489 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Hello Phil, >I repeat my question, which may or not be relevant. I ask because as >one who uses (as yoga for the health) the "meditation" that is taught >by TB I know first-hand the trap, which I have so far successfully >evaded. I experience very deep, blissful mind-states using the method >of breath manipulation/visualization which I could have easily >believed to be jhanas but which I know to be lobha-rooted. If not for >an interest in the truth taught by Abhidhamma, I would be a contented >goner blathering about jhanas... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can replace more gross akusala pleasure with more subtle pleasure due to meditation, then that is already a very good thing. IMHO, one should reflect upon anicca/dukkha/anatta after coming out of deep state - the contemplation is much more powerful then. With best wishes, Alex #131490 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:56 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >Yes it does seem that meditation is automatically written off by >students of AS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. >Some of us have experienced enough to know where the fault lies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have they experienced Jhanas, the real ones? What about learning, and counterpart signs for various meditation subjects (up to 40 different objects of meditation). >For example Sarah who was almost starved to serious illness as a hard >core Mahasi devotee. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do other practices. Meditation doesn't start and end with slo mo eating and serving. Just some ideas. ========== Alex #131491 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Phil, Nina, all >N:How could what is not the truth be helpful? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: If it still elicits nibbida and cessation of tanha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Phil: Interesting point. But without understanding the truth how can one (cittas performing functions) be sure one is not just being content with a pleasant lobha-rooted imitation/facsimile of cessation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "truth" is for the purpose of letting go of clinging. The truth is not some magic password to nibbana that you "dial in" and enter it. It is what it does, nibbida->viraga->vimutti, etc, that matters. With best wishes, Alex #131492 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:28 pm Subject: Re: DSG posts - quotes from Achan Sujin in January. nilovg Dear Ann, Answering you on line, since Sarah also likes to know. Op 28-jun-2013, om 6:36 heeft Ann Marshall het volgende geschreven: > I saw that you said to Phil that you are progressing, slowly. > That's wonderful - I can imagine that it takes huge patience when > progress is slow - but it is nonetheless progress. .... ------ N. Twice a week I have someone here for therapy and I do exercises every day, also outside on the parking lot here. It is very quiet, with flowers, and I walk with the roller up and down. I can take a staircase now, but not long. I even went around the room without any stick, but under the guideance of the therapeut. I should hold my shoulders in a relaxed way. ------ A: > I can imagine that doing things in the kitchen may still be > difficult. Hopefully you are able to eat well - healthy food etc. ----- N: Yes, still tiring. I also cook. I have help three times daily, and I am not used to have people around. But some things are too heavy. ---------- Ann likes to dwell on the quote she read to me before: >> >>> 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. >> ------ Nina. > #131493 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] science and Dhamma don't mix nilovg Dear Alex, Op 28-jun-2013, om 12:45 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: The "truth" is for the purpose of letting go of clinging. The truth is not some magic password to nibbana that you "dial in" and enter it. It is what it does, nibbida->viraga->vimutti, etc, that matters. This is certainly true, but how comes detachment about? By right understanding seeing, visible object, all realities. We are attached to long stories about persons and things we believe exist, but how we learn that seeing does not see persons and visible object is not a person. This understanding can lead to detachment. All the time I turn to stories about what is not real, but during my last trip in Thailand we discussed all day paramattha dhammas, naama and ruupa. The world of stories and the world of paramattha dhammas, two entirely different worlds. ------- > A: If you can replace more gross akusala pleasure with more subtle > pleasure due to meditation, then that is already a very good thing. > > IMHO, one should reflect upon anicca/dukkha/anatta after coming out > of deep state - the contemplation is much more powerful then. > ------- N: I believe that one should always come back to this moment, whatever reality presents itself. We do not wish for knowledge or contemplation of the three characteristics. It is important to know that whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is dhamma. Later on there can gradually be more understanding of what dhamma is, but no wishing. Nina. #131494 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. philofillet Hi Alex I'm put on this topic, thanks. Just ping ponging on it here, year after year after year... (@_@) Phil #131496 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:35 pm Subject: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don't mix truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N:This is certainly true, but how comes detachment about? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By deeply understanding the drawbacks of attachment, and perhaps training the mind in a new way. >By right understanding seeing, visible object, all realities. And the argument is what this "right understanding" mean. In the context of Dhamma, I believe it is seeing the drawbacks of clinging and advantages of not clinging. >We are attached to long stories about persons and things we believe >exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why are we attached to the story in the first place? Because we incorrectly believe that it is worthwhile to attach to the stories. Maybe we attach to the pleasant or unpleasant feelings that it gives us. With best wishes, Alex #131497 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:46 pm Subject: anusayas (latent tendencies) philofillet Dear group Nina on the latent tendencies: (End of passage) Ph: "...unforeseeable and uncontrollable..." Therefore there can be wise understanding at times when they reach the arising level and therefore a little more detachment, a little more understanding that all dhammas are anatta, beyond the control of a self. Phil #131498 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:23 am Subject: Re: anusayas (latent tendencies) philofillet Dear Nina Could you explain a little bit about the latent tendency which is desire for continued existence? I checked a little bit in the useful posts but what I found so far about bhava there was all about dependent origination. If possible I prefer not to get into dependent origination, it is over my head. Phil #131499 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TA on not understanding philofillet Hi Sarah > > S: In other words, whatever the Buddha spoke about, it is about realities, no matter the language or topic, because the Truths were thoroughly penetrated. > > For the listener, it depends on the understanding as to whether there is any understanding of realities or just the reading of a conventional story. The same applies when reading the newspaper or anything else. > Ph: I see what you mean. I will refer to that "every word in the tipitika is about realities" with better understanding, conditions permitting. Phil #131500 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:26 am Subject: This anxiety is... philofillet Dear group I like how a sentence that begins with "this anxiety is..." is completed in a notebook, probably from a book by Nina but I'm not sure. How would you complete it? (Timely for me, anxiety this morning...) Phil #131501 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:11 pm Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 Dear Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Alex, > ... > > > A: If you can replace more gross akusala pleasure with more subtle > > pleasure due to meditation, then that is already a very good thing. > > > > IMHO, one should reflect upon anicca/dukkha/anatta after coming out > > of deep state - the contemplation is much more powerful then. > > > ------- > N: I believe that one should always come back to this moment, > whatever reality presents itself. We do not wish for knowledge or > contemplation of the three characteristics. It is important to know > that whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is > dhamma. Later on there can gradually be more understanding of what > dhamma is, but no wishing. T: Regarding "whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is dhamma", this sounds like saying that everything is Buddha-nature; whatever presents itself now is only Buddha-nature. Mahayana Buddhism (particularly Zen/Chan Buddhism) has this believe. Regards, Thomas #131502 From: "azita" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:51 pm Subject: Re: This anxiety is... gazita2002 Hallo Phil, "this anxiety is - probably dosa accompanied by unpleasant feeling. Maybe its not that simple as there are possibly other cetasikas involved here, but I am certain that there is unpleasant feeling - I mean, its felt isn't it? What do you think? patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Dear group > > I like how a sentence that begins with "this anxiety is..." is completed in a notebook, probably from a book by Nina but I'm not sure. > > How would you complete it? > > (Timely for me, anxiety this morning...) > > Phil > #131503 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > Dear > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > ... > > A: If you can replace more gross akusala pleasure with more subtle > pleasure due to meditation, then that is already a very good thing. > > IMHO, one should reflect upon anicca/dukkha/anatta after coming out > of deep state - the contemplation is much more powerful then. > > ------- > N: I believe that one should always come back to this moment, > whatever reality presents itself. We do not wish for knowledge or > contemplation of the three characteristics. It is important to know > that whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is > dhamma. Later on there can gradually be more understanding of what > dhamma is, but no wishing. > --------- > T: Regarding "whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is dhamma", this sounds like saying that everything is Buddha-nature; whatever presents itself now is only Buddha-nature. Mahayana Buddhism (particularly Zen/Chan Buddhism) has this belief. > ------------- T: Also, the belief of the Buddha-nature is called Buddha-dhatu or Tathgata-garbha. Regards, Thomas #131504 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:49 pm Subject: Re: Heat and its appearance... - Sarah (1) sarahprocter... Dear Tony, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > S: So you would say here that 'heat' is included in 'nothing'. You'd also say 'cooker' is included in 'nothing'. > > T: Does heat exist without experience, without a mind to apprehend it? .... S: The rupa or element of heat (tejo dhatu) arises and falls away in every group of rupas regardless of whether it is being experienced or not. When heat element arises, it depends on whether there are conditions (such as previous kamma) for it to be experienced by body-consciousness or not. ... >T:Or is heat there waiting to be experienced? ... S: Heat doesn't wait for anything. It's a rupa and rupas have no interest at all in whether they are experienced or not! They just arise and fall away. Because they last up to 17x the length of namas, when there are the right conditions, body consciousness and the other cittas in the body-door process can experience it. ... >T:Heat is experienced via the tactile senses and the cooker via the eye conciousness. ... S: Heat is experienced by body-consciousness and other cittas at the body-sense. 'Cooker' is just an idea of what has been experienced. Only visible object is ever seen by eye-consciousness. At the moment of seeing, there's no idea of shape, form or cooker. Afterwards, there are cittas which thinking about the shape, the form, the colour, the idea of cooker, through the mind door. ... >T: Both are dependent related phenomena and mere appearances to the mind. They have no independent existence in and of themselves. Yet this is how they appear. ... S: We can agree that 'heat is a dependent related 'phenomena' - reality (dhamma) to be more precise. When the conditions are there, it rises and falls away. 'Cooker' however, is not a conditioned dhamma. It's not real, it doesn't arise and fall away. So it's a concept, an idea. Is this the same as what you refer to as "appearance"? Only nibbana is not a conditioned reality - the one unconditioned element. So, heat, visible object, seeing, body-consciousness all arise by conditions. We agree they do not arise independently. ... > > S: So you would say 'heat' does not exist independently and therefore heat lacks "inherent existence"? > T: Yes ... S: Just because heat arises dependent on conditions, why does that mean it has no "inherent existence", no sabhava, no lakkhana (characteristics)? If it had no inherent existence, it would not be possible for it to be known and insight of conditioned realities could not be developed. Without insight into conditioned realities, the unconditioned reality, nibbana, could not be realised. (to be contd) Metta Sarah ==== #131505 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Heat and its appearance... - Sarah (2) sarahprocter... Dear Tony, contd > S: Does this mean that when touching the stove, there is no > heat experienced? > T: Try it see what you think? :) ... S: Just my point:-) When the stove is touched, heat is experienced. This is because it's a reality, not just an "appearance". On the other hand, 'cooker' is never experienced except as an object of thinking. This is the difference between what is real and what is a concept. ... > S: Or what does it mean? If heat is not felt, then what is > touched? > T: I am really struggling to think of another way to articulate this....everything you are describing are appearances to your mind. ... S: I thought we had just agreed that when touching the stove, heat is definitely felt. We can describe an 'appearance' of it now, but even as I touch the keyboard, heat is experienced. ... >T:You label these appearances and then believe them to exist in the way that they appear. Pure illusion. ... S: No need to label anything. Again, when touching the stove, is heat experienced? Yes or No? .. > S: So, sticking to the examples of 'heat' and 'cooker', you'd make no > distinction. You'd say both 'heat' and 'cooker' exist, but not "as they appear". You would say they both only "appear" to the mind. > T: Exactly ... S: So is there only the mind-door through which experience occurs or are there 5 sense-doors too? How many doorways did the Buddha speak about? Did he say that actually there is no eye-door, no body-door in reality, only 'appearances' through the mind door? If there had not been the heat experienced through the body-door and the visible object seen through the eye-door, why would there be any idea/appearance about a hot stove? ... > > S: So let me ask you again, at the moment of touching the hot cooker, is any heat experienced through the body-sense or does it just "appear to the mind"? > T: Where is touching experienced? In the mind. ... S: Touching, or rather body consciousness experiences temperature, solidity or motion through the body-sense, not 'in the mind'. (We need to put aside our studies of psychology and other Teachings to appreciate these points). It is the heat that is experienced. The body consciousness experiences. ... >T: Is the mind touched? No, its an appearance to the mind. ... S: What do you mean by 'is the mind touched?' ... > S: And what does this mean - "appear to the mind"? Does it mean no heat was ever really experienced, only an imaginary idea of 'heat' was thought about? > T: You still want me to admit that there is 'real' heat rather than the appearance to the mind of heat. ... S: I thought you agreed that when touching the stove, the heat is real. If it weren't so, there'd be no idea about it (nor any burn marks either!) ... (to be contd) Metta Sarah ==== #131506 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Heat and its appearance... - Sarah (3) sarahprocter... Dear Tony, > S: What is "the mind"? > T: The mind is a clarity that has the ability to cognize. ... S: The Teachings describe 3 kinds of conditioned realities - citta, cetasika and rupa. Is it any of these or is it a concept, an 'appearance'? If it has the ability to cognize, it must be a nama - a citta or a cetasika, surely? ... > > S: What is "an appearance"? > T: Thats too generic a question. There can be invalid appearances, like the rope that looks like a snake. Or Valid appearances of real snakes. ... S: Regardless, they all sound like different concepts. As you mention, there are concepts based on what is conventionally real and concepts based on what is not conventionally real. Either way, perhaps we can agree that they are just objects of thinking in the mind-door processes, quite distinct from realities, such as heat. ... > > S: So you are saying that 'heat' is "illusory". Is that correct? What is a "mode of existence" otherwise? > T: No heat isn't illusory. It hurts. ... S: OK, good!! So, we can distinguish between the 'appearances' or concepts and what isn't illusory, i.e a reality. So this is the distinction between heat and cooker - the first is a non-illusory reality, the second is a concept or 'appearance'!!! ... >However, the belief that heat exists as an independent phenomena is illusory. ... S: No one has suggested this. It arises by conditions, but it has its own distinct characteristic which can be directly known. ... > > S: Back to 'heat'. We agree that 'heat' is 'empty of self', i.e. anatta. OK. Heat is not an 'ultimate thing', it is an element (dhatu), a khandha, a paramattha dhamma. > T: I guess so... ... S: Guess so or agree/know so? It is non-illusory, a reality. All realities are anatta. ... > > S: We agree that heat cannot arise on its own, there must be conditions. This does not mean that 'heat', the 'dhamma of heat' is only 'a way of talking' about a 'relational flow...'. It arises with other dhammas or elements, each one anatta, each one falling away by conditions too. > > T: I think I agree, so long as we can also agree that its not a question of whether these things exist. Of course they do. Its the mode of existence that we are struggling to agree about. .. S: Heat is not a 'thing' - it's a dhamma, a reality which arises, exists and falls away, never to return or exist again. All realities, all khandhas, are like that. Metta Sarah ===== #131507 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: TA on magicians and the object of understanding sprlrt (Than Acharn, Wang Nam Khiew, 16th, noon 1m) TA: Everyone has to develop right understanding. N: Maybe we are impatient or we don't have enough courage... TA: ignorance, and clinging, until it's less and less; reality can appear to pa~n~na as it is, now it appears differently; like the four primaries (rupas): they do not appear to seeing, but what appears (to seeing) is that which arises with them (color/vanna), so it's like the transformation of the four primaries into different things, like magicians; and it takes quite a long time to learn how the magician can do (his tricks); and this is much more (difficult) than (learning) the magician (tricks), so it takes longer time to understand the way the dhammas do (their tricks) . N: But we're now in the current, pleasant objects, the mountains, the trees, and we like it, just pleasant feelings. TA: A reality, pa~n~na can understand it, it's conditioned, it goes away before we can know what it is; it's like: as soon as it's object, it's gone, so the other object appears, when pa~n~na understands that; otherwise the self tries, to cling, and thinking out whatever it is, nama, rupa and so forth, and paccaya; but actually intellectual understanding just conditions detachment from clinging, when time comes. N: Intellectual understanding.... TA: ... is condition for having less attachment N: Even intellectual understanding TA: But it's not as effective right understanding as direct N: No TA: But it can see the difference between the two N: It's not so easy to know what is direct understanding TA: When awareness arises it's different, just a little different, but it has to be there; it's like seeing and hearing, it seems like they arise together; so, as that object is still there, right understanding is another moment, like seeing and hearing, but it appears, so pa~n~na can understand that, no other object, only that object which is there, seems like appearing, by nimitta. N: It's more pleasant than yesterday... that museum :-) TA: Yes, nothing can be compared to the moment of understanding, it's so precious, to understand; from birth: no understanding, until learning the Teachings, to understand; the object is exactly the same, from aeons and aeons, visible object can be seen, and the other objects cannot be seen, so there can be understanding of everything when there is more and more intellectual understanding, which will condition direct understanding, (it) keeps on going by conditions, otherwise (it's) 'I' and 'how I can...' or 'why...' #131508 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: This anxiety is... philofillet Hi Azita > > "this anxiety is - probably dosa accompanied by unpleasant feeling. > Maybe its not that simple as there are possibly other cetasikas involved here, but I am certain that there is unpleasant feeling - I mean, its felt isn't it? > What do you think? Well that must surely be *the* correct explanation of anxiety. The sentence I loved is : "This anxiety is a form of delusion because it reflects clinging to the khandas." We think our personal story and it's happy survival us so important, I guess anxiety comes from feeling it threatened. So much mental suffering comes from clinging to self-image. I am learning that in a painful way these days. In recent years I have been receiving a lot of praise and accolades as a teacher and I guess I have come to cling to that because this year there have been a couple of dissatisfied students and although it is hardly anything because there was so much clinging to praise and good repute just a small taste of the flip side is enough to put me in a dreadful state of aversion. The eight worldly conditions. This anxiety probably is a form of delusion because it he brain clings to them in duality of swinging from lobha ditthi to dosa and so on. Phil #131509 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anusayas (latent tendencies) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 28-jun-2013, om 22:23 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Could you explain a little bit about the latent tendency which is > desire for continued existence? I checked a little bit in the > useful posts but what I found so far about bhava there was all > about dependent origination. If possible I prefer not to get into > dependent origination, it is over my head. > ------ N: Bhavaraaganusaya. underlying tendency to desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavarga). I quote from the commentary: 586. What is the bias which is latent in beings? Beings are supported by the wrong view of existence or supported by the wrong view of non-existence thus: The world is eternal or The world is not eternal or The world is finite or The world is infinite or The soul and the body are the same or The soul is one, the body another or A Perfect One is not after death or A Perfect One both is and is not after death or A Perfect One neither is nor is not after death. ------ N: The above examples are clinging with wrong view. The translation of continued existence is a bit confusing. One may also cling to life without wrong view : Someone may cling to life in a ruupa-jhaanaplane or an aruupa-jhaanaplane. Anusaya does not reach the level of akusala citta as you wrote, it can condition akusala citta. Anusaya is just lying dormant. ------ Nina. #131510 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:21 pm Subject: Re: This anxiety is... philofillet Hi again > > The eight worldly conditions. This anxiety probably is a form of delusion because it he brain clings to them in duality of swinging from lobha ditthi to dosa and so on. > I don't know where that "brain" came from , I fell asleep as I tapped out the message. Phil #131511 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science and Dhamma don't mix nilovg Dear Thomas, Op 29-jun-2013, om 6:57 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > T: Regarding "whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. > Everything is dhamma", this sounds like saying that everything is > Buddha-nature; whatever presents itself now is only Buddha-nature. > Mahayana Buddhism (particularly Zen/Chan Buddhism) has this belief. > > > ------------- > > T: Also, the belief of the Buddha-nature is called Buddha-dhatu or > Tathgata-garbha. ----- N: The question is, what do people mean by Buddha nature. Everything is dhamma: whatever presents itself now is reality, a conditioned reality. Not a person or thing. Touch something hard, and you may say, it is hard. Everybody can say this. This is not knowing yet hardness as a dhamma. By listening to the teachings understanding can be developed that understands hardness as a conditioned dhamma, an element, beyond control. This brings detachment from taking hardness as some *thing*. If sati and pa~n~naa arise because of the right conditions, hardness can be directly understood as it is. ------ Nina. #131512 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don nilovg Dear Alex, Op 28-jun-2013, om 15:34 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > >N:This is certainly true, but how comes detachment about? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > By deeply understanding the drawbacks of attachment, and perhaps > training the mind in a new way. > > >By right understanding seeing, visible object, all realities. > > And the argument is what this "right understanding" mean. In the > context of Dhamma, I believe it is seeing the drawbacks of clinging > and advantages of not clinging. ------- N: But it seems that many words are needed here, a lot of thinking going on. Each object that appears, such as visible object or sound, is gone immediately. There is no time to think stories about them. Right understanding can understand whatever appears as it is without thinking stories about them. There are two kinds of realities: one does not experience anything and one experiences. Two kinds of realities with different characteristics. A characteristic can be directly known without thinking. --------- > > A: >We are attached to long stories about persons and things we > believe >exist, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And why are we attached to the story in the first place? Because we > incorrectly believe that it is worthwhile to attach to the stories. > Maybe we attach to the pleasant or unpleasant feelings that it > gives us. ------ N: The reason is that this tendency has been accumulated for aeons. Being attached to stories instead of knowing realities, dhammas, as they are. Nowadays there can be a new accumulation, namely, knowing what is really there instead of living in a dreamworld. ------ Nina. #131513 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:46 am Subject: Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: But it seems that many words are needed here, a lot of thinking >going on. Each object that appears, such as visible object or sound, >is gone immediately. There is no time to think stories about them. >Right understanding can understand whatever appears as it is without >thinking stories about them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps if one avoids thinking about what has appeared then there is right understanding, right? With best wishes, Alex #131514 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: anusayas (latent tendencies) philofillet > Dear Phil, Thank you for the explananation. . > Anusaya does not reach the level of akusala citta as you wrote, it > can condition akusala citta. Anusaya is just lying dormant. I suppose we could say that our defilements run very deep. In my case, for example, in the past there were many cases of explosive rage. That hasn't arisen for some years now, but I understand it is still there so when it does happen again there may be understanding rather than a lot of additional aversion about being a failure as a Buddhist etc. I remember when I used to get angry Naomi would say ''what about your Buddhism" or something like that?" People misunderstand Dhamma. They think the point is to behave gently and sweetly. If there are conditions for that, all the better. But the point of Dhamma is to understand whatever arises and development detachment to it. Phil #131515 From: Mahesh Londhe Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:14 am Subject: Meaning of pandaram and vittharro mahesh_247989 Hi all, I would like to introduce myself to the group. I am Mahesh from India , by profession a Maths teacher. I also keep a lot of inquisitiveness in Buddhist faith. I am Hindu converted to Buddhism. I have also attended a few Vipassanna courses as taught by Revered Goenka.You all must be aware that India witnessed mass conversion of untouchable castes to Buddhism in 1956.I belong to its first generation that is still grappling with understanding of Dhamma.Dr. B R Ambedkar was our saviour. Who studied all the Religions diligently to guide us and present this gem of Buddha to us.Who believed that present Hinduism is modified Buddhism.Many Buddhist shrines/stupas were over taken and converted to Hindu shrines.Once upon a time 80% of population was Buddhist and Prakarit(pali) language was highly rated. There is a deity by name Vitthalain India. Dr. Ambedkar was going to present a research paper to prove that it was originally Buddha image .However work remained incomplete due to his passing away in December 1956.The main epithet used with Vitthala is Panduranga.Without any formal training in Pali, I am finding it difficult to know or relate and deduce anything to connect this deity and Buddha image.Many Bodhisattvas image were venerated by monks.I am just a layman trying to compile all possible evidences in my spare time. I hope ,I learn a lot about the possibility of correlation of these words with the above said belief of Dr. B. R.Ambedkar. Hope you all reflect on this. Regards Mahesh Londhe #131516 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:23 am Subject: Re: Meaning of pandaram and vittharro philofillet Dear Mathesh Welcome to this group, which is devoted to the better understanding of the realities (paramattha dhammas) of the present moment. Is there seeing now, visible object now? Hearing and sound? Thinking? Feeling? The Buddha taught us to understand these realities, very gradually, and very gradually development detachment to them. I think it is unlikely that you will find that people are interested in discussing stories about religions and statues, though I can understand why it is an interesting topic. There is a big website called Dhammawheel where people get into those topics a lot. And so many other groups. In the meantime, DSG can offer you the very rare opportunity to get to the heart of the Buddha's teaching where there are no Hindus and no Buddhists, only the realities (paramattha dhammas) of the moment. A good chance to drop the stories occasionally and go deeper into the heart of the Buddha's teaching. (While continuing at other times, of course, to consider the stories about people and religions and injustices that interest you. There are no injustices in Dhamma. Just momentary dhammas that arise for a moment and fall away. No Buddhists, no Hindus, no untouchables etc... Phil #131517 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:25 am Subject: Re: Meaning of pandaram and vittharro philofillet Hi again Mahesh Sorry, I got your name wrong in the previous post. Phil #131518 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:50 am Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 Dear Nina > > T: Regarding "whatever presents itself now is only a dhamma. Everything is dhamma", this sounds like saying that everything is Buddha-nature; whatever presents itself now is only Buddha-nature. Mahayana Buddhism (particularly Zen/Chan Buddhism) has this belief. > > > T: Also, the belief of the Buddha-nature is called Buddha-dhatu or Tathgata-garbha. > ----- > N: The question is, what do people mean by Buddha nature. Everything is dhamma: whatever presents itself now is reality, a conditioned reality. Not a person or thing.Touch something hard, and you may say, it is hard. Everybody can say this. This is not knowing yet hardness as a dhamma. By listening to the teachings understanding can be developed that understands hardness as a conditioned dhamma, an element, beyond control. This brings detachment from taking hardness as some *thing*. If sati and pa~n~naa arise because of the right conditions, hardness can be directly understood as it is. > ------ T: It seems also following the Mahayana teachings of Emptiness (the middle way) found in the Heart Sutra. Thomas #131519 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of pandaram and vittharro nilovg Dear Mahesh, Welcome to our group. I appreciate your interesting and sympathetic introduction. I am glad you join our group. What do you especially helpful in the Buddha's teachings for your daily life? I am certain we can learn from you. Kindest regards, Nina. Op 29-jun-2013, om 20:14 heeft Mahesh Londhe het volgende geschreven: > I would like to introduce myself to the group. I am > Mahesh from India , by profession a Maths teacher. #131520 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don nilovg Dear Alex, Op 29-jun-2013, om 18:46 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Perhaps if one avoids thinking about what has appeared then there > is right understanding, right? ------- N: It is not the matter of avoiding anything, that is not possible when a reality has arisen already. Also thinking is real and it is different from seeing. When right understanding has developed more by listening, listening again and again, it knows that thinking has this characteristic and seeing has that characteristic, without having to think about it. Nina. #131521 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:58 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... Rob E Vs Htoo Conversation: Rob E: Hi Htoo. > 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: 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. ----------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand mixing-up might occur (mainly because of my poor language). When you read these scripts there arises understanding(not panna) what the scripts are saying. I agree what you above said. Great Ven. Ledi Sayadaw taught the followers at first with concepts. ----------------------------------------------- Rob E: I think there is a distinction between understanding Dhamma concepts and understanding a concept such as a body or self. --------------------------------------------- Htoo: Both do not contain panna when understand. Think about when you read dhamma with joy and lobha there cannot be panna. Just understanding is not panna. The problem lies in translation. Paa.li script of ~n~n examples 1. sa~n~naa 2. pa~n~naa 3. a~n~naa are related. Anna --> to know. saha anna --> sannaa pa anna --> panna When 'panna' is used it is a cetasika involved in 4 tihetuka kaamaavacara mahaakusala cittas. --------------------------------------------- Rob E: 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. -------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are 3 types of reading. 1. who follows the writer's idea 2. who parallels the writer's wisdom 3. who penetrates up to anatta-ness ------------------------------------------- Rob E: If you can explain the kind of concept you believe will lead to development of panna, I would appreciate it. ------------------------------------------- Htoo: Start with learning. Learning on basic dhamma. Then step on higher level then to advanced level. Finally to walk on the path of satipa.t.thaana. Someone who knows everything in tipi.taka does not know dhamma in super-advanced level or penetrative level. Ledi Sayadaw, Kyaung Pan Sayadaw, Mahaasi Sayadaw all started with simple instructions (all pannatti). Mahaasi: Put your mind on your tummy with closed eyes. Can you see rising up and falling down of the abdominal wall? If not put your hand on the tummy and then you will be able to see that tummy is rising and falling. Here all concepts. But paramattha dhamma is there inside of these words. When knows the rising of the abdomen is 'kaayavi~n~naa.na citta'. This knowing is naama. The thing the expands the tummy wall or deflates the wall is ruupa (vaayo). Sensitive part in the tummy wall is 'kaaya pasaada'. 1. kaaya pasaada and vaayo (ruupakkhandhaa) 2. kaayavi~n~naa.na (vi~n~naa.nakkhandhaa) 3. recognition on sense of tension (sa~n~naakkhandhaa) 4. feeling that arises when tummy wall arises or falls (vedanaakkhandhaa) 5. exertion or (mind)direction to tummy or other mental components (sa`nkhaarakkhandhaa) All these happen in a single moment. When this is understood this understanding lies in 'kaamaavacara mahaakusala tihetuka cittas'.In this there lie 'so called pa~n~naa'. Before this very series of consciousness there are other series that do not have pannaa. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Is there a handy link for a list of the 37 kammathana? Is it through contemplation of the kammathana that panna begins to develop? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You missed the point. There are 38 kamma.t.thaana. Abhidhammasangaha was written 1000 years after the Buddha. Buddha's words are all in tipi.taka. Buddha did not preached there are 40 kamma.t.thaana. Instead He preached separately depending on the listener's wisdom. Aaloka kasi.na and aakaasa kasi.na are not in kasi.na. There are 4 bhuta and 4 vanna kasi.na so there are 8 kasi.na. ----------------------------------------------------------- Others in next post. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131522 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... Rob E and Htoo Conversation > 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: Can you explain a bit more how this works? ------------------------------------------ Htoo: Siilanussati is a kamma.t.thaana. When a bhikkhu lives in accordance with paatimokkhasamvara siila he knows his practice of siila is pure. Then likeness or paamojjha arises. This is followed by piiti which is stronger form of paamojjha. Because of piiti body becomes cool and calm. Sukha arises. Because of sukha (passaddhi) the mind becomes become still calm. Samaadhi arises. Because of samaadhi panna becomes ripen and all have done and there left nothing to be done. The problem is that tipitakas are not consulted and people make own decision depending or relying on later writings. Example there are 56 dhammas that can be considered in a kaamaavacara kusala citta. But abhidhamma.t.thasangaha described 38 or 39 dhammas. Dhammasa`nga.nii describes a bit different from abhidhammatthasangaha. With Metta, Htoo Naing ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------ > > 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. ------------------------------------------------------ Rob E: 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. ------------------------------------------------------ Htoo: I simply say. There is no net or trap. Kamma.t.thaana = kamma + .t.thaana (originally '.thaana but .t is doubled because of grammatical rules of Paa.li). Kamma = work (here the work of bhaavanaa) .Thaana = cause, the cause, ground (for something to stand) Kammatthaana is the working ground for bhaavana citta. Kammatthaana is object. The object for mental direction. The object of perception. It is aaramma.na. Bhaavana is mental work. So there is no bodily actions or verbal action. It is mano kamma. All mano kamma take the object of mind that is dhammaarammana. 1. 10 anussati 2. 10 asubha 3. 4 brahma vihaara 4. 4 aaruppa 5. 1 ahaare pa.tikula sa~n~naa 6. 1 catudhaatu vavatthaana 7. 4 maahaabhuuta ( 4 element) kasi.na) 8. 4 va.n.na ( 4 colour ) kasi.na) Many sutta indicates the importance of samaadhi. Samaadhim bhikkhave bhaavetha. Samaadhim bhaavato ..... With Metta, Htoo Naing #131523 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: It is not the matter of avoiding anything, that is not possible >when a reality has arisen already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it preferable to avoid wrong views and cultivate right views? With best wishes, Alex #131524 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don nilovg Dear Alex, Op 30-jun-2013, om 13:47 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N: It is not the matter of avoiding anything, that is not possible > >when a reality has arisen already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Isn't it preferable to avoid wrong views and cultivate right views? ------ N: It is pa~n~naa that knows wrong view when it arises or right view when it arises. It all depends on pa~n~naa whether they are known or not. ------ Nina. #131525 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts nilovg Dear Htoo, Op 30-jun-2013, om 11:58 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > Pannaapetiiti pannatti. It causes understanding so it called concept. ----- N: A concept makes known, Pa~n~naapeti, or it is that which is known. This is a very general definition. We cannot say that it causes understanding, it depends on whether concepts are the right words to make known the truth or not. There are so many types of concepts. Abdomen or stomach is a concept that is conventional truth, it is not ultimate truth. It is a collection of things, and it can be object of thinking. Thinking of a whole, like abdomen, will not lead to detachment. It will not help us to penetrate the truth of impermanence, of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, of each reality separately, as it appears one at a time. ------- Nina. #131526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science and Dhamma don't mix nilovg Dear Thomas, Op 30-jun-2013, om 3:50 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > By listening to the teachings understanding can be developed that > understands hardness as a conditioned dhamma, an element, beyond > control. This brings detachment from taking hardness as some > *thing*. If sati and pa~n~naa arise because of the right > conditions, hardness can be directly understood as it is. > > ------ > > T: It seems also following the Mahayana teachings of Emptiness (the > middle way) found in the Heart Sutra. ----- N: Emptiness is the same as anattaness, being empty of self. See Kindred Sayings, the chapter on Su~n~natta. ------ Nina. #131527 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:10 pm Subject: concepts, to Htoo. nilovg Dear Htoo, I should say a little more on concepts. I quote from Rob K's forum: Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: QUOTE i) formal concept (santhana pannatti) corresponding to the form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements. ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot. iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West. v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha. vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. See http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Realities and Concepts Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Rob K continues: As Acharn Sujin explains in 'Realities and concepts' there are different types of concept. Such words as dosa, lobha, metta, colour, hatred, sound are concepts that designate paramattha dhammas, they are vijjamana pannatti. Words such as person, animal, computer, Robert, Mike do not refer to paramattha dhammas and are called avijjamana pannati. 3) Doesn't a concept arise at the mind-door? Concepts are dhammarammana(mental object) and they appear at the mind- door. The mind-door has many different objects including citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana which are all paramattha dhamma. It also has concept as an object. By the development of satipatthana the difference between concept and paramattha dhamma must gradually becomes clearer. Now you are reading this so it might be worthwhile analysing what is actually happening. There is visible object, the different colours making up the computer screen. The colours are real (but arising and passing away rapidly) the computer screen is not real, however the various rupas that make up the screen are real,(and arising and passing away ceaselessly). There is cakkhuvinnana, seeing consciousness which is real (and ephemeral) which arises due to the contact of the eyebase (real, conditioned by kamma done in the past, evanescent). Then there are processes of citta which experience the same object and then there are mind-door processes which think about what was seen and so concepts are formed up. Yet these concepts do not actually exist. There must be this process occuring, no one can stop it occuring. If it didn't occur we would be utterly vacuous, know nothing at all, much less than a new born baby. Thus it is the most natural thing that concepts arise. Unfortunately, though, throughout samasara we have given these concepts special staus that they don't deserve, namely we think they exist. This mistaken notion means that we will do all sorts of evil to protect these illusionary figments such as self. (end quote). ------ Nina. #131528 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 12:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N:It is pa~n~naa that knows wrong view when it arises or right view >when it arises. It all depends on pa~n~naa whether they are known or >not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is panna passive, a vipaka citta? With best wishes, Alex #131529 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 3:39 am Subject: Re: Quote from Survey. 2. moellerdieter Dear Sarah ( all), you wrote: Thank you for your long reply. Just picking up a few small points and qus only: D: ok Sarah ..it is quite difficult to keep it short , being in line with the canon (quote!) , so even I tried , it is still again a rather long one. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > leaves the question open, why , if 'personality/individuality ' means ' more conventional modes of expression ' , why these individuals are described > by Abhidhamma's "Puggalapannatti " An enumeration of the qualities of certain different 'personality types'. These types were believed to be useful in formulating teachings to which an individual would respond positively" (Wiki) ... S: Just like in the suttas, the terms people or puggala are used, but the text makes it very clear that these are just conventional ways of describing paramattha dhammas, realities - cittas, cetasikas and rupas. When there is understanding about such realities, there is no confusion whatever language is used. ... D: the question was why these individuals are described > by Abhidhamma, the teaching of absolute/higher truth , although 'these are just conventional ways of describing paramattha dhammas, realities - cittas, cetasikas and rupas '. As the Elders considered it necessary to copy (this personal) part of the Sutta Pitaka to the Abh.basket , then I have difficulities to understand your floccinaucinihilipilification of conventional or mundane truth/understanding D: yes..and I would wish that comments like ' meditation is useless or a wrong path ' are ceasing and replaced by respect for an approach which concerns the samadhi sequence of the Noble Path training ... S: The question is whether any meditation as taught today does concern samadhi of the Noble Path. D: There are plenty of well respected meditation schools /teachers , and those will find your question a floccinaucinihilipilification without proving your point. S:What do you mean by "the samadhi sequence"? Are you suggesting path factors arise in sequence or steps? I thought such an idea of sequence/steps has been discussed and shown to be erroneous before. What is Noble Path training - now? D: quoting from the Culavedalla Sutta : I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Visakha the lay follower went to Dhammadinna the nun and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One snip ""'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" "The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One." "'The way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification, the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" "Precisely this noble eightfold path - right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One." snip "Now, again, lady, what is the noble eightfold path?" "This is the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." "Is the noble eightfold path fabricated or unfabricated?" "The noble eightfold path is fabricated." "And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, & discernment] included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold path included under the three aggregates?" "The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment." Dhammapada 280. The idler who does not exert himself when he should, who though young and strong is full of sloth, with a mind full of vain thoughts - such an indolent man does not find the path to wisdom. 281. Let a man be watchful of speech, well controlled in mind, and not commit evil in bodily action. Let him purify these three courses of action, and win the path made known by the Great Sage. 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. - Ud 5.5 Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher].Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it. - MN 70 many sources more to quote (D: Learning from eachother... isn't that the core of Mahaacunda Sutta?) ... S: Praising what is 'right' and learning what is praiseworthy. While I agree with you that disagreements should be courteous and respectful, this doesn't mean there should be compromise over what is taught by the Buddha. D: you are right : no compromise what is taught by the Budhha but having very well in mind the ways of teaching .. S:N. 36/19 (extract) "The Blessed One said: "Ananda, Udayi's way of presentation, with which Carpenter Fivetools disagreed, was correct, indeed. But also Carpenter Fivetool's way of presentation, with which Udayi disagreed, was correct. In one way of presentation I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of presentation I have spoken of three, of six, of eighteen, of thirty-six, and of one hundred and eight kinds of feelings.[1] So the Dhamma has been shown by me in different ways of presentation. Regarding the Dhamma thus shown by me in different ways, if there are those who do not agree with, do not consent to, and do not accept what is rightly said and rightly spoken, it may be expected of them that they will quarrel, and get into arguments and disputes, hurting each other with sharp words."Regarding the Dhamma thus shown by me in different ways, if there are those who agree with, consent to, and accept what is rightly said and rightly spoken, it may be expected of them that they will live in concord and amity, without dispute, like milk (that easily mixes) with water, looking at each other with friendly eyes." well, I think we are looking at each other with friendly eyes but keep on dancing to different tunes.. if we cannot find a common base , it may be more convenient to return to our seats for the time being. with Metta Dieter #131530 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 9:20 am Subject: Re: TA on not understanding epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Dear Nina (and Rob E) > ...I have disagreed, for example, when students of Ajahn Sujin have said "every word in the tipitika is about satipatthana (i.e the presently arisen reality.) There are so many suttas that are clearly not. ( I personally think of the obese king and his bucket of grub.) But I think that it is far more valuable to student intellectually and consider (when there are conditions for it) and develop awareness of the presently arisen dhamma. You will say that by considering tendencies (conventional stories about behaviour) that conditions are created for satipatthana. I understood where you are coming from cuz I came from there before. But now I feel we can get straight to studying, considering and becoming familiar with the characteristics of present realities. I appreciate your thoughts, and I don't think the two are necessarily contradictory, just a matter of emphasis. Understanding in the present moment is primary. Understanding of multiple-moment phenomena and the nature of conditions and tendencies is secondary, but sheds light on the predisposition of the moment that may be found in direct understanding. But it's good to be aware that this present moment is where the action is. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #131531 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 9:41 am Subject: Re: TA on not understanding philofillet Hi Rob E . > > I appreciate your thoughts, and I don't think the two are necessarily contradictory, just a matter of emphasis. Understanding in the present moment is primary. Understanding of multiple-moment phenomena and the nature of conditions and tendencies is secondary, but sheds light on the predisposition of the moment that may be found in direct understanding. But it's good to be aware that this present moment is where the action is. > As usual what you say sounds pretty good to me. I would say so that that because we are so deeply conditioned to think in terms of people and situations ("multi moment phenomena? concepts? Stories?) that we will get caught up in them too quickly and give too much weight to them. Did you see Sarah's response to my "every word in the tipitika is not about satipatthana comment? Just as when we read a newspaper, it will depend on conditions whether there is consideration of realities (p.dhammas) when we read a sutta with a conventional story. So I think that being reminded again and again and again to consider the realities of the moment rather than the conventionally expressed behaviour is best, reminded again and again, it becomes our habit to reflect in those terms. There could be ditthi sneaking in there (or standing up and shouting @ditthi!" there cuz it suggests a belief that listening to the wise friends leads directly to satipatthana, belief in a method, or a rule. Anyways, I gotta go to work. Phil #131532 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 10:58 am Subject: Re: science and Dhamma don't mix thomaslaw03 Dear Nina, --- > T: It seems also following the Mahayana teachings of Emptiness (the > middle way) found in the Heart Sutra. > ----- > N: Emptiness is the same as anattaness, being empty of self. See > Kindred Sayings, the chapter on Su~n~natta. > ----- T: The connection between 'not-self' (anatta) and 'the middle way' is also found in the Pali suttas, such as SN 22.90 and SN 12.15 (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 60-66, 192-199). Thomas #131533 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sprlrt (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 18m) - 3 - Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality, <...>; this could give a sense of liberation, 'I understand more now'; but I still feel the same, and nothing changes, so there's an expectation of alleviation of suffering, the more one understands reality, and that doesn't happen, for me anyway, <...> TA: Is understanding you or yours? Actually it's just a moment from hearing, considering, or reading about realities, right now; no matter you read Tibetan Buddhism or anything; if there's no understanding of whatever appears now it's useless: just thinking about that which does not appear, or thinking that one knows a lot about that which does not appear, but what about now? For example seeing, without the eye-base, that which visible object can contact or impinge on, no way to know that there's visible object at all - without conditions nothing can arise, we come closer to (understand that) what appears now needs conditions for its arising; so no one can do anything at will to have this and that, because now seeing sees, it cannot hear, it cannot think; so the other moment after this is different; that's why life changes from moment to moment, very rapidly, without understanding any of them. I think that when one learns the teachings about reality it's better to learn just one word at a time in order to really understand the subtlety of it; for example anatta, no self, is it real? because there is always the idea of 'I see', 'I hear', 'I think'; but actually what is seeing? It's not I, it's only a moment which is conditioned by its appropriate conditions; and hearing, just arises and falls away instantly, so no I at all, in a day, in one's life; learning to understand that it's only very temporary, life; and how short or how long one doesn't know at all; but without understanding whatever appears in one's life, one lives with ignorance, from birth to death, and one speaks or talks about that which one doesn't know at all, no matter what word we use, we don't know it; like world, what is the world? we just talk about the world, but in reality, what is it? if nothing arises at all, is there a world? no, impossible; but when a reality arises, just one, like sound, that is the world, because when there are all these realities we take them all for 'world', but actually it's just one reality arising and falling away, all the time. So one can understand what is meant by what we used to speak or talk about better, like life, or world, or different realities, kusala or akusala - it can be understood, little by little, theoretical knowledge can condition the direct understanding of whatever appears now; otherwise, without the intellectual understanding, how can there be the understanding of what is seen in reality; because people say 'I see a bottle of water' or something like that, but actually that cannot be seen, but that can be the object of thinking, by memory, only that. T: It just occurred to me that if we can understand the meaning intellectually... TA: - directly too T: ... if I had a deep intellectual understanding of anatta, <...> TA: For example, the word anatta, what is it? is this moment anatta? and what is there in this moment? otherwise we just talk of anatta with the idea that nothing cannot be taken for self or for permanent being and so on, but there must be whatever appears, no matter we call it anatta or not it's there, for example seeing, we don't have to say 'seeing', but it sees, sound, we don't have to call it 'sound' but it's there, it's heard, and it passes away, falls away instantly; from nothing to be something, and then nothing again, all the time. #131534 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 5:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Q. The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 37. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >....But we know it is possible to develop the Perfections, it is possible otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have encouraged us to avoid evil and do good. ... S: Only possible if realities are understood as anatta. Metta Sarah ==== #131535 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. sarahprocter... Dear Gregory, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory E. LeBlanc" wrote: > so, if i understand you correctly, all that happens is a conditioned > attraction to the Dhamma, and that "success" in the application and > understanding of the Dhamma is also conditioned. so, in a sense, "we" > are not making a choice to learn Buddhism and that the results of > studying Buddhism has nothing to do with an "I." ... S: Yes, no "we" or "I" at anytime. Just various dhammas arising performing their functions and falling away. At the moment of thinking that 'we' are making a choice to do anything, it's just thinking. This thinking is also a dhamma (or dhammas) arising and falling away. Hearing and carefully considering now that there are just these conditioned dhammas, such as seeing, visible object and thinking, can condition more wise consideration, more understanding in future. Look forward to further discussion. Metta Sarah p.s please make it clear who you're addressing in your posts and sign off with 'Gregory'. Thx! > > S: The development of understanding of realities - i.e. the presently > > appearing nama or rupa - is not an "approach". It is the understanding > > of these dhammas as anatta, as taught by the Buddha. It's the very > > opposite to the idea of being "a passive observer" or "noter', because > > when there is the idea of observing or noting or paying special > > attention, it is all done with the idea of a Self, not the > > understanding of no-self at all. > > > > The development of understanding has to grow with detachment, > > detachment from results, from wishing to observe or note or be mindful > > of any thing. > <...> > #131536 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 5:41 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, We were discussing kamma and vipaka and you made many good points. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > So to be a little more precise, vipaka are moments such as seeing now, hearing now, body consciousness now. "Coming to DSG..." is really just an idea. So many different dhammas from moment to moment. > >R: That is true, but we don't have every single kind of moment in thoroughly random appearances. They are sensible sets of vipaka experiences that lend themselves to certain kinds of thoughts and concepts, is that not so? So if the Buddha were to say, as he did on any number of occasions, "This kind of activity will lead to this kind of unpleasant vipaka," such as the man who kept killing animals and experienced the vipaka of being an animal that was painfully killed by a hunter for a number of lifetimes, we would understand that those vipakas are experienced in a variety of variegated moments of different kinds, but that the Buddha is pointing towards a type of vipaka which will make up the preponderance, or a certain segment at least, of a person's experience in a next "life" or "lifetimes." And those patterns do correspond to this or that group of kammas, and so on. .... S: We can make generalisations, but we need to appreciate, that in reality, there's no 'activity', no 'hunter', no 'animal' - there are just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. So it just depends on the understanding when these examples are being used as to what is meant. When we understand that vipaka refers to moments of body consciousness now, moments of seeing or hearing now, plus the mental factors associated with those cittas, we can discuss any conventional situations without misunderstanding. Without the understanding of these various dhammas as anatta, there will always be the taking of people, things and situations as existing. .... >R: So how is the vipaka said to be "pleasant" or "unpleasant" vipaka as the result of kusala or akusala kamma? Is this not correct? ... S: Taking seeing now. There is either the seeing of a desirable or non-desirable visible object. The first is the result of kusala kamma and the second the result of akusala kamma. However, both are accompanied by neutral feeling and there is no way to know now which kind of vipaka is arising. We attach a lot of significance to what is seen and think we know all about pleasant and upleasant visual experiences, but in fact it's only thinking with lobha, dosa and moha. ... > > If I am experiencing lots of unpleasant moments in a hell state, such as the hell of pins and needles [as I recall] or the hell of infinite crushing [I recall some hell states such as these,] are these not to be seen as unpleasant? Is all the unpleasantness of being burnt to death with hot oil the result of secondary feeling-reactions to the hot burning sensations? ... S: Yes, when there is a lot of painful bodily experience, the painful feeling is very real. Body consciousness (unlike seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting) is always accompanied by pleasant or unpleasant bodily feeling. ... > > And if this is so, why do we say that even the Buddha endures physical suffering, since such suffering is all through sensory experience - which must be vipaka...? - am I confused...? The Buddha would of course not have any secondary reactive akusala to any sensory experience, so this would not apply to him. Yet he complained of aches and pains in his later years. "This body is like an old cart" that creaks and will have to be replaced soon... ... S: Yes - akusala vipaka with painful feeling. See above. ... > That was my point in the whole thing, but I was being a little overly jovial in my presentation... :-) ... S: Yes, good points and jovial presentations are fine :-) Metta Sarah ====== #131537 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Q. The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 37. philofillet Hi Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > >....But we know it is possible to develop the Perfections, it is possible otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have encouraged us to avoid evil and do good. > ... > S: Only possible if realities are understood as anatta. > > Metta Ph: I agree. But why do we emphasize anatta over the other two? Because only the Buddha taught about anatta? The noble truth says the khandas are dukkha. Are the khandas akin to atta? Phil #131538 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... Nina: Dear Htoo, > Pannaapetiiti pannatti. It causes understanding so it called concept. ----- N: A concept makes known, Pa~n~naapeti, or it is that which is known. This is a very general definition. We cannot say that it causes > understanding, it depends on whether concepts are the right words to > make known the truth or not. There are so many types of concepts. > Abdomen or stomach is a concept that is conventional truth, it is not > ultimate truth. It is a collection of things, and it can be object of > thinking. Thinking of a whole, like abdomen, will not lead to > detachment. It will not help us to penetrate the truth of > impermanence, of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, of > each reality separately, as it appears one at a time. > ------- > Nina. --------------------- Htoo: Thanks Nina for your kind explanation. There are many pannatti. 1. vijjaamaana pannatti (cakkhu) 2. avijjaamaana pannatti (son) 3. avijjaamaanena avijjaamaana pannatti (my leg) 4. avijjaamaanena vijjaamaana pannatti (Buddha's cakkhu) 5. vijjaamaanena avijjaamaana pannatti (cakkhu dvaara) 6. vijjaamaanena vijjaamaana pannatti ( cakkhu vi~n~naa.na) Nibbaana is wrapped with naama-ruupa. Naama-ruupa is wrapped with pannatti. First the outermost layer has to be torn away so that naama and ruupa can be clearly seen. When naama-ruupa is seen that layer is penetrated with vipassanaa(pancingika magga). As soon as the margin is passed nibbaana is seen. To reach seeing naama and ruupa a good teacher is required. That teacher must be an ariyaa at least sotapanna. With respect, Htoo Naing #131539 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Re: concepts, to Htoo. htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Htoo, I should say a little more on concepts. I quote from Rob K's forum: Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: QUOTE > i) formal concept (santhana pannatti) > ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti) > iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti) > iv) local concept (disa pannatti) > v) concept of time (kala pannatti) > vi) concept of season (masa pannatti) > vii) concept of space (akasa) > viii) nimitta pannatti > See http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Realities and Concepts Sujin Boriharnwanaket. > Rob K continues: > As Acharn Sujin explains in 'Realities and concepts' there are > different types of concept. Such words as dosa, lobha, metta, colour, > hatred, sound are concepts that designate paramattha dhammas, they > are vijjamana pannatti. Words such as person, animal, computer, > Robert, Mike do not refer to paramattha dhammas and are called > avijjamana pannati. > > 3) Doesn't a concept arise at the mind-door? > > Concepts are dhammarammana(mental object) and they appear at the mind- > door. The mind-door has many different objects including citta, > cetasika, rupa and nibbana which are all paramattha dhamma. It also > has concept as an object. > By the development of satipatthana the difference between concept > and paramattha dhamma must gradually becomes clearer. Now you are > reading this so it might be worthwhile analysing what is actually > happening. There is visible object, the different colours making up > the computer screen. The colours are real (but arising and passing > away rapidly) the computer screen is not real, however the various > rupas that make up the screen are real,(and arising and passing away > ceaselessly). There is cakkhuvinnana, seeing consciousness which is > real (and ephemeral) which arises due to the contact of the eyebase > (real, conditioned by kamma done in the past, evanescent). Then there > are processes of citta which experience the same object and then > there are mind-door processes which think about what was seen and so > concepts are formed up. Yet these concepts do not actually exist. > There must be this process occuring, no one can stop it occuring. If > it didn't occur we would be utterly vacuous, know nothing at all, > much less than a new born baby. Thus it is the most natural thing > that concepts arise. > > Unfortunately, though, throughout samasara we have given these > concepts special staus that they don't deserve, namely we think they > exist. This mistaken notion means that we will do all sorts of evil > to protect these illusionary figments such as self. (end quote). > ------ > Nina. ---------------------------- Htoo: Dear Nina, I found this post later. Ledi Sayadaw wrote on all these. There are stone-inscriptions on what Ledi Sayadaw taught in Monywa township, Myanmar. Cat-flower (Kyaung-Pan Sayadaw) Bhaddanta Indaka who was the first Kyaung-Pan was one of the followers of Ledi Sayadaw. He denied all concept and taught his followers to directly see the paramattha dhamma. Mr. Thet from Yangon-Dala famous as anaagaami was also the follower of Ledi. U Ba Khin is the follower of U Thet. Mr. S N Goenka is the follower of U Ba Khin. SN Goenka is still propagating dhamma. The problem is the way of conveying the message. Only Buddha effectively did this. Even Saariputta was not able to see what the basis in an individual. Buddha has 'Aasaanusaya ~naa.na'. This is only possessed by Buddha. There are many traditions in Myanmar. Moegoke, Mahasi, Se In, Ledi, Kyaung Pan, Sunlun, Waibhu, and many others. They send their followers down to paramatta dhamma through the practice of meditation. There are people who know everything in tipitaka but still cannot keep highest siila. Sunlun Sayadaw was illiterate. He first noticed impermanence when he was ploughing in his peddy field. He passed through 4 steps each with an interval of a month. After 4th month he enter saasana and became a bhikkhu or a monk. Waibhu Sayadaw was literate and well digested on tipitaka and was on pa.tipatti. When Waibhu and Sunlun met Sunlun could answer all questions asked by Waibhu. There are many ways to examine whether an individual is an aarahat even though puthujjana cannot know arahat. Once in Mandalay a monk was flying in the sky. Many people saw this including me. In a village a monk went for alm. When he was back he was dry even though there was rainy outside. That monk was examined and the monk admitted he was just puthujjana. Pariyatti and pa.tipatti are related. But without pa.tipatti there is no pa.tivedha or realisation. Here the problem is meaning of satipa.t.thaana. Ledy simplfied pa.tipatti. Before his time patipatti was in monks. But during his time and later pa.tipatti spread among lay people. Htoo Naing #131540 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 10:55 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > 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. ----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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Jon, I think what I wrote to Nana today are what you asked for. The names for paramattha-dhammas are still concepts. But the names carry the essence of paramattha-dhamma. Example cakkhu is just a name even though its essence is paramattha-dhamma. Here again cakkhu is not just simple eye. The eyes we can see are not cakkhu. But may contain pro-cakkhu. Cakkhu is kammaja ruupa. In the visceral eye there are many cakkhu arise at the very same time. They are kammaja. There also are other ruupa in eyes they are cittaja, utuja and ahaaraja. When a person becomes blind there is no more cakkhu even though there are 2 globes of eyes and visera in eye-pit. When transplanted that person can see objects. When he sees object there arise cakkhu (kammaja). The word cakkhu is pannatti even though it carry the meaning of cakkhu. Citta the word is also pannatti. Before penetrate into paramattha dhamma conceptual knowledge is essential. Otherwise there will not be any understanding (not panna here). With respect, Htoo Naing #131541 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:12 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks Tep. You painted the complete picture in my mind. You well summarised. The object of satipatthana is nama or rupa. This is known among abhidhammists. In real practice objects are almost mixed and the mind drifted away. There are many deviations and danger for meditator when there is no teacher closed by. The teacher must be sotapanna or higher. For puthujjana objects are not all the time naama and ruupa even though there are naama and ruupa among objects. With practice other objects arise lesser and lesser and finally the last gate will be passed through. Initially there are many many pannatti or concepts in objects of meditators. When I wrote 'wake up, rise from bed, walk, pass urine, move forward..' someone said that is not satipatthana. But one has to start with concept. But with practice conceptual layers become thinner and thinner and paramattha-dhamma is seen. This is what I said passing the first gate on the island of puthujjana leading to bridge. Thanks for your summary, gluing, stitching together the pieces. Friend in Dhamma, Htoo Naing #131542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Quote from Survey. 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 30-jun-2013, om 19:39 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" > wrote: > > > leaves the question open, why , if 'personality/individuality ' > means ' more conventional modes of expression ' , why these > individuals are described > > by Abhidhamma's "Puggalapannatti " An enumeration of the > qualities of certain different 'personality types'. These types > were believed to be useful in formulating teachings to which an > individual would respond positively" (Wiki) > ... > S: Just like in the suttas, the terms people or puggala are used, > but the text makes it very clear that these are just conventional > ways of describing paramattha dhammas, realities - cittas, > cetasikas and rupas. When there is understanding about such > realities, there is no confusion whatever language is used. > ... > N: When we read "Human Types" we see that it deals with citta, cetasika and ruupa. Like the description of dosa. Many parts are similar to the "Anguttara Nikaaya" suttas as you will see. It starts with the "notion of the groups (khandhas), of sense-organs and their objects..." It also explains about sukha vipassanaa, the development of "dry insight", without the attainment of jhaana. --------- > N: Dieter, you quote very good texts, worth to dwell upon these. > ------- > > D: 280. The idler who does not exert himself when he should, who > though young and strong is full of sloth, with a mind full of vain > thoughts - such an indolent man does not find the path to wisdom. > ------- N: A reminder of the four right efforts, and these belong to the factors leading to enlightenment. We are already idlers now when dwelling on stories instead of awareness of what presents itself now. There was a discussion here whether all texts refer to satipa.t.thaana. Yes, it is always implied, even when not expressively mentioned. ------- > > D:281. Let a man be watchful of speech, well controlled in mind, > and not commit evil in bodily action. Let him purify these three > courses of action, and win the path made known by the Great Sage. > --------- N: This is indriya sa"mvara siila, watchfulness or guarding the senses by way of mindfulness. ------- > > D: 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom > wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a > man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase > ------- N: There are so many degrees of calm. Not necessarily absorption for everybody, there is no rule. When listening and considering there is calm with the kusala citta. I quote a text mentioned a long time ago: < from B.Bodhis transl: "Whether or not you understand, Susima, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 212) Note 212 states: (the commentary): Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge thus even without concentration. This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without previously established (concentration) that has acquired the characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight (vipassanayanika)..." JON's summary of Note 212: "Path knowledge is the outcome of insight (vipassana), not of the concentration that accompanies tranquillity (samatha)."> N: We have to remember that there are two kinds of jhaana (Commentary to the M.N.): jhaana that is absorption as a result of the development of the kammathaana, and the lakkhana jhaana, the penetration of the three characteristics. ------ > > D:Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual > inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in > the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a > gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, > with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. > ------- N: A good reminder that the development of satipa.t.thaana is very gradual, a long way, a long stretch. --------- > > D: - Ud 5.5 > > Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. > Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual > action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis > after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is > the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a > teacher].Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one > lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the > Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning > of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an > agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement > through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has > arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. > Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an > exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having > penetrated it with discernment, sees it. > ------- N: Here listening is emphasized. desire: kusala chanda. Exertion: the four right efforts. It is the effort of the eightfold Path together with right understanding. -------- > Thank you for the useful quotes, Nina. #131543 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts, to Htoo. nilovg Dear Htoo, thank you for your interesting report on different traditions in Myanmar. Op 1-jul-2013, om 14:43 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > There are many ways to examine whether an individual is an aarahat > even though puthujjana cannot know arahat. Once in Mandalay a monk > was flying in the sky. Many people saw this including me. In a > village a monk went for alm. When he was back he was dry even > though there was rainy outside. That monk was examined and the monk > admitted he was just puthujjana. ----- N: When the right conditions have been cultivated one can fly through the sky. --- > > H: Pariyatti and pa.tipatti are related. But without pa.tipatti > there is no pa.tivedha or realisation. Here the problem is meaning > of satipa.t.thaana. Ledy simplfied pa.tipatti. Before his time > patipatti was in monks. But during his time and later pa.tipatti > spread among lay people. ------- N: Pariyatti and pa.tipatti are related. Nobody would deny this. The question is what different people mean by pa.tipatti. Only the present object can be directly understood, not what is past or future. ----- Nina. #131544 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts nilovg Dear Htoo, Op 1-jul-2013, om 14:11 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > To reach seeing naama and ruupa a good teacher is required. That > teacher must be an ariyaa at least sotapanna. ------ N: Hard to know. If one is not a sotaapanna oneself one could not recognize one. But what one can notice: which teaching helps one to cling less to self and know the present reality that appears. Nina. #131545 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:27 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Htoo (and Nina & all) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: "Nibbaana is wrapped with naama-ruupa. Naama-ruupa is wrapped with pannatti. First the outermost layer has to be torn away so that naama and ruupa can be clearly seen. When naama-ruupa is seen that layer is penetrated with vipassanaa(pancingika magga). As soon as the margin is passed nibbaana is seen." ============================= This is exactly my perspective on the Buddha's original practice teaching: that of an "onion peeling". Ch'an/Zen and Judaism, OTOH, as I view them, present instead an approach of direct and (intendedly) constant turning of the mind and heart directly to the unconditioned reality. (Different approaches for different inclinations and accumulations.) With metta, Howard /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) #131546 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TA intro to Dhamma nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 1-jul-2013, om 9:07 heeft sprlrt@... het volgende geschreven: > TA: For example, the word anatta, what is it? is this moment > anatta? and what is there in this moment? otherwise we just talk of > anatta with the idea that nothing cannot be taken for self or for > permanent being and so on, but there must be whatever appears, no > matter we call it anatta or not it's there, for example seeing, we > don't have to say 'seeing', but it sees, sound, we don't have to > call it 'sound' but it's there, it's heard, and it passes away, > falls away instantly; from nothing to be something, and then > nothing again, all the time. > ------ N: I find this a good reminder that we do not have to call something anatta. We do not have to say "seeing"... Especially in Cambodia Acharn explained: from nothing something: a reality is not there, but then when there are conditions it arises, and then it falls away immediately: nothing. She also explained: before we can think of an object it has fallen away already. ------ Nina. #131547 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don nilovg Dear Alex, Op 30-jun-2013, om 16:10 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Is panna passive, a vipaka citta? ------- N: It can arise with sobhana cittas. Thus, vipaakacittas like rebirth- consciousness is included. But when we speak about pa~n~naa that understand realities it is by no means passive. It can be developed and there are many degrees of it. The Atthasālinī gives a definition of understanding: quotation Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non-perplexity as its manifestation, as it were a good guide in the forest. -------- Pa~n~naa is one of the perfections to be developed, it is foremost. To be developed in order to realize the four noble Truths. The whole of the teachings are about its development. Nina. #131548 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Jul 1, 2013 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile sukinderpal Hi Htoo, > Htoo: > > Thanks Tep. You painted the complete picture in my mind. You well > summarised. The object of satipatthana is nama or rupa. This is known > among abhidhammists. In real practice objects are almost mixed and the > mind drifted away. > > There are many deviations and danger for meditator when there is no > teacher closed by. The teacher must be sotapanna or higher. For > puthujjana objects are not all the time naama and ruupa even though > there are naama and ruupa among objects. > > With practice other objects arise lesser and lesser and finally the > last gate will be passed through. Initially there are many many > pannatti or concepts in objects of meditators. > > When I wrote 'wake up, rise from bed, walk, pass urine, move > forward..' someone said that is not satipatthana. But one has to start > with concept. But with practice conceptual layers become thinner and > thinner and paramattha-dhamma is seen. > > This is what I said passing the first gate on the island of puthujjana > leading to bridge. > No. One has to start with the understanding (beginning with pariyatti) of the distinction between reality and concept. The Buddha taught what was previously unknown. To suggest therefore that his teachings begins with the apprehension of concepts is saying that no change in perspective happens. One continues on as before, to take concepts for reality (or as object of study). But really, what one should understand from the very beginning, is to distinguish between the object of sati and panna from that of "thinking", one reason being that one does not then mistake for patipatti what is not. To go one to suggest therefore that "with practice conceptual layers become thinner and thinner and paramattha-dhamma is seen" is wishful thinking and a huge trap. Metta, Sukin #131549 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 12:38 am Subject: Re: automatic?Rob.E philofillet Dear group, From the Useful Posts. A gem from Robert K in response to a well-phrased question from Rob E: Phil > Dear Robert K, > I assume you would think that one's > 'not turning away' from anything based on greater understanding would also > be > something that happens non-volitionally based on conditions? So then > really, it > is all on automatic, and there is nothing to do to influence it for better > or > worse? > Rob E. > _______________ > > Dear Rob. E., > This is a great question; it needs the whole of the Patthana to explain it > so I just give some hints. Your comment about determinism/freewill to Jon > is the question that haunts all aspects of philosophy and always will. > Even the Chrsitians used to argue it; cf. the debates betwen Erasmus and > Luther that Dan pointed out to me.. > > To some extent I think trying to go onto automatic or something because > one knows that theoretically there is no-self is like talking about > letting go: only words. > > As you know the crucial factor in the eight fold path is samma-ditthi, > right view; and as you also know this is understanding that comprehends > the real nature of dhammas that arise at the 6doors. This type of insight > depends most crucially on hearing correct Dhamma from the Buddha or his > disciples and reflecting in a correct and profound way on it. There are > other factors listed such as discussion on subtle points which are said to > assist insight. Now these factors all depend to some degree on conditions > that arise now, however they are also conditioned partly by conditions > from the past. Even hearing deep Dhamma is to some extent a matter of > vipaka conditioned by kamma a past factor. How fast and how deep one > understands what one hears is largely conditioned by pubbekata punnata > (merit done in the past). If one has studied Dhamma for some time there > should be growing appreciation that hearing and considering it leads to > more understanding and detachment: This then conditions effort to hear > more, consider more and 'let go' more and these are new conditions arising > in the present, but built on past ones. > Nevertheless, it doesn't always work that way; why does one person go so > fast, so far and another doesn't. Venerable Sunnakhata (sp?) was the > Buddha's attendant before Ananda. He listened to Dhamma and attained > Jhana, I think even to the degree of having special powers of hearing. But > he eventually left the Buddha, spoke badly of the Dhamma, and followed > ascetics who used to live a life of severe ascetism, copying dogs > (dog-duty ascetics). Why, when he had all this going for him? The > commentary says that this man had lived 500 consecutive past lives as a > ascetic and had these tendencies. Even the Buddha's teaching couldn't > overcome them. And so we see how dependent past factors are in > conditioning behaviour. Of course Sunnakhata made choices, he had > volitional control over what he did but what he couldn't see was that > ditthi (wrong view)and lobha were underlying all his choices; such a hard > delusion to see through. > > In fact no one can stop volition because it is a conditioned dhamma. But > when volition, along with other dhammas, is properly understood (a long > process) there is detachment from taking volition for self. > Sometimes because the results from this profound path are not quickly > apparent one might lose confidence and look for something faster. > However, I think other ways are dependent on conditions too. And if those > conditions should be interrupted one might find that while they thought > they were getting to the disease they were really only applying a > palliative to the symptoms. > > I do believe this rather radical way of seeing into the anattaness of all > dhammas gradually gives a type of detachment that isn't shaken by > anything. One doesn't expect any dhamma to give satisfaction because they > are inherently unstable and every change, whether for better or worse, > simply confirms this - at the micro and macro level. There has to be study > directly of dhammas for any real insight - but, and I think this is what > Jon is showing, this type of study is only real if it is done without > desire. It goes against our natural instincts but the type of effort > needed is something more profound than mere trying or watching. I think > people with a zen background like you and Ken O get this point fairly > readily. > > While you are reading there may be a great deal of effort arising along > with samadhi- concentration - that help any understanding that is > arising.(and if my writing is too obtuse then effort and samadhi may still > arise but ....) These factors are conditioned by past paccaya > (conditions), some of them very recent, and some I am sure from long ago > when there was the development of wisdom in other lives. However , those > past conditions aren't enough by themselves to invoke more insight and so > other factors , especially hearing Dhamma, from the present are needed. > > Also it is not that being in quiet places isn't helpful. In fact it can > be very useful to be secluded and alone where there is time to devote > oneself to contemplation. But this is a minor factor and not comparable to > the main one of hearing Dhamma because without that ones 'contemplation' > will be distorted by view. > There are other factors helpful to wisdom also. Here is something from the > Satipatthana sutta commentary: > "Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor(wisdom): > Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis > (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting > evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the > ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference > of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), > sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the > development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental > objects. > > Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of > the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling > faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, > the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for > explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas > with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma. > > Purification of the basis is the cleaning of the personal basis: the body, > and of the impersonal basis: clothes and dwelling place. The flame of a > lamp is unclear when its wick, oil and container are dirty; the wick > splutters, flickers; but the flame of a lamp that has a clean wick, oil > and container is clear and the wick does not spit; it burns smoothly. So > it is with knowledge. Knowing that arises out of the mind and mental > qualities which are in dirty external and internal surroundings is apt to > be impure, too, but the knowledge that arises under clean conditions is > apt to be pure. In this way cleanliness leads to the growth of this > enlightenment factor which comprises knowledge. > > Personal cleanliness is impaired by the excessive length of hair of the > head, nails, hair of the body, by the excess of humours, and by the dirt > of perspiration; cleanliness of impersonal or external things is impaired > when robes are worn out, dirty and smelly, and when the house where one > lives is dirty, soiled and untidy. So personal cleanliness should be > secured by shaving, hair-cutting, nail-paring, the use of pectoral emetics > and of purgatives which make the body light, and by shampooing, bathing > and doing other necessary things, at the proper time. In similar way > external cleanliness should be brought about by darning, washing and > dyeing one's robes, and by smearing the floor of one's house with clay and > the like to smoothen and clean it, and by doing other necessary things to > keep the house clean and tidy. "endquote > robert > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com > #131550 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 1:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >Alex: Is panna passive, a vipaka citta? >---------------------------------------- >N:...But when we speak about pa~n~naa that understand realities it is >by no means passive. It can be developed and there are many degrees of >it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I believe this is where intentional effort at developing panna comes in. Panna does not appear by itself. It is not God's grace, or undeserved gift. It something that is developed. With best wishes, Alex #131551 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 5:17 am Subject: Re: Quote from Survey. 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina (Sarah , all) thanks for your comment. you wrote: N: When we read "Human Types" we see that it deals with citta, cetasika and ruupa. Like the description of dosa. Many parts are similar to the "Anguttara Nikaaya" suttas as you will see. It starts with the "notion of the groups (khandhas), of sense-organs and their objects..." It also explains about sukha vipassanaa, the development of "dry insight", without the attainment of jhaana. D: as the teacher is the teaching , there is advantage for each of us to find suttas sources which provide hints for the approach fitting to our type of personality (kamma accumulation) . The Puggala Pannatti serves -I.M.H.O- as a bridge between the mundane and supermundane /absolute teaching . Both aspects are complementary. N: Dieter, you quote very good texts, worth to dwell upon these.-------> > D: 280. The idler who does not exert himself when he should, who > though young and strong is full of sloth, with a mind full of vain > thoughts - such an indolent man does not find the path to wisdom. ------- N: A reminder of the four right efforts, and these belong to the factors leading to enlightenment. We are already idlers now when dwelling on stories instead of awareness of what presents itself now. There was a discussion here whether all texts refer to satipa.t.thaana. Yes, it is always implied, even when not expressively mentioned. ------- D: in a way that Satipatthana mentions the aspects of the path 281. Let a man be watchful of speech, well controlled in mind, and not commit evil in bodily action. Let him purify these three courses of action, and win the path made known by the Great Sage. --------- N: This is indriya sa"mvara siila, watchfulness or guarding the senses by way of mindfulness. ------- D: respectively kamma patha > > D: 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom > wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a > man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase > ------- N: There are so many degrees of calm. Not necessarily absorption for everybody, there is no rule. When listening and considering there is calm with the kusala citta. D: agreed , though the perfection of samma samadhi is certainly of great help for further development. My point of this Dhammapada quotation was especially the reference of the path training : i.e. sila 281, samadhi and panna 282, and -as you mentioned -280 right effort (part of the samadhi sequence). N:from B.Bodhi's transl: "Whether or not you understand, Susima, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 212) Note 212 states: (the commentary): Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge thus even without concentration. This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without previously established (concentration) that has acquired the characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight (vipassanayanika)..." JON's summary of Note 212: "Path knowledge is the outcome of insight (vipassana), not of the concentration that accompanies tranquillity (samatha)."> N: We have to remember that there are two kinds of jhaana (Commentary to the M.N.): jhaana that is absorption as a result of the development of the kammathaana, and the lakkhana jhaana, the penetration of the three characteristics. ------ D: there are a lot of possibilities of useful exchanges . Therefore the Mahaacunda Sutta , quoted by Sarah, would be a favorable quotation for the introduction to the Dhamma Study Group. It reminds us that those who are more familiar with meditation and those more with the theory should talk and learn from eachother. Emphases on 'more ' because in many if not most cases there will be an overlapping. This however will only work with mutual respect if supported by canonical sources ..( keeping advises like the sutta 'Carpenter's tool' in mind) > > D:Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual > inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in > the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a > gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, > with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. > ------- N: A good reminder that the development of satipa.t.thaana is very gradual, a long way, a long stretch. --------- D: yes, as embedded within the training of sila, samadhi and panna .. if I recall correctly, even in the Maha Paranibbana Sutta , the Buddha stressed this training half a dozen times > D: - Ud 5.5 > > Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. > Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual > action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis > after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is > the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a > teacher].Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one > lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the > Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning > of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an > agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement > through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has > arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. > Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an > exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having > penetrated it with discernment, sees it. > ------- N: Here listening is emphasized. desire: kusala chanda. Exertion: the four right efforts. It is the effort of the eightfold Path together with right understanding. D: agreed , chanda provides the motivation needed for right effort , wholesome if accompanied by ( a growing ) right understanding, of which listening to / reading of the Dhamma is basically.. with Metta Dieter #131552 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don nilovg Dear Alex, Op 1-jul-2013, om 17:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > So, I believe this is where intentional effort at developing panna > comes in. Panna does not appear by itself. It is not God's grace, > or undeserved gift. It something that is developed. ------ N: Agreed, pa~n~naa has to be developed. Understanding of what? Of a table or a person or a story, or: realities. Then we have to know first what realities are. What are the objects of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path? Naama and ruupa that appear just one at a time through one of the six doors. Not a table or a person. When pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path arises there is right effort already and no need to think of intentional effort. If one thinks of intentional effort there is likely to be an idea of self who has that. Nina. #131553 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 10:39 am Subject: Re: on understanding was: re: science and Dhamma don thomaslaw03 Dear all, > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 1-jul-2013, om 17:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > So, I believe this is where intentional effort at developing panna > comes in. Panna does not appear by itself. It is not God's grace, > or undeserved gift. It something that is developed. > ------ > N: Agreed, pa~n~naa has to be developed. Understanding of what? Of > a table or a person or a story, or: realities. Then we have to know > first what realities are. What are the objects of pa~n~naa of the > eightfold Path? Naama and ruupa that appear just one at a time through one of the six doors. Not a table or a person. When pa~n~naa > of the eightfold Path arises there is right effort already and no > need to think of intentional effort. If one thinks of intentional > effort there is likely to be an idea of self who has that. ---- T: Realities (body and mind, phenomena) are not-self (anatta). Seeing them as not-self, he/she attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana" (sabbasan.khaarasamthe, sabhuupadhipa.tinissagge, ta.nhakkhaye, viraage, nirodhe, nibbaane). This is the so-called pa~n~naa in Early Buddhism. Thomas #131554 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 4:46 pm Subject: anattaa. nilovg Dear Thomas, ------ Thomas: T: Realities (body and mind, phenomena) are not-self (anatta). Seeing them as not-self, he/she attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana" (sabbasan.khaarasamthe, sabhuupadhipa.tinissagge, ta.nhakkhaye, viraage, nirodhe, nibbaane). This is the so-called pa~n~naa in Early Buddhism. ----- N: This is the pa~n~naa of the arahat. Let us not forget that there are many degrees: pariyatti, pa.tipatti and pativedha. A long way to arahatship, but there can be a beginning now: seeing appears. Does anybody cause the arising of seeing? At first it is not there and then when there are conditions, the impingement of visible object on the eyesense, seeing can arise. Then it falls away immediately and it is no more. Nobody is the owner of seeing or can be master of it. This is the beginning of understanding anattaa. ----- Nina. #131555 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > > > Leaving self leaving identity leaving life leaving > > individual one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'. Continuously means uninterruptedly from wake to retiring sleep. > .... > S: This idea of "one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'' sounds strange to me. > > No self to see anything and impossible for panna to "continuously see". Such an idea is bound to lead to efforts to try and be aware continuously with an idea of self, surely? > > Metta > ==== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is certain almost all people in this world are drown in concept. You cannot avoid. Ledi and Kyanungpan released self in the earlier state before vipassana. Here you would ask what is vipassana. It is satipatthana. You would ask what is satipatthana. Satipatthana is one of four. What are four. You know and members of DSG know. Here I use script/form for writing to express what I mean. There are many tipatakadhara individuals who are experts in tipitaka and all Buddha's teachings. The same. There were many who knew much in Buddha time. There were many monks who knew tipitaka in detail and who attained jhana to 8 layers along with abhinna. Still they were and they are puthujanas. I think almost 100% of DSG members are puthujana. Today there are 807 member. No one is arahat.(Once someone admitted he was an arahat. I spoke(wrote) to him. He was shattered regarding jhana. He wrongly expressed on jhana. Arahats in these days are all Buddhist-monks. If a person who is lay people becomes an arahat he has to do parinibbana on that same day as non-monk. But if there is still life-span the arahat joins the Buddha's sasana which is his teacher's sasana. Vithi, cittakkhana are all the domain of the Buddha not of DSG or DSG member. Non-ariya will not understand ariya things. Puthujana never see nibbana. Like turtle and fish story. Fish never understand land. Vipassana or satipatthana is just imitating arahat. The Buddha said 7 years to become arahat. This was finally 7 days. This 7 days must be continuous or almost continuous satipatthana. You cannot say abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is not for disciple for work. Just explanatory tool. I said illiterate arahat. He never attended any school including teaching at monastry. But he didvipassana/satipatthana. After four months he deserted all humanly things and joined the Buddha's sasana. He did not know much Pa.li. But he can answer every question asked by an arahat. Just studying, reading, understanding is not the essence. One has to become totally different from former state. First lives on an island. Next lives on new island. The view is totally different. Clear, calm, cool. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131556 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 10:38 pm Subject: Vipassanaa_009 (DT 896 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, When nibbana joins there are three kinds. One is who searches and finds nibbana as the first and spread and pass on to others. He is said to attain sammaasambodhi. Another kind is paccekabodhi. There may be more than one paccekabuddha whereas there is only one sammaasambuddha. The third kind is saavaka-bodhi. Sammasambodhi require 20 asencheyyas and 100,000 kappas in total. Pa~n~naadhika needs 4 and 1 lakh kappas. Saddhaadhika requires 8 and 1 lakh kappas. Viiriyaadhika has to fulfil paaramiis for 16 and 1 lakh kappas. There are pre-byaaditta period. For Siddhattha Gotama 9 lasped with desiring in mind. 7 lapsed with verbal affirmation. After 16 he met a sammaasambuddha (Diipa`nkaraa) and became bodhisatta. From that time he had to fulfil 30 paaramiis. For paccekabuddhas they need 2 and 1 lakh kappas. For agga-saavaka they require to fulfil paaramiis for 1 and 1 lakh kappas. For mahaa-saavaka they need 1 lakh kappas. For pakati-saavaka no former paaramiis are required. But must be free of obstacles-of-path like killing own-mother, own-father, arahats, hurting Buddha to shedding blood or bloody bruise,division of samghaa, and niyata-micchaaditthi like ahetuka-ditthi, akiriya-ditthi, and natthika-ditthi. If all these are free one can attain nibbana in this very life according to suttas. If there is living Buddha even 12 hours may be enough for attaining nibbana. (Bodhi raaja kumaara suttam). But in these days as there is no live Buddha we need 7 days at least to attain nibbana. This 7 days must be in continuous-satipatthaana. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #131557 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 10:49 pm Subject: Re: anattaa. htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > ------ > Thomas: T: Realities (body and mind, phenomena) are not-self > (anatta). Seeing them as > not-self, he/she attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation > of all > attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, > cessation, > nirvana" (sabbasan.khaarasamthe, sabhuupadhipa.tinissagge, ta.nhakkhaye, > viraage, nirodhe, nibbaane). This is the so-called pa~n~naa in Early > Buddhism. > ----- > N: This is the pa~n~naa of the arahat. Let us not forget that there > are many degrees: pariyatti, pa.tipatti and pativedha. A long way to > arahatship, but there can be a beginning now: seeing appears. Does > anybody cause the arising of seeing? At first it is not there and > then when there are conditions, the impingement of visible object on > the eyesense, seeing can arise. Then it falls away immediately and it > is no more. Nobody is the owner of seeing or can be master of it. > This is the beginning of understanding anattaa. > ----- > Nina. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Dhamma Friends, I do not know how you understand on these. The Buddha can control jhaana to arise to cease. Sa.laabhi~n~naa arahats can control jhaana they cause arising and passing away of jhaana. I know what anatta means. But it is very very hard to see. If someone can see it he is at least sotapanna. Otherwise no one can see anatta. Anatta is domain of ariya lowest rank is sotapanna. How brilliantly one can discuss anatta, understanding, panna etc he still may have seeds of committing patricide, matricide, arahaticide etc. When dies and continues a new life he might find new teacher who is not sammaasambuddha. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131558 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anattaa. sukinderpal Hi Htoo, > I do not know how you understand on these. The Buddha can control > jhaana to arise to cease. Sa.laabhi~n~naa arahats can control jhaana > they cause arising and passing away of jhaana. I know what anatta > means. But it is very very hard to see. If someone can see it he is at > least sotapanna. Otherwise no one can see anatta. Anatta is domain of > ariya lowest rank is sotapanna. > And this is from someone who is not an Ariyan and therefore does not understand Anatta or an Ariyan who does? If you are a puthujjana, how do you know that anatta can only be understood by an Ariyan? Is it stated somewhere in the Tipitaka? Which cetasika exactly, is "control"? Metta, Sukin #131559 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anattaa. nilovg Dear Htoo, Op 3-jul-2013, om 14:49 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > I do not know how you understand on these. The Buddha can control > jhaana to arise to cease. Sa.laabhi~n~naa arahats can control > jhaana they cause arising and passing away of jhaana. ----- N: Yes, that is true, because they know the right conditions. It is all dependent on conditions, not on a self who could control anything. ----- Nina. #131560 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 11:32 pm Subject: Hearing and understanding ( was Re: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 6 philofillet Dear group Here is a Useful Post on hearing and understanding. I pick out one section: >> When we hear sounds and then recognize different syllables that form up words, many ear-door processes arise and in between many mind-door processes of cittas that remember meanings. Sanna  does its task of marking and remembering the object, so that we can remember a whole sentence, sequences of them and understand the meaning of what is spoken. When someone speaks to us, there are moments of just hearing and moments of understanding what has been said (end of passage) We think this very commonplace but Ajahn in recent years makes a point several times in talks I have heard to call these ordinary processes "miraculous" or "amazing." (Is this my imagination?) . Because the processes are so swift? Because the Buddha was able to penetrate them to the degree he did? Because they are anatta, arising without any kind of self in charge? Phil P.s Please enjoy the rest of the original post as well. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 6 > > When we are hearing we may think of the sound of traffic, but we do not > think all the time, this is the sound of traffic. There are also moments > of just hearing, hearing of what impinges on the earsense, of sound. > Earsense is rpa, it is ready for impact of sound, just sound, nothing else, > so that hearing can arise. Sound is rpa, hearing is nma, they have > different characteristics. Earsense is the physical base for hearing and it > is also the doorway for the experience of sound. Hearing arises at the > earbase. Many processes of citta occur extremely fast. When we are in > conversation with others we communicate by means of the words we speak. When > we hear sounds and then recognize different syllables that form up words, > many ear-door processes arise and in between many mind-door processes of > cittas that remember meanings. Sa does its task of marking and > remembering the object, so that we can remember a whole sentence, sequences > of them and understand the meaning of what is spoken. > When someone speaks to us, there are moments of just hearing and moments of > understanding of what has been said. When we translate words from Thai into > English, it seems that we can do this immediately, without thinking, but in > reality there are many different cittas arising in sense-door processes and > mind-door processes. If there is no hearing of just sound, how could we > translate anything? > It is the same in the case of reading, we actually translate what is seen > into meaning. However, there is also seeing of what appears through the > eyesense. Seeing is different from paying attention to the shape and form of > the letters. > We need perseverance to listen to the Dhamma and carefully consider it, so > that we can understand the difference between concepts of people and things, > and the conditioned dhammas of our life which are citta, cetasika and rpa. > When there is more understanding of dhammas as objects of satipatthna, the > difference between concepts and dhammas will be clearer. We can learn the > difference between nma, which includes citta and cetasika, and rpa. Nma > is the dhamma that experiences an object and rpa is the dhamma that does > not know anything. > ****** > Nina. > #131561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hearing and understanding ( was Re: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 6 nilovg Dear Phil, Op 3-jul-2013, om 15:32 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > We think this very commonplace but Ajahn in recent years makes a > point several times in talks I have heard to call these ordinary > processes "miraculous" or "amazing." (Is this my imagination?) . > Because the processes are so swift? Because the Buddha was able to > penetrate them to the degree he did? Because they are anatta, > arising without any kind of self in charge? ----- N: First there is nothing and then something: there can be seeing when visible object impinges on the eyesense, and after seeing has arisen it falls away, there is nothing. It is amazing the way realities arise when the right conditions are present. Visible object, a ruupa, that has not fallen away yet can impinge on the eyesense, also a ruupa that has not fallen away yet. It is amazing they can coincide, when you think of the shortness of each reality arising and falling away very rapidly. Nina. #131562 From: "Rajendra Jadhao" Date: Wed Jul 3, 2013 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) mastram101 I have one question. Can a non Buddist (a person who has not taken refuge in Buddha, dhamma and sangha) become an arahat without ever takeing the refuge? ----- Original Message ----- From: htoonaing@... > > Leaving self leaving identity leaving life leaving > > individual one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'. Continuously means uninterruptedly from wake to retiring sleep. > .... > S: This idea of "one has to continuously see the arising dhamma whatever it is > > say 'naama' or 'ruupa'' sounds strange to me. > > No self to see anything and impossible for panna to "continuously see". Such an idea is bound to lead to efforts to try and be aware continuously with an idea of self, surely? > > Metta > ==== ---------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is certain almost all people in this world are drown in concept. You cannot avoid. Ledi and Kyanungpan released self in the earlier state before vipassana. Here you would ask what is vipassana. It is satipatthana. You would ask what is satipatthana. Satipatthana is one of four. What are four. You know and members of DSG know. <...> #131563 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 6:59 am Subject: [dsg] Hearing and understanding ( was Re: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 6 philofillet Dear Nina > ----- > N: First there is nothing and then something: there can be seeing > when visible object impinges on the eyesense, and after seeing has > arisen it falls away, there is nothing. It is amazing the way > realities arise when the right conditions are present. Visible > object, a ruupa, that has not fallen away yet can impinge on the > eyesense, also a ruupa that has not fallen away yet. It is amazing > they can coincide, when you think of the shortness of each reality > arising and falling away very rapidly. We are fortunate to have a wise friend who helps us to appreciate this sort of thing. Otherwise we might have found ourselves lost in hungering for experienced of rarefied namas such as the jhana factors which seem more amazing to most people. Less likely to be hungering for the experience of seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, so panna has a field to very gradually develop, with detachment. (There may also be moments when a sense of wonder might condition trying with self to catch seeing visible object etc) Phil #131564 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 10:31 am Subject: Re: anattaa. thomaslaw03 Dear Nina, and all, > > ------ > Thomas: T: Realities (body and mind, phenomena) are not-self > (anatta). Seeing them as not-self, he/she attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation,nirvana" (sabbasan.khaarasamthe, sabhuupadhipa.tinissagge, ta.nhakkhaye, > viraage, nirodhe, nibbaane). This is the so-called pa~n~naa in Early Buddhism. > ----- > Nina: This is the pa~n~naa of the arahat. Let us not forget that there are many degrees: pariyatti, pa.tipatti and pativedha. A long way to arahatship, but there can be a beginning now: seeing appears. Does anybody cause the arising of seeing? At first it is not there and then when there are conditions, the impingement of visible object on the eyesense, seeing can arise. Then it falls away immediately and it is no more. Nobody is the owner of seeing or can be master of it. This is the beginning of understanding anattaa. > ----- Thomas: First, one needs to see body and mind phenomena (the five aggregates, the six sense spheres) as anicca (impermanent); seeing them as impermanent, one sees them as dukkha (suffering). Next, seeing them as dukkha, one sees them as anatta (not-self); seeing them as anatta, one attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana". Of this insight, the Samyutta suttas record the following series of five stages (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 53): 1. seeing (passati, sammaapassa.m, sammaadi.t.thi), 2. disgust (nibbidaa), 3. destruction of delight and desire, fading away of desire (nandiraagakkhaya, viraaga), 4. liberation, cessation (vimutti, nirodha, ceto-vimutti, pa~n~naa-vimutti), and 5. knowledge of liberation (vimutti-~naa.na). Thomas #131565 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 11:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet Dear Htoo and all >But with practice conceptual layers become thinner and > > thinner and paramattha-dhamma is seen. > > Does this come from tipitika? The idea of conceptual layers becoming thinner so that paramattha dhamma are seen sounds very incorrect and I would guess it comes from a modern teacher like one of the sayadaws. Phil #131566 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 11:10 am Subject: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala. philofillet Dear Group I found this in SPD: " Right understanding of the Dhamma will remind us to consider whether the javana cittas that arise after seeing hearing or the other sense cognitions are kusala cittas or akusala cittas." Hmmm. I think we can assume akusala arises in response to seeing etc but I think it is a bit dangerous to suggest that we can know whether kusala or kusala javanas arise after seeing. Sati and panna are not so developed.(Though I have no doubt that modern meditation teachers invite their devotees to note what arises after seeing, some of them vvverrryyyy ssslllooowwwllyyyy.) Phil #131567 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala. philofillet Correction: " A bit dangerous to suggest that we can know whether kusala or akusala javanas arise after seeing. " Of course it is possible, but we have to be wary of suggestions that even hint at making a practice if trying to sort out kusala and kusala javanas. That is way beyond our level if understanding. Of course we can sort out kusala and akusala stories about conventional behaviour, include momentary thoughts, flashes of emotion that are quickly recalled and speculated on and which might make one believe it is satipatthana. Phil #131568 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala. philofillet Dear group Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna cariya. If I understood correctly, the second refers to akusala that arises after seeing etc and the latter refers to kusala. "Cariya" refers to behaviour of the citta, is that what she said? Why would this be worth knowing about? To better appreciate the anattaness of cittas performing functions? Maybe not. Just knowing about cittas performing functions is enough. Maybe no point about knowing what "cariyas" are...but too late, gotta gotta know! Phil #131569 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_009 (DT 896 ) ptaus1 Hi Htoo, > Htoo: There are pre-byaaditta period. For Siddhattha Gotama 9 lasped with desiring in mind. 7 lapsed with verbal affirmation. After 16 he met a sammaasambuddha (Diipa`nkaraa) and became bodhisatta. Could you please let me know from which text this comes from? Thanks Best wishes pt #131570 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana can't be practiced at a strip club, for most of us anyway. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Yes it does seem that meditation is automatically written off by students of AS. Some of us have experienced enough to know where the fault lies. For example Sarah who was almost starved to serious illness as a hard core Mahasi devotee. (If I recall correctly she was working in slo mo to serve meals to other "yogis" so didn't have time for her own slo mo munching.) Anyways the meditation debate is really a waste of time because what is important is to develop understanding of the arisen dhamma. . ... S: Agree - as you wrote in another message, "just momentary dhammas that arise for a moment and fall away". The story you wrote is all mixed up, but as you wrote to Mahesh, we have "a good chance to drop the stories occasionally and go deeper into the heart of the Buddha's teaching", so it's unimportant anyway. .... >If people wanted to meditate and think it's kusala fine go ahead just don't foist it on others. Actually there aren't many people who do that here. It seems the biggest advocates of meditation here are people such as yourself who don't actually meditate. Which makes sense since if you were actually a serious meditator you wouldn't be here on the Internet all the time. ... S: I'd also point out that there are also students of Ajahn Sujin who have had/have all sorts of erroneous ideas about attainments, such as ideas of being enlightened, having experienced jhanas and so on. Wrong view and clinging to self are so deeply rooted. Metta Sarah ====== #131571 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Nina: Dhamma talks at the foundation sarahprocter... Dear Nina, (Ann & any Thai speakers), Ell wrote the following: "...right now our foundation is broadcasting life for Dhamma talk every Saturday and Sunday at : http://www.dhammahome.com/live Please give this link to Nina or post it on your page to help promote this link to who ever that can understand Thai. Thais Dhamma talk on every weekend should help Nina a bit and she can even ask questions to Ajarn directly." Metta Sarah ===== #131572 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 8:27 pm Subject: Re: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala. philofillet Dear group Also related to this after seeing, always thinking. I should know this, but what makes thinking kusala or akusala? The subject of the thinking? Thoughts of ill will, thoughts of harming, thoughts of coveting...is that it, feels familiar from my sutta reading days. (Would like to get back to the suttanta, I've turned off it because of how sutta clips are used here to score points in debate. Yes, an impulse arises to re-read SN 35 tonight.. Phil #131573 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:07 pm Subject: Re: TA on not understanding sprlrt (Than Acharn, in Poland, 12th, pm-A, 14m30) - 2 - Ann: She asks: , how to cling less <...> not to give in to the attachment, I don't understand.> TA: Usually people don't want to understand at all, just want to (know) how, are they Buddhist? because they don't want to understand. Jon: Sometimes they want to understand, but they see understanding as a way of reaching a certain... 'fringe benefit'. TA: but how? Jon: by self TA: (does) the word 'how' indicate understanding, or theory, or what? just wanting to get, that's all; J: wanting to know a method; TA: would you like to understand or to know how? J: understanding's better.; TA: otherwise we might not be able to answer the question she's just (asked), that way - just to show how. A: , and some of the conditions for understanding are hearing the true Dhamma and considering it, discussing it > TA: - until it's her own understanding J: There isn't an answer, to the question 'How can I develop understanding when there is craving for food?' TA: Who can tell her how? That's why we talk about arammana (object) - food is arammana, at moment of seeing it - craving for food, food is the arammana; not understanding what arammana is, so how can there be no craving when there's no understanding. A: There can't, but I guess ... when there is no understanding the next logical question ... TA: Don't you want to know what craving is? and no one can stop its arising; just the self trying not to have it. A: When people who are just beginning to study the Dhamma, to listen... TA: That person should understand what Dhamma is; understanding one word at a time is the best thing. A: I'm thinking about this in the context of people who ask, <...>, when someone asks and shows an interest in the Dhamma. TA: But there are many people who show interest in Dhamma, like wanting to know or to understand; wanting to know what Dhamma is or don't want to know what Dhamma is, just want to know, whatever they like to know, like craving for food. A: I don't think they know. TA: Tell me how to be happy, see, who can tell? tell me that you don't have attachment, who can do? A: I think she would like to know how to develop understanding. TA: Of now, or what? not of seeing; whatever appears, does she want to understand (that)? Maybe she'd say "no, I want to understand how to be happy". A: <... This is quite new to me, to develop understanding by intellectual understanding, since Goenka always told me to do the contrary.> TA: Not Buddha. Lukas: <...> you always talk about the Dhamma, the Dhamma, but this is not yet understood at all, and my point is that even if there is thinking like this, in my case like even if it's not dhamma but just a story that thinks of 'this is anatta, dukkha, anicca', and isn't it the way to develop more understanding? TA: What thinks? L: Vitakka. TA: Or, dhamma; no one thinks, anytime that thinking arises there can be the understanding of that moment which thinks, that is not that which sees - all comes to anattaness, realities; because sometimes one thinks "ok, seeing is no me, but thinking is me, I (think)". L: But it's a long way; it's like one moment of understanding and then many moments of ignorance <...> TA: Yes, so you understand what is meant by khanti (patience), viriya (effort), sacca (truth), adhitthana (resolution, four of the ten perfections)... L: Yes, little by little, by I'd like to understand more than khanti. TA: 'I'? :-); can you understand everything, in a day, or two days, or two years, or twenty years? It seems like that's not so difficult to understand, but actually the more you know the more you can see the subtlety of reality - it's beyond expectation, nobody can think about the moment when it arises and falls away, just know that whatever appears now arises and falls away, that's all and that's not enough, because it's only thinking about that but not the direct experience of it; when one knows that it is true, shouldn't one follows it until it can be moment of penetration, penetrating the truth, with understanding L: <...> I appreciate your teaching so much because it's so natural, <...>, just read and listen and the mind finds its own way by different moments, even if it's very slow; but some people have their particular way of developing, <...> and observe what happens in daily life, what do you think about this? TA: Who is doing this? L: A self. TA: Ok, so that is not the way to eradicate the idea of self. L: But maybe by way of self ... TA: No, never, the way of self is avijja, not understanding, ignorance; otherwise there is no self, if there is no ignorance. Where is ignorance now? Whenever there is no right understanding, whenever akusala citta arises, there is a clinging to the idea of I or self, and vijja is the opposite of ignorance. Can anyone show a way to get rid of ignorance, a shortcut, a method? when it's method it's ignorance. J: If we choose... TA: Actually, lobha chooses. J: But if we choose, for example, visible object, is it in fact visible object? or is it just an idea... TA: And how can you understand visible object as not self? - uncontrollable, how come to appear to this moment. J: I suppose the idea is that by choosing to observe visible object, you see that ... TA: Ok, observe - in what way, to understand it? it's like this, just like this; and what's the way to observe? open you eyes, or what?:-) L: It's like trying so much. TA: Is cetana (intention) one of the eightfold (factors of the) path? L: No. But Ajahn, people usually want some particular way... TA: People, not me; I can't do anything for those people at all - arammanupanissaya paccaya, pakatupanissaya paccaya, why do we read about all these (conditions) - just to forget about it, and have the idea of choosing; it doesn't help at all if one reads and there is the idea of selecting, choosing: to understand this, not that. Sotapanna eradicates wrong view completely, from everything: thinking, liking, attachment, aversion - whatever it is it's conditioned. #131574 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina: Dhamma talks at the foundation nilovg Dear Sarah, I want to thank Ell for the link. I am so glad, it worked. Usually I have trouble connecting with dhammahome. This was about Ajiita, sati and pa~n~naa. And the commentary. Nina. Op 4-jul-2013, om 9:52 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > .right now our foundation is broadcasting life for Dhamma talk > every Saturday and Sunday at : http://www.dhammahome.com/live > Please give this link to Nina or post it on your page to help > promote this link to who ever that can understand Thai. > Thais Dhamma talk on every weekend should help Nina a bit and she > can even ask questions to Ajarn directly." #131575 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) nilovg Dear Rajendra, Op 3-jul-2013, om 15:20 heeft Rajendra Jadhao het volgende geschreven: > Can a non Buddist (a person who has not taken refuge in Buddha, > dhamma and sangha) become an arahat without ever takeing the refuge? ------ N We should know the meaning of taking refuge. It means confidence in what the Buddha taught about what is real. He taught the way to develop understanding of the realities that appear through the five senses and through the mind, one at a time. When understanding is developed it leads to detachment from all phenomena. The arahat does not cling anymore to any object. This should answer your question. The right cause brings the right result, and without the right cause the result cannot be reached. Nina. #131576 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anattaa. nilovg Dear Thomas, Op 4-jul-2013, om 2:31 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > First, one needs to see body and mind phenomena (the five > aggregates, the six sense spheres) as anicca (impermanent); seeing > them as impermanent, one sees them as dukkha (suffering). Next, > seeing them as dukkha, one sees them as anatta (not-self); seeing > them as anatta, one attains "the calming of all activities, > renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the > fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana". ------- N: First one has to understand precisely what is naama and what is ruupa. Realities have to be directly understood as they present themselves one at a time, at this very moment. If it is not now, we keep on thinking of concepts about realities, about impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Only later on the arising and falling away of one naama or one ruupa can be directly realized. There is no need to name impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Little by little understanding sees realities as conditioned, as having no master. There is not such a sequence as you indicate: first this, then that, that seems rather theoretical. There can be a beginning of understanding realities as non-self, not a person, not a thing. Seeing sees visible object, it does not see a person. When it seems that we see a person, it is thinking, not seeing. This brings already some detachment from the idea of person or self. ----- Nina. #131577 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 4-jul-2013, om 7:23 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I > heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna > cariya. If I understood correctly, the second refers to akusala > that arises after seeing etc and the latter refers to kusala. > "Cariya" refers to behaviour of the citta, is that what she said? > Why would this be worth knowing about? To better appreciate the > anattaness of cittas performing functions? Maybe not. Just knowing > about cittas performing functions is enough. ------ N: This is a passage in the Patisambhida magga, and it points to processes of cittas. If people think that this is only a subject of commentaries, they can read this passage. You are right that javana cittas have to be known as just naama before they can be known as kusala or akusala. When we think of kusala or akusala it is just naming, or we take it for my kusala or akusala. ----- Nina. #131578 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 12:01 am Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_009 (DT 896 ) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > > > Htoo: There are pre-byaaditta period. For Siddhattha Gotama 9 lasped with desiring in mind. 7 lapsed with verbal affirmation. After 16 he met a sammaasambuddha (Diipa`nkaraa) and became bodhisatta. > > > Could you please let me know from which text this comes from? Thanks > > Best wishes > pt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear PT, Now as I can access to DSG directly I do not need technical assistance. Thanks Sarah and PT for their kind help. Apaadaana describes requisites, fulfilments and requirements for Sammasambuddhas, paccekabuddhas, agga-saavakas, mahaa-saavakas. I do not know English for Apaadaana. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131579 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 12:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Rajendra Jadhao" wrote: Rajendra: I have one question. Can a non Buddist (a person who has not taken refuge in Buddha, dhamma and sangha) become an arahat without ever takeing the refuge? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Htoo: Yo dhamma.m passati so ma.m passati. Yo pa.ticcasamuppaada.m passati so ma.m passati. Someone who sees (realises/penetrates) dhamma (ruupa/naama) he sees Me(Sammaasambuddha). Someone who sees pa.ticcasamuppaada (dependent origination) he sees Me (Sammaasambuddha. Religion comes out because of fear of people. Earlier time human had to face with disasters, natural events like storm, heavy rain, floods, volcano eruption, earthquakes, forest fire, and many others. They became fear and frightened. They tried to take refuge in large trees, large rivers, seas, oceans, sky, sun, moon. Later these visible objects were overcome by unseen or invisible things like Devaism. Gods were appointed to throne or totake chair of sun, moon, rain, storm etc. The earliest is Brahminism. There are many texts. Vedic. Four great texts. There texts were chanted by ancient ascetics and no one knows who wrote those. In those texts there are many rituals, traditions, procedures to perform formally. They include affairs from birth to death. When the Buddha arose all the concepts were changed. Buddha was like mind-scientist. All He found are natural. The things that Buddha taught are what can be seen or touched or realised with own mind. Actually Buddhism is not an ism. Not a religion because the definition of religion is not fit what the Buddha taught. Whatever a person is if he tries enough what the Buddha taught he can and will see all the things as they are. I mean whatever religion is taken previously. In 'Mahaa-Parinibbaana Sutta.m' the last arahat in Buddha time appeared. He had been previously a paribaazaka (non-Buddhist). But he had been taught by his teachers that Sammaasambuddhas are hard to come out in this universe so if you heard that there is then you have to approach Him and take refuge in Him (Sammaasambuddha). This non-Buddhist man took the message given by the Live Buddha and tried deligently on what the Buddha taught and he (Subadda Paribaazaka) fianally became an arahat in front of the Live Buddha. To become an arahat one has to exactly follow the path laid down by the Buddha. Tipi.taka is summarised as 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas. Again this 37 dhammas is summarised as 8 magga`nga dhamma. They are factors of path. Parts of path. Path is the path to true nibbaana that is ultimate cessation of all fires. There are 8 parts of path. If you can fulfil all these then you can see DHAMMA. 1. sammaa di.t.thi (right view) 2. sammaa sa`nkappa (right thought) 3. sammaa vaacaa (right speech) 4. sammaa kammanta (right action) 5. sammaa aajiiva (right livelihood) 6. sammaa vaayama (right effort) 7. sammaa sati (right mindfulness) 8. sammaa samaadhi (right concentration) These are not just simple things. The first parts are 'sammaa'. This is 'right'. But it is more than that. Square is for square and triangle is for triangle. Circle is for circle. Each has to fit directly with each generation of square, triangle, circle. So does in case of dhamma (reality) sammaa from the Buddha has to be coined with sammaa in the follower, whoever he or she is whatever he or she believes previously. In conclusion one who really wants nibbaana can attain enlightenment if he or she can exactly follow what the Buddha taught ( Tipi.taka --> 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas --> 8 magga`ngas (Noble Eightfold Path or NEP). With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: I think Nina has answered your question and it is enough for you to understand. #131580 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 1:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear Htoo and all > > >But with practice conceptual layers become thinner and > > > thinner and paramattha-dhamma is seen. > > > > > Does this come from tipitika? The idea of conceptual layers becoming thinner so that paramattha dhamma are seen sounds very incorrect and I would guess it comes from a modern teacher like one of the sayadaws. > > Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Phil, Not by any of Sayadaws. My similes. Three layers, Two islands. The bridge. The gate. All my thought. But dhamma-things are from tipi.taka. I passed long years taking in points and abolishing points from my mind. The thought when I was young were wrong in many areas. But I listened dhamma. I learned dhamma. I learn Paa.li and grammars. I learned tipi.taka. I try to follow whatthe Buddha taught. Earlier wrong views were taken out by arising new panna. Many will not be able to understand realities as they are because they are running very very very fast. Those who admit understand dhamma without maggangas are not ones who know dhamma. Even in Buddha time there were monks who could recite tipi.taka but in real term they did not see dhamma before they attained enlightenment. When dhamma is seen clearly pannatti layer is already torn off. When the path of magganga is walked deligently and finally sa`nkhaaras seem stopped when nibbaana is seen as an object. As nibbaana is seen sa`nkhaaras cannot be seen at that time. This is named by late Moegok Sayadaw as 'phyit-pyet-hsone' or 'arising-disappearing-end'. In these days if someone really wants nibbaana he has to look for a teacher who is an arahat or at least sotapanna. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131581 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." Hello Htoo > > Earlier wrong views were taken out by arising new panna. Many will not be able to understand realities as they are because they are running very very very fast. Those who admit understand dhamma without maggangas are not ones who know dhamma. Ph: I find this odd because for many years you had a long series explaining about different paramattha dhammas. Even now if we look in Useful Posts there might be a post by you about some paramattha dhamma. Well thank you anyways for confirming that the idea about concepts gradually becoming transparent (?) so that paramattha dhammas can be seen is just your simile. Personally I think we should stick to similes from tipitika although naturally it is enjoyable to come up with our own. Phil #131582 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:14 am Subject: Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Hello again Htoo > Many will not be able to understand realities as they are because they are running very very very fast. > > Ph: What is experienced, technically speaking, is not the reality itself but the nimitta of the reality or actually many realities that have fallen away already. I know this is not an original idea of Ajahn Sujin because I heard Sayadaw U Silananda say the same thing though I am not sure if he used the word nimitta. Phil #131583 From: "Rajendra Jadhao" Date: Thu Jul 4, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) mastram101 Thank you very much for the good answer, respected friend Nina van Gorkham. Rajnedra Jadhao ----- Original Message ----- From: Nina van Gorkom Sent: 07/04/13 05:12 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) Dear Rajendra, Op 3-jul-2013, om 15:20 heeft Rajendra Jadhao het volgende geschreven: > Can a non Buddist (a person who has not taken refuge in Buddha, > dhamma and sangha) become an arahat without ever takeing the refuge? ------ N We should know the meaning of taking refuge. It means confidence in what the Buddha taught about what is real. He taught the way to develop understanding of the realities that appear through the five senses and through the mind, one at a time. When understanding is developed it leads to detachment from all phenomena. The arahat does not cling anymore to any object. This should answer your question. The right cause brings the right result, and without the right cause the result cannot be reached. Nina. #131584 From: "azita" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 7:59 am Subject: Re: anattaa. gazita2002 Hallo Nina, Thomas, I feel 'uplifted' when I read what you have written here, Nina. Nothing, then something, then nothing again - simple sentence but not so simple to really understand the meaning, and of course, if we don't hear this often we get sidetracked and think that the stories we make up are the important things in life. However, it is just these stories that do make up our lives. Not to be run away from but to understand as just stories, conditioned by the realities that have been experience thro the six doorways. Citta, cetasika and rupa - what else is there? hope you're doing well Nina, you are certainly busy with dsg and for that I am very grateful. I don't get to write much but do read a bit here, am trying to fix up my unit to get ready for selling, dealing with tradespeople is not easy - but that's just another story isn't it? Patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > ------ > Thomas: T: Realities (body and mind, phenomena) are not-self > (anatta). Seeing them as > not-self, he/she attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation > of all > attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, > cessation, > nirvana" (sabbasan.khaarasamthe, sabhuupadhipa.tinissagge, ta.nhakkhaye, > viraage, nirodhe, nibbaane). This is the so-called pa~n~naa in Early > Buddhism. > ----- > N: This is the pa~n~naa of the arahat. Let us not forget that there > are many degrees: pariyatti, pa.tipatti and pativedha. A long way to > arahatship, but there can be a beginning now: seeing appears. Does > anybody cause the arising of seeing? At first it is not there and > then when there are conditions, the impingement of visible object on > the eyesense, seeing can arise. Then it falls away immediately and it > is no more. Nobody is the owner of seeing or can be master of it. > This is the beginning of understanding anattaa. > ----- > Nina. > #131585 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 8:37 am Subject: Similes we love ( was [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet Dear group > Personally I think we should stick to similes from tipitika although naturally it is enjoyable to come up with our own. > I chided Htoo for promoting a simile that he came up with himself and said that similes should come from tipitika. Afterwards I reflected and realized that several similes that are very clear for me come from Ajahn. (For example, the dome of lobha.) So I guess I have to take it back. As usual with any story like this that leads to being perplexed, the answer is back to the arisen reality. The dome of lobha is about understanding the characteristic of lobha now. Now. "Is there seeing now" is not a simile, it is a call back to the present reality and in my opinion is the most valuable service of a wise friend. A friend who deepens our interest in abstract issues is less helpful. Phil #131586 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 10:19 am Subject: Re: anattaa. thomaslaw03 Dear Nina, > > T: First, one needs to see body and mind phenomena (the five aggregates, the six sense spheres) as anicca (impermanent); seeing them as impermanent, one sees them as dukkha (suffering). Next, seeing them as dukkha, one sees them as anatta (not-self); seeing them as anatta, one attains "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana". > ------- > N: First one has to understand precisely what is naama and what is ruupa. Realities have to be directly understood as they present themselves one at a time, at this very moment. If it is not now, we keep on thinking of concepts about realities, about impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Only later on the arising and falling away of one naama or one ruupa can be directly realized. There is no need to name impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Little by little understanding sees realities as conditioned, as having no master. There is not such a sequence as you indicate: first this, then that, that seems rather theoretical. There can be a beginning of understanding realities as non-self, not a person, not a thing. Seeing sees visible object, it does not see a person. When it seems that we see a person, it is thinking, not seeing. This brings already some detachment from the idea of person or self. > ----- T: The sequence is practical indicated in the SN suttas. There is no need to name "realities", but to see directly phenomena (the five aggregates, the six sense spheres)as anatta and the middle way. Thomas #131587 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 2:51 pm Subject: Similes we love ( was [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >....Afterwards I reflected and realized that several similes that are very clear for me come from Ajahn. (For example, the dome of lobha.) So I guess I have to take it back. .. S: Usually, sooner or later, I find all the similes she uses in the Tipitaka, not that it matters. I know I have read about the opening in the roof of lobha, but can't find the exact reference I have in mind. There is another similar one where the Buddha talks about "my hut's roof is open, my fire out", meaning not covered or hidden by lobha or moha. (Dhaniya Sutta, Sn 1.2). Then there are the lines at the end of the Udana in Sona Chapter (Ud 5:5) about how it rains to excess on that which has been covered up, but not on tht which has been divulged. Again, it's not the reference I was looking for, but the commentary on it is very interesting all the same: " 'It rains to excess on that which has been covered up (hannam ativassati)': having committted some offence, one then, in concealing same, commits another, new offence (and,) after that one, a further one, after that one, a further one - so does the rain of offences, the rain of the defilements, excessively rain (ativiya vassati). 'It does not rain to exess on that which has been divulged (viva.ta.m n'aativassati)': the one who has committed an offence, in divulging same rather than concealing it, in making same manifest to his fellow Brahmacaarins, in making amends (for same), in confessing (same), in becoming rehabilitated, in accordance with the Dhamma, in accordance with the Discipline, does not (thereby) commit another, new offence - for which reason the rain of offences, the rain of the defilements, does not rain any more (puna vassati) on that which has been divulged by him. "And since this be so, therefore one should divulge, one should make manifest, that offence which has been covered up. Thus will it not rain to excess on him: things being thus, the rain of the defilements will not rain on, will not soak, him, the offending individual committing the offence, penetrating his existence in the extreme. "Thus, the implication is that the one not 'wet' on account of the defilements, whose morality is completely pure, will, as he comprehends (things) upon establishing vipassanaa after he has become concentrated, in dure course reach nibbaana." ===== S: Opening the covering or roof of attachment and ignorance with understanding so that gradually the defilements stop soaking, stop accumulating "in the extreme". ... > As usual with any story like this that leads to being perplexed, the answer is back to the arisen reality. The dome of lobha is about understanding the characteristic of lobha now. Now. ... S: Yes, well said....always back to the citta now, the lobha now, the raining of defilements now. It takes courage to open the roof/dome of lobha! Metta Sarah ==== #131588 From: "Rajendra Jadhao" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) mastram101 Respected friend Htoonaing, I find lot of people worthy of giving respect. Many of them are not Buddhists or simply do not follow Buddha. A few examples are saints/ social workers who appeared in India (who are less known) like Gadge Baba, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule. Kabir - a saint in medieval India who was an orphan raised in a muslim family but was a revolutionary. Particularly the last one was considered a threat by both Hindu and muslim findamentalists because he challenged so many traditional useless ideas. Smilarly in theravada Buddhists there are exemplary people like Anagarika Dhammapala of Shri Lanka, Gunananda Thera from Shri Lanka, Kripasharan Mahasthavir of India, Bhante U Chandramani Mahathero (from Myanmar but spent quite lot of time in India and who gave precepts to Dr. Ambedkar), Bhante U Vajirabodhi (from Myanmar but spent quite a lot of time in India) and lastly Guruji Satya Narayan Goenka who is from India and Myanmar and teaches Vipassana. It is difficult to say if any of these persons were/ are arhats or not. But sure they deserve respect. If they inspire others to practice and guide people well, who cares if they are arhats or not? And those saints who are non Buddhist, there can be many things which can be learnt from them. Rajendra Jadhao ----- Original Message ----- From: htoonaing@... <..> Rajendra: I have one question. Can a non Buddist (a person who has not taken refuge in Buddha, dhamma and sangha) become an arahat without ever takeing the refuge? ---------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yo dhamma.m passati so ma.m passati. Yo pa.ticcasamuppaada.m passati so ma.m passati. Someone who sees (realises/penetrates) dhamma (ruupa/naama) he sees Me(Sammaasambuddha). Someone who sees pa.ticcasamuppaada (dependent origination) he sees Me (Sammaasambuddha. Religion comes out because of fear of people. Earlier time human had to face with disasters, natural events like storm, heavy rain, floods, volcano eruption, earthquakes, forest fire, and many others. They became fear and frightened. <...> #131589 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) nilovg Dear Rajendra, Op 5-jul-2013, om 10:22 heeft Rajendra Jadhao het volgende geschreven: > Smilarly in theravada Buddhists there are exemplary people like > Anagarika Dhammapala of Shri Lanka, ------ N: I am glad you mention him. We heard a lot about his life while we were in India with Acharn Sujin and the Thai friends. He did so much to preserve the holy places. Before he came into action those places were like a wilderness, neglected. I have a book about his life. I cannot count anymore how often I went to India with Acharn Sujin on pilgrimage. Nina. #131590 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 8:53 pm Subject: Similes we love ( was [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for all your dome work! For me the dome of lobha is not so much about keeping the rain of defilements out, though I can now add that element into the reflection. For me the dome of lobha is the layer of thinking and conceptualization which so quickly spreads as soon as their is seeing etc, the vipallasa of perceived permanence and self, the distorted perception that hides reality. Sure that ends up leading to more and more accumulationof defilements. Gradually developing understanding of the arisen reality, the hole in the dome, the island in the sea, the beak peck hole in the shell, such seemingly all opening, such momentary standing-on-solid ground...then the dome is sealed again, the sea sweeps us away again...but sure the only way away from defilements is through understanding. Your quotes may have been saying that, as usual I glanced over it! I think a wise friend can give us helpful similes without them having to be from tipikitka. Knowing how much I love and how deeply I understand baseball, a wise Dhamma friend who knew baseba could come up with some great similes to help me understand better based on a world that the Buddha and arahants knew nothing of. Phil #131591 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 9:01 pm Subject: Similes we love ( was [dsg] Re: Door = reality... Htoo's Simile philofillet Hi again --- > the hole in the dome, the island in the sea, the beak peck hole in the shell, such seemingly all opening, such momentary standing-on-solid ground...then the dome is sealed again, the sea sweeps us away again... The sea stands for defilements that sweep us away more directly than whatever is beyond the dome of lobha soaks us, I guess? Anyways, back to the characteristics of the realities involved and away from the simile, the value of which is the degree (moment by moment, in line with conditions) to which it helps us to get closer to the realities arising now. Phil #131592 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 8:44 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) dhammasaro Good friends all, Yes, even today, there are many dedicated monks quietly meditating and teaching in Thailand. I was most fortunate to meet several during my short time as a monk in Thailand. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [rest deleted by chuck] #131593 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 5, 2013 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anattaa. nilovg Dear Thomas, Op 5-jul-2013, om 2:19 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > T: The sequence is practical indicated in the SN suttas. There is > no need to name "realities", but to see directly phenomena (the > five aggregates, the six sense spheres)as anatta and the middle way. ----- N: When reading the first suttas of the KIndred Sayings IV I do not see a sequence of: this first then that. Nina. #131594 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 12:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: anattaa. htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > > > I do not know how you understand on these. The Buddha can control > > jhaana to arise to cease. Sa.laabhi~n~naa arahats can control jhaana > > they cause arising and passing away of jhaana. I know what anatta > > means. But it is very very hard to see. If someone can see it he is at > > least sotapanna. Otherwise no one can see anatta. Anatta is domain of > > ariya lowest rank is sotapanna. > > > > > And this is from someone who is not an Ariyan and therefore does not > understand Anatta or an Ariyan who does? > If you are a puthujjana, how do you know that anatta can only be > understood by an Ariyan? Is it stated somewhere in the Tipitaka? > Which cetasika exactly, is "control"? > > Metta, > > Sukin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are three types of reader or listeners. 1. who follows the reader or speaking person 2. who paralels 3. who excels Anicca, dukkha, anatta, and asubha are hallmarks of dhamma. If someone knows dhamma then he is admitting he knows anicca, dukkha, anatta, asubha. If he really see these there is no reason to attach to cling on dhamma. Then the dhamma following because of not-understanding dhamma will not follow. Otherwise dhamma seems to be never seen. With Metta, Htoo Naing #131595 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 1:26 am Subject: Vipassanaa_010 (DT 897 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, The root of words 'know, realise, understand, be aware' in Maagadhii language or Muula language or universal language or Paa.li language is "bu". "bu" means "to know". "bujjhati" means "know completely or penetrately. Those who have done "bujjhati" are called "budha". Budhas are called "Bodhi". There are three kinds of "Bodhi". The first "Bodhi" is "Sammaasambodhi". The second "bodhi" is pacceka bodhi. These first two kinds of budhas do not have any teacher to attain their "bodhi". Among them "Sammaasambuddha" is unrival. So He is called "Buddha" not just "budha". The second budhas are also called "buddhas" because they do not have teachers for attaining 'bodhi'. But they are not unrival. There can be more than one buddha in a time or age. But they are buddhas not "sammaasambuddha". There may be 1000 buddhas or 100,000 buddhas. They are called individual buddhas or "pacceka buddhas". The third kind of budha is called 'saavaka bodhi'. There are many levels of saavaka bodhi. From top to down are 1. agga saavaka (to fulfil parami for 1 asencheyya and 100,000 kappas) 2. mahaa saavaka(to fulfil parami for 100,000 kappas) There are 40 right-wing mahaasaavakas and 40 left-wing mahaasavakas 3. sa.laabhi~n~na pa.tisambhidaa arahats 4. tevijja pa.tisambhidaa arahats 5. pa.tisambhidaapatta arahats 6. arahatta maggapatta arahats Here all 6 saavaka pass arahatta magga and called arahatta magga-patta. The first 5 types of arahats do need parami variably. The last one is simple arahat. Among these simple arahats some may well be "samasiisii arahats". Samasiisii arahats are individuals who just before die attain arahatta magga and then pass away. Only The Buddha can know who is "samasiisii arahats. Again there are many kinds of "samasiisii arahats." Jiivita samasiisii, iriyaapatha samasiisii and so on. For simple arahats no special parami is required. But one who want nibbaana in this very life has to be free from 1. killing own father 2. killing own mother 3. killing arahat 4. hurting the Buddha to bruise or bleed 5. division of samghaa (at least two groups doing uposatha in siima separately. Uposatha are full-moon day or dark-moon day. Twice a month. This reciting of vinaya (paatimokkha or bhikkhu's rules) and cleaning of siila have to be done twice a month in a building (siima) named for bhikkhus to do their sasana's job. If there is no such thing has been done in this very life one may attain nibbaana in this very life. According to mahaa-satipa.t.thaana suttam written in diigha nikaaya and majjhima nikaaya one require to do satipatthaana for 7 years or at least 7 days. Because of this there are many centres in Myanmar that train lay people and monks as 7-day-course. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #131596 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 2:29 am Subject: [dsg] Walking Meditation [Re: Gacchanto vaa gacchaamii'ti pajaanaati.] philofillet Dear Group The following from Useful Posts refutes the notion that there is value to be found in observing conventional activities such as walking etc. It is the realities behind them that are to be studied. No notion (for example, to use Htoo's idea) of walking becoming transparent so that realities gradually become exposed, consideration goes straight to the realities. Phil > > I'd like to examine the supposition about "activities" in the section on > kayanupassana, by looking at 2 particular sub-sections, the one on modes > of deportment and the one on reflection on the dhatus. > > First, the modes of deportment: > "And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am > going'; when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; when he is > sitting, he understands: 'I am sitting'; when he is lying down, he > understands: 'I am lying down'; or just as his body is disposed so he > understands it. > > In this one the wording suggests to me mindfulness *while* going, > standing, etc., rather than undertaking walking, standing, etc. as a > specific practice for developing mindfulness. > > Now reflection on the dhatus: > "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body according > as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, > thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode of > cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' > > I cannot see any specific bodily activity referred to here. This kind > of reflection is independent of any particular speech or actions, and > can take place at any time, I think. > > >We should notice that there are > >no special "activities" for the contemplation of feeling > >(vedananupassana), or the contemplation of nama like citta , sanna, > >samyojana, etc. Do you know why? > > > > > > For me, the answer to that question is easy: there are no special > activities for any of the 4 anupassanas ;-)). The message of all 4 > anupassanas is the same: any time, any dhamma. > > Jon > #131597 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: anattaa. thomaslaw03 Dear Nina, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > Op 5-jul-2013, om 2:19 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > > T: The sequence is practical indicated in the SN suttas. There is no need to name "realities", but to see directly phenomena (the > five aggregates, the six sense spheres)as anatta and the middle way. > ----- > N: When reading the first suttas of the KIndred Sayings IV I do not see a sequence of: this first then that. The eye is impermanent. What is impermanent , that is dukkha. What is dukkha, that is void of the self....> T: It is very essential for the practising person to see the connection between anicca, dukkha and anatta: One sees the five aggregates as anicca (impermanent); seeing them as anicca, one sees them as dukkha (suffering); seeing them as dukkha, one sees them as anatta (not-self). For the reason why "impermanence is suffering", see SN 22.43, SN 22.84, and SN 22. 7 (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 55-56). Also, the connection between `anatta' and `the middle way' is also found in the SN suttas, such as SN 22.90 and SN 12.15 (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 60-66, 192-199) Thomas #131598 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 3:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: anattaa. thomaslaw03 Dear htoo, and all, --- "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > > htoo: ... Anicca, dukkha, anatta, and asubha are hallmarks of dhamma... T: I think 'asubha' should not be included for the hallmarks of dhamma. I do not see any suttas, particularly SN, list it along with 'anicca, dukkha, anatta'. Regards, Thomas #131599 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Htoo. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > Htoo: > Start with learning. Learning on basic dhamma. Then step on higher level then to advanced level. Finally to walk on the path of satipa.t.thaana. Someone who knows everything in tipi.taka does not know dhamma in super-advanced level or penetrative level. That is understandable. Conceptual understanding can lead to higher understanding, but is not the same thing. > Ledi Sayadaw, Kyaung Pan Sayadaw, Mahaasi Sayadaw all started with simple instructions (all pannatti). > > Mahaasi: Put your mind on your tummy with closed eyes. Can you see rising up and falling down of the abdominal wall? If not put your hand on the tummy and then you will be able to see that tummy is rising and falling. Here all concepts. But paramattha dhamma is there inside of these words. > > When knows the rising of the abdomen is 'kaayavi~n~naa.na citta'. This knowing is naama. The thing the expands the tummy wall or deflates the wall is ruupa (vaayo). Sensitive part in the tummy wall is 'kaaya pasaada'. > > 1. kaaya pasaada and vaayo (ruupakkhandhaa) > 2. kaayavi~n~naa.na (vi~n~naa.nakkhandhaa) > 3. recognition on sense of tension (sa~n~naakkhandhaa) > 4. feeling that arises when tummy wall arises or falls (vedanaakkhandhaa) > 5. exertion or (mind)direction to tummy or other mental components (sa`nkhaarakkhandhaa) > > All these happen in a single moment. When this is understood this understanding lies in 'kaamaavacara mahaakusala tihetuka cittas'.In this there lie 'so called pa~n~naa'. Before this very series of consciousness there are other series that do not have pannaa. Thanks, Htoo. I especially appreciate the notes on Mahasi and the other teachers. So it is possible to distinguish nama and rupa in the sensation of the abdomen as taught by Mahasi. Very interesting. I will reply regarding the kammathana separately, after considering what you say a little bit more. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - -