#132400 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: T.A. alive on Sunday. nilovg Dear Jagkrit. Op 12 aug 2013, om 15:53 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > JK: TA Sujin once said when reality arises without understanding, it is like strewing dusts of ignorance piling up upon citta unnoticeably again and again. ----- N: Intellectually we know that there are mostly cittas without understanding after seeing, hearing, etc. We never notice when there is ignorance; what an immense amount of dust. ---- Nina. #132401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas nilovg Hi Howard, It is good you gave the whole sutta. We see this more often: three ways and the last one is the best. Those who are skilled in jhaana can enter and emerge at any time, also when taking different postures. Like Sariputta who fanned the Buddha. He could enter and emerge from jhaana while doing so. The third way, the noble way is the best. Here this is said of the arahat, but also when developing satipa.t.thaana, this can be done in any posture, any situation. A good reminder. Nina. Op 12 aug 2013, om 17:36 heeft upasaka@aol.com het volgende geschreven: > "Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is noble. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is noble. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is noble. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my noble high and luxurious bed. This is that noble high and luxurious bed that at present I can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty." #132402 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Thanks for the following. I can't seem to think of anything useful to say in reply. (Not a criticism at all (!) - just a statement of fact. :-) With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > > J: Let's begin by clarifying what is meant by "intentional action for a worthy goal" or "expenditure of effort for a wholesome purpose". Are you referring to actual kusala, or are you referring to an intention or effort that precedes the arising of actual kusala. Perhaps an example or two would help. Thanks. > > -------------------------------- > > HCW: My introspection is generally pretty good, but this detail may exceed it. I'm afraid that I am simply speaking in a casual way of wholesome intention aimed at conditioning beneficial consequences. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for this clarification. Does "wholesome intention aimed at conditioning beneficial consequences" mean the same as "kusala intention to have/develop more kusala"? If so, I think there's a problem (apart from the obvious tautological one!), in that the teachings do not acknowledge the intention to have/develop kusala as being itself a kind of kusala. > > According to the descriptions of kusala in the Pali Canon, either there is kusala or there isn't. If there's useful reflection on kusala -- for example, its benefits or its nature as a mere element that arises by appropriate conditions -- then that would be considered as an aspect of bhavana. But that kind of useful thinking is to be distinguished from, for example, intending/deciding to do some activity that we think will condition more kusala to arise; this is most likely to be motivated by attachment (with or without a mistaken view of the nature of kusala). > > None of the foregoing is meant to be personal to you, but just to set out my understanding as to why I am reluctant to acknowledge "intentional action for a worthy goal" or "expenditure of effort for a wholesome purpose" as being likely to be kusala, and at the same time why this is not a denial of kusala kamma. > > Hoping I'm managing to make some sense. > > Jon > #132403 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank for your reply, Nina. I understand the position you are putting forth, and it is intelligent, but I find it a bit of a stretch, and I don't see it in the words of the sutta. :-) With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > It is good you gave the whole sutta. We see this more often: three ways and the last one is the best. > Those who are skilled in jhaana can enter and emerge at any time, also when taking different postures. Like Sariputta who fanned the Buddha. He could enter and emerge from jhaana while doing so. > The third way, the noble way is the best. Here this is said of the arahat, but also when developing satipa.t.thaana, this can be done in any posture, any situation. A good reminder. > Nina. > Op 12 aug 2013, om 17:36 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > "Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is noble. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is noble. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is noble. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my noble high and luxurious bed. This is that noble high and luxurious bed that at present I can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty." > > > > > #132404 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas nilovg Hi Howard, I am thinking for example of the three kinds of marvellous qualities: The first two are supernatural powers, but the most marvellous is when people listen to the teachings. A stretch? Nina. Op 13 aug 2013, om 15:23 heeft upasaka@aol.com het volgende geschreven: > Thank for your reply, Nina. I understand the position you are putting forth, and it is intelligent, but I find it a bit of a stretch, and I don't see it in the words of the sutta. :-) #132405 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > I am thinking for example of the three kinds of marvellous qualities: The first two are supernatural powers, but the most marvellous is when people listen to the teachings. A stretch? > Nina. > Op 13 aug 2013, om 15:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Thank for your reply, Nina. I understand the position you are putting forth, and it is intelligent, but I find it a bit of a stretch, and I don't see it in the words of the sutta. :-) ================================ I thought that the position you were putting forth was that the walking and so on occured in an interspersed manner *between* moments of jhana. It is that which I think to be "a stretch," as I don't see that said or even implied in the sutta. I don't seem to understand what you mean in THIS post of yours. Could you please clarify it for me? (I would appreciate it.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #132406 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:54 am Subject: Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > The following is a portion of The teaching Venaaga in the book of threes, which can be found at the link http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pitaka/anguttara-nikaya/1189-an-the-boo\ k-of-the-threes-2-fifty-ii-the-great-chapter: > __________________________________ > > (1) "But, Master Gotama, what is the celestial high and luxurious bed that at present you gain at will, without trouble or difficulty?" > > "Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhâna ... > > "It is astounding and amazing, Master Gotama! Who else, apart from Master Gotama, can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty, such a celestial high and luxurious bed? > _________________________________ > > This seems to unambiguously show that while dwelling in the 4th jhana it is possible to engage in bodily actions, including to walk back & forth. What an amazing sutta, a great find! This sutta does show with what low regard the Buddha held the jhanas, ha ha ha - just kidding. I wonder why the Buddha doesn't ever make clear that the jhanas are not part of the path? Why doesn't he let everyone know that they do not lead to vipassana? Why does he instead not only praise the jhanas but absolutely extol them? It's a mystery. As for the Buddha walking around in the fourth jhana, I think it's clear that's a very very very high attainment, perhaps only achievable by a Buddha. [This is my only statement here that's not a quip.] BTW, did you notice that the Buddha does that same weird thing that he begins with in the anapanasati and other important suttas? He collects something to sit on, sits with legs crossed and straightens the spine, putting mindfulness before him, and then goes into the jhanas. It sounds an awful lot like Buddhist meditation to me, practiced by the Buddha himself. Too bad it's not part of the path, but an expression of self-view. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #132407 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:58 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Can't we at least admit we are talking about two *completely different* ways of understanding the Dhamma? > > > RE: Why would that be satisfying to you? Isn't it better to say that I agree about dhammas but not about how that knowledge applies to conventional activities? > --------- > > KH: No, it would be better if you agreed there were some completely crazy people on DSG who thought there were only dhammas. People who thought conventional things did not even exist. (!!!) > > Crazy people! :-) Well that goes without saying, Ken. My problem is the same as always - as hard as I try, I can only achieve half-craziness. It drives me crazy. Best, Rob E. "still not quite crazy after all these years." = = = = = = = = #132408 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > (1) "But, Master Gotama, what is the celestial high and luxurious > bed that at present you gain at will, without trouble or difficulty?" > > > > "Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or > town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that > village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from > the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I > find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs > crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front > of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from > unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhâna ... > > > > "It is astounding and amazing, Master Gotama! Who else, apart from > Master Gotama, can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty, such a > celestial high and luxurious bed? > > _________________________________ > > > > This seems to unambiguously show that while dwelling in the 4th > jhana it is possible to engage in bodily actions, including to walk > back & forth. > > What an amazing sutta, a great find! > Yes, the daily life of the greatest of men. While people of inferior character such as you and I, not only experience only the objects of the sense sphere, but are so ignorant as to seek any and all concepts derived from such experience, ones associated with pleasure, the Buddha for countless lifetimes prior his last, had trained himself to abide in the form and formless realm of experience. In the last life after he discovered the Path, it is therefore not surprising that he'd have days as described in the Sutta quoted above. > > This sutta does show with what low regard the Buddha held the jhanas, > ha ha ha - just kidding. > > I wonder why the Buddha doesn't ever make clear that the jhanas are > not part of the path? Why doesn't he let everyone know that they do > not lead to vipassana? Why does he instead not only praise the jhanas > but absolutely extol them? > > It's a mystery. > The Buddha did not have as his direct audience, someone such as you. He was not involved in situations such as the one here on DSG. > As for the Buddha walking around in the fourth jhana, I think it's > clear that's a very very very high attainment, perhaps only achievable > by a Buddha. [This is my only statement here that's not a quip.] > > BTW, did you notice that the Buddha does that same weird thing that he > begins with in the anapanasati and other important suttas? He collects > something to sit on, sits with legs crossed and straightens the spine, > putting mindfulness before him, and then goes into the jhanas. > Just as I would sit in front of the computer or indulge in some other form of entertainment, having accumulated the tendency to such for so long, the Buddha had gotten into a habit of sitting in anapanasati. And don't forget, he was without attachment, so what do you think was left for him to do when he was not out teaching? > It sounds an awful lot like Buddhist meditation to me, practiced by > the Buddha himself. > When you interpret what you read to suit your views about practice. > Too bad it's not part of the path, but an expression of self-view. > You don't have to add that little spice. No one has ever said that Jhana development is expression of wrong view!! Metta, Sukin #132409 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > Thanks for the following. I can't seem to think of anything useful to say in reply. (Not a criticism at all (!) - just a statement of fact. :-) > =============== J: No problem. I don't think I've said anything new; just explained it in a little more detail perhaps. Perhaps some comments will come to mind when you've had a chance to ponder further :-)) Jon #132410 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Hi Htoo, Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > Adosa works as 'adosa' , 'metta', 'khanti' and so on. I think Sarah will have more to talk on khanti. ... S: In addition to all the other comments, I'd just like to point out that patience can also be akusala. For example, whilst studying an academic text, robbing a bank, exercising or watching a sunrise, there's lots of patience with strong viriya, but all akusala. Metta Sarah ====== #132411 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:35 pm Subject: Re: Manly discussion sarahprocter... Hi Pt, > Regarding samatha - one bit that stuck with me is that when there's talk about maintaining the samatha object in daily life, it's not about focusing on the object, but more about considering what's encountered in terms of the actual object. One bit from a text came to mind - when an elder had the body parts as his samatha object, he only saw a skeleton when someone passed him on the road, without even noticing if it was a man or a woman. In other words, he was considering what he encountered in terms of his samatha object. I never understood that text until now. ... S: I think that's a good comment. .... > > In that sense I was also wondering - say in terms of the earth kasina, there would be considering everything in terms of the earth element - which makes sense since pretty much everything out there depends on the earth element. But what about the color kasinas for example? What does the blue kasina for example has to do with the world? It's not like there's a "blue element" in the same sense as there is the 4 elements. .... S: What are we so attached to during the day? Just different colours. We all have our preferences - the blue sky, the green grass, red...yellow..... but it's just colour, just visible object that is seen for an instant and falls away immediately. It doesn't matter what colour we like, but we when there is understanding of it as just colour, the citta is calm, there is no attachment at that moment. People in the Buddha's time could understand the danger of attachment to sense objects, but for us, most of the day, lobha rules! ... > Yes, this is always fun, to go way back to basics - it quickly reveals all the stories about Dhamma that keep spinning in my head and have pretty much no relevance to the present moment understanding at all. ... S: You were referring to our discussion in Manly. Back to basics.... We have pencilled in the next discussion for Sun Oct 13th. Hope that suits you. Sarita and Rich are keen to discuss more. Metta Sarah ======= #132412 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:55 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Hi Pt & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > I think there's a a bit of confusion lately about Robs on the list. I think Phil was addressing Rob E., whereas James probably had Rob M. in mind, a different Rob. There is also Rob K. who I think Htoo was recently confusing with another Rob, and there was a fourth Rob I think, Rob H. was it? I get confused... ... S: The other Rob for a while was Rob Ed, Robert Eddison, the same Ven Dhammanando before he ordained a second time .... Metta Sarah ===== #132413 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:11 pm Subject: Re: anattaa. sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > But there was *doing* by Cuu.lapanthaka. And he became an arahat and understood dhammas. .... S: When we refer to *doing* by X, what are the realities? Like now, we may say we are reading or typing, but is there anything other than citta, cetasika and rupa? Are these not the same conditioned dhammas, the khandhas referred to throughout the Tipitaka? Surely, all are anatta? In reality, no X, no person to do anything at all! Are these not the dhammas that have to be understood now? Metta Sarah ===== #132414 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:21 pm Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Here is another passage from the transcription: > > "Hardness > is experienced by touch. Also without awareness hardness is experienced, but when > there is awareness it does not change its characteristic, it is still hard, but > its characteristic is understood. Pa~n~naa is very precise." > > Getting back to the questions Azita and I were going over some weeks ago > > Is there hardness now? Yes. Often. > > Is there awaremess of hardness now? No. Almost never. > > What's the difference between hardness now without awareness and awareness of hardness now? ... S: The hardness is exactly the same regardless of whether there is any awareness of it or not. So the only difference is in whether it is known, whether it is the object of awareness or not. ... >Sati is aware of characteristics of hardness now? Panna understands characteristis of hardness now? ... S: Only panna can know. If there is no knowing, then there is no panna. ... >Can there be awareness of characteristics of hardness now without panna that understands characteristics of hardness now? ... S: No. There cannot be awareness of hardness as a reality without panna. Metta Sarah ====== #132415 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] edited audio discussions sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Anumodana for all yuor work. > I listened to the beginning of Ayuthaya and it is very good, about dhaatus. Where were these discuassions held, how was there enough time? No sightseeing? The trip must have taken time also. ... S: Yes, the entire day's discussion was excellent. They were held in a small hotel room. After lunch in the hotel, some friends went sightseeing and Ajahn went for a rest. Jon and I continued to have discussion with those left and Ajahn returned very quickly! It was the last day for many people and so I think she wished to address many topics. Metta Sarah ===== #132416 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: Now! sarahprocter... Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Thanks for the great post. I highlight one part: > > > Nina: Tom wants to know how to help children with kusala cittas. We live in the > conventional world. > *** > AS: Leave it to condtions. You think in your way and the others think in their > way and what about 'just do your best'? > *** > Tom talks about choosing a video and needing to select one and the dilemmas > involved. > *** > AS: 'Just do your best!' > > Ph: This is very good. Similar to "just understand." Ajahn doesn't give us lobha-ditthi rooted techniques to speed things up, she reminds us that here and now there are opportunities for understanding, opportunities for kusala, in line with conditions. No posponing understanding for when conditions have been manipulated ( by greed and delusion) to permit rituals. Nope. Understanding now, kusala now. Or not. > The way of detachment, the Buddha's way. .. S: Yes and we always think in terms of 'the ways of the world' as to what is 'best', forgetting entirely about understanding the present citta now. ... > > As : What's the result of attachment? More fire again. Kindness does not hurt at all. > They can sense the difference between kindness and attachment." > > Ph: Wow, Ajahn rocks! ( i.e is great. ^_^) ... S: The more understanding, the more confidence there is in what is imprortant - not the selecting of the 'right' video, but the understanding of realities and development of kusala now. Metta Sarah ===== #132417 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > JK: As far as the history goes, ancient commentaries started to be written by enlightened monks during 3rd Buddhist council Tipitaka sort out in 234 BA or 309 BC. ... S: Nothing was 'written' during the Buddha's life of course, but commentaries were given by disciples of the Buddha from the outset. Here are some comments I've made before in earlier posts: 1. G.P. Malalsekera `The Pali Literature of Ceylon', ....says that "the need for an accurate interpretation of the Buddha's words, which formed the guiding principle of life and action of the members of the Sangha, was felt from the very earliest days of the order. When the master was alive there was always the possibility of referring disputed questions direct to him. But even during the master's lifetime - at the Buddhist centres formed at various places under the leadership of one or other of the famous disciples - discussions, friendly interviews, and analytical expositions used to take place, and the raison d'etre of the commentaries is to be traced to these discussions. Sometimes it happened that accounts of these discussions were duly reported to the Teacher, and some of them were approved by him, and he would then ask the monks to bear the particular expositions in mind as the best that could have been given....." ..... 2. "The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite doctrines." It seems that they were the utterances of disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that were respected as much as the words of the Buddha himself and became known as "Buddha vacana". "These formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha preached a sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the monks used to repair to one of the chief disciples and get the points explained in greater detail. Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was foremost in reputation for his power in giving detailed expositions of what the Buddha said in brief. .." ... 3. I mentioned before that according to Buddhaghosa, the origin of the Mahavihara commentarial tradition goes back to the time of the First Coucil. The commentaries were, he writes: "....rehearsed at the very outset, for the purpose of elucidating the meaning, by the 500 (who were) endowed with self-mastery, and were likewise rehearsed even afterwards were subsequently brought to the island of the Sihalas by Maha-Mahinda (who was) endowed with self-mastery..." ..... 4. Malalasekera continues (The Pali Literature of Ceylon); "When later the text of the canon came to be compiled, arranged, and edited, some of the expositions found their way into the Pitakas and were given a permanent place therein. Thus we have the Sangiti-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya, ascribed to Sariputta and forming a complete catechism of terms and passages of exegetical nature. Such was also the Sacca-vibhanga (an exposition of the four Noble Truths) of the Majjhima, which later found its proper place in the second book of the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, and also the Madhu-pindika-sutta of Maha-Kaccayana, included in the Majjhima Nikaya. "It sometimes happened that for a proper understanding of the text, explanations of a commentarial nature were quite essential; and in such cases the commentary was naturally incorporated into the text and formed part of the text itself.......Then there is the Niddesa, a whole book of commentary on texts now included in the Sutta-nipata; and there are passages clearly of a commentarial nature scattered throughout the Nikayas." **** S: Just a few examples to indicate that the commentarial traditional stems from the time of the Buddha. Metta Sarah ===== #132418 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo & Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > > Thomas: Various terms for the notion of not-self (anatta) are found in the SN suttas (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 57-60): > > > > > > 1. `Not belonging to self' (anattaniya); and `neither self nor belonging to self' (anatta-anattaniya). > > > > > > 2. `Not belonging to you' (na tumhaaka.m). > > > > > > 3. `Self-conceit/pride' (asmi-maana), `self-excitement/impulse' > > > (asmi-chanda), and `self-bias' (asmi-anusaya). > > > > > > 4. `This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self' (n'etam mama, n'eso 'ham asmi, na m'eso attaa ti) (`This': Referring to each of the five aggregates and the sense spheres) > > ------ <..> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > "ne'ta.m mama n'eso'hamasmi, na m'eso attaa". This appears in many of sutta.ms. This indicates 'ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi'. These three dhammas are papa~nca dhammas. > > "saha kaayo sakkaayo". Sakkaayas are reality. Sakkaaya are ruupa.m, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sa`nkhaaraa, and vi~n~naa.na.m and any of these in isolation or in group. > > "di.t.thi" wrongly assume these sakkaayas (realities) as 'self'. So it is "sakkaaya-di.t.thi" that hinder arising of vipassanaa-~naa.na. <.>>> > When ruupa.m or vedanaa or sa~n~naa or sa`nkhaaraa or vi~n~naa.na.m is seen as ruupa.m etc there is no more atta. ... S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. metta Sarah ===== #132419 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] edited audio discussions nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 14 aug 2013, om 09:29 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > It was the last day for many people and so I think she wished to address many topics. ------ N: So glad to know. Next time I have to watch out with dates. Nina. #132420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Now! nilovg Dear Sarah, Phil and Alberto (I miss him!), I just add what I heard this morning in Ayathaya 2 about the world. Op 14 aug 2013, om 09:44 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S (referring to Tom's dilemma, how to give guidance to children) :Yes and we always think in terms of 'the ways of the world' as to what is 'best', forgetting entirely about understanding the present citta now. ...The more understanding, the more confidence there is in what is imprortant - not the selecting of the 'right' video, but the understanding of realities and development of kusala now. ------- T.A.: --------- Nina. #132421 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Howard. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, all - > > > > The following is a portion of The teaching Venaaga in the book of threes, which can be found at the link http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pitaka/anguttara-nikaya/1189-an-the-boo\ k-of-the-threes-2-fifty-ii-the-great-chapter: > > __________________________________ > > > > (1) "But, Master Gotama, what is the celestial high and luxurious bed that at present you gain at will, without trouble or difficulty?" > > > > "Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhâna ... > > > > "It is astounding and amazing, Master Gotama! Who else, apart from Master Gotama, can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty, such a celestial high and luxurious bed? > > _________________________________ > > > > This seems to unambiguously show that while dwelling in the 4th jhana it is possible to engage in bodily actions, including to walk back & forth. > > What an amazing sutta, a great find! > > This sutta does show with what low regard the Buddha held the jhanas, ha ha ha - just kidding. ------------------------- HCW: ;-) ------------------------- > > I wonder why the Buddha doesn't ever make clear that the jhanas are not part of the path? Why doesn't he let everyone know that they do not lead to vipassana? Why does he instead not only praise the jhanas but absolutely extol them? > > It's a mystery. > > As for the Buddha walking around in the fourth jhana, I think it's clear that's a very very very high attainment, perhaps only achievable by a Buddha. [This is my only statement here that's not a quip.] ------------------------- HCW: This occurred to me as well. It is quite possibly so, though others claim not. In any case, it does show, it seems to me, that "ordinary" activity is possible during the "buddhist jhanas." -------------------------- > > BTW, did you notice that the Buddha does that same weird thing that he begins with in the anapanasati and other important suttas? He collects something to sit on, sits with legs crossed and straightens the spine, putting mindfulness before him, and then goes into the jhanas. --------------------------- HCW: I believe James pointed that out. ----------------------------- It sounds an awful lot like Buddhist meditation to me, practiced by the Buddha himself. ------------------------------ HCW: Yes. (But what's in a name? Hmm, good slogan! LOL!) ------------------------------ > > Too bad it's not part of the path, but an expression of self-view. ------------------------------ HCW: Thank you, Jonathan Swift! LOL! ------------------------------ > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = > ================================= With metta, Howard Purpose and Reward /Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose and reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose and reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose and reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose and reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose and reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose and reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose and reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose and reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose and reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose and reward./ (From the Kimattha Sutta) #132422 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts upasaka_howard Thanks, Jon! :-) With mettam Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > Thanks for the following. I can't seem to think of anything useful to say in reply. (Not a criticism at all (!) - just a statement of fact. :-) > > =============== > > J: No problem. I don't think I've said anything new; just explained it in a little more detail perhaps. Perhaps some comments will come to mind when you've had a chance to ponder further :-)) > > Jon > #132423 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Thanks, Jon! :-) > > With mettam > Howard =========================== LOLOL! Pure happenstance that I hit the 'm' instead of the comma and wrote the correct Pali word 'mettam'! ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #132424 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:34 am Subject: Breaking News!!! philofillet Monkeys in the jungle gobbling bhananas!! Guys on the internet babbling 'bout jhananas!!! Phil #132425 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:09 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, Phil & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > > > Adosa works as 'adosa' , 'metta', 'khanti' and so on. I think Sarah will have more to talk on khanti. > ... > > S: In addition to all the other comments, I'd just like to point out that patience can also be akusala. For example, whilst studying an academic text, robbing a bank, exercising or watching a sunrise, there's lots of patience with strong viriya, but all akusala. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, No! patience cannot be akusala. Dosa has two extreme. One is outburst. One is dormant. When dormant, it serves like patience. Patience on the other hand is kusala. If it is akusala, patience cannot be one of paramii. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132426 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:47 am Subject: Re: anattaa. htoonaing... Sarah: Dear Htoo, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > But there was *doing* by Cuu.lapanthaka. And he became an arahat and understood dhammas. .... S: When we refer to *doing* by X, what are the realities? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There is no X then, *doing* is not doing but arising of realty one after another. Realties in pair. One has no power of awareness and another is aware of still other reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Like now, we may say we are reading or typing, but is there anything other than citta, cetasika and rupa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. There is or there are. They are anusayas. They do not arise. They do not fall away. *We* are reading. There is no *we* as reality but 5 khandhaa. Reading or typing is not abyaakata. They may be akusala or kusala. If kusala, then there are anusayas. Anusaya is not citta. It is not cetasika. It is not ruupa. It is just tendency. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Are these not the same conditioned dhammas, the khandhas referred to throughout the Tipitaka? Surely, all are anatta? In reality, no X, no person to do anything at all! Are these not the dhammas that have to be understood now? Metta Sarah ===== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sa.mkarotiiti sa`nkhaaro. Sa`nkharetiiti sa`nkhata. Sankhara dhamma have to arise because there are all appropriate causes there. They have to fall away as soon as causes are not there. When you say 'now' there already passed away 'now'. Some may think that they understand reality arising now. Arising are many. Almost not reachable. Realities are like sand that is thrown up. Sand not stays still and all fall to the ground. Understanding follows as they (realities) go by only when pa~n~naa reaches appropriate level. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132427 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo & Thomas, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > > > > > Thomas: Various terms for the notion of not-self (anatta) are found in the SN suttas (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 57-60): > > > > > > > > 1. `Not belonging to self' (anattaniya); and `neither self nor belonging to self' (anatta-anattaniya). > > > > > > > > 2. `Not belonging to you' (na tumhaaka.m). > > > > > > > > 3. `Self-conceit/pride' (asmi-maana), `self-excitement/impulse' > > > > (asmi-chanda), and `self-bias' (asmi-anusaya). > > > > > > > > 4. `This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self' (n'etam mama, n'eso 'ham asmi, na m'eso attaa ti) (`This': Referring to each of the five aggregates and the sense spheres) > > > ------ > <..> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Htoo: > > > > "ne'ta.m mama n'eso'hamasmi, na m'eso attaa". This appears in many of sutta.ms. This indicates 'ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi'. These three dhammas are papa~nca dhammas. > > > > "saha kaayo sakkaayo". Sakkaayas are reality. Sakkaaya are ruupa.m, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sa`nkhaaraa, and vi~n~naa.na.m and any of these in isolation or in group. > > > > "di.t.thi" wrongly assume these sakkaayas (realities) as 'self'. So it is "sakkaaya-di.t.thi" that hinder arising of vipassanaa-~naa.na. > <.>>> > > When ruupa.m or vedanaa or sa~n~naa or sa`nkhaaraa or vi~n~naa.na.m is seen as ruupa.m etc there is no more atta. > ... > > S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. > > If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. > > metta > > Sarah ===== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Commentaries do not overinterpreted on Paa.li. All sutta.ms are in the commentaries (a.t.thakathaa) in the same name of respective sutta.m. A.t.thakathaa = a.t.tha (attha) + kathaa, attha means 'essence' 'meaning' and kathaa means 'speech'. Speech in the same meaning of Paa.li is a.t.thakathaa. If there are 34 sutta.m, then there are 34 a.t.thakathaa. If there are 152 sutta.ms then there are 152 a.t.thakathaa. This is on "Dhamma" or "Buddha's Dhamma". All 4 nikaayas have a.t.thakathaa. On the otherhand, Visuddhimagga is a separate text, substracted from "Dhamma". It is not directly equalized with Paa.li. But VM is called a commentary. Abhidhammatthasangaha is just a summary of abhidhamma texts(not confirmed by Aanandaa). It is also called commentary. Even though it is useful for beginners it is not enough in helping "really seeing realities". With Metta, Htoo Naing #132428 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:17 am Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Phil, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Here is another passage from the transcription: > > > > "Hardness > > is experienced by touch. Also without awareness hardness is ---------- ---------- S: No. There cannot be awareness of hardness as a reality without panna. Metta Sarah ====== --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There can be awareness of hardness without panna. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132429 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:44 am Subject: Re: Breaking News!!! htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: Monkeys in the jungle gobbling bhananas!! Guys on the internet babbling 'bout jhananas!!! Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :) :) :) May be I am one of them. Jhaana is not to be stick to. Jhaana is not to be hooked. Jhaana is not to be bound. Jhaana is just calming. Compared to Thera and Mahaathera I am just a monkey. I am no more than a simple lay man. But once I had an experience. I knew 5 minutes ahead of what would be happening. Everything exactly happened as I pre-knew it at that time. But it was not last long. I think it was a bout a month. And I also experienced floating on air when I was sitting still. My head was almost touching to the ceiling. But I was not bound to that experience. I continued to study dhamma. It (jhaana) is against kaama and dosa. It is hard to sustain and hard to maintain. Here I do not mean what I experienced was jhaana. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132430 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:11 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Hi Htoo, ---- Anyway, it's good to emerge from the smokescreen occasionally and to remember the main issue. We are not talking about whether lobha is very common. The only reason we mentioned lobha was to ask whether the desire to follow a set of instructions was kusala or akusala. Ken H ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: A young one instructed a mahaathera to obstruct 5 sense-doors and instructed him to leave just mind-door. When a reptile enters a hump which has 6 openings, only one is to be un-obstructed and other five openings are obstructed to catch that reptile (say a lizard) at the only opening. According to that instruction Mahaathera became an arahat. Desire is not a proper word. It can be anything in Paa.li. Not all desires are lobha. The Buddha himself was thirsty on His last day. He did have a desire to drink and instructed Aananda to bring water from the river (Kakudaa). "I`ngha me tva.m, Aananda, paaniiya.m aahara!pipaasitosmi, Aananda, pivissaami." 'I instructed you, Aananda. Bring water. I will drink'. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132431 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) htoonaing... Sukin: Hello Htoo, > Sukin: > Satipatthana is conditioned by one kind of wisdom, the object of which > is characteristic of a reality, and this can even be the > characteristic of one of the five hindrances. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu saraaga.m vaa citta.m saraaga.m cittanti > pajaanaati. Viitaraaga.m vaa citta.m ..... > 1. saraaga citta.m (kaamacchanda niivara.na) > 2. viitaraaga citta.m (citta free of ta.nhaa/lobha) > > Yes. Niivara.na dhamma can be the object of satipatthana. But not in > advanced stage. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Nivarana dhammas are not a hindrance to a lower level of panna, but they are so to panna of a higher level? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Niivara.na dhammas do stop arising of magga-panna. That is why niivara.na dhammas are drived out early. Niivara.na dhammas are calmed down and drived out by samaadhi of many kinds where jhaana is the most effective. Without appanaa-samaadhi or jhaana there can still be weaker one called uapacaara-samaadhi or upacaara-jhaana, which is close to arising of appanaa-samaadhi or jhaana. Upacaara-samaadhi can be attained by all 40 kamma.t.thaana dhamma. Kamma.t.thaana is a word made up of 'kamma' and '.thaana'. Kamma here is referred to 'bhaavanaa kamma'. That is 'proliferating action'. Proliferation of what? Proliferation of knowledge of dhamma (that you would say 'realities' or naama or ruupa). Knowledge of what? Knowledge of each arising dhamma or reality (naama or ruupa) as it is. Is this the end? No not yet. When reality is known repeatedly there comes a time that the seen realty (visible or audible or olfactory or gustatory or tengible or imaginable/thinkable) is not arisen without cause or causes but with them. At that time is coming to know that dhammas are conditioned, conditioned by kamma, citta, utu, ahaara, phassa and so on. So each arising reality is conditioned dhamma or sa`nkhata dhamma. This is not the first stage. When this happen is 2nd stage. The first stage is knowledge of reality as it is. That is a given reality has such and such characteristics. This is understanding of sabhaava-lakkha.na. This is the very first stage. This stage takes a long time. A long time with *doing*. Without *doing* this stage will not come. When this stage is passed next comes is the second stage. That stage is understanding on causal dhammas of arising realities. Only after that the third stage comes. It is seeing on reality and that realty does not last long. It just arises and passes away so fast. To say no time to catch. Even though no need to catch. When such thing that is disappearance immediately is seen there is understanding on reality. In the form of realizing impermance or a-nicca.m. Nicca.m means 'ever' or 'ever-existing' or 'ever-lasting'. When anicca is seen, dukkha is also seen. When anicca and dukkha are seen anatta is also seen. When this happen it seems that all three lakkha.nas are seen at the same time. But this is not true. Some mainly realize at anicca while seeing reality, some mainly realize at dukkha, and some mainly realize at anatta while seeing a reality. When it is said 'reality' then it cannot be "the object of jhaana". As you said at lower level niivara.na dhammas are not hinderance to satipa.t.thaana. That is why the Buddha preached in Mahaasatipa.t.thaana sutta.m on dhammaanupassanaa, which includes niivara.na dhammas. In dhammaanupassanaa the first comer is niivara.na dhamma. Niivara.na in its essence is hinderance or obstruction to magga-panna. But at lower level niivara.na dhamma have to be understood. Without experiences of niivara.na dhamma one will not realize higher level panna and higher level ~naa.na. The same includes in cittaanupassanaa, where lobha-citta is contemplated as lobha-citta and so on. There are 8 pairs of citta in citaanupassanaa. 7 are true pairs but 2 cittas are not paired ones. In cittaanupassanaa later cittas are jhaana cittas. 'Later' I mean in the latter positions in description of sutta.m. The first 8 cittas are worldly consciousness or cittas. But latter are higher cittas than worldly things. Examples are mahaggata cittas (jhaana cittas or ruupa-kusala-cittas and aruupa-kusala-cittas), samaahita-citta which is 'calm mind' one, and anuttara citta which is higher in terms of purity when compared with lower cittas, that is, lobha citta or raaga citta, dosa citta, moha citta. Here I wrote for simplification. Moha citta means a citta with moha cetasika as the main root or hetu and no other hetus or roots apart from moha. These are lower cittas. When they appear less and less frequently further arising cittas become higher and higher in terms of purity. All these happen through *doing*. Without *doing* there will not be any realization at all.(Htoo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: > Sounds strange. What is the reasoning behind the conclusion? > Does not the development of panna make it easier for more subtle akusala to be understood? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :) :) :) What makes you to think in a such way? What has been strange. I cannot see anything starnge but what is strange is you. Developing itself is *doing*. Panna has to be developed through a sound concentration through a good concentration through a firm concentration. Without concentration there will be wandering (uddhacca). Even a suble dhamma subtle akusala called 'dhamma uddhacca' or "dhammuddhacca" can be cleansed with a good concentrations among which jhaana is the best. Uddhacca is described along with kukkucca. It is uddhacca-kukkucca niivara.na. Niivara.nas are put under control with jhaana. Jhaana: Jhaayati. Burn. Burning of what? Burning of opposite dhammas like sensual pleasure (that is why I wrote just 5 precepts is not enough for vipassanaa) including sex, aversion or dosa or related dhamma like aaghaata, pa.tigha, hatred etc, sloth and torpor, wandering or spreading or wavering mind and repentence and suspicion. Suspicion or vicikicchaa is a niivara.na dhamma and it can be burnt with jhaana (*doing*). Without jhaana there can arise vicikicchaa or suspicion on dhamma (whether this is akusala_someone is intentionally doing a ritual or *practice* or kusala or whatever and so on). Subtle akusala "nandiiraaga" is preached in "Vammika sutta.m". There are 15 dhammas assigned with similes. The last is "arahat" or "naaga". Before it is 'nandiiraaga'. It is just subtle akusala. So subtle that it can hardly be known as akusala. This happen only when *doing*. If not in *doing* nothing will be realized at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: You actually make it sound as if panna somehow becomes weaker.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. Defilements in large amounts make pannaa weaker and even disappear. Can panna be developed in niraya or hell? I will repeat the question. Can panna be developed in niraya or hell? Hell is full of sufferings and that suffering is associated with defilements. No one will be happy in hell. When in hell there is hardly any panna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > On the way to path, there can be akusala (but subtle ones), even > poor-understanding may be there. Wrong view may be there and view > cannot be completely right. This happens at the high of magga. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: When wrong view or any other akusala arises, the panna which arises to know this does so by natural decisive support condition and depends on the accumulated panna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: These are done before *doing*. Pakatupanissaya paccaya or "natural decisive support condition" does support. But when there is *doing* (in jhaana) all akusala are suppressed. When in jhaana there is no more pariyu.t.thaana kilesa. This is also called 'vikkhambhana pahaana'. Without pahaana sotapatti magga naana cannot arise. Pahaanas are *doing*. By what way? By means of *doing* cleansing akusala. When *doing* on satipa.t.thaana or vipassanaa there is tada`nga-pahaana. When this *doing* is a long time then it is vikkhambhana pahaana. When there is enough *doing* then sotaapatti magga citta arises and respective kilesas are eradicated by "samuccheda pahaana". Without *doing* sotaapatti magga naana cannot arise at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: At such moments, the hindrances don't arise to have any influence. Wherefore the need to suppress them by jhana or any other means? And why would you think that the jhana citta suppressing the hindrances are any easier to become object of higher levels of panna than the hindrances? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: When you feel that you understand the present moment and know reality as it is and you feel satisfied you are said to be hooked or bound to 'the state of understanding' which in real term is just wandering on dhamma and dhammuddhicca (dhamma + uddhacca). Hinderances are threshed and drived out earlier in *doing* or *practice*. You are going on the wrong tract and trying to chase panna by thinking on and on. Thinking on and on will not go over cintaamaya ~naa.na and even this may not be cintaamaya but just thinking feeling 'understood on dhamma'. When you swim under water and the water is clouded you will hardly see anything. But when jhaana is developed through *doing* hindrances are calm down and the cloudy water calms down to become clear water then you will see very clearly everything in front of you. Otherwise it is like you are trying to look at somethging in mist. (Htoo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: As I said, the one hindrance to Right View is Wrong View. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This show that you do not study well on what the Buddha taught in His own words in sutta.ms. Please study ' 4 nikaayas' in detail and try to understand each and every word to its full meaning not just superficial. Hindrance is niivara.na dhamma. In niivara.na dhammas there are lobha, dosa, thina, middha, uddhacca, kukkucca, viicikicchaa. There is no mention of wrong view. There is nothing about 'di.t.thi' akusala cetasika in niivara.na dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: The belief that Jhana is required for higher levels of vipassana is result of wrong view with regard to the nature of Dukkha, the cause of Dukkha and the Path. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: After reading what I wrote above in this post you will come to know what I have been trying to tell you. The Buddha preached that 'all micchaa-di.t.thi' are eradicated only at the height of sotaapatti-magga-citta arising and they never arise again. If someone is puthujana there is wrong view. This is only eradicated when sotaapatta-magga-~naa.na arises. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: > Sukin: > The reason that even the hindrances or any akusala can be the object > of Satipatthana is because of the superiority of this kind of > understanding over that of Jhana, and this shows why *it does not > need* the latter's assistance. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Not completely right. At least there must be kha.nika samaadhi, > which has the quality of upacaara samaadhi of jhaana. Without samaadhi > panna cannot arise. Sukin: Is there not Khanika samadhi at all moments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. Totally wrong. This is wrong viewing on dhamma. At all moments there is ekaggataa. Ekaggataa = eka (one/single) + agga (highest/peak) + taa (hood/state) Akusala-cittas also have ekaggataa and this ekaggataa is not kha.nikaa-samaadhi. If you think that at all moment there is kha.nikaa samaadhi then you are saying wrong thing and you will go to opposite the path. Only *doing* will help this ekaggataa to become kha.nika-samaadhi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Does it not perform the same function regardless of what jati the citta is? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again, not all ekaggataa are kha.nika-samaadhi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Marathon to be continue:- #132432 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:35 am Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 philofillet Dear Htoo > > Coarse defilements = viitikkama kilesaa > Medium defilements = pariyu.t.thaana kilesaa > Subtle defilements = anusaya kilesaa Thank you for this and the rest of the post. Do we say that anusaya defilemts never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements? Phil #132433 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:43 am Subject: Re: Now! philofillet Dear Sarah, group . > .. > S: Yes and we always think in terms of 'the ways of the world' as to what is 'best', forgetting entirely about understanding the present citta now. > ... In terms of the worldly conditions, the trip to Canada went very well. Dad had a great trip and every one got along great. Understanding of the present citta now was lost in the story. Phil #132434 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:47 am Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: Dear Htoo > > Coarse defilements = viitikkama kilesaa > Medium defilements = pariyu.t.thaana kilesaa > Subtle defilements = anusaya kilesaa Thank you for this and the rest of the post. Do we say that anusaya defilemts never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements? Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Phil, thank you for this post. But I am not clear what you mean in your sentence of "Do we say that anusaya defilements never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements?" Could you please rephrase that sentence again in other way? With Metta, Htoo Naing #132435 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:22 am Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 philofillet Dear Htoo > > Dear Phil, thank you for this post. But I am not clear what you mean in your sentence of "Do we say that anusaya defilements never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements?" > > Could you please rephrase that sentence again in other way? Maybe I will change my question. Why is it helpful to know that there are subtle defilements, lying latent, even at times when our lives seem full of wholesomeness? I suppose you will have "practice" related answer. I remember hearing U Pandita Sayadaw say that sila is for coarse defilements, and something else is for medium defilemts and something else is for subtle defilements, but it sounded like a plan of battle to defeat the defilements, but I don' like plans of battle related to defilenmentd #132436 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:27 am Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 philofillet Hello again Htoo, all Sorry I was nodding off( falling asleep) as I wrote the previous post and ended suddently without signjng off... Phil #132437 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:42 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > S: In addition to all the other comments, I'd just like to point out that patience can also be akusala. For example, whilst studying an academic text, robbing a bank, exercising or watching a sunrise, there's lots of patience with strong viriya, but all akusala. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Dear Sarah, No! patience cannot be akusala. > > Dosa has two extreme. One is outburst. One is dormant. When dormant, it serves like patience. > > Patience on the other hand is kusala. If it is akusala, patience cannot be one of paramii. ... S: When patience is a paramii, of course it is kusala - kusala viriya with right understanding. I remember also being surprised when A.Sujin first started talking about akusala patience, but with all terms that we use or read about, we need to consider very carefully. It's the same with sila - people are surprised to hear that sila can be kusala or akusala, or samadhi - kusala or akusala samadhi now? Viriya can be kusala or akusala. When we keep quiet with dosa, akusala viriya. When we eat a piece of chocolate cake very slowly, savouring every mouthful, akusala viriya or patience. Metta Sarah ===== #132438 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada thomaslaw03 Dear Sarah (and all), --- "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo & Thomas, > > --- "htoonaing@" wrote: > > Thomas: Various terms for the notion of not-self (anatta) are found in the SN suttas (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 57-60): > > 1. `Not belonging to self' (anattaniya); and `neither self nor belonging to self' (anatta-anattaniya). > > 2. `Not belonging to you' (na tumhaaka.m). > > 3. `Self-conceit/pride' (asmi-maana), `self-excitement/impulse' > (asmi-chanda), and `self-bias' (asmi-anusaya). > > 4. `This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self' (n'etam mama, n'eso 'ham asmi, na m'eso attaa ti) (`This': Referring to each of the five aggregates and the sense spheres) > > > ------ > <..> > ---------------------------------------------- > > Htoo: > > > > "ne'ta.m mama n'eso'hamasmi, na m'eso attaa". This appears in many of sutta.ms. This indicates 'ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi'. These three dhammas are papa~nca dhammas. > > > > "saha kaayo sakkaayo". Sakkaayas are reality. Sakkaaya are ruupa.m, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sa`nkhaaraa, and vi~n~naa.na.m and any of these in isolation or in group. > > > > "di.t.thi" wrongly assume these sakkaayas (realities) as 'self'. So it is "sakkaaya-di.t.thi" that hinder arising of vipassanaa-~naa.na. > <.>>> > > When ruupa.m or vedanaa or sa~n~naa or sa`nkhaaraa or vi~n~naa.na.m is seen as ruupa.m etc there is no more atta. > ... ------------- > > S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. > > If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. > > metta > > Sarah > ===== > Thomas: No, they (khandhas) are non-realities, not being called as 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). They are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta), according to the SN suttas (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 154). Regards, Thomas #132439 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:24 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada kenhowardau Hi Htoo, ----------- <. . .> > H: A young one instructed a mahaathera to obstruct 5 sense-doors and instructed him to leave just mind-door. When a reptile enters a hump which has 6 openings, only one is to be un-obstructed and other five openings are obstructed to catch that reptile (say a lizard) at the only opening. According to that instruction Mahaathera became an arahat. ------------ KH: Understanding the development of samatha and vipassana and wanting to follow that way are two different things. One leads out of samsara and the other leads back in. -------------------- > H: Desire is not a proper word. It can be anything in Paa.li. Not all desires are lobha. The Buddha himself was thirsty on His last day. He did have a desire to drink and instructed Aananda to bring water from the river (Kakudaa). "I`ngha me tva.m, Aananda, paaniiya.m aahara!pipaasitosmi, Aananda, pivissaami." 'I instructed you, Aananda. Bring water. I will drink'. ------------------- KH: The omniscient Buddha would have known of countless suffering beings who were in desperate need of water. Wouldn't it have been rather selfish of him if he had instructed Ananda, "Give me a drink instead of giving them a drink"? In reality the Buddha's maha-kiriya instructions and Ananda's kusala obedience were purely in accordance with conditions. There would not have been the slightest craving for water. And there would not have been the slightest idea of control over who received it and who didn't. Ken H #132440 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Thomas (& Htoo), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. > > > > If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. .... > Thomas: No, they (khandhas) are non-realities, not being called as 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). > > They are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta), according to the SN suttas (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 154). .... S: Dhammas which are conditioned - anicca, dukkha, anatta are real. These are the khandhas - they can be proved to be real right now! Touch the computer - hardness is real. Touching is real, seeing is real, visible object is real. If any book says otherwise, it's wrong and not according to the Buddha's Teachings which are about dhammas/paramattha dhammas which can be directly known now. If they were not real, the Truths could never be known. Metta Sarah ===== #132441 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > There can be awareness of hardness without panna. ... S: There can and is the repeated experience of hardness throughout the day. In order for there to be awarenss of hardness *as a reality*, even at the level of pariyatti, wise consideration of the characteristic of hardness as a dhamma (not self), there must be right understanding from the outset. Usually, awareness rather than understanding is stressed in the beginning because the characteristic of understanding is not apparent. And when we referred to the development of satipatthana, it is always sati-sampajanna, sati with undersanding, never sati alone. I agree that if we are referring to dana or sila, there can be sati without panna. Metta Sarah ======= #132442 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:55 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada thomaslaw03 Dear Sarah (and all), --- "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Thomas (& Htoo), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > > > S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. > > > > > > If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. > .... > > Thomas: No, they (khandhas) are non-realities, not being called as 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). > > > > They are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta), according to the SN suttas (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 154). > .... > S: Dhammas which are conditioned - anicca, dukkha, anatta are real. These are the khandhas - they can be proved to be real right now! > > Touch the computer - hardness is real. Touching is real, seeing is real, visible object is real. > > If any book says otherwise, it's wrong and not according to the Buddha's Teachings which are about dhammas/paramattha dhammas which can be directly known now. If they were not real, the Truths could never be known. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > Thomas: According to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). Regards, Thomas #132443 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: Thank you, Jonathan Swift! LOL! > ------------------------------ Indeed, one of my favorite Buddhist writers. > ================================= > Purpose and Reward > > /Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose and reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose and reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose and reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose and reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose and reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose and reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose and reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose and reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose and reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose and reward./ > > (From the Kimattha Sutta) You've got a knack for finding some really interesting suttas, Howard. Are my eyes deceiving me, or is the Buddha here outlining a course of progress in which the jhanas lead to enlightenment? Wouldn't that be blasphemous? - Rob "Jonathan Swift" E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #132444 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:38 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Thomas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > Thomas: No, they (khandhas) are non-realities... > They are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta), according to the SN suttas (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 154). ... S: I just looked at the book you keep referring to which compares Chinese sutras with Theravada suttas. On page 154 it refers to 12:20 'Conditions', Nidaanasa.myutta and to the following passage in particular. I'm using B.Bodhi's translation here: "'With existence as condition, birth'....'With clinging as condition, existence'......'With ignorance as condition, volitional formations': whether there is an arising of Tathaagatas or no arising of Tathaagatas, that element persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality." [Bhavapaccayaa, bhikkhave, jaati.....avijjaapaccayaa, bhikkhave, sa"nkhaaraa uppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m anuppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m, .thitaava saa dhaatu dhamma.t.thitataa dhammaniyaamataa idappaccayataa.] S: The truth about conditioned dhammas is the same whether taught by a Buddha or not. "That element persists" (thitaava saa dhaatu) - that element stands - arises and exists. It is real, regardless of whether it is ever known or not. "Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the not-otherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination." [Iti kho, bhikkhave, yaa tatra tathataa avitathataa ana~n~nathataa idappaccayataa – aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, pa.ticcasamuppaado.] S: The occurrence, the arising, the truth of each of these realities arising according to conditions. Commentary note as quoted by B.Bodhi: "Spk: 'Actuality' (tathataa) is said to indicate the occurrence of each particular phenomenon when its assemblage of appropriate conditions is present. 'Inerrancy' (avitathataa) means that once its conditions have reached completeness there is no nonoccurrence, even for a moment, of the phenomenon due to be produced from those conditions. 'Not-otherwiseness' (ana~n~nathataa) means that there is no production of one phenomenon by another's conditions. The phrase 'specific conditionality' is used to refer to the (individual) conditions for aging-and-death, etc., or to the conditions taken as a group (paccayasamuuhato)." S: "The occurrence of each particular phenomenon" means it arises and is real 'when its assemblage of appropriate conditions is present'. Then it falls away, also by conditions. "When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: 'Did I exist in the past......Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being - where has it come from, and where will it go?'" S: No more idea of a self at all. No more idea that conditioned dhammas are not real and cannot be known. Metta Sarah ====== #132445 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > Thomas: According to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). ... S: The khandhas are seen as void of self. For example: "Suppose, bhikkhus, that a magician or a magician's apprentice would display a magical illusion at a crossroads. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a magical illusion? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of consciousness there is......it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in consciousness?" "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion." S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. Metta Sarah ====== #132446 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > Thomas: According to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). ... S: In the passage below, it is referring to rupas and how any rupa at all is like a lump of foam in that it is void of atta, insubstantial, it cannot be grasped because it breaks up immediately. "Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?" As the commentary notes, form, i.e rupa, "lacks any substance that is permanent, stable, a self." It is "pulverized in the mouth of death." Metta Sarah ====== #132447 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 78 nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14 aug 2013, om 20:35 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Do we say that anusaya defilemts never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements? ------ N: Yes. If they would arise, they would not be latent defilements. But in the commentary there are many definitions of the word: arising. So, we read arising but we have to know what it means in the context. Nina. #132448 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) rjkjp1 Dear Htoo, In the Satipatthana Sutta under Dhammanupassana the five hindrances are objects for insight. From the commentary: QUOTE "In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind.[ ……]Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of DELIVERANCE of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood" Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > Sukin: > > Sukin: > > As I said, the one hindrance to Right View is Wrong View. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > This show that you do not study well on what the Buddha taught in His own words in sutta.ms. Please study ' 4 nikaayas' in detail and try to understand each and every word to its full meaning not just superficial. > > Hindrance is niivara.na dhamma. In niivara.na dhammas there are lobha, dosa, thina, middha, uddhacca, kukkucca, viicikicchaa. There is no mention of wrong view. There is nothing about 'di.t.thi' akusala cetasika in niivara.na dhamma. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > The belief that Jhana is required for higher levels of vipassana is result of wrong view with regard to the nature of Dukkha, the cause of Dukkha and the Path. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > After reading what I wrote above in this post you will come to know what I have been trying to tell you. > > The Buddha preached that 'all micchaa-di.t.thi' are eradicated only at the height of sotaapatti-magga-citta arising and they never arise again. If someone is puthujana there is wrong view. This is only eradicated when sotaapatta-magga-~naa.na arises. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > #132449 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 78 nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14 aug 2013, om 21:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Why is it helpful to know that there are subtle defilements, lying latent, even at times when our lives seem full of wholesomeness? ----- N: It helps to see conditions and understand their anattaness. ----- Nina. #132450 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada nilovg Dear Sarah, What a beautiful and clear text of the Co, Quoted by Ven. Bodhi. Worth remembering. Nina. Op 15 aug 2013, om 08:56 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion." > > S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. #132451 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: the khandhas are realities. nilovg Dear Thomas, Perhaps you think of khandha as group and then you believe that it is not a reality. I ponder over he text quoted by Sarah: <"Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?"> This text is about ruupa. Of each of the khandhas it is said Past, future or present: it arises and falls away. The khandhas are classified as groups because all ruupas are classified as ruupakkhandha, all feeling as vedanaakkhandha, etc. But, it is true that visible object or colour is khandha, it arises and falls away. Pleasant feeling is khandha, it arises and falls away. We have to consider each naama or ruupa separately, as it appears now. And that is khandha. dhaatu or aayatana. ------- Nina. #132452 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13 aug 2013, om 23:55 heeft Upasaka@aol.com het volgende geschreven: > I thought that the position you were putting forth was that the walking and so on occured in an interspersed manner *between* moments of jhana. It is that which I think to be "a stretch," as I don't see that said or even implied in the sutta. > I don't seem to understand what you mean in THIS post of yours. Could you please clarify it for me? (I would appreciate it.) -------- N: I was considering the whole of the sutta, not just jhaana. That is why we had a misunderstanding. You did not mean the lesson of the sutta, but you were thinking of jhaana. I think of the lesson of this sutta: most important is developing understanding of the reality now, and this can even lead to arahatship. When one starts debating about jhaana, it may distract from the main lesson. I did not want to go into the details of jhaana since I do not know anything about jhaana. What I know about jhaanacitta: it has a specific object and it does not have sense objects since it is away from sense objects. People may wonder about walking etc. What I also know is that for the vaasis, the skills in jhaana, one has to be able to enter and emerge from jhaana very quickly. Thus, sure, in between jhaanacittas there can be the experience of sense objects. The kaamaavacara citta can attend to the different postures in between jhaanacittas. But again, I know nothing about jhaana. Nina. #132453 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:33 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > James: I enjoy this conversation as well but I don't like that word "controversial". I have no intention of being controversial. I am just telling you my mind. JK: Maybe "different point of view" better ? ================= > Suttamayapanna > Cintamayapanna > Bhavanamayapanna >James: I pretty much agree with these levels of wisdom, except you left off the last and most important level: The supra-mundane wisdom of jhana leading to enlightenment. These levels of wisdom that you describe are mundane levels of wisdom, they are not supramundane (beyond the mundane and ordinary). If one follows this path to the utmost pinnacle, the most he/she can expect is to become a Non-returner. JK: Those 3 level of pannas lead to supramundane cittas. The supramundane cittas arise in four pairs of persons constituting the four kinds of aryan disciples who have attained the four paths and four fruits of sanctity (magga and phala), namely: sotapatti, "stream-entry"; sakadagami, "once-return"; anagami, "non-return"; and arahattha, arahantship, the fourth and the last stage at which all fetters are severed and taints rooted out. >James: A non-returner is one who goes to a special level of heaven in order to experience jhana. JK: Not necessary. If he doesn't develop samatha bhavana, he's just anagami person. He can not be in rupabhamma or arupabhamma stage. >James: One must experience jhana in order to be enlightened!! It is an absolute requirement! JK: This type of jhana in the middle of enlightenment has been discussed by Sarah and Htoo as follows: ["When lokuttaraa (supramandane) cittas arise the object is no more jhaana object." Lokuttarajhana citta can refer to any lokuttara cittas (all of which are lakkanupanijjhana cittas as opposed to aramannupanijjhanna cittas), not just those succeeding (lokiya)jhana cittas which are a 'base'.] In conclusion, at the time of enlightenment, sammasamadhi faculty will be at the stage equal to jhana as lakkanupanijjhana which derived from realizing anica, dukha and anatta of dhamma. It is totally different to aramannupanijjhanna which is mandane jhanna derived from concentration to an object. Therefore, it is not necessary for a person who enlightens to develop mandane (lokiya) jhanna before becasue jhana at the stage of enlightenment is different one. ===================== >James: ................But that doesn't mean that people have changed, only environments have changed. If a person wants to follow the Buddha's path with all sincerity, it is very important to create the right environment in one's home and daily life- even if that calls for drastic actions.(BTW, the Vism. gives many details about this) JK: I think the most important is not about environment but begin on right view of studying dhamma with understanding reality as the Buddha taught. ====================== > JK: Yes, however, we shall have Buddha, dhamma and Sangha as our refuge. > James: Well, yes theoretically, but the Buddha is dead and the current Sangha is a mess. I think the Dhamma is the only current and active refuge to count on. JK: Even the Lord Buddha passed away but his great wisdom, kindness and virtual is for us to worship with respect. Sangha, in this sense, means all aryans which they have followed and maintained the Lord Buddha teaching for generation through generation. We have the Lord Buddha and Sangha as our refuge when we are following the Buddha teaching with high respect of them. ============================= > JK: Please explain: the dhamma is just as alive in our hearts. How? >James: What I mean is that the truth of the Dhamma is an absolute truth that is present in all of us (i.e. our hearts/minds), and it always will be present. Only ignorance covers up the truth of Dhamma in each of us.. As the Buddha said, he didn't discover a new path, he discovered an old path which had been traveled many times before. JK: I like this comment :) > James: So when commentaries say that those born today are very far from the Dhamma I have have to laugh. The Dhamma is right in front of our noses! JK: I agree with your that Dhamma is right now through our 6 sense doors. I think the commentaries pointed out that people far from understanding Dhammas as they are, not meaning really "far" from them. =========================== >James: Jon and Sarah do not need to provide any explanation for anything!! That is not why I told the story!! I just thought it was a cute example of trying to force the recognition of insight during daily life. Jon and Sarah were very kind and sweet to me during my entire visit to Hong Kong. They paid for that delicious lunch; they converted money into HK dollars for me because all the banks were closed on Sunday and I needed to get a visa for Taiwan; and they went to the Visa office with me to make sure I got the visa okay and to translate if there were any problems. They went above and beyond what is ordinary behavior. They were the utmost kind and generous couple!! >Now, is that behavior developing metta? I DON'T KNOW!! Who am I to say if it is developing metta? JK: Isn't that behavior urged by loving kindness? If there is not loving kindness to others, how can there be such action. When one develop more and more of loving kindness, it accumulates as much as behavior. > James: I follow the teachings of the Buddha and the only thing I can say for certain is that it was developing good karma. Kind actions lead to good karma- that is what the Buddha taught. I don't see any textual proof that kind actions lead to the development of metta. JK: Yes, kind action leads to good result. It is karma of cause and result. But the one who does kind action and wants good result is different from the one who derivers kind action as his behavior of helping others without any return. And the second person has real metta or loving kindness in his heart. He experiences actual metta citta while helping others. And this metta experience will be his only base of concentration in sammatha bhavana development. > James: No. I believe that mindfulness is developed when one sits in meditation and develops mindfulness of the meditation object. I don't believe in the Satipatthana Sutta (of which there are two versions) the way it is written. Mindfulness during daily life is definitely helpful in living correctly, but I don't think it is transformative. I don't think that type of daily mindfulness is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. JK: One question, if meditation is about concentration to an object with expecting result of calmness, how can mindfulness develop while we're in stage of calmness? You want to be mindful or you want to be calm? ======================== James: ..... Metta meditation is a guaranteed protection against all animal attacks- the Buddha specifically taught that. He taught metta meditation to his monks as a protection against snake bites and other animal attacks. And he personally used his metta development to stop an elephant from killing him. No one who develops metta would experience a dog peeing on his shoe. That is why he kicked the dog and why the dog peed on his shoe....no metta. JK: Maybe we're not on the same pace of metta. You metta is of far far from ordinary person. It was for the monks in the past, which reflected by miracle events. My metta is just ordinary loving kindness which ordinary person can understand and see benefit of being loving kindness. ========================== > JK: Yes, especially Mara of ignorance always lure us out of the right path. Therefore, it is very important to carefully studying dhamma. >James: I wasn't talking about the mental defilement of ignorance, I was talking about the actual entity/creature called Mara. He is from another dimension and he works hard to destroy the Dhamma. He gets into people's minds and makes them do things they wouldn't normally do. The Buddha taught about him many times in many suttas, but nowadays people tend to ignore him. Mara is real and he is working hard all the time to destroy Buddhism. JK: Yes, in the Tipitaka. Mara is represented as an evil person, he visited the Bodhisatta to tempt him, and later on also when the Bodhisatta had become the Buddha. But nowadays, people hardly see him because other 4 Maras work well. Dukkha is called mara. Kilesa mara, all defilements, is another. Death is mara. The cycle of birth and death is also Mara. These 4 Mars cloud people nowadays from getting anywhere. The Tevabudtara Mara, therefore, is jobless. Anumodhana Jagkrit #132454 From: han tun Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas hantun1 Dear Nina and others,  Nina: I did not want to go into the details of jhaana since I do not know anything about jhaana. What I know about jhaanacitta: it has a specific object and it does not have sense objects since it is away from sense objects. People may wonder about walking etc. What I also know is that for the vaasis, the skills in jhaana, one has to be able to enter and emerge from jhaana very quickly. Thus, sure, in between jhaanacittas there can be the experience of sense objects. The kaamaavacara citta can attend to the different postures in between jhaanacittas. But again, I know nothing about jhaana.  Han: I also do not know anything about jhaanas. But I like your answer very much, Nina. Lord Buddha has five kinds of mastery over the jhaanas [like those Arahants who have emancipated in two ways, namely, by aruupajhaana and ariyamagga (ubhatobhaaga-vimutta-arahant), and those who possess the six abhinnas (chalaabhinana-arahant)]. But Lord Buddha's mastery over the jhaanas must be very much stronger and more powerful than other arahants. Therefore, I think it is possible that, as you said, in between jhaana-cittas there can be the experience of sense objects, and the kaamaavacara citta can attend to the different postures in between jhaana-cittas.  What are the five kinds of mastery over the jhaanas? In A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, page 342,  ----------  Guide to § 18  The five kind of mastery: Of these, mastery in adverting (aavajjana-vasitaa) is the ability to advert to different jhaana factors such as viatakka, vicaara, etc., quickly and easily in accordance with one's wish. Mastery in attainment (samaapajjana-vasitaa) is the ability to attain the different jhaanas quickly and easily, without many bhavangas arising in the process of their attainment. Mastery in resolution (adhi.t.thaana-vasitaa) is the ability remain in the jhaana for a length of time determined by one's prior resolution. Mastery in emergence (vu.t.thaana-vasitaa) is the ability to emerge from the jhaanas quickly and easily. And mastery in reviewing (paccavekkha.naa-vasitaa) is the ability to review the jhaana from which one has just emerged.  ----------  with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas  Hi Howard, Op 13 aug 2013, om 23:55 heeft mailto:Upasaka%40aol.com het volgende geschreven: > I thought that the position you were putting forth was that the walking and so on occured in an interspersed manner *between* moments of jhana. It is that which I think to be "a stretch," as I don't see that said or even implied in the sutta. > I don't seem to understand what you mean in THIS post of yours. Could you please clarify it for me? (I would appreciate it.) -------- N: I was considering the whole of the sutta, not just jhaana. That is why we had a misunderstanding. You did not mean the lesson of the sutta, but you were thinking of jhaana. I think of the lesson of this sutta: most important is developing understanding of the reality now, and this can even lead to arahatship. When one starts debating about jhaana, it may distract from the main lesson. I did not want to go into the details of jhaana since I do not know anything about jhaana. What I know about jhaanacitta: it has a specific object and it does not have sense objects since it is away from sense objects. People may wonder about walking etc. What I also know is that for the vaasis, the skills in jhaana, one has to be able to enter and emerge from jhaana very quickly. Thus, sure, in between jhaanacittas there can be the experience of sense objects. The kaamaavacara citta can attend to the different postures in between jhaanacittas. But again, I know nothing about jhaana. Nina. #132455 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 78 philofillet Dea Nina > > > Why is it helpful to know that there are subtle defilements, lying latent, even at times when our lives seem full of wholesomeness? > ----- > N: It helps to see conditions and understand their anattaness. > ----- Wrong view is strengthened when there is struggling to make things work the way we want. Understanding that there are latent defilements lying like microbes which can manifest at any time beyond our wish to have them not do so helps us better to get beyond wrong view of self that can control mind states. We need cpurage for this because the defilements that seek pleasant solutions to everything (lobha escaping dosa, the waybof the world) are deeply accumulated and powerful. Phol #132456 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:31 pm Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 htoonaing... Phil wrote: Dear Htoo > Dear Phil, thank you for this post. But I am not clear what you mean in your sentence of "Do we say that anusaya defilements never arise, always lie hidden, but they condition the arising of medium and coarse defilements?" > Could you please rephrase that sentence again in other way? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: Maybe I will change my question. Why is it helpful to know that there are subtle defilements, lying latent, even at times when our lives seem full of wholesomeness? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Phil, thanks for rephrasing on your question. Now I understand the question. Magga-~naa.na or wisdom-in-path-consciousness eradicate defilements. The worst form of defilements is viitikkama-kilesaa or coarse defilements and it has manifestations as breaking basic precepts. It is like a tree with full of leaves, flowers, fruit, branches. This form can be suppressed by observing basic precepts. That is siila. While observing basic precepts (pa~nca-siila), there is no coarse defilements. This is like a tree without flowers, fruit, leaves, and branches. Middle grade defilements are medium defilements. It is pariyu.t.thaana-kilesaa. This form can be suppressed by samaadhi/ jhaana. Defilements arise just in mind and there is no external manifestations. But internally there are thinking with defilements. When jhaana suppress medium defilements or pariyu.t.thaana-kilesaa it is like a tree cut from the ground. So there is no more tree. But there are roots in the ground. It lies dorment. It is like subtle defilements or anusaya-kilesaa. Sayati means 'to sleep'. Anu-sayati means 'lie dorment'. Anusayatii'ti anusaya. This form of defilements cannot be eradicated by siila or samaadhi but pa~n~naa can eradicate that form of defilements. This panna is not simple one but magga-pannaa. Vipassanaa-pannaa can condition magga-pannaa. Q: Why is it helpful to know that there are subtle defilements (lying latent),even at times when our lives seem full of wholesomeness? Answer: When there is siila there is no coarse defilements. And when there is jhaana (based on siila including avoidance of sex) there is no medium defilements. At such time there is no akusala and there are kusala. Now, no tree at all. No defilement. But there are roots under ground. When angriness or sensual desire arise jhaanas disappear(like Bodhisatta and Mudulakkha.na Queen in Jaataka story). Now under ground roots sprout and stem arise. But there are still no flowers and fruit yet. When there is further conditioning then flowers and fruit arise. Coarse defilements arise again (when in jhaana it is free of defilement). So wholesomeness or kusala if it is not for liberation (vimutti or nibbaana) it is said there is subtle defilements even though there is kusala at the moment. Those siila and jhaana that are not for nibbaana is said "Va.t.ta-siila and va.t.ta-samaadhi". These siila and jhaana will make further rounds in sa.msaraa. If they are viva.t.ta-siila and viva.t.ta-samaadhi then it will help arising of viva.t.ta-pa~n~naa. Magga-panna cannot arise without viva.t.ta-siila and viva.t.ta-samaadhi. That is why samaadhi is so frequently described in many of sutta.ms in four nikaayas. Kuddaka nikaaya is not 100 % Buddha teachings and Theravadan all knows this. There are saavaka teachings and notes in Kuddaka nikaaya. When magga-panna arises all defilements including subtle ones are eradicated. As the tree is de-rooted it never sprouts again. No need to think on flowers, fruit, leaves. This is the end of my answer. (Htoo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: I suppose you will have "practice" related answer. I remember hearing U Pandita Sayadaw say that sila is for coarse defilements, and something else is for medium defilemts and something else is for subtle defilements, but it sounded like a plan of battle to defeat the defilements, but I don' like plans of battle related to defilenmentd ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I hope, now you are clear. I do not love battles. :) With Metta, Htoo Naing #132457 From: upasaka@aol.com Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Sutta AN 63 (3) - Another Perspective on the Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank you for explaining! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > Op 13 aug 2013, om 23:55 heeft Upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > I thought that the position you were putting forth was that the walking and so on occured in an interspersed manner *between* moments of jhana. It is that which I think to be "a stretch," as I don't see that said or even implied in the sutta. > > I don't seem to understand what you mean in THIS post of yours. Could you please clarify it for me? (I would appreciate it.) > -------- > N: I was considering the whole of the sutta, not just jhaana. That is why we had a misunderstanding. You did not mean the lesson of the sutta, but you were thinking of jhaana. --------------------------- HCW: Yes, you are right. :-) ----------------------------- > I think of the lesson of this sutta: most important is developing understanding of the reality now, and this can even lead to arahatship. When one starts debating about jhaana, it may distract from the main lesson. > > I did not want to go into the details of jhaana since I do not know anything about jhaana. > What I know about jhaanacitta: it has a specific object and it does not have sense objects since it is away from sense objects. People may wonder about walking etc. What I also know is that for the vaasis, the skills in jhaana, one has to be able to enter and emerge from jhaana very quickly. Thus, sure, in between jhaanacittas there can be the experience of sense objects. The kaamaavacara citta can attend to the different postures in between jhaanacittas. But again, I know nothing about jhaana. > > Nina. ============================ With metta & appreciation, Howard Importance of Jhana /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #132458 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: Letters from Nina, 78 philofillet Dear Htoo Thank you for your very full explanation of the diffrrent degrees of defilements. There are not conditions for me to apply myself the way Sarah, Sukin and others do to figuring out any points where we might not agree but I certainly do apreciate your effort to explain fully, thank you. Phil #132459 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: Dear Htoo, In the Satipatthana Sutta under Dhammanupassana the five hindrances are objects for insight. From the commentary: > QUOTE > > "In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind.[ ……]Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of DELIVERANCE of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood" Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Rob K, thanks. I know that. What I wrote to Sukin is about niivara.na dhamma and wrong view. Niivara.na can be object. It is just in earlier phase. So mahaasatipa.t.thaana sutta.m describes it in earlier part in dhammaanupassanaa. In dhammaanupassanaa there are niivara.na, upadaanakkhandhaa, aayatanaa, bojjha`ngaa, and magga`ngaa. When in the early phase there still is akusala. That is why niivara.nas are still there. But as development becomes higher it comes to yathaabhuuta.m like upaadaanakkhandhaas (which are naama and ruupa.m and not akusala at all while niivara.nas are akusala). Again aayatanaa are naama and ruupa.m not akusala. Next comes bojjha`ngaa. There are jhaana factors in bojjha`ngaa. That is why samaadhi is required for attainment of magga-pannaa. Magga`ngaa are the highest. So samma-samaadhi becomes the highest of all and it arises along with magga-panna. So there are more than 8. Two new ones are sammaa-pa~n~naa and samma-vimutti. Long time no meet! Arigatogozaimasu for your post. With due respect, Htoo Naing #132460 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) sukinderpal Hello Htoo, > Sukin: > > Nivarana dhammas are not a hindrance to a lower level of panna, but > they are so to panna of a higher level? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Niivara.na dhammas do stop arising of magga-panna. That is why > niivara.na dhammas are drived out early. Niivara.na dhammas are calmed > down and drived out by samaadhi of many kinds where jhaana is the most > effective. Without appanaa-samaadhi or jhaana there can still be > weaker one called uapacaara-samaadhi or upacaara-jhaana, which is > close to arising of appanaa-samaadhi or jhaana. Upacaara-samaadhi can > be attained by all 40 kamma.t.thaana dhamma. Kamma.t.thaana is a word > made up of 'kamma' and '.thaana'. Kamma here is referred to 'bhaavanaa > kamma'. That is 'proliferating action'. Proliferation of what? > Proliferation of knowledge of dhamma (that you would say 'realities' > or naama or ruupa). Knowledge of what? Knowledge of each arising > dhamma or reality (naama or ruupa) as it is. Is this the end? No not > yet. When reality is known repeatedly there comes a time that the seen > realty (visible or audible or olfactory or gustatory or tengible or > imaginable/thinkable) is not arisen without cause or causes but with > them. At that time is coming to know that dhammas are conditioned, > conditioned by kamma, citta, utu, ahaara, phassa and so on. So each > arising reality is conditioned dhamma or sa`nkhata dhamma. This is not > the first stage. When this happen is 2nd stage. The first stage is > knowledge of reality as it is. That is a given reality has such and > such characteristics. This is understanding of sabhaava-lakkha.na. > This is the very first stage. This stage takes a long time. A long > time with *doing*. Without *doing* this stage will not come. When this > stage is passed next comes is the second stage. That stage is > understanding on causal dhammas of arising realities. Only after that > the third stage comes. It is seeing on reality and that realty does > not last long. It just arises and passes away so fast. To say no time > to catch. Even though no need to catch. When such thing that is > disappearance immediately is seen there is understanding on reality. > In the form of realizing impermance or a-nicca.m. Nicca.m means 'ever' > or 'ever-existing' or 'ever-lasting'. When anicca is seen, dukkha is > also seen. When anicca and dukkha are seen anatta is also seen. When > this happen it seems that all three lakkha.nas are seen at the same > time. But this is not true. Some mainly realize at anicca while seeing > reality, some mainly realize at dukkha, and some mainly realize at > anatta while seeing a reality. When it is said 'reality' then it > cannot be "the object of jhaana". > > As you said at lower level niivara.na dhammas are not hinderance to > satipa.t.thaana. That is why the Buddha preached in > Mahaasatipa.t.thaana sutta.m on dhammaanupassanaa, which includes > niivara.na dhammas. In dhammaanupassanaa the first comer is niivara.na > dhamma. Niivara.na in its essence is hinderance or obstruction to > magga-panna. But at lower level niivara.na dhamma have to be > understood. Without experiences of niivara.na dhamma one will not > realize higher level panna and higher level ~naa.na. The same includes > in cittaanupassanaa, where lobha-citta is contemplated as lobha-citta > and so on. There are 8 pairs of citta in citaanupassanaa. 7 are true > pairs but 2 cittas are not paired ones. In cittaanupassanaa later > cittas are jhaana cittas. 'Later' I mean in the latter positions in > description of sutta.m. The first 8 cittas are worldly consciousness > or cittas. But latter are higher cittas than worldly things. Examples > are mahaggata cittas (jhaana cittas or ruupa-kusala-cittas and > aruupa-kusala-cittas), samaahita-citta which is 'calm mind' one, and > anuttara citta which is higher in terms of purity when compared with > lower cittas, that is, lobha citta or raaga citta, dosa citta, moha > citta. Here I wrote for simplification. Moha citta means a citta with > moha cetasika as the main root or hetu and no other hetus or roots > apart from moha. These are lower cittas. When they appear less and > less frequently further arising cittas become higher and higher in > terms of purity. All these happen through *doing*. Without *doing* > there will not be any realization at all.(Htoo) > Thanks for the detail. Leaving out the "doing" part for now. Can you explain to me why and how any dhamma, including the hindrances, can become the object of lower levels of panna? The hindrances are kamachanda, vyapada, thina-middha, udhacca-kukucca and vicikiccha. As I understand it, these are hindrances to concentration because they make it difficult for the same object to be experienced again and again by successive cittas. But when it comes to the arising of panna of the Eightfold Path, this is not how things work, namely, there is no repeated experience of one object leading to upaccara samadhi involved. Instead, panna arises as a result of past arising such that when developed to a high degree it becomes indriya and bala and therefore correspondingly easier to arise. Can you please explain to me, how the hindrances act as hindrances to the arising and development of samma ditthi? After you do this, can you also tell me where "Jahna practice" fits into this? I mean, how a citta (with accompanying cetasikas) which functions to suppress the hindrances with the aim to maintain concentration, influences the next citta (with accompanying cetasikas) which performs a totally different function, namely understanding the nature of a nama or rupa dhamma? > Sukin: > > Sounds strange. What is the reasoning behind the conclusion? > > Does not the development of panna make it easier for more subtle > akusala to be understood? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > :) :) :) What makes you to think in a such way? What has been strange. > I cannot see anything starnge but what is strange is you. > Panna is sankhara, therefore accumulates with each arsing. It is illogical and strange then, to suggest that the hindrances are not hindrances to lower levels of panna, but are so to higher levels. > Developing itself is *doing*. > Now we can talk about "doing" again. Is the *doing* of meditation any more or less a "doing" than say, me typing this message or you reading it? If so, by virtue of which particular dhamma or set of dhammas this is? What exactly is "development" and how is that a *doing*? > Panna has to be developed through a sound concentration through a good > concentration through a firm concentration. Without concentration > there will be wandering (uddhacca). > What is the characteristic and function of uddhacca? When there is attachment to visible object there is uddhacca, what is this wandering *from*? Does the concentration arising with lower levels of panna such as pariyatti or patipatti perform a different function to that which arises with higher levels, namely which is at the level of upacara? > Even a suble dhamma subtle akusala called 'dhamma uddhacca' or > "dhammuddhacca" can be cleansed with a good concentrations among which > jhaana is the best. Uddhacca is described along with kukkucca. It is > uddhacca-kukkucca niivara.na. Niivara.nas are put under control with > jhaana. > In jhana these are put under control, so to speak, so that concentration can be maintained on the same object. With the arising of a different citta (not jhana anymore) by virtue of what paccaya does this remain under control and for what purpose? > Jhaana: Jhaayati. Burn. Burning of what? Burning of opposite dhammas > Does arammanupanijhana have the same effect as lakkhanupanijhana? > like sensual pleasure (that is why I wrote just 5 precepts is not > enough for vipassanaa) > And yet we have a murderer and a drunkard both attaining all the vipassanannanas leading to enlightenment. And a sotapanna and sakadagami who both have perfect sila, do not feel any kind of remorse for occasional sexual indulgence and strong dosa at the loss of a loved one. You are expressing a kind of religiosity mistaken for wisdom, which can only be due to self-view. > including sex, aversion or dosa or related dhamma like aaghaata, > pa.tigha, hatred etc, sloth and torpor, wandering or spreading or > wavering mind and repentence and suspicion. Suspicion or vicikicchaa > is a niivara.na dhamma and it can be burnt with jhaana (*doing*). > Without jhaana there can arise vicikicchaa or suspicion on dhamma > (whether this is akusala_someone is intentionally doing a ritual or > *practice* or kusala or whatever and so on). Subtle akusala > "nandiiraaga" is preached in "Vammika sutta.m". There are 15 dhammas > assigned with similes. The last is "arahat" or "naaga". Before it is > 'nandiiraaga'. It is just subtle akusala. So subtle that it can hardly > be known as akusala. This happen only when *doing*. If not in *doing* > nothing will be realized at all. > Is there vicikiccha during moment of seeing or hearing? Is there vicikiccha with dana, sila or any other kusala? Is there any vicikiccha with eleven of the twelve kinds of akusala cittas? Does vicikiccha arise more than other dhammas? If your answer to all of the above is "no", why do you appeal to the above line of reasoning? If anything, *practice / doing* is likely the expression of vicikiccha, as against the understanding that there is only ever this moment to be understood. It is because of wrong understanding with regard to the nature of the present moment reality, that one thinks in terms of another time, place, posture and object of practice. Nah, *practice / doing* is the the darkness of ignorance and wrong view. Lobha is the teacher as well as the student, and the situation is that of the blind leading another blind to believe that the darkness is light / realization. > Sukin: > You actually make it sound as if panna somehow becomes weaker.... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Yes. Defilements in large amounts make pannaa weaker and even > disappear. Can panna be developed in niraya or hell? I will repeat the > question. Can panna be developed in niraya or hell? Hell is full of > sufferings and that suffering is associated with defilements. No one > will be happy in hell. When in hell there is hardly any panna.+ > Panna not arising in hell is due to the roots conditioning birth in that realm. Do you really believe that panna can become weaker and disappear due to being born in hell? This would mean that if one is born in a brahma plane for the longest possible time, then dosa can also lessen and disappear, would it not? And what do you mean by "hardly any panna"? Do you mean that panna can arise in hell? There is no opportunity to hear the Dhamma and therefore obviously no chance for panna to arise. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > On the way to path, there can be akusala (but subtle ones), even > > poor-understanding may be there. Wrong view may be there and view > > cannot be completely right. This happens at the high of magga. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > When wrong view or any other akusala arises, the panna which arises to > know this does so by natural decisive support condition and depends on > the accumulated panna. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > These are done before *doing*. Pakatupanissaya paccaya or "natural > decisive support condition" does support. But when there is *doing* > (in jhaana) all akusala are suppressed. > Does the Jhana not arise by pakatupanissaya paccaya as well? What differentiates the "doing" of before, and that of jhana in terms of particular conventional action prompted by a decision / intention to "do"? Would you say that at first there is not a "self" who has to do something, but later this has to be there? If so, I can't think of anything more inconsistent / contradictory. > When in jhaana there is no more pariyu.t.thaana kilesa. This is also > called 'vikkhambhana pahaana'. Without pahaana sotapatti magga naana > cannot arise. Pahaanas are *doing*. By what way? By means of *doing* > cleansing akusala. When *doing* on satipa.t.thaana or vipassanaa there > is tada`nga-pahaana. When this *doing* is a long time then it is > vikkhambhana pahaana. When there is enough *doing* then sotaapatti > magga citta arises and respective kilesas are eradicated by > "samuccheda pahaana". Without *doing* sotaapatti magga naana cannot > arise at all. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > At such moments, the hindrances don't arise to > have any influence. Wherefore the need to suppress them by jhana or > any other means? And why would you think that the jhana citta > suppressing the hindrances are any easier to become object of higher > levels of panna than the hindrances? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > When you feel that you understand the present moment and know reality > as it is and you feel satisfied you are said to be hooked or bound to > 'the state of understanding' which in real term is just wandering on > dhamma and dhammuddhicca (dhamma + uddhacca). > And are you trying to tell me that the reason why some of us do not encourage "doing practice" is because we rest satisfied with intellectual understanding, which means that we are driven by lobha? I would admit that there is lots of lobha all day, but do you not believe that a moment pariyatti understanding itself is accompanied by alobha rather than lobha? > Hinderances are threshed and drived out earlier in *doing* or > *practice*. You are going on the wrong tract and trying to chase panna > by thinking on and on. > I think that you do not truly understand the significance of the 4th Noble Truth, otherwise you'd not read our emphasis on Panna the way you do. > Thinking on and on will not go over cintaamaya ~naa.na and even this > may not be cintaamaya but just thinking feeling 'understood on dhamma'. > It does not matter if it is only Suttamaya panna. Better this than believing to be Bhavanamaya panna what is not, which would be because there is no Suttamaya panna to begin with. Suttamaya panna, Cintamaya panna and Bhavanamaya panna all agree in principle. Do you think that I at least have some level of Suttamaya panna? And would you believe in the existence of Cintamaya panna had I said that I practice meditation? > When you swim under water and the water is clouded you will hardly see > anything. > When pariyatti understanding arises, can you say that the citta is clouded? Of course not, because there is panna which performs the function of understanding, although not at the level of patipatti or pativedha. > But when jhaana is developed through *doing* hindrances are calm down > and the cloudy water calms down to become clear water then you will > see very clearly everything in front of you. > This is not a description of clarity which is the result of panna, but rather of self and own ideas. > Otherwise it is like you are trying to look at somethging in mist. (Htoo) > "Trying" to look is itself mist. Pariyatti understanding helps to recognize this. > Sukin: > As I said, the one hindrance to Right View is Wrong View. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > This show that you do not study well on what the Buddha taught in His > own words in sutta.ms. Please study ' 4 nikaayas' in detail and try to > understand each and every word to its full meaning not just superficial. > > Hindrance is niivara.na dhamma. In niivara.na dhammas there are lobha, > dosa, thina, middha, uddhacca, kukkucca, viicikicchaa. There is no > mention of wrong view. There is nothing about 'di.t.thi' akusala > cetasika in niivara.na dhamma. > Right, Wrong View is simply wrong and points to a direction away from Right View. That is why I identify wrong view as a "hindrance" only when I am arguing with you or someone else who says that the Five Hindrances are hindrances to Right View. > Sukin: > The belief that Jhana is required for higher levels of vipassana is > result of wrong view with regard to the nature of Dukkha, the cause of > Dukkha and the Path. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > After reading what I wrote above in this post you will come to know > what I have been trying to tell you. > > The Buddha preached that 'all micchaa-di.t.thi' are eradicated only at > the height of sotaapatti-magga-citta arising and they never arise > again. If someone is puthujana there is wrong view. This is only > eradicated when sotaapatta-magga-~naa.na arises. > So you are saying that because we still have wrong view, it is OK to believe that Jhana is part of the Path?;-) > Sukin: > Is there not Khanika samadhi at all moments? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > No. Totally wrong. This is wrong viewing on dhamma. At all moments > there is ekaggataa. > > Ekaggataa = eka (one/single) + agga (highest/peak) + taa (hood/state) > > Akusala-cittas also have ekaggataa and this ekaggataa is not > kha.nikaa-samaadhi. If you think that at all moment there is kha.nikaa > samaadhi then you are saying wrong thing and you will go to opposite > the path. > > Only *doing* will help this ekaggataa to become kha.nika-samaadhi. > So Khanika is more than just one moment of citta otherwise it must be identified as simply, ekaggata? Look forward to another marathon. Metta, Sukin #132461 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada htoonaing... Ken H wrote: Hi Htoo, > H: A young one instructed a mahaathera to obstruct 5 sense-doors and instructed him to leave just mind-door. When a reptile enters a hump which has 6 openings, only one is to be un-obstructed and other five openings are obstructed to catch that reptile (say a lizard) at the only opening. According to that instruction Mahaathera became an arahat. ------------ KH: Understanding the development of samatha and vipassana and wanting to follow that way are two different things. One leads out of samsara and the other leads back in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That mahaathera was tipi.takadhara and already understood dhamma. He was step by step downed to receive *instruction*. He knew that he was not arahat and went to the Buddha. Down to Saariputta and so on. Finally he had to go to and meet a young one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: Desire is not a proper word. It can be anything in Paa.li. Not all desires are lobha. The Buddha himself was thirsty on His last day. He did have a desire to drink and instructed Aananda to bring water from the river (Kakudaa). > > "I`ngha me tva.m, Aananda, paaniiya.m aahara!pipaasitosmi, Aananda, pivissaami." > > 'I instructed you, Aananda. Bring water. I will drink'. ------------------- KH: The omniscient Buddha would have known of countless suffering beings who were in desperate need of water. Wouldn't it have been rather selfish of him if he had instructed Ananda, "Give me a drink instead of giving them a drink"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I quoted Paa.li in mahaaparinibbaana sutta.m. Please see again. "Aananda bring water(paaniiya.m aahara!), I will drink (pivissaami). The Buddha wanted to drink at that time because of the illness generated by having food served by goldsmith Cunda. It is desire. That desire is definitely not lobha. The Buddha did have desire to drink. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: In reality the Buddha's maha-kiriya instructions and Ananda's kusala obedience were purely in accordance with conditions. There would not have been the slightest craving for water. And there would not have been the slightest idea of control over who received it and who didn't. Ken H --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I was not talking on 'control' thing. Just on the word "desire". It can be "chanda". The Buddha's chanda never be akusala. Chanda can be kusala or akusala. The word 'desire' cannot separate between 'chanda' and 'lobha'. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132462 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:04 am Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Htoo: > > > > There can be awareness of hardness without panna. > ... > S: There can and is the repeated experience of hardness throughout the day. > > In order for there to be awarenss of hardness *as a reality*, even at the level of pariyatti, wise consideration of the characteristic of hardness as a dhamma (not self), there must be right understanding from the outset. > > Usually, awareness rather than understanding is stressed in the beginning because the characteristic of understanding is not apparent. > > And when we referred to the development of satipatthana, it is always sati-sampajanna, sati with undersanding, never sati alone. > > I agree that if we are referring to dana or sila, there can be sati without panna. > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, I wrote "There can be awareness of hardness without panna." When hit by a stone, there is hardness. Hardness is known. Even by cats, dogs, foxes, wolves. When hit, hardness is felt at the hit-point. When waddling ashore and getting on land there is hardness as compared to softness. I understand that children, animals etc will not be aware the full characteristics of hardness. I just picked up 'the point' that there are consciousness with sati but without panna. With due respect, Htoo Naing #132463 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:10 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > Dear Sarah (and all), > If any book says otherwise, it's wrong and not according to the Buddha's Teachings which are about dhammas/paramattha dhammas which can be directly known now. If they were not real, the Truths could never be known. > Metta > Sarah ===== Thomas: According to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). Regards, Thomas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Thomas, thank you for this post. Khandhaa are 1. rittako 2. tucchako 3. asaarako 4. su~n~nato There are 40 "* to *" such as aniccato, dukkhato, anattato, su~n~nato, rittato, tucchato, pabha`nguto, bha`ngato, and so on. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132464 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:16 am Subject: Re: anattaa. sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, > >Htoo: But there was *doing* by Cuu.lapanthaka. And he became an arahat and understood dhammas. > .... > > S: When we refer to *doing* by X, what are the realities? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > There is no X then, *doing* is not doing but arising of realty one after another. .... S: So looking at your sentence above about Cuu.lapanthaka, we can rephrase it in terms of dhammas and say that actually: "there were the arising of realities, one after another - all conditioned and anatta. These were clearly understood and as a result there were the arising of insights and all stages of enlightenment, including arahatta magga and phala cittas. In other words, no self to *do* anything. .... >Htoo: Realties in pair. One has no power of awareness and another is aware of still other reality. ... S: Are you referring to namas and rupas? Perhaps by 'awareness' here, you mean 'no power to experience an object', i.e. rupa, and 'can experience an object', i.e. nama. This use of awareness would explain why we disagreed about whether there could be awareness of hardness as a reality without panna. ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Like now, we may say we are reading or typing, but is there anything other than citta, cetasika and rupa? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Yes. There is or there are. They are anusayas. They do not arise. They do not fall away. ... S: Anusayas are 7 akusala cetasikas which lie dormant. As they lie dormant, they cannot be known now, they do not arise, so they are not taken for someone doing anything. .... > >Htoo: *We* are reading. There is no *we* as reality but 5 khandhaa. .... S: Right, only 5 khandhaa, no 'we', no 'reading', no 'doing' in reality. Just conditioned dhammas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Are these not the same conditioned dhammas, the khandhas referred to throughout the Tipitaka? Surely, all are anatta? In reality, no X, no person to do anything at all! > > Are these not the dhammas that have to be understood now? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Sa.mkarotiiti sa`nkhaaro. Sa`nkharetiiti sa`nkhata. Sankhara dhamma have to arise because there are all appropriate causes there. They have to fall away as soon as causes are not there. > > When you say 'now' there already passed away 'now'. Some may think that they understand reality arising now. Arising are many. Almost not reachable. Realities are like sand that is thrown up. Sand not stays still and all fall to the ground. .... S: The point of the discussion was that we were discussing whether it was correct to say that first there was 'Doing by Cuu.lapanthaka', then understanding or whether there are only ever conditioned dhammas that can be understood when they arise. ... > >H: Understanding follows as they (realities) go by only when pa~n~naa reaches appropriate level. ... S: Understanding has to develop from the very beginning. The beginning is always *now* and has to start with the right theoretical understanding of conditioned realities as anatta, no X, no 'doing', no 'white cloth' in reality. Thank you for all these interesting discussions, Htoo. Metta Sarah p.s. Have you ever listened to any of our edited recordings? If you have time, please listen to some of the one we've just uploaded (Thailand, June 2013) under 'part edited discussions' in www.dhammastudygroup.org and give us your comments. ====== #132465 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:20 am Subject: Re: anattaa. truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: So looking at your sentence above about Cuu.lapanthaka, we can >rephrase it in terms of dhammas and say that actually: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We aren't supposed to take a "conventional" speech and rephrase it in such a way as to make the message be opposite of what it says. It is just twisting the words to make them mean the opposite of what the sutta says. This goes with all other sutta teachings as well. With metta, Alex #132466 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:50 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... Sarah wrote: Dear Thomas. "When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: 'Did I exist in the past......Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being - where has it come from, and where will it go?'" S: No more idea of a self at all. No more idea that conditioned dhammas are not real and cannot be known. Metta Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks Thomas and Sarah. This is from nidaana sa.myutta. This is from Sa.myutta nikaaya. Also in Diigha nikaaya there is mahaanidaana sutta.m. These are abhidhamma things. Unlike abhidhamma pi.taka these two nikaayas along with Majjhima nikaaya and A`nguttara nikaaya are "true teachings of the Buddha" and they were confirmed by 500 (analytical knowledge)Pa.tisambhidaapatta-Cha.laabhi~n~naa arahats. Confirmation was made by Aanandaa as "Eva.m me suta.m". With Metta, Htoo Naing #132467 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:57 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Thomas, S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: What Thomas is referring is not about that. He is referring to 'reality'. It is not in Sa.myutta nikaaya. With respect, Htoo Naing #132468 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:16 am Subject: Re: anattaa. htoonaing... Dear Azita, Thomas and Nina, Just for discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: Hallo Nina, Thomas, I feel 'uplifted' when I read what you have written here, Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Azita: 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nothing. There is nothing. Then there arises something. That is "Nothing, then something". Then nothing again (the something disappears). This is "then nothing again". "hutvaa abhaavato anicca.m". Hoti = 'is' , honti = 'are' hutvaa = after having been bhava = existence abhaavato = because of non-existence anicca.m = impermanence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Azita: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With Metta, Htoo Naing #132469 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:42 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada kenhowardau Hi Htoo, I have some Abhidhamma questions for you, if you don't mind. ------------ <. . .> > H: That mahaathera was tipi.takadhara and already understood dhamma. ------------- KH: The story is not clear to me. What was it that Tipitaka-memorising thera needed to know that he didn't already know? Did he not already know that bhavana cittas arose at the mind door? --------- <. . .> > H: The Buddha did have desire to drink. ---------- KH: In a non-arahant that same desire would have been mildly akusala, wouldn't it? Desiring a drink is not dana, sila or bhavana, so can we assume it would normally be akusala? -------------------- >> KH: In reality the Buddha's maha-kiriya instructions and Ananda's kusala obedience were purely in accordance with conditions. There would not have been the slightest craving for water. And there would not have been the slightest idea of control over who received it and who didn't. >> > Htoo: I was not talking on 'control' thing. Just on the word "desire". It can be "chanda". The Buddha's chanda never be akusala. Chanda can be kusala or akusala. The word 'desire' cannot separate between 'chanda' and 'lobha'. ------------------ KH: Yes, but we began by talking about the desire to meditate. When chanda is accompanied by panna the desire (need to make contact) is for a paramattha dhamma, isn't it? It is not a desire for water, or for any other concept. It is not a desire to perform a conventional activity such as walking meditation. The desire (chanda) to perform an act of dana, or an act of sila, will have a concept as its object, but the desire to develop vipassana will only have a paramattha dhamma as its object. Is that correct? (I know the Tipitaka talks about Bodhisattas who *desire* to become Buddhas no matter how many aeons of suffering are required, but that is just an allegory, isn't it? It is an allegory for a single moment of citta in which panna is led by chanda to develop supreme right understanding of the presently arisen paramattha dhamma.) Ken H #132470 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:11 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada thomaslaw03 --- "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > --- "sarah" wrote: > > > > Dear Thomas, > > > > S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ====== > ------------------------------------------------------ > Htoo: > > What Thomas is referring is not about that. He is referring to 'reality'. It is not in Sa.myutta nikaaya. > > With respect, > > Htoo Naing > --------- Yes, it is correct. Thanks Htoo. Regards, Thomas #132471 From: "philip" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:11 pm Subject: What do we love when we love? ( was Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada philofillet Dear Sarah, group > S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. > > I appreciated this. It is my last night in Canada, so many people, so many stories, so much "love." What are the realities when we love people. So much attachment to dhammas that rise and fall away in a way that lead to stories about people. Perfectly natural, it's been going on for countless lifetimes. Very Dr Spocky tonight. What do we love when we love? Phil #132472 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:15 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. thomaslaw03 Dear Nina (and all), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > > Perhaps you think of khandha as group and then you believe that it is not a reality. > I ponder over he text quoted by Sarah: > <"Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?"> > > This text is about ruupa. Of each of the khandhas it is said Past, future or present: it arises and falls away. > The khandhas are classified as groups because all ruupas are classified as ruupakkhandha, all feeling as vedanaakkhandha, etc. But, it is true that visible object or colour is khandha, it arises and falls away. Pleasant feeling is khandha, it arises and falls away. We have to consider each naama or ruupa separately, as it appears now. And that is khandha. dhaatu or aayatana. > ------- Thomas: No, it is not that "I think of khandha as group and then I believe that it is not a reality." I repeat what I have said: Each of Khandhas is non-reality. All khandhas are non-realities (i.e., illusions). They are not being called as `realities' or 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). They are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta),according to the SN suttas (cf. The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p.154). Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). Regards, Thomas #132473 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:34 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may... Did not the Buddha experience pain from some physical stone(s) - a stone(s) of hardness, as depicted in a sutta-pitaka? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #132474 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:42 am Subject: To Good Friend HanTun dhammasaro Good friend Dr. Han Tun, 1. I trust you are fairing better. 2. I miss and, in addition, I look forward to your future contributions. pax tecum (Latin: May peace be with you.] yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #132475 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Manly discussion ptaus1 Hi Sarah, > S: What are we so attached to during the day? Just different colours. We all have our preferences - the blue sky, the green grass, red...yellow..... but it's just colour, just visible object that is seen for an instant and falls away immediately. It doesn't matter what colour we like, but we when there is understanding of it as just colour, the citta is calm, there is no attachment at that moment. Thanks, that makes sense. > We have pencilled in the next discussion for Sun Oct 13th. Hope that suits you. Sarita and Rich are keen to discuss more. Thanks for letting me know. I'll confirm as we get closer to the date. Best wishes pt #132476 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:47 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. ptaus1 Hi Thomas, > They are not being called as `realities' or 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). The above argument may be valid on a forum focusing on research into historical early Buddhism. This is not such a forum. I suspect most are here to learn about Theravada Buddhism as contained in the 3 Pali pitakas and ancient Theravadin Pali commentaries and subcommentaries. Thus, your statement above counts on this forum as an interesting side-note, but it doesn't really constitute a valid argument. Regarding any claims that you make on that basis, like for example: > Each of Khandhas is non-reality. All khandhas are non-realities (i.e., illusions). To substantiate such claims, it's not enough just to provide a quote from SN, because we all take SN to be a part of Pali canon but we obviously understand the same passages differently. Thus, to actually understand you better, you would need to provide more reasoning so that people could understand what do you actually mean by "reality", "non-reality", "illusion", etc, because it is likely we invest different meanings in these terms as well. Thanks Best wishes pt #132477 From: "philip" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:52 pm Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and philofillet Dear Sarah Maipenrai Dhammadaro(?)'s reference to your response to my post reminded me to thank you for it. . I think the question and answer method is very good, especially since I can trust your excellent understanding. I think there are other posts to thank you for. I am on the road again. Phil #132478 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:18 pm Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and sarahprocter... Dear Htoo & Chuck, --------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: I wrote "There can be awareness of hardness without panna." > When hit by a stone, there is hardness. Hardness is known. Even by cats, dogs, foxes, wolves. > > When hit, hardness is felt at the hit-point. When waddling ashore and getting on land there is hardness as compared to softness. .... S: When hardness is experienced throughout the day, after the bodily experience, are the cittas usually kusala or akusala? When a cat or dog experiences hardness when hit by a stone, why would you think there are any kusala cittas? Unless there is dana, sila or bhavana, the javana cittas are akusala. This is why it is said in the Satipatthana Sutta commentary that the kind of awareness spoken of (sati + sampajanna) is not the conventionally understood meaning of awareness such as you refer to and which even jackals and animals experience throughout the day. ... > > I understand that children, animals etc will not be aware the full characteristics of hardness. .... S: There is no knowing or awareness of anything about the characteristic of hardness at moments of attachment, aversion and ignorance which usually follow the moments of bodily experience and other vipaka cittas. Hardness is still the object, it is still experienced, but by cittas rooted in lobha, dosa or moha. Afterwards there are mind-door experiences following with the same object and then concepts about that object. Still these are bound to be akusala mind-door cittas unless there is any dana, sila or bhavana. If there is any bhavana, there must be understanding - not the kind of cittas that animals or young children experience as you describe above. ... > > I just picked up 'the point' that there are consciousness with sati but without panna. ... S: Yes, sati does arise without panna, but not in the examples you give with regard to being aware of the characteristic of hardness as a reality (which is what we were discussing.) Metta Sarah ====== #132479 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo (& Thomas), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > >H: When ruupa.m or vedanaa or sa~n~naa or sa`nkhaaraa or vi~n~naa.na.m is seen as ruupa.m etc there is no more atta. > > ... > > > > S: So I hope you will both agree that when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta. > > > > If we don't mind about the terms, what is taught about here is exactly the same as in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > Abhidhammatthasangaha is just a summary of abhidhamma texts(not confirmed by Aanandaa). It is also called commentary. > > Even though it is useful for beginners it is not enough in helping "really seeing realities". ... S: Back to my comment above which you have side-stepped. Do you agree that "when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. Each reality is anatta." Is there anything in our discussion about khandhas (as quoted in the suttas we've been discussing) which is not in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries? Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? (This is for Thomas:-)) Now, to the main point, what did the Buddha teach as being the main conditions for "really seeing realities"? What were the conditions for becoming a sotapanna which he referred to? When (past, future or present)did he say such understanding should be developed? I look forward to your reply to each of these questions without any side-stepping:-)) Metta Sarah ====== #132480 From: han tun Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Good Friend HanTun hantun1 Dear Chuck,  Thank you very much for your kind concern. I am not yet fully recovered. The surgical itself was alright. It was the adverse after-effects that cropped up one after another.  I think it will take about at least six months for my body to adjust itself from the initial shock of the surgery.  with metta and respect, Han  ________________________________ From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: DGG ; Dr. Han Tun Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 5:42 AM Subject: [dsg] To Good Friend HanTun  Good friend Dr. Han Tun, 1. I trust you are fairing better. 2. I miss and, in addition, I look forward to your future contributions. pax tecum (Latin: May peace be with you.] yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #132481 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Third time was not there (The Text Abhidhamma) sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, Your message #132366 to Thomas was mostly very detailed, clear and helpful. Just one minor part I'd like to comment on: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: >.....Aananda was the bank of Buddha's teaching and he was necessary in this Council. Later jst before the Council was started Aananda became an arahat with "pa.tisambhidaa" and 'sa.laabhi~n~naa'. > > Those with adhisiilaa who become arahats have "tevijjaa" that is three ~naa.naa (pubbenivaasaanussati, dibbacakkhu, aasavakkhaya). Those with adhisiila and adhicitta (samaadhi) become "sa.laabhi~n~naa". Those with adhisiila, adhicitta, and adhipa~n~naa become "pa.tisambhidaapatta-sa.laabhi~n~naa". Then Aanandaa became a member. ... S: As I understand, all sotapannas have purified adhisiila, all anagamis have purified adhicitta and all arahats have purified adhipa~n~naa (on account of eradicating all kilesa. The degree of attainments of pa.tisambhidaa and sa.laabh~n~naa will vary, but adhisiila, adhicitta, and adhipa~n~naa in all cases. Clearly the pa~n~naa varies - no one has the pa~n~naa of the Buddha, for example - but still adhipa~n~naa in each case. Metta Sarah ====== #132482 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Just butting in on one of your comments in a post to Ken H: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > If we understood the full complexity of how dhammas, pannati, and nimitta all interact with citta and the arising of various volitions, we would know why the Buddha advocated both understanding of the kandhas and also the full range of conventional practices that he clearly advocated. ... S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and cetasikas? If so, you ae suggesting that "the Buddha advocated both understanding of the khandhas and also *the full range of khandhas referred to conventionally as various practices*" Would that be right? So, doesn't this just come down to "the understanding of the khandhas"? ... >R: I believe we should follow his full teaching, not just the intellectual part of it, hoping that the latter will eventually lead to a mystical experience without any effort on our part. [and by "our part," I mean the way in which various types of volitions affect the arising of various cittas, cetasikas and rupas; and by "effort," I mean the arising of cetasikas of effort and volition, etc., which may be represented by the intention to practice, etc.] ... S: So by "effort on our part", you are referring to volitions, cetana cetasika, cittas, other cetasikas and rupas; effort, viriya cetasika, cetana and so on - in other words, more conditioned realities, more khandhas. So you are suggesting the development of right intellectual study (pariyatti), i.e. panna (right understanding) and also the arising of cetana, viriya, other cittas, cetasikas and rupas, but all anatta. Can we not say that when panna develops, all the other 'rights' develop, such as the other eightfold path factors including right effort? Cetana is not a path factor - intending to become enlightened does not lead along the path. It arises with every citta. So when panna and the other path factors develop, the cetana that accompanies them will also be of the 'right' kind - no self involved at all. Anyway, just a few comments for your consideration. Hope you're enjoying your new house and have a little extra space for your books now! Metta Sarah ===== #132483 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anattaa. nilovg Dear Htoo and Axita, Thank you, Htoo, for the Pali, that is very good. Nina Op 15 aug 2013, om 18:16 heeft htoonaing@ymail.com het volgende geschreven: > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Nothing. There is nothing. Then there arises something. That is "Nothing, then something". Then nothing again (the something disappears). This is "then nothing again". > > "hutvaa abhaavato anicca.m". > > Hoti = 'is' , honti = 'are' > > hutvaa = after having been > > bhava = existence > > abhaavato = because of non-existence > > anicca.m = impermanence > - #132484 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:21 pm Subject: Re: Third time was not there (The Text Abhidhamma) htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, ... S: As I understand, all sotapannas have purified adhisiila, all anagamis have purified adhicitta and all arahats have purified adhipa~n~naa (on account of eradicating all kilesa. The degree of attainments of pa.tisambhidaa and sa.laabh~n~naa will vary, but adhisiila, adhicitta, and adhipa~n~naa in all cases. Clearly the pa~n~naa varies - no one has the pa~n~naa of the Buddha, for example - but still adhipa~n~naa in each case. Metta Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, there are all adhi's. Yes. But what I wrote is on the level of panna. 1. Sammaasambuddhas 2. Paccekabuddhas 3. Aggasaavakas 4. Mahaasaavakas 5. Pa.tisambhidaapatta arahats 6. Cha.laabhi~n~na arahats 7. Tevijja arahats 8. Simple arahats This depends on faculty of understanding. Pa~n~nindriya. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132485 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:13 pm Subject: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Dear Sarah, RobertE, all, >S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional >practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk >about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional >expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and >cetasikas? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the suttas tell to do something using conventional speech, then I think it is wrong to try to go into conceptually created "ultimate" reality and twist the sutta to mean precisely what it doesn't mean. It is sophism to make the sutta mean opposite of what it actually says. If the Buddha wanted us not to do something, then why not just say it? Why say opposite of what it really is supposed to say? Why only 2,500 years later a lay person has figured this out? With best wishes, Alex #132486 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:25 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi Alex, > If the suttas tell to do something using conventional speech, then I think it is wrong to try to go into conceptually created "ultimate" reality and twist the sutta to mean precisely what it doesn't mean. > > It is sophism to make the sutta mean opposite of what it actually says. > > If the Buddha wanted us not to do something, then why not just say it? > Why say opposite of what it really is supposed to say? > > Why only 2,500 years later a lay person has figured this out? I think it's fair to say that what the Buddha said in the suttas was actually addressed to people with little dust in their eyes - those were the people he was instructing in Dhamma most of the time. You and me, are we such people? If not, then we certainly don't understand the suttas as they were meant to be understood. I mean, did we attain Bodhi after hearing one sentence, one sutta, a whole Nikaya? No, we didn't. Perhaps it's because we're taking the suttas to mean something conventional, whereas in fact they do not? Perhaps their true meaning is so mindbogglingly ultimate that we just can't fathom it? Otherwise, wouldn't we already be arahats by now if it was all so conventional and simple? Best wishes pt #132487 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:36 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >Pt:You and me, are we such people? If not, then we certainly don't >understand the suttas as they were meant to be understood. I mean, did >we attain Bodhi after hearing one sentence, one sutta, a whole Nikaya? >No, we didn't. Perhaps it's because we're taking the suttas to mean >?>something conventional, whereas in fact they do not? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the reason we didn't attain Bodhi from hearing 1 sentence is that we aren't meditation masters and or forest roaming ascetics like many people who heard the Buddha and became instantly awakened. For example the first two people the Buddha wanted to teach were meditation masters (Alara and Uddaka). His first group were 5 ascetics. Another reason could be due to lack of consistent and hard work at applying even one sentence of Dhamma (ex: don't cling!). As for those people who meditated for decades and are without much progress could be due to not applying samatha skills in daily life. I don't think that it is very helpful for most to attend few retreats, and meditate for only few hours every day. Maybe one should use the samatha skills ALL waking moments from waking to going asleep. Just like you can't heat a pot of water by switching it off all the time, same is here. With best wishes, Alex #132488 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:13 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Maybe the reason we didn't attain Bodhi from hearing 1 sentence is that we aren't meditation masters and or forest roaming ascetics like many people who heard the Buddha and became instantly awakened. Perhaps we aren't meditation masters because we don't really understand what meditation is actually all about? I mean, I want to be a meditation master, but I'm not, which means there's something I don't understand about meditation. If I did, I'd be a master, or at least on my way there. But I'm not. So, lack of understanding. > Another reason could be due to lack of consistent and hard work at applying even one sentence of Dhamma (ex: don't cling!). I think to consistently apply "don't cling" advice, I'd need to understand what that actually means, right? I mean, of course, I don't want to cling, and of course I'd be applying it all the time if I could. But I can't, which means I don't really know what it really means, so I can't apply it. Lack of understanding. > As for those people who meditated for decades and are without much progress could be due to not applying samatha skills in daily life. I don't think that it is very helpful for most to attend few retreats, and meditate for only few hours every day. Maybe one should use the samatha skills ALL waking moments from waking to going asleep. For that to happen, I imagine one would need to be able to understand what is kusala (samatha calm) in every moment, in order to develop it further. I think that would require some serious juice when it comes to panna. I mean, without it, one simply wouldn't know if there is calm (samatha) at the moment in order to develop it, or akusala which is not to be developed. I can't tell one way or the other most of the time. So, again lack of understanding, dust, etc. Best wishes pt #132489 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:13 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... Dear Sarah, Thanks for your reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Dear Htoo (& Thomas), > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: ... S: Back to my comment above which you have side-stepped. Do you agree that "when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Agree. Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada are all about dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Each reality is anatta." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Do you mean " reality = anatta " ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Is there anything in our discussion about khandhas (as quoted in the suttas we've been discussing) which is not in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: "not in accordance with...abhidhamma.."? Nikaayas do not say paramattha dhamma. The Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhamma" if dhammas are paramattha dhamma. But in real sense the Buddha never preached as "paramattha dhammas". Do you think that "there are people who excel the Buddha in preaching Dhamma especially wordings? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Khandhas are to be realized as khandhas. Aayatanas are to be realized as aayatana. Dhaatus are to be realized as dhaatu. Saccas are to be realized through a.t.tha`ngiko maggo. Pa.ticcasamuppaada is to be realized as causal relations between dhammas in simple way. "Yo dhamma.m passati, so pa.ticcasamuppaada.m passati". The Bodhisatta "Siddhattha Gotama" became a Sammaasambuddha through pa.ticcasamuppaada. The Buddha did not say a word "paramattha dhamma". If this is the right word, very helpful word then the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? (This is for Thomas:-)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This will be left for Thomas as you indicated here. :-)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Now, to the main point, what did the Buddha teach as being the main conditions for "really seeing realities"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The Buddha did not teach about "realities". Instead the Buddha taught Dhamma. In real sense dhammas are to be seen as they are. The Buddha taught dhammas according to the needs of listeners through "aasayaanusaya ~naa.na". Aasaya + anusaya = aasayaanusaya. No one can see this form of anusaya. Aggasaavakas cannot see there is aasayaanusaya. And all paccekabuddhas do not have aasayaanusaya ~naa.na. If it would have been helpful to preach as "paramattha dhammas" the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". But the Buddha did not. Who will be better in preaching Dhamma? The Buddha or "paramatthologists". I think this is the reason why there are many many separate ga.nas or sects. Some like "paramattha". Some like "dhaatu" and so on. These divisions happen because the people who like the Buddha Dhamma have lobha and they take firmly what they think is right and the original teaching is changed according to their wish. Example: "paramattha dhamma". According to "aasayaanusaya" of listeners the Buddha preached to fruition. At the time of the Buddha's parinibbaana there were only a few hundreds or thousands of His disciples and there were not all of his disciples including arahats. Mahaakassapa (Pippli Kassapa) thought over the dhammas. The Buddha preached many times to many of listeners. These dhammas had not been collected systematically. If this was not done dhammas preached by Him would be lost. Those dhammas preached by the Buddha were recorded by 500 arahats led by Pippali Kassapa (Mahaakassapa), Upaali and Aanadaa. All words in nikaayas. There was no 'word' like "paramattha" or "paramattha dhammas" or "realities". But later, after passing away of the Buddha new 'words' were created even though the Buddha preached enough. "Aananda, I have preached 'Dhamma & Vinaya' and these will be your teacher". The Buddha did not say "paramattha dhammas will be your teacher". Because of unwise consideration on Dhamma there arised many ga.nas and they propagated as they thinked were right. When the 2nd Buddhists's Council was done by 700 arahats, some 10,000 monks separately did their sa.mgaayana. As there were many of monks that ga.na was named "Mahaasa.mghika" by themself. Mahaasa.mghika became divided into "Gokulika" and "Ekabyohaarika". Again "Gokulika" became divided into "Pa~n~nattivaada" and "Bahussutika". "Bahussutika" was divided into "Bahussutika" and "Cetiya". Some became Mahaayaana from these 6 ga.na. This is because they did not keep "the Buddha vacana" as they were. Again there were "Mahisaasaka", Vajjiiputtaka", "Dhammuttariya", "Bhadrayaanika", "Channaagaarika", "Sammitiya", "Sabbatthivaada", "Dhammaguttika", "Kassapika", "Sa`nkantika", and "Suttavaada". Dhamma & vinaya in all these 17 ga.nas were not as pure as the original one. The original one is 4 nikaayas along with Kuddaka nikaaya (original 15 texts). In these texts, there is no 'word' like "paramattha dhammas". There were commentaries to these texts and all were in their original Paa.li's names as sutta.ms. A.t.thakathaas are thorough interpretations and explanations on Paa.li canon. " Paramattha" arised only after 3rd Buddhists' Council. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: What were the conditions for becoming a sotapanna which he referred to? When (past, future or present)did he say such understanding should be developed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sota may means 'flow' 'stream' and also 'ear'. Some also believed that it is ear. The Dhamma get to or arrive at the ear of listeners. Aapatti when done is called 'aapanna'. Sa.m + aapatti = samaapatti. Sota + aapanna = sotaapanna. Dhamma is directly hit the ear and become sotaapanna. So some say 'sotapanna-ship' is dassana-sampadaa. But sakadaagaamii, anaagaamii, and arahatship are bhaavanaa-sampadaa. For sotapanna 'bhaavana' is not needed. But for higher ones 'bhaavana' is needed. So they are bhaavanaa-sampadaa. Must bhaavayati or bhaaveti. Conditions are many. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I look forward to your reply to each of these questions without any side-stepping:-)) Metta Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-)) :-)) Sorry for side-stepping and long-winding but it is necessary. :) With Metta, Htoo Naing #132490 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:25 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >Pt:Perhaps we aren't meditation masters because we don't really >understand what meditation is actually all about? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe because we (me included) find excuses why not to practice. >So, lack of understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skill at swimming isn't really learned on dry land. > I think to consistently apply "don't cling" advice, I'd need to >understand what that actually means, right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to reply using unwholesome speech, but here are some points: If certain intention causes emotional suffering, then it is wrong intention.If you don't cling, you don't emotionally suffer. Right? If you really want something worldly and will feel sad not getting it, then it is unwholesome clinging. Don't consider anything as "I, me, mine". This is methodological principle. IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #132491 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:26 am Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Htoo & Chuck, ... > S: Yes, sati does arise without panna, but not in the examples you give with regard to being aware of the characteristic of hardness as a reality (which is what we were discussing.) > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I know. I did not say on 'characteristics'. I said 'sati without panna' can happen. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132492 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:43 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Or maybe because we (me included) find excuses why not to practice. I think finding excuses equals to not understanding what meditation is all about. I mean, our actions show that we value excuses more than meditation, even though we believe that meditation is kusala and excuses are not. I'd say valuing akusala over kusala shows lack of understanding. > Skill at swimming isn't really learned on dry land. I think a good analogy would be that we're swimming (i.e. meditating), but we're doing it really badly. Perhaps what we think is swimming is in fact drowning? > If certain intention causes emotional suffering, then it is wrong intention.If you don't cling, you don't emotionally suffer. Right? > > If you really want something worldly and will feel sad not getting it, then it is unwholesome clinging. > > Don't consider anything as "I, me, mine". This is methodological principle. I can think these things - understand them theoretically, but when the real thing happens, clinging is king. So, I don't really understand these things. Best wishes pt #132493 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:09 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada htoonaing... Dear Ken H, Thanks for your post. BTW who is Ken O? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: Hi Htoo, I have some Abhidhamma questions for you, if you don't mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Questions? Fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: That mahaathera was tipi.takadhara and already understood dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: The story is not clear to me. What was it that Tipitaka-memorising thera needed to know that he didn't already know? Did he not already know that bhavana cittas arose at the mind door? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are 40 books of tipi.taka texts (texts are much more). And there are more than 50 a.t.thakathaa books. More than 90 books are all in Paa.li. Someone who can recite these by heart is called 'tipi.takadhara'. Someone who knows all the meaning in it is called 'tipi.tkakovida'. Someone who can recite these Paa.li and A.t.thakathaa and knows all the meaning of those Paa.li sentences and words is called 'Dhammabha.n.daagaarika'. That is the bank of Dhamma. At this stage is just pariyatti. In Srilanka there was a Thera who taught Dhamma to many 1000 of bhikkhus. Some of his disciples became arahats. The teacher is still a puthujana. None of disciples dared to tell him that he was not an arahat except one. That one came to him. "Aacariya, have you finished your job (arahatship)?". He said 'yes'. Because he strongly thinked he was. "Aacariya, have you attained abhi~n~naa and eight samaapatti (8 jhaanas)?". He said 'yes'. This is true as he was able to enter and emerge whenever he wanted and he also had superpower. "Aacariya, could you show me 'a big elephant with a pair of tusk'? "See". 'OK.' "Aacariya, could you please show me that elephant coming to you as if he is going to attack you?" "See." Samaapatti was broken. Because of his fear to the elephant (not real one but created himself by abhinnaa). The disciple held and gripped the robe of the teacher. "Aacariya, are arahats frightened?" Only when this was heard the teacher came to know he was just a puthujana even though he owned 8 jhaanas. But on that same day he became an arahat. He was 30 years free of any akusala. So he thought he was an arahat. The original one is in tipi.taka texts. --------------------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> > > H: The Buddha did have desire to drink. ---------- KH: In a non-arahant that same desire would have been mildly akusala, wouldn't it? Desiring a drink is not dana, sila or bhavana, so can we assume it would normally be akusala? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Surely it was not akusala-with-viitikkama kilesaa. And surely it was not 'abhijjaa' or over-desire, was not destructive mind, or wrong view(micchaa-di.t.thi). So it was not akusala-with-pariyutthaana kilesa. I do not think just wanting is akusala. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> KH: In reality the Buddha's maha-kiriya instructions and Ananda's kusala obedience were purely in accordance with conditions. There would not have been the slightest craving for water. And there would not have been the slightest idea of control over who received it and who didn't. >> > Htoo: I was not talking on 'control' thing. Just on the word "desire". It can be "chanda". The Buddha's chanda never be akusala. Chanda can be kusala or akusala. The word 'desire' cannot separate between 'chanda' and 'lobha'. ------------------ KH: Yes, but we began by talking about the desire to meditate. When chanda is accompanied by panna the desire (need to make contact) is for a paramattha dhamma, isn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Go on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: It is not a desire for water, or for any other concept. It is not a desire to perform a conventional activity such as walking meditation. The desire (chanda) to perform an act of dana, or an act of sila, will have a concept as its object, but the desire to develop vipassana will only have a paramattha dhamma as its object. Is that correct? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If experiential it is true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: I know the Tipitaka talks about Bodhisattas who *desire* to become Buddhas no matter how many aeons of suffering are required, but that is just an allegory, isn't it? It is an allegory for a single moment of citta in which panna is led by chanda to develop supreme right understanding of the presently arisen paramattha dhamma.) Ken H --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have not found many "abhidhamma questions". With Metta, Htoo Naing #132494 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:14 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >A:Skill at swimming isn't really learned on dry land. > >Pt:I think a good analogy would be that we're swimming (i.e. >meditating), but we're doing it really badly. Perhaps what we think >is swimming is in fact drowning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people had opinions that either one learns to swim or drowns... In any case, it is not right to expect perfection from the 1st second. One needs to start somewhere shallow, and go from there. Make mistakes and learn from them. >I can think these things - understand them theoretically, but when >the real thing happens, clinging is king. So, I don't really >understand these things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There can be a skill involved, just like in swimming. Knowing all the different styles of swimming, chemical characteristics and laws of water is not enough obviously. One needs to practice a skill. With best wishes, Alex #132495 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:20 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Pt, all, > > >Pt:You and me, are we such people? If not, then we certainly don't >understand the suttas as they were meant to be understood. I mean, did >we attain Bodhi after hearing one sentence, one sutta, a whole Nikaya? >No, we didn't. Perhaps it's because we're taking the suttas to mean >?>something conventional, whereas in fact they do not? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Maybe the reason we didn't attain Bodhi from hearing 1 sentence is that we aren't meditation masters and or forest roaming ascetics like many people who heard the Buddha and became instantly awakened. > > For example the first two people the Buddha wanted to teach were meditation masters (Alara and Uddaka). His first group were 5 ascetics. > > Another reason could be due to lack of consistent and hard work at applying even one sentence of Dhamma (ex: don't cling!). > > As for those people who meditated for decades and are without much progress could be due to not applying samatha skills in daily life. I don't think that it is very helpful for most to attend few retreats, and meditate for only few hours every day. Maybe one should use the samatha skills ALL waking moments from waking to going asleep. Just like you can't heat a pot of water by switching it off all the time, same is here. > > > With best wishes, > Alex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: When a stick of wood is rubbed against another stick of wood and both are dry there will be heat. But when rubbing stopped the heat gone. It is the effort that leads to fire from these sticks. 7 years rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year there is fire. Say 7 months rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 month rubbing there is fire. Or say half month (15 days or 2 weeks) there is fire. Even 1 week rubbing there is fire. Lay people alternate meditation with daily-akusala life and sex. This is not rubbing continuously. If rubbing continuously there will be fire (path-consciousness). With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: small examples are not for large population. 7 years is fro general population. Again 7 years must be 'approprite developing'. #132496 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada kenhowardau Hi Htoo, ---- <. . .> > H: BTW who is Ken O? ---- KH: He is not me; he is another Ken who posts intermittently on DSG. Like you, Ken O thinks the Dhamma is a set of ritualistic practices, but unlike you, he accepts that cittas, cetasikas rupas and nibbana are absolute realities that bear the anatta characteristic. So there is a lack of consistency in his thinking. I would say you, Htoo, were at least consistent when you say (1) dhammas are not real and (2) there can be control over dhammas. You are wrong on both counts, but at least you are consistent. :-) -------- <. . .> >> KH: What was it that Tipitaka-memorising thera needed to know that he didn't already know? Did he not already know that bhavana cittas arose at the mind door? >> > H: There are 40 books of tipi.taka texts (texts are much more). --------- KH: Thank you for your extensive answer, but you forgot to explain why the young arahant gave the tipi.takadhara thera a metaphor explaining the six sense doors. Did the thera not already know that samatha and vipassana cittas arose at the sixth door? BTW, I was not asking that question as part of the ongoing, vitally important discussion about silabbataparamasa. ----------------- <. . .> >> KH: Desiring a drink is not dana, sila or bhavana, so can we assume it would normally be akusala? >> > H: <. . .> I do not think just wanting is akusala. ------------------ KH: What is it then? I would say if it occurs in a javana citta and it is not dana sila or bhavana it can only be akusala. Other Abhidhamma students on DSG have explained how minor every-day preferences, such as liking your coffee with milk rather than without, are indicators of [mild] lobha. -------------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: The desire (chanda) to perform an act of dana, or an act of sila, will have a concept as its object, but the desire to develop vipassana will only have a paramattha dhamma as its object. Is that correct? >> > Htoo: If experiential it is true. --------------------------------- KH: That is a very unusual answer. I think you have been discussing it with others, so I apologise for not recalling your explanations: are you saying the Dhamma is true only when it is known to be true? ----------------- <. . .> >> KH: I know the Tipitaka talks about Bodhisattas who *desire* to become Buddhas no matter how many aeons of suffering are required, but that is just an allegory, isn't it? It is an allegory for a single moment of citta in which panna is led by chanda to develop supreme right understanding of the presently arisen paramattha dhamma.) >> > Htoo: I have not found many "abhidhamma questions". ------------------ KH: Point taken: I said I had questions, not lectures. :-) But if you look carefully in that paragraph you will the words "isn't it?" So, isn't it true that chanda is a momentary dhamma, performing its functions in the time-span of a single citta? It is not a plan to do something in the conventional sense. (?) Another unanswered Abhidhamma question was, "Is chanda akusala when the citta is neither dana, sila nor bhavana?" Ken H #132497 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:13 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada thomaslaw03 Dear Htoo (and all), --- "htoonaing@..." wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your reply. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Dear Htoo (& Thomas), > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > ... > > S: Back to my comment above which you have side-stepped. Do you agree that "when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Htoo: Agree. Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada > are all about dhamma. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sarah: > > Each reality is anatta." > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Htoo: > > Do you mean " reality = anatta " ? > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sarah: > > Is there anything in our discussion about khandhas (as quoted in the suttas we've been discussing) which is not in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > "not in accordance with...abhidhamma.."? Nikaayas do not say paramattha dhamma. > > The Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhamma" if dhammas are paramattha dhamma. But in real sense the Buddha never preached as "paramattha dhammas". > > Do you think that "there are people who excel the Buddha in preaching Dhamma especially wordings? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Khandhas are to be realized as khandhas. Aayatanas are to be realized as aayatana. Dhaatus are to be realized as dhaatu. Saccas are to be realized through a.t.tha`ngiko maggo. Pa.ticcasamuppaada is to be realized as causal relations between dhammas in simple way. > > "Yo dhamma.m passati, so pa.ticcasamuppaada.m passati". The Bodhisatta "Siddhattha Gotama" became a Sammaasambuddha through pa.ticcasamuppaada. > > The Buddha did not say a word "paramattha dhamma". If this is the right word, very helpful word then the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sarah: > > When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? (This is for Thomas:-)) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Htoo: > > This will be left for Thomas as you indicated here. :-)) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Now, to the main point, what did the Buddha teach as being the main conditions for "really seeing realities"? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > The Buddha did not teach about "realities". Instead the Buddha taught Dhamma. In real sense dhammas are to be seen as they are. The Buddha taught dhammas according to the needs of listeners through "aasayaanusaya ~naa.na". Aasaya + anusaya = aasayaanusaya. No one can see this form of anusaya. Aggasaavakas cannot see there is aasayaanusaya. And all paccekabuddhas do not have aasayaanusaya ~naa.na. > > If it would have been helpful to preach as "paramattha dhammas" the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". But the Buddha did not. Who will be better in preaching Dhamma? The Buddha or "paramatthologists". > > I think this is the reason why there are many many separate ga.nas or sects. Some like "paramattha". Some like "dhaatu" and so on. These divisions happen because the people who like the Buddha Dhamma have lobha and they take firmly what they think is right and the original teaching is changed according to their wish. Example: "paramattha dhamma". > > According to "aasayaanusaya" of listeners the Buddha preached to fruition. At the time of the Buddha's parinibbaana there were only a few hundreds or thousands of His disciples and there were not all of his disciples including arahats. Mahaakassapa (Pippli Kassapa) thought > over the dhammas. The Buddha preached many times to many of listeners. These dhammas had not been collected systematically. If this was not done dhammas preached by Him would be lost. > > Those dhammas preached by the Buddha were recorded by 500 arahats led by Pippali Kassapa (Mahaakassapa), Upaali and Aanadaa. All words in nikaayas. There was no 'word' like "paramattha" or "paramattha dhammas" or "realities". > > But later, after passing away of the Buddha new 'words' were created even though the Buddha preached enough. "Aananda, I have preached 'Dhamma & Vinaya' and these will be your teacher". > > The Buddha did not say "paramattha dhammas will be your teacher". > > Because of unwise consideration on Dhamma there arised many ga.nas and > they propagated as they thinked were right. > > When the 2nd Buddhists's Council was done by 700 arahats, some 10,000 monks separately did their sa.mgaayana. As there were many of monks that ga.na was named "Mahaasa.mghika" by themself. > > Mahaasa.mghika became divided into "Gokulika" and "Ekabyohaarika". > Again "Gokulika" became divided into "Pa~n~nattivaada" and "Bahussutika". "Bahussutika" was divided into "Bahussutika" and "Cetiya". Some became Mahaayaana from these 6 ga.na. > > This is because they did not keep "the Buddha vacana" as they were. > > Again there were "Mahisaasaka", Vajjiiputtaka", "Dhammuttariya", "Bhadrayaanika", "Channaagaarika", "Sammitiya", "Sabbatthivaada", "Dhammaguttika", "Kassapika", "Sa`nkantika", and "Suttavaada". > > Dhamma & vinaya in all these 17 ga.nas were not as pure as the original one. The original one is 4 nikaayas along with Kuddaka nikaaya (original 15 texts). In these texts, there is no 'word' like "paramattha dhammas". > > There were commentaries to these texts and all were in their original Paa.li's names as sutta.ms. A.t.thakathaas are thorough interpretations and explanations on Paa.li canon. > > " Paramattha" arised only after 3rd Buddhists' Council. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > What were the conditions for becoming a sotapanna which he referred to? When (past, future or present)did he say such understanding should be developed? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Sota may means 'flow' 'stream' and also 'ear'. > > Some also believed that it is ear. The Dhamma get to or arrive at the ear of listeners. Aapatti when done is called 'aapanna'. Sa.m + aapatti = samaapatti. Sota + aapanna = sotaapanna. Dhamma is directly hit the ear and become sotaapanna. > > So some say 'sotapanna-ship' is dassana-sampadaa. But sakadaagaamii, anaagaamii, and arahatship are bhaavanaa-sampadaa. For sotapanna 'bhaavana' is not needed. But for higher ones 'bhaavana' is needed. So they are bhaavanaa-sampadaa. Must bhaavayati or bhaaveti. > > Conditions are many. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > I look forward to your reply to each of these questions without any side-stepping:-)) > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > :-)) :-)) Sorry for side-stepping and long-winding but it is necessary. :) > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > ------ Thomas: Htoo, I think your responses to Sarah are very well. It is also good for all to study Buddha Dhamma. Sincerely, Thomas #132498 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:19 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. thomaslaw03 Hi pt (and all), --- "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > They are not being called as `realities' or 'paramattha dhammas' (ultimate realities), according to the suttas (particularly SN). > > > The above argument may be valid on a forum focusing on research into historical early Buddhism. This is not such a forum. I suspect most are here to learn about Theravada Buddhism as contained in the 3 Pali pitakas and ancient Theravadin Pali commentaries and subcommentaries. > > Thus, your statement above counts on this forum as an interesting side-note, but it doesn't really constitute a valid argument. > > Regarding any claims that you make on that basis, like for example: > > > Each of Khandhas is non-reality. All khandhas are non-realities (i.e., illusions). > > To substantiate such claims, it's not enough just to provide a quote from SN, because we all take SN to be a part of Pali canon but we obviously understand the same passages differently. Thus, to actually understand you better, you would need to provide more reasoning so that people could understand what do you actually mean by "reality", "non-reality", "illusion", etc, because it is likely we invest different meanings in these terms as well. Thanks > > Best wishes > pt > Thomas: By reality (or ultimate reality), it refers to 'paramattha' or 'paramattha dhamma' (See Abhidhammattha Sangaha, page 25; it refers to citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana).This term (reality, ultimate reality, paramattha, or paramattha dhamma) is simply not found in all suttas (particularly the SN suttas). Thus, the suttas do not record the Buddha as using the term for his teachings. According to suttas (particularly the SN suttas), the five aggregates (khandhas) are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta). Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (Cf. Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951, and The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 54, 154). "illusion" also means without reality, rittaka. Regards, Thomas #132499 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, In the following message you used some very advanced Pali to answer about the importance of jhana. Since I am not knowledgeable about the level of Pali, I will drop that issue. Also, the issue of metta is becoming repetitive because we just keep repeating the same positions, so I will drop that issue as well. That only leaves the issues of mindfulness and Mara. I will respond below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > JK: One question, if meditation is about concentration to an object with expecting result of calmness, how can mindfulness develop while we're in stage of calmness? You want to be mindful or you want to be calm? > James: This is a rather strange question. Mindfulness isn't just mindfulness of any object whatsoever with the expectation of calm. The Buddha taught that there are Four Foundations of Mindfulness: body, feelings, mind, and mental objects. One is mindful of them "in and of themselves" until calm naturally arises. > > JK: Yes, in the Tipitaka. Mara is represented as an evil person, he visited the Bodhisatta to tempt him, and later on also when the Bodhisatta had become the Buddha. But nowadays, people hardly see him because other 4 Maras work well. James: I don't agree. People nowadays believe less in the supernatural and invisible beings, but that doesn't make them any less real. BTW, the Jewish gnostics called them Archons. Dukkha is called mara. Kilesa mara, all defilements, is another. Death is mara. The cycle of birth and death is also Mara. These 4 Mars cloud people nowadays from getting anywhere. The Tevabudtara Mara, therefore, is jobless. James: Not quite. Mara is always there to block those who follow the path. > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > Metta, James #132500 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi Pt, -------- <. . .> > Pt to Alex: I think it's fair to say that what the Buddha said in the suttas was actually addressed to people with little dust in their eyes - those were the people he was instructing in Dhamma most of the time. You and me, are we such people? If not, then we certainly don't understand the suttas as they were meant to be understood. -------- KH: Yes, some of those suttas were immediately understood with pativeda-panna (fully penetrating insight). But I suspect you and I can understand them in basically the same way. In our case it might be with very weak pariyatti-panna, but we're not complaining. ----------------- > Pt: I mean, did we attain Bodhi after hearing one sentence, one sutta, a whole Nikaya? No, we didn't. Perhaps it's because we're taking the suttas to mean something conventional, whereas in fact they do not? Perhaps their true meaning is so mindbogglingly ultimate that we just can't fathom it? Otherwise, wouldn't we already be arahats by now if it was all so conventional and simple? ----------- KH: I think pariyatti is mindboggling. Look at how rare it is. It enables us to see clearly what its opposite (miccha ditthi) is like. Micha ditthi is so patently false, so puerile, and so indefensible in a rational argument. But lobha can stick to it "like meat to a hot pan." You and I are very, very lucky to be able to see that. Ken H #132501 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > Just butting in on one of your comments in a post to Ken H: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > If we understood the full complexity of how dhammas, pannati, and nimitta all interact with citta and the arising of various volitions, we would know why the Buddha advocated both understanding of the kandhas and also the full range of conventional practices that he clearly advocated. > ... > S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and cetasikas? > > If so, you ae suggesting that "the Buddha advocated both understanding of the khandhas and also *the full range of khandhas referred to conventionally as various practices*" Would that be right? > > So, doesn't this just come down to "the understanding of the khandhas"? I think you make a logical argument that this is the case, and I can't find anything wrong with that analysis. The question is: what do we do with it, and how do we understand the kandhas vis a vis conventional experiences and practices, and we draw different conclusions about that. So maybe it is not enough to say there are only dhammas or only kandhas, but our understanding has to include how we make sense of what we experience 99% of the time in conventional terms. I have always agreed that seeing such conventional actions as a gloss or general view, or even distorted view, of the stream of kandhas, but the folks here like to talk about the nature of a single dhamma, and it is very clear that most experiences, including paramatha ones, don't have to do with a single dhamma, but with a great preponderance of dhammas of one kind or another. When one experiences the jhanas there are many many moments of jhana in a row, or close to in a row, perhaps with some other moments popping up of other kinds, but there are great many of the same sort of dhammas that make the 'experience' what it is. When the Buddha talks about being able to "turn on" the jhanas at any time and stay in that exalted state for any period of time, he is pointedly *not* talking about the nature of a single dhamma, but how over a large number of moments he is able to *sustain* a certain kind of exalted experience. It is that continuity and stream of kusala that makes the experience and the skill and the understanding what it is. To talk about a single dhamma in that context, falling away completely, etc., is not to the point of what those higher states are really about. And in my view, to talk about panna as if it is all about understanding the nature of a single moment, also misses the point of many of the attainments. Obviously, one cannot understand the nature of these experiences without understanding the component parts - the kandhas and how they interact together, the difference between nama and rupa, but then there are many many things that have to do with accumulations, tendencies, numbers of conditions, and sustained series or sequences of dhammas that make certain things take place. I have tried, over and over again, to talk about things that *must* take place in series over times - accumulations that are passed on over many many dhammas; kamma-patha that only takes place over a sequence of events that includes the experience of thought and sustained action in order for a 'being to be murdered' or other necessary numbers of rupas and cittas to pass through the experience in order for it to be complete. When we talk about concepts we usually do not talk about what must take place for a concept to fully form -- many many cittas that have to pass to form an accumulation of a concept or image, and these are the real experiences that 'add up' from all that activity. Likewise, meditation is a series of volitions that take place over time that lead to various types of cittas and perceptions take place as various rupas and mental objects are taken as object of attention, and these sequences are what add up to whether concentration is deepended, or samatha is deepened, or the kinds of mindfulness necessary for understanding accumulate. So, yes, it's all kandhas, and that is the Buddha's teachings, but how we take those kandhas, together or separately, and how we understand the way they really take place and interact through conditions and create accumulated experiences, and what kinds of objects they really refer to, are all very important and make a difference in how we understand the teachings. Do dhammas really just appear and disappear into empty space? Do they not leave traces that account for what we accumulate and understand? Do dhammas really have an essence, an own-being, that is the little substance that is experienced, or are they just empty figments? These questions go beyond whether there are "all kandhas" or not, even if we agree on this. Personally, I find that an obsession with the arising and falling away of a single dhamma misses a lot of the important understandings we should be taking in. I'm interested in how the kandhas interact, how they create the impression of conventional life, how they break down into more direct experiences, for sure, but I don't think those experiences are well contained in the repeated generality that there are only dhammas and everything else doesn't really exist. The conclusion that since everything is kandhas there is no necessity to engage in kusala conventional activity, etc., I also think is misguided. Or that activities such as meditation, charity, abstentions, projecting metta, etc., that are clearly indicated in the texts, are really superfluous. So I agree there are only the kandhas, and everything breaks down into kandhas, but that still leaves a lot to sort out. > >R: I believe we should follow his full teaching, not just the intellectual part of it, hoping that the latter will eventually lead to a mystical experience without any effort on our part. [and by "our part," I mean the way in which various types of volitions affect the arising of various cittas, cetasikas and rupas; and by "effort," I mean the arising of cetasikas of effort and volition, etc., which may be represented by the intention to practice, etc.] > ... > S: So by "effort on our part", you are referring to volitions, cetana cetasika, cittas, other cetasikas and rupas; effort, viriya cetasika, cetana and so on - in other words, more conditioned realities, more khandhas. > > So you are suggesting the development of right intellectual study (pariyatti), i.e. panna (right understanding) and also the arising of cetana, viriya, other cittas, cetasikas and rupas, but all anatta. Yes, indeed. The question is: when we have these thoughts, these volitions, these activities, which themselves break down into more volitions and rupas of activities, should we not continue to develop them? Instead, there is a tendency here to dismiss all conventional-seeming intentional activity, rather than engaging it and seeing what it consists of. We have to *stop* activities? Why? Why not do as the Buddha prescribed and still see what it is composed of in terms of the elements of experience? > Can we not say that when panna develops, all the other 'rights' develop, such as the other eightfold path factors including right effort? Cetana is not a path factor - intending to become enlightened does not lead along the path. It arises with every citta. So when panna and the other path factors develop, the cetana that accompanies them will also be of the 'right' kind - no self involved at all. Well, right intention is one of the path factors. The question is how does it arise and what does it lead to? I think that the conventional-seeming expressions of right intention are often dismissed here, because there is an "anti-action" philosophy about arising dhammas. I just don't think that's the right way to apply the knowledge that our experience breaks down into the kandhas. It's not a call for quiescence and passivity, as far as I can tell. > Anyway, just a few comments for your consideration. I hope you haven't opened Pandora's box - I seem to have a lot of responses to your comments! I appreciate your good thoughts. > Hope you're enjoying your new house and have a little extra space for your books now! Thank you, Sarah. Love the house. Unfortunately we're still up to our necks in boxes, many of which contain books, DVDs and other tempting materials. We'll have to go through them eventually and weed them out. I can assure you though that all the Buddhist material will stay! :-) I'll find a nice book shelf for all the good texts. Good to "talk" to you. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #132502 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > James: This is a rather strange question. Mindfulness isn't just mindfulness of any object whatsoever with the expectation of calm. The Buddha taught that there are Four Foundations of Mindfulness: body, feelings, mind, and mental objects. One is mindful of them "in and of themselves" until calm naturally arises. JK: That is what I question because you say mindfulness in meditation. I don't deny that with right mindfulness, calm naturally arises because the meaning of calm here is calm from unwholesome. But when you use meditation with mindfulness, this confuses me. I believe you know about 40 methods of samatha bhavana which the Lord Buddha taught. I think this Four Foundation of Mindfulness you raised here is not one of 40 methods of samatha bhavana. It is vipassana bhavana. Therefore, nothing is about meditation. ============ > James: I don't agree. People nowadays believe less in the supernatural and invisible beings, but that doesn't make them any less real. BTW, the Jewish gnostics called them Archons. JK: I don't say they're not real but we've never seen them nowadays, haven't we? =========== > Dukkha is called mara. Kilesa mara, all defilements, is another. Death is mara. The cycle of birth and death is also Mara. These 4 Mars cloud people nowadays from getting anywhere. The Tevabudtara Mara, therefore, is jobless. > > James: Not quite. Mara is always there to block those who follow the path. JK: Yes, maybe to those who are very close to enlightenment. But for general people, I think other 4 maras, especially kilesa mara, are quite strong to stop those people including us to develop right understanding and wisdom the Lord Buddha taught. Anumodhana Jagkrit #132503 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > JK: That is what I question because you say mindfulness in meditation. I don't deny that with right mindfulness, calm naturally arises because the meaning of calm here is calm from unwholesome. But when you use meditation with mindfulness, this confuses me. I believe you know about 40 methods of samatha bhavana which the Lord Buddha taught. I think this Four Foundation of Mindfulness you raised here is not one of 40 methods of samatha bhavana. It is vipassana bhavana. Therefore, nothing is about meditation. > James: You are using Pali phrases here that the Buddha didn't teach. The Buddha didn't teach samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. The Buddha taught samma-sati (Right Mindfulness) and samma-samadhi (Right Concentration). Anything that uses these two techniques is "Meditation". Of the 40 meditation topics given in the Vism., it is assumed that each of them begin with samma-sati. And most of the meditation objects (but not all) will then lead to samma-samadhi. The samatha/vipassana distinction that you raise is a false dichotomy and a modern invention. There are no two such meditation techniques because they really cannot be separated in that way. > ============ > > > James: I don't agree. People nowadays believe less in the supernatural and invisible beings, but that doesn't make them any less real. BTW, the Jewish gnostics called them Archons. > > JK: I don't say they're not real but we've never seen them nowadays, haven't we? > James: Maras are invisible. No one can "see" Maras with the naked eye because they are from a higher dimension. The only way to "see" a Mara is through psychic vision using the third eye. That is why Maras are so tricky and dangerous- they can influence your thoughts but you never see them. > =========== Metta, James #132504 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi Htoo and Alex, ------ <. . .> >> Alex: As for those people who meditated for decades and are without much progress could be due to not applying samatha skills in daily life. I don't think that it is very helpful for most to attend few retreats, and meditate for only few hours every day. Maybe one should use the samatha skills ALL waking moments from waking to going asleep. Just like you can't heat a pot of water by switching it off all the time, same is here. >> > Htoo: When a stick of wood is rubbed against another stick of wood and both are dry there will be heat. But when rubbing stopped the heat gone. It is the effort that leads to fire from these sticks. 7 years rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year there is fire. Say 7 months rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 month rubbing there is fire. Or say half month (15 days or 2 weeks) there is fire. Even 1 week rubbing there is fire. Lay people alternate meditation with daily-akusala life and sex. This is not rubbing continuously. If rubbing continuously there will be fire (path-consciousness). PS: small examples are not for large population. 7 years is fro general population. Again 7 years must be 'approprite developing'. ---------- KH: That is dangerous nonsense that should not be told to any impressionable person. How many mentally unstable people have been sold that sort of rubbish and sat in meditation? The results, as we all know, are always complete, demoralising failure. And what happens then? Does the meditation master apologise and admit he was wrong? No, he blames the foolish, gullible student for not trying hard enough! I hope, if I ever get the chance, I will be able to save someone from this sort of dangerous nonsense. Ken H #132505 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > James: You are using Pali phrases here that the Buddha didn't teach. The Buddha didn't teach samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. The Buddha taught samma-sati (Right Mindfulness) and samma-samadhi (Right Concentration). Anything that uses these two techniques is "Meditation". JK: I think your comment of "Anything that uses these two techniques (samma-sati and samma-samadhi) is "Meditation" is not in any Buddha teaching as far as I know. > James: The samatha/vipassana distinction that you raise is a false dichotomy and a modern invention. JK: I have to disagree because sammatha (meditation) was practiced long before Buddha time. And vipassana is the Lord Buddha teaching to attain enlightenment. >James: There are no two such meditation techniques because they really cannot be separated in that way. JK: Can you give me some example of samma-sati and samma-samadhi? ================= > James: Maras are invisible. No one can "see" Maras with the naked eye because they are from a higher dimension. The only way to "see" a Mara is through psychic vision using the third eye. That is why Maras are so tricky and dangerous- they can influence your thoughts but you never see them. JK: Can you give some example that Mara influence our thoughts? Thanks Jagkrit #132506 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KH: That is dangerous nonsense that should not be told to any >impressionable person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove this assertion. >How many mentally unstable people have been sold that sort of >rubbish >and sat in meditation? The results, as we all know, are >always >complete, demoralising failure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a person is mentally unstable then that is the fault. If someone misuses something, it is due to the fault of the user, not technique. ============================= Alex #132507 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:30 am Subject: What do we love when we love? ( was Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada philofillet Dear group > > What do we love when we love? > Nothing complicated here. Whether beings have existence or not (I currently suspect they do) is not the pont, the point is that we know, and love, and hate people only as concepts, through mind door thinking processes. I could sit in a cool still place and hold hands with my beloved one, and hold hands and hold hands, but still only loving the beloved one as he or she is (re)created by thought process, which include rhe thought processes of brlieving in tgeir existence, as a being. We are aways alone, cittas lost in thinking. Phil #132508 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:48 am Subject: English session alive on Sunday. nilovg Dear Jagkrit and friends, English session alive on Sunday. part 1: There was a discussion on siila. There can be siila without understanding, one may observe precepts without any understanding. When there is adhisiila, higher siila, it is siila of the eightfold Path, with understanding. Pa~n~naa has understanding of siila. T.A.: Questioner: Questioner: < What does it mean to have the Buddha as one’s refuge at the present moment?> T.A.:< It means that you will study and understand what he taught. Otherwise there is no refuge. Nobody else but he can help you with right understanding. If one takes refuge without any study he does not know the wisdom, the compassion and the purity of the Buddha. Then we are just dreaming and thinking about taking refuge. What is sati sampaja~n~na (sati and pa~n~naa)? It is different from daana and the observance of siila without understanding. It arises when one knows what appears right now. Does hardness appear?Is there any understanding of it? No. There is just body-consciousness that experiences hardness. Know it as dhamma, a reality, and it is gone in splitseconds. There can be attachment to the succession of realities which arise and fall away, and there is ignorance of them; one takes them for permanent. Pa~n~naa knows the realities (N: which succeed one another) as the sign, the nimitta of reality. > ****** Nina. #132509 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:21 am Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday. philofillet Dear Nina, group Thank you. I highlight one part: >>>Questioner: Ph: We don't realize reality as not-self by thinking about not-self. Any intentional effirt to understand characteristics of realities will be rooted in lobha-ditthi, greed for results, with wrong view belief in a capacity to control the arising of dhammas. Thus the constant reminders about patience, and the courage to develop understanding without the feelgood rituals that drive the majority on "the path." (They might as well take a path to a bubble bath.) Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > #132510 From: "philip" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:25 am Subject: Non-attachment philofillet Dear group A passage from Nina's Cetasikas, about alobha. I highlight one part: When kusala citta arises there is wise attention to the > object which is experienced, there are no attachment, aversion > and ignorance. Non-attachment which accompanies the kusala > citta may, for example, arise in the eye-door process of cittas > which experience visible object. We usually cling to visible object > but when there are conditions for kusala citta there is nonattachment > to the object. Please enjoy the passage in whole, below. Phil > Whenever kusala citta arises there is non-attachment accompanying > the kusala citta. Non-attachment can arise in the sense-door > processes of citta as well as in the mind-door process. In each of > these processes there are javana-cittas (translated as "impulsion), > which are, in the case of non-arahats, kusala cittas or akusala > cittas. > > When kusala citta arises there is "wise attention to the > object which is experienced, there are no attachment, aversion > and ignorance. Non-attachment which accompanies the kusala > citta may, for example, arise in the eye-door process of cittas > which experience visible object. We usually cling to visible object > but when there are conditions for kusala citta there is nonattachment > to the object. > ***** > Non-Attachment(Alobha)to be contd > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > #132511 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:56 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------ >> KH: That is dangerous nonsense that should not be told to any impressionable person. >> > A: Prove this assertion. ------- KH: Proof is the easy part. The hard part is getting the impressionable person to accept the proof. Buddhist meditation retreats are just a small part of a much greater industry, sometimes known as the self-help industry. Consumers in the self-help industry can easily be shown proof that they are being fooled and exploited. For example, they can be shown how reliant they have become on their gurus – spending large sums of money on books, courses and conventions over many years. It is supposed to be *self* help, and yet it has made them completely reliant on help from someone else! What more proof do they need? The deeper they get into this mess the more helpless and pathetic they become, and the harder it is for them to accept any proof. ------ <. . .> > A: If a person is mentally unstable then that is the fault. If someone misuses something, it is due to the fault of the user, not technique. ----- KH: That is what they are told. And so they devote more money and more time to the industry. This worsens their mental instability, and the process feeds on itself. Ken H #132512 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:19 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >>KH:That is dangerous nonsense that should not be told to any >impressionable person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>A: Prove this assertion. > ------- > >KH: Proof is the easy part. The hard part is getting the ?>impressionable person to accept the proof. > > Buddhist meditation retreats are just a small part of a much greater >industry, sometimes known as the self-help industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't Dhamma a sort of "self-help" program? >Consumers in the self-help industry can easily be shown proof that >they are being fooled and exploited. For example, they can be shown >how reliant they have become on their gurus – spending large sums of >money on books, courses and conventions over many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't apply to every aspect of Dhamma practice and just because some people misunderstood something, it doesn't make meditation based on VsM and suttas wrong as a whole. >It is supposed to be *self* help, and yet it has made them completely >reliant on help from someone else! What more proof do they need? >>>>>>>>>>> Then the problem is with those gurus. Not meditation in general as described in VsM and suttas. With best wishes, Alex #132513 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:34 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may, 1. I agree with: Thomas: Htoo, I think your responses to Sarah are very well. It is also good for all to study Buddha Dhamma. Sincerely, Thomas 2. And to practice the Buddha Dhamma (Dhamma-vinaya) as one understands... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] ......................................................... #132514 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:51 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------- <. . .> > A: Isn't Dhamma a sort of "self-help" program? ------- KH: The Middle Way is a unique kind of program. It is followed in a single moment, before anyone can "do" anything. So program might not be the best word for it. ----------- >> KH: Consumers in the self-help industry can easily be shown proof that they are being fooled and exploited. <. . .> >> > A: This doesn't apply to every aspect of Dhamma practice and just because some people misunderstood something, it doesn't make meditation based on VsM and suttas wrong as a whole. ----------- KH: I am sure there are many Buddhist meditation teachers who are not *knowingly* misleading and exploiting their students. But that is the end result. They are the blind leading the blind. -------------- <. . .> > A: Then the problem is with those gurus. Not meditation in general as described in VsM and suttas. -------------- KH: The texts describe samatha and vipassana. Unfortunately, Alex, you can only see modern-day, conventional versions of samatha and vipassana. You can't see how they could be momentary conditioned realities – very similar to realities that are arising now. The Dhamma is all about now. Ken H #132515 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:45 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: Yes, some of those suttas were immediately understood with pativeda-panna (fully penetrating insight). But I suspect you and I can understand them in basically the same way. In our case it might be with very weak pariyatti-panna, but we're not complaining. I always think that even such rare moments of weak pariyatti-panna will be undone by all the obsessive thinking about Dhamma and the related stories that my brain keeps spinning around. But that's probably just more thinking. Best wishes pt #132516 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:34 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi Alex, > A: In any case, it is not right to expect perfection from the 1st second. > One needs to start somewhere shallow, and go from there. Make mistakes and learn from them. I agree entirely, but we would need to be brutally honest if we're taking that approach, if we're really to learn from mistakes. Perhaps let's look at our practice of meditation with that in mind. First it is usually said that one should sit down erect, fold the legs, etc. I can't even do that, my back's crap, so it's immediate fail for me. But let's hope the guys here at dsg are correct that the posture doesn't really matter and keep going in whatever posture. Second thing that's usually said - setting mindfulness to the fore... Now, I'd take that to mean that mindfulness is continuous for minutes, hours at a time. I can't do that. Not even for a few seconds at a time. I can try to make mindfulness arise until my head starts spinning, but that doesn't make it arise. So, then, what are the mistakes that I'm making? I'd say they are as follows: 1. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to the amount of time I spend on meditation per day. This didn't happen. Fail. 2. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to observing precepts more strictly. This didn't happen. Fail. 3. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to a specific meditation subject and how hard I focus on it. This didn't happen. Fail. My hypothesis now is that: I don't really understand a) How does a moment with mindfulness differ from a moment without it? b) How does mindfulness actually develop - as in, what is meant by "bhavana" - meditation, or development, of mindfulness in this case. In both cases, as the first clause suggests - there's a lack of understanding, so it is probably the development of understanding that needs to happen in order for development of mindfulness to happen. And how does understanding develop in the first place? What have you learned from your mistakes? Are there any differences from my mistakes? Any insights? Thanks. > A: There can be a skill involved, just like in swimming. Knowing all the different styles of swimming, chemical characteristics and laws of water is not enough obviously. One needs to practice a skill. Ok, but what would that skill be other than development of understnading? I mean is there anything else that would actually recognise lobha for what it is and not be enticed to give into it (with lobha) or resist it (with dosa)? If there is nothing else that can accomplish that other than understanding, the question again is how does understanding develop? Best wishes pt #132517 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:44 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas ptaus1 Hi Htoo, > It is the effort that leads to fire from these sticks. 7 years rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year there is fire. >... > Lay people alternate meditation with daily-akusala life and sex. This is not rubbing continuously. > > If rubbing continuously there will be fire (path-consciousness). I haven't really found the above to be true in practice. At the moment, I think that development of understanding is the only thing that has direct correlation to improvement in meditation. The rest - effort, mindfulness, etc, fall into place as well. But, effort alone, no matter how much time is dedicated, how strictly the precepts are observed, etc, does not seem to help. But those are just my observations. Best wishes pt #132518 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sukinderpal Good one PT!! Sukin > > Hi Alex, > > > A: In any case, it is not right to expect perfection from the 1st > second. > > One needs to start somewhere shallow, and go from there. Make > mistakes and learn from them. > > I agree entirely, but we would need to be brutally honest if we're > taking that approach, if we're really to learn from mistakes. Perhaps > let's look at our practice of meditation with that in mind. > > First it is usually said that one should sit down erect, fold the > legs, etc. I can't even do that, my back's crap, so it's immediate > fail for me. But let's hope the guys here at dsg are correct that the > posture doesn't really matter and keep going in whatever posture. > > Second thing that's usually said - setting mindfulness to the fore... > Now, I'd take that to mean that mindfulness is continuous for minutes, > hours at a time. I can't do that. Not even for a few seconds at a > time. I can try to make mindfulness arise until my head starts > spinning, but that doesn't make it arise. So, then, what are the > mistakes that I'm making? I'd say they are as follows: > > 1. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to > the amount of time I spend on meditation per day. This didn't happen. > Fail. > > 2. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to > observing precepts more strictly. This didn't happen. Fail. > > 3. I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to > a specific meditation subject and how hard I focus on it. This didn't > happen. Fail. > > My hypothesis now is that: > > I don't really understand > a) How does a moment with mindfulness differ from a moment without it? > b) How does mindfulness actually develop - as in, what is meant by > "bhavana" - meditation, or development, of mindfulness in this case. > > In both cases, as the first clause suggests - there's a lack of > understanding, so it is probably the development of understanding that > needs to happen in order for development of mindfulness to happen. And > how does understanding develop in the first place? > > What have you learned from your mistakes? Are there any differences > from my mistakes? Any insights? Thanks. > > > > A: There can be a skill involved, just like in swimming. Knowing all > the different styles of swimming, chemical characteristics and laws of > water is not enough obviously. One needs to practice a skill. > > Ok, but what would that skill be other than development of > understnading? I mean is there anything else that would actually > recognise lobha for what it is and not be enticed to give into it > (with lobha) or resist it (with dosa)? If there is nothing else that > can accomplish that other than understanding, the question again is > how does understanding develop? > > Best wishes > pt > > #132519 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:49 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > JK: I think your comment of "Anything that uses these two techniques (samma-sati and samma-samadhi) is "Meditation" is not in any Buddha teaching as far as I know. > James: Of course not, the word "meditation" is a modern word and there isn't a Pali equivalent as far as I know. Only we in the modern world think of meditation as something "special" and "unique", in the Buddha's time it was considered everyday behavior (but that doesn't mean it is "everyday behavior"). > > James: The samatha/vipassana distinction that you raise is a false dichotomy and a modern invention. > > JK: I have to disagree because sammatha (meditation) was practiced long before Buddha time. James: Now wait a minute, you just criticized me because I said something not in the Buddha's teaching, and now you are making a strong claim about something even before the Buddha was born! Unless you were personally around before the Buddha was born (a vampire perhaps? :-)) you cannot be sure what type of meditation ascetics practiced then. The written records are non-existent or scant at best. And vipassana is the Lord Buddha teaching to attain enlightenment. > James: No it isn't!! The idea of "vipassana" was first introduced in the Vism. by Buddhaghosa when he suggested the existence of "dry-insight workers". This assertion has absolutely no proof whatsoever in the Buddha's suttas. > >James: There are no two such meditation techniques because they really cannot be separated in that way. > > JK: Can you give me some example of samma-sati and samma-samadhi? > James: Google the Noble Eightfold Path. > ================= > > > James: Maras are invisible. No one can "see" Maras with the naked eye because they are from a higher dimension. The only way to "see" a Mara is through psychic vision using the third eye. That is why Maras are so tricky and dangerous- they can influence your thoughts but you never see them. > > JK: Can you give some example that Mara influence our thoughts? > James: The only clear example I can think of right now is how Mara convinced a lot of monks of the Sangha to commit suicide while the Buddha was absent. Most of the time Mara wasn't successful with the Sangha- but was constantly trying. There is no reason to assume Mara would give up in today's age. After all, Mara could be the one responsible for that monk you told me about- the one buying a private jet and flying to America. > Thanks > > Jagkrit > Metta, James #132520 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:16 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. dhammasaro Good friends all, 1. Yes, all monks do not follow all of the Vinaya-pitaka... I know I did not always the brief times I was a monk... it is not easy... I always had something to confess... 2. May I suggest? Rather than condemn an erring young monk; why not do "Loving kindness" meditation for these seemingly erring young monks. 3. What say you all perfectionists??? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck >From: buddhatrue@yahoo.com Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > JK: That's just a tip of the iceberg. If you stay longer, you will fascinate how diversifying of Buddhism here, the country which 90% of people are Buddhists. I think you haven't heard lately an extreme news about a monk claiming that this is his last life. People believe his attain supreme jhanna and enter arahatship. He gave a lot of meditation sessions to public including well to do people who are so generous to donate whatever beneficial to support his teaching, believing that is devoting to Buddhism. Later on the monk owned private jet !! Now he ran away to USA from arrest warrant of embezzlement. > James: Fascinating story! Well, I blame those people stupid enough to give money to a monk! Monks are not supposed to receive cash donations and monks are not even supposed to touch money! That was a big no-no to the Buddha and I think that rule should not ever be altered, for any reason. While in Thailand I also saw monks going into 7-11 buying food and other items. What???? I don't think they get it....monks are not supposed to handle money! <....> #132521 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:46 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. ptaus1 Hi Thomas, Thanks for your reply. As far as I can see, you've again quoted the same passages from texts. That's fine of course - finding relevant passages is a good skill. However, it still leaves me confused as to what it is that you are actually trying to say, so I'll try and be more clear this time around. When you say that dhammas are not real, and say something like this to support it: > T: According to suttas (particularly the SN suttas), the five aggregates (khandhas) are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta). p: This doesn't explain anything to me because Sarah would use exactly the same words to explain why dhammas are real. I hope you see my difficulty - you are both using the same suttas and the same words to support two opposite conclusions about reality of dhammas. > T: Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) p: My difficulty here is that the context of this particular sutta is different from the issue whether dhammas are real or not. Basically, as I understand it, this sutta calls khandas void (rittaka) in order to refer to their characteristic of anatta. So, this sutta can't really be directly used to support the argument whether dhammas are real or not. If you're looking for an SN sutta where the context is more about whether things exist or not, then there's of course the Flower sutta - it is S.N. 22.94 - just one sutta before your 22.95 sutta, and it quite clearly says "Feeling...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree as existing, and I too say it exists." Notice that despite being anicca, etc, khandas are still said to exist. > T: By reality (or ultimate reality), it refers to 'paramattha' or 'paramattha dhamma' (See Abhidhammattha Sangaha, page 25; it refers to citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana).This term (reality, ultimate reality, paramattha, or paramattha dhamma) is simply not found in all suttas (particularly the SN suttas). Thus, the suttas do not record the Buddha as using the term for his teachings. p: As I've tried to explain before, this sort of argument makes no sense on this forum. But, as I too was once fascinated with the issue of early Buddhism, I understand why you want to stick to the alleged words of the Buddha as closely as possible. However, this is a Theravada forum, which basically means that everything the ancient Theras said in the tipitaka, commentaries and subcommentaries is basically considered Dhamma, regardless of whether it allegedly came directly from the Buddha's mouth or not. So, the fact that the Buddha allegedly never said "paramattha" does not make the term any less representative of Dhamma. Perhaps another way to put it would be to say that Dhamma is an immutable law that holds true no matter whether there's a Buddha around to voice it directly or not. So, to explain why you think dhammas are not real, you would need to explain how you understand the issue, without quoting the suttas, because we keep quoting the same suttas but understand them differently. To help with that, here's a basic run down of why I think dhammas are real, as opposed to ideas, which are not real (so, illusions): 1. dhammas are real because they can be known by wisdom (insight) to arise and fall in a conditioned manner, to have the nature of anatta, anicca and dukkha, and to be void, compounded and insubstantial. 2. ideas (concepts) are not real because they cannot be known by wisdom to arise and cease in a conditioned manner, ideas cannot be known to to have the nature of anatta, anicca, dukkha, and ideas cannot be known to be void, compounded and insubstantial. Hence, ideas are not real, and so, ideas are illusion, as far as wisdom is concerned. Now, when you say thaat dhammas are not real and are illusions, to me that means that you are essentially denying the possibility of insight, which essentially negates everything that the Buddha ever said. So, perhaps for starters you could explain how you see the difference between dhammas and ideas. Thanks Best wishes pt #132522 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada ptaus1 Hi Htoo, I'm having trouble following what you're saying, perhaps you could clarify: > > Sarah: > > Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? --- > Htoo: > Khandhas are to be realized as khandhas. Aayatanas are to be realized as aayatana. Dhaatus are to be realized as dhaatu. > ... > The Buddha did not say a word "paramattha dhamma". If this is the right word, very helpful word then the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". p: In Theravada, aren't ayatanas, dhatus, paramattha dhammas, etc, just different ways of classifying the same dhammas - khandas? I mean, do you think there's a difference between eye-sense as ayatana and eye-sense as paramattha dhamma? If so, what is the difference? > Htoo: If it would have been helpful to preach as "paramattha dhammas" the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". But the Buddha did not. Who will be better in preaching Dhamma? The Buddha or "paramatthologists". Perhaps its useful to remind you that you are on a Theravada forum. Basically, I find it insulting when ancient Theras are called names like "paramatthologists". It is those same Theras that actually preserved the suttas, the entire Tipitaka and an unbroken lineage throughout the millenia. It is fine to disagree, but not fine to insult. Please restrain in the future. Best wishes pt #132523 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. sukinderpal Hi Chuck, (Jagkrit and James), Most of those who become monks today, are likely to have difficulty maintaining just the 5 precepts. Had they any understanding and were honest, they would have therefore remained as laypersons to continue study the Dhamma. To have ordained instead and continue breaking the monastic rules, therefore reflects a foolish decision on their part, given that the akusala kamma is greater than had they remained a layperson. So what in fact is the kinder action, encouraging these monks to remain as monks regardless of whether they continue to break the monastic rules, or make them realize that they are not fit to become monks and that they should instead disrobe and live their lives as Lay Buddhists? Metta, Sukin > Good friends all, > > 1. Yes, all monks do not follow all of the Vinaya-pitaka... I know I > did not always the brief times I was a monk... it is not easy... I > always had something to confess... > > 2. May I suggest? Rather than condemn an erring young monk; why not do > "Loving kindness" meditation for these seemingly erring young monks. > > 3. What say you all perfectionists??? > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > > >From: buddhatrue@yahoo.com > > Hi Jagkrit, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , "jagkrit2012" > wrote: > > > JK: That's just a tip of the iceberg. If you stay longer, you will > fascinate how diversifying of Buddhism here, the country which 90% of > people are Buddhists. I think you haven't heard lately an extreme news > about a monk claiming that this is his last life. People believe his > attain supreme jhanna and enter arahatship. He gave a lot of > meditation sessions to public including well to do people who are so > generous to donate whatever beneficial to support his teaching, > believing that is devoting to Buddhism. Later on the monk owned > private jet !! Now he ran away to USA from arrest warrant of > embezzlement. > > > > James: Fascinating story! Well, I blame those people stupid enough to > give money to a monk! Monks are not supposed to receive cash donations > and monks are not even supposed to touch money! That was a big no-no > to the Buddha and I think that rule should not ever be altered, for > any reason. While in Thailand I also saw monks going into 7-11 buying > food and other items. What???? I don't think they get it....monks are > not supposed to handle money! > <....> > > #132524 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:05 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. thomaslaw03 Hi pt, --- "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > Thanks for your reply. As far as I can see, you've again quoted the same passages from texts. That's fine of course - finding relevant passages is a good skill. However, it still leaves me confused as to what it is that you are actually trying to say, so I'll try and be more clear this time around. > > When you say that dhammas are not real, and say something like this to support it: > > > T: According to suttas (particularly the SN suttas), the five aggregates (khandhas) are just 'dhammas' (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (not by own being) taught by the Buddha. They are compounded (sankhata), impermanent (anicca), having the nature of cessation (nirodhadhamma), not-self (anatta). > > p: This doesn't explain anything to me because Sarah would use exactly the same words to explain why dhammas are real. I hope you see my difficulty - you are both using the same suttas and the same words to support two opposite conclusions about reality of dhammas. > > > T: Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) > > p: My difficulty here is that the context of this particular sutta is different from the issue whether dhammas are real or not. Basically, as I understand it, this sutta calls khandas void (rittaka) in order to refer to their characteristic of anatta. So, this sutta can't really be directly used to support the argument whether dhammas are real or not. If you're looking for an SN sutta where the context is more about whether things exist or not, then there's of course the Flower sutta - it is S.N. 22.94 - just one sutta before your 22.95 sutta, and it quite clearly says "Feeling...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree as existing, and I too say it exists." Notice that despite being anicca, etc, khandas are still said to exist. > > > > T: By reality (or ultimate reality), it refers to 'paramattha' or 'paramattha dhamma' (See Abhidhammattha Sangaha, page 25; it refers to citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana).This term (reality, ultimate reality, paramattha, or paramattha dhamma) is simply not found in all suttas (particularly the SN suttas). Thus, the suttas do not record the Buddha as using the term for his teachings. > > p: As I've tried to explain before, this sort of argument makes no sense on this forum. But, as I too was once fascinated with the issue of early Buddhism, I understand why you want to stick to the alleged words of the Buddha as closely as possible. However, this is a Theravada forum, which basically means that everything the ancient Theras said in the tipitaka, commentaries and subcommentaries is basically considered Dhamma, regardless of whether it allegedly came directly from the Buddha's mouth or not. So, the fact that the Buddha allegedly never said "paramattha" does not make the term any less representative of Dhamma. Perhaps another way to put it would be to say that Dhamma is an immutable law that holds true no matter whether there's a Buddha around to voice it directly or not. > > So, to explain why you think dhammas are not real, you would need to explain how you understand the issue, without quoting the suttas, because we keep quoting the same suttas but understand them differently. To help with that, here's a basic run down of why I think dhammas are real, as opposed to ideas, which are not real (so, illusions): > > 1. dhammas are real because they can be known by wisdom (insight) to arise and fall in a conditioned manner, to have the nature of anatta, anicca and dukkha, and to be void, compounded and insubstantial. > > 2. ideas (concepts) are not real because they cannot be known by wisdom to arise and cease in a conditioned manner, ideas cannot be known to to have the nature of anatta, anicca, dukkha, and ideas cannot be known to be void, compounded and insubstantial. Hence, ideas are not real, and so, ideas are illusion, as far as wisdom is concerned. > > Now, when you say thaat dhammas are not real and are illusions, to me that means that you are essentially denying the possibility of insight, which essentially negates everything that the Buddha ever said. > > So, perhaps for starters you could explain how you see the difference between dhammas and ideas. Thanks > > Best wishes > pt > Having carefully read your explanations and arguments, I have to say that you are making it up for both your own Dhamma and Theravada Dhamma, without any Pali suttas needed to support them. But this is certainly your religious faith here. Good on you. Regards, Thomas #132525 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:24 pm Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. ptaus1 Hi Thomas, > T: Having carefully read your explanations and arguments, I have to say that you are making it up for both your own Dhamma and Theravada Dhamma, without any Pali suttas needed to support them. But this is certainly your religious faith here. Good on you. p: Thanks for your brief response. Perhaps you could at least say a bit on how you understand the Flowers sutta SN 22.94, since it seems to indicate quite clearly that khandas do exist, despite the fact that they are void (rittaka), insubstantial, etc. Thanks From the previous post: S.N. 22.94: "Feeling... Perception... Volitional formations... Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree as existing, and I too say it exists." Best wishes pt #132526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. nilovg Dear Jagkrit and friends, English session alive on Saturday, part 2. Q: T.A.: She explained that she is teaching just because of conditions. She would rather listen than talk. T.A.: Questioner: T.A.Pointing to a thing: (N: When we take it for a thing that really exists there is wrong view.) T.A. --------- Nina. #132527 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:03 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: Hi Htoo, > It is the effort that leads to fire from these sticks. 7 years rubbing there is fire. Say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year there is fire. >... > Lay people alternate meditation with daily-akusala life and sex. This is not rubbing continuously. > > If rubbing continuously there will be fire (path-consciousness). I haven't really found the above to be true in practice. At the moment, I think that development of understanding is the only thing that has direct correlation to improvement in meditation. The rest - effort, mindfulness, etc, fall into place as well. But, effort alone, no matter how much time is dedicated, how strictly the precepts are observed, etc, does not seem to help. But those are just my observations. Best wishes pt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear pt, Assume the study (theoretically) is finished. All parts in NEP are important. Even though 8 parts there are more cetasikas than 8. 8 parts are named as magga`ngas. But all other associated cetasikas are also important. I some time directed to effort. Some time to concentration. All active DSGs concentrate on understanding. That is why someone now active at DSG said 'N1P' and nore more N8P in DSG. Cetanaa (volition) is the leader in sa`nkhaarakkhandhaa of NEP. Without it there will not even be citta. Cetanaa is kamma. At the very present time it is sahajaata-kamma and from then on it becomes naanaakha.nika-kamma. Kamma is doing. Without this doing there is nothing. Sa~n~naa is also important. Manasikaara is also important. Almost all the time this manisikaara has to be associated with pa~n~nindriya (panna). If this happens this manisikaara will be assumed as panna. Yoniso-manasikaara is the cause of arising of kusala. Here the term manasikaara is not cetasika one but it referred to pa~n~nindria cetasika. There are many cetasikas that come in tipi.taka with other names. Ekaggataa is important and if it is right one it becomes samma-samaadhi. Without this there is no NEP. Vitakka is also important. It performs the function of sammaa-sa`nkappa. This vitakka is enforced with vicaara. Piiti is also important. It comes in the form of piiti-sambojjha`nga. Without this there is no arising of bodhi-~naa.na. Again piiti is also a jhaana factor. Viriya works as sammaa-vaayama in NEP. Firemaker-simile is such kind of viriya. I did not mean "viriya alone helps to arise NEP but without such viriya of firemaker NEP will never arise especially in these days,2000 years after the Buddha's parinibbaana. Chanda is also important. When it works to the most it becomes chandiddhipaada and chandaadhipati. This adhipati conquors lobha. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132528 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:04 pm Subject: a correction nilovg Dear friends, A correction: The English session in the foundation is on Saturday afternoon. ----- Nina. #132529 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:54 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator KenH, all, >KH: The texts describe samatha and vipassana. Unfortunately, Alex, >you can only see modern-day, conventional versions of samatha and >vipassana. You can't see how they could be momentary conditioned >realities – very similar to realities that are arising now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Vissudhimagga a modern day teaching of conventional activities? No. >KH: The Middle Way is a unique kind of program. It is followed in a >single moment, before anyone can "do" anything. So program might not >be the best word for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does VsM say so? >KH:I am sure there are many Buddhist meditation teachers who are not >*knowingly* misleading and exploiting their students. But that is the >end result. They are the blind leading the blind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about VsM? Is it according to you misleading people? It does talk about conventional activities. Alex #132530 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the khandhas are realities. nilovg Dear Thomas, Op 16 aug 2013, om 05:15 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see > The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). ------ N: Void, I read this as void of the self. I think of Middle Length Sayings the chapter on void, where this is explained. I do not see this as void of reality. As pt said, we read suttas differently, understand them differently. When we want to understand the meaning of a word, such as su~n~natta, I think that cross references through the whole of the Pi.taka are helpful. ------ Nina. #132531 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > > JK: I think your comment of "Anything that uses these two techniques (samma-sati and samma-samadhi) is "Meditation" is not in any Buddha teaching as far as I know. > James: Of course not, the word "meditation" is a modern word and there isn't a Pali equivalent as far as I know. Only we in the modern world think of meditation as something "special" and "unique", in the Buddha's time it was considered everyday behavior (but that doesn't mean it is "everyday behavior"). JK: Yes, meditation is invented word different from samadhi. In the Lord Buddha time, samadhi was considered as usual for those people. In fact samadhi arises with every citta in different degrees from short momentary to deep stage. The Lord Buddha kindly gave instruction of how samma-samadhi could be understood and what was proximate cause of samma-samadhi. It is totally different from modern meditation which people misunderstand that it is special and unique and think that only through meditation one can attain wisdom? ================= > > > James: The samatha/vipassana distinction that you raise is a false dichotomy and a modern invention. > > JK: I have to disagree because sammatha (meditation) was practiced long before Buddha time. > James: Now wait a minute, you just criticized me because I said something not in the Buddha's teaching, and now you are making a strong claim about something even before the Buddha was born! JK: Sorry ! I'm no intention to criticize you. But my point of view is different from what I've learnt. I try to map something out from history. ================== > James: Unless you were personally around before the Buddha was born (a vampire perhaps? :-)) you cannot be sure what type of meditation ascetics practiced then. The written records are non-existent or scant at best. JK: I love vampire diary (the series) but I was not Stephan. You're right I can not be definitely sure about it. But Tipitaka showed that 2 jhanna teachers of the Lord Buddha had passed away to arupabramma plane in vain because the Lord Buddha could in time teach them vipassana. We can learn from history, can we not? ================ > And vipassana is the Lord Buddha teaching to attain enlightenment. > James: No it isn't!! The idea of "vipassana" was first introduced in the Vism. by Buddhaghosa when he suggested the existence of "dry-insight workers". This assertion has absolutely no proof whatsoever in the Buddha's suttas. JK: Vipassana is actually 8 fold paths. I think you don't deny this. And if you don't except Vism, we do have to discuss about sukkavipassaka arahant. ================= > > >James: There are no two such meditation techniques because they really cannot be separated in that way. JK: No problem about separation, but what's the right understanding of meditation is a problem. ==================== > > JK: Can you give me some example of samma-sati and samma-samadhi? > James: Google the Noble Eightfold Path. JK: Thanks a lot ====================== > > > James: Maras are invisible. No one can "see" Maras with the naked eye because they are from a higher dimension. The only way to "see" a Mara is through psychic vision using the third eye. That is why Maras are so tricky and dangerous- they can influence your thoughts but you never see them. > > JK: Can you give some example that Mara influence our thoughts? > James: The only clear example I can think of right now is how Mara convinced a lot of monks of the Sangha to commit suicide while the Buddha was absent. Most of the time Mara wasn't successful with the Sangha- but was constantly trying. There is no reason to assume Mara would give up in today's age. After all, Mara could be the one responsible for that monk you told me about- the one buying a private jet and flying to America. JK: Yes, maybe your assumption is right. Thank you Jagkrit #132532 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >First it is usually said that one should sit down erect, fold the >legs, etc. I can't even do that, my back's crap, so it's immediate >fail for me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have poor knees and can't sit on the floor. I found that adjusting the height of cushions and sitting on soft bed helps to sit without pain. I wonder if it is possible for you to adjust how high you sit, on what you sit and few other variables to sit without pain. >But let's hope the guys here at dsg are correct that the posture >doesn't really matter and keep going in whatever posture. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately in some way it does matter as I found in my experience. If I lie down, I tend to fall asleep. Standing and walking doesn't allow to go deep enough as you have to put some attention not to walk into something or not to fall down if you are standing. As for your failure. What about other people whose mindfulness and/or concentration increased during the retreats? Maybe you are doing something wrong? It still seems reasonable to me that skill in meditation might be like skill in any other endevour (like playing piano, etc). You don't go from zero to Mozart in two moments. Rather it is a slow progress from zero to a little bit, to being like Mozart (or whatever). >a) How does a moment with mindfulness differ from a moment without >it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One moment you are aware of "realities" another moment you are not. Or sometimes for example when I am mindless and walk up the stairs, I might not even know that I am walking up the stairs. When I am mindful, I know that I am walking up the stairs when I am walking up the stairs. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #132533 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:34 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. dhammasaro Good friend Sukin, et al 1. Thank you for your stern and thoughtful comments. In an ideal world, I would agree; however, we do not live in an ideal world. Hence, I do not agree with your premise. 2. Instead, why not do a brief review of the Vinaya-pitaka? For instance, what actions require confession and what actions require confession plus forfeiture? For example, what is the rule on urinating? Is that something very important? Should it be confessed? Why? 3. In Thailand, it is common practice for men to be a monk for a short time. Many parents look favorably on such a prospective son-in-law. I am not Thai; but, did ordain at Wat Thai Washington DC (in USA) [disrobed because of mother's illness] and some many years later at Wat Bowonniwet Vihara Rajavaravihara (Bangkok, Thailand). [disrobed because of family problems] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Bowonniwet http://www.dhammathai.org/e/meditation/page7.php 4. Again, thank you. I shall respond further you think it will be meaningful. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #132534 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear Khun Sukin and friends >S: Most of those who become monks today, are likely to have difficulty > maintaining just the 5 precepts. Had they any understanding and were > honest, they would have therefore remained as laypersons to continue > study the Dhamma. To have ordained instead and continue breaking the > monastic rules, therefore reflects a foolish decision on their part, > given that the akusala kamma is greater than had they remained a layperson. JK: I totally agree with you that within nowadays environment it is difficult to maintain all monk precepts. There are not many monasteries which strictly apply firm ancient precepts with right understanding that all precepts are for eradicating kilesa. And it is true that breaking precepts during the ordainment causes severe result of akusala kamma than as a layperson. Once parents whose son is old enough to get ordain ask whether it is good to have their son get ordained? They got reply that if they don't want their son go to hell, don't ! ================ >S: So what in fact is the kinder action, encouraging these monks to remain > as monks regardless of whether they continue to break the monastic > rules, or make them realize that they are not fit to become monks and > that they should instead disrobe and live their lives as Lay Buddhists? JK: To speak the truth about bad result of violating monk precepts is loving kindness. Anumodhana Jagkrit #132535 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:58 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas epsteinrob Hi pt and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Pt, all, > > >First it is usually said that one should sit down erect, fold the >legs, etc. I can't even do that, my back's crap, so it's immediate >fail for me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I have poor knees and can't sit on the floor. I found that adjusting the height of cushions and sitting on soft bed helps to sit without pain. I wonder if it is possible for you to adjust how high you sit, on what you sit and few other variables to sit without pain. > > > >But let's hope the guys here at dsg are correct that the posture >doesn't really matter and keep going in whatever posture. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Unfortunately in some way it does matter as I found in my experience. > If I lie down, I tend to fall asleep. Standing and walking doesn't allow to go deep enough as you have to put some attention not to walk into something or not to fall down if you are standing. Sitting cross-legged seems to have some good elements in terms of stability and focus, but it is perfectly fine to sit on a chair with straight legs and feet on the floor if that is needed. It is also possible to meditate lying down. If you fall asleep, you probably need the sleep. Eventually though, that stops. Just re-set and do it again until you stop falling asleep. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #132536 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:48 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, RobertE, all, > > > >S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional >practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk >about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional >expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and >cetasikas? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If the suttas tell to do something using conventional speech, then I think it is wrong to try to go into conceptually created "ultimate" reality and twist the sutta to mean precisely what it doesn't mean. > > It is sophism to make the sutta mean opposite of what it actually says. Alex, I agree that the Buddha instructed us to do certain kinds of actions and practices in order to promote the path, and that it is an intellectual trick in a way to say "that's not what he really meant, because there are only dhammas." I think it highlights the fact that there is more than one way to look at dhammas, even if we agree that life is a series of moments that arise one at a time, and that each one has a certain reality to it before it falls away. The dsg philosophy appears to be that since there are no people to "do" anything, and since there are only dhammas, no conventional activities, then we should refrain from doing anything that appears to be a conventional activity vis a vis the path. Why? Because to do so would promote the idea of a self that can do something, which is the opposite of the understanding that there are "only dhammas." I think there is another way of looking at it, which is not considered by anyone holding the above view. I think it goes something like this: "If there are only dhammas, and no conventional activities, why refrain from doing anything? Why not instead do everything the Buddha prescribed and realize that in doing so, there are only cetanas and other cetasikas arising, accompanied by the rupas and other cittas and mental factors that they condition to arise?" In doing so, one will come to realize that the "activities" being done are really series of arising rupas and namas, and then will eventually realize that there is no one doing these things, but that they arise through conditions. But that doesn't mean that those series of namas and rupas that make up those activities are "not to be done." The opposite is the case. I think the main problems that keep people from understanding this way of looking at dhammas are: a - that dhammas should be mainly looked at as isolated events that have no relation to each other; and b - that dhammas are totally separate from conventional activities, in "another reality" and thus activities have no relation to reality at all, but are basically 3-D hallucinations on the part of citta. The Abhidhamma Sangaha does *not* agree with this. Instead, it describes our conventional conceptual experience of reality as a "shadow" or distorted image of the realities that are really taking place. I think this distinction is absolutely critical. Those who have a radical view of dhammas and see them separately from conventional life have exaggerated the separateness of dhammas from conventional forms. Instead of seeing those forms as distortions, they see them as hallucinations made out of whole cloth. They ardently deny that conventional activities and objects "break down into dhammas" and that dhammas are a more complete understanding of how objects exist. Instead they say that objects do not exist at all, and that there are only dhammas which are of a wholly separate type. I think this is a terrible mistake. It turns those who think this into the Buddhist equivalent of Platonists or Gnostics, who see no relation between life and "ultimate reality," but see the ultimate as an ideal reality separate from everything we experience. This also leads to the idea that meditation, alms-giving, refraining from killing, etc., are not really important precepts of Buddhism, but just code for kusala or akusala dhammas arising and so we don't have to worry about such conventional operations. If we were to understand that conventional life was a distortion of reality, not a hallucination, and that objects and activities do exist, but they exist as series of arising dhammas, not as stable, fixed realities, we would then understand how to meditate, give alms, refrain from killing, etc., but see them as dhammas as our perception became more clear, and eventually our view of all of these things that were indeed promoted by the Buddha would be seen as he saw them -- kusala or akusala dhammas, we would see them broken down into impersonal kandhas. Rather than being wholly separate, or impervious to our efforts, the right kinds of cetana can begin to penetrate what we are already doing and what we go ahead and practice as sati sampajanna develops and satipatthana becomes more accessible to citta. I think it's a much better, much more practical way to look at dhammas, that actually does service to everything the Buddha said. No longer do we have to do convoluted yogas of "twists and turns" and parsing and distorting the words of the Buddha in order to force them to make sense to a polarized philosophy that denies his worldly teaching for his teaching about the world of dhammas. They are in fact a continuum that can be followed and practiced. When we look at dhammas as isolated events, this also contradicts the word of the Buddha, for he talked about many many things as continued, sustained realities that took place over many many moments in which many dhammas arise and fall away. If you look at his contention that he can go into jhana at any time and enjoy this refined state while walking, sitting, etc., clearly this attainment is not one that arises in a single moment, but takes place over as many sustained moments as "he" would like, so we cannot say that the Buddha's teaching applies only to a "single-moment reality." Most of the teachings are about sustained experiences over time, and it is by understanding the single dhamma's reality and the conditions that lead to it, how it passes accumulations and states, etc., that we understand these larger units, which are included in the stages of insight. Single-dhamma addiction can be a very dangerous thing for the path. It is as if we taught that we can only talk about single letters of the alphabet, and never talk about how they are combined to form words. Such a philosophy could never make sense. It takes the smallest unit, and turns it into a god, which it is not. To understand the dynamics of a single dhamma is important, to see how citta arises in response to a sense moment or a thought-moment etc. and what kinds of cetasikas may accompany such a moment, and how they function. But then we also have to take the blinders off and look at what these moments add up to in series and sequences, something that is hated and despised in some quarters around here, among those who want to stay in the comfy compartment of the single dhamma forever. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #132537 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:14 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi RobertE, Pt, all, >RE:Alex, I agree that the Buddha instructed us to do certain kinds of >actions and practices in order to promote the path, and that it is an >intellectual trick in a way to say "that's not what he really meant, >because there are only dhammas." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is intentional or unintentional sophism to take a sutta framed in conventional speech, turn it into "ultimate speech", and then use certain interpretation of ultimate speech to make the sutta mean OPPOSITE of what it actually says. It also is insulting to compilers to assume that they couldn't frame the sutta correctly to mean what it means thus deluding followers and commentators for 2,500 years. Paramattha sacca doesn't even refute practice. Mahasi Sayadaw is heavy into Abhidhamma and yet taught a very rigorous practice. So if the venerable who "was a questioner and final editor at the Sixth Buddhist Council on May 17, 1954" . I hate to argue from authority, but take this or that Acharn who teaches that paramatthasacca means "no practice" and compare backgrounds. :) >RE:..."If there are only dhammas, and no conventional >activities, >why refrain from doing anything? Why not instead do >everything the >Buddha prescribed... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good point! Also let us not forget "emergent property". This totally wrecks the entire "chariot simile". And while a whole is made of parts, it is NOT reducible them. So with this in mind, how can we say that a person is reducible to citta/cetasika/rupa ? With best wishes, Alex #132538 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi Alex (and Htoo), ---- >KH: The texts describe samatha and vipassana. Unfortunately, Alex, >you can only see modern-day, conventional versions of samatha and >vipassana. You can't see how they could be momentary conditioned >realities – very similar to realities that are arising now. >> > A: Is Vissudhimagga a modern day teaching of conventional activities? > No. -------- KH: No, it isn't. But wrong-view demands belief in a controlling, permanent soul. Therefore, when presented with the Dhamma, wrong-view insists on misinterpreting it. I am not talking about you, Alex, or about any of the other meditating Buddhists; I am talking about wrong view, the cetasika. -------------- >> KH: The Middle Way is a unique kind of program. It is followed in a single moment, before anyone can "do" anything. So program might not >be the best word for it. >> > A: Where does VsM say so? -------------- KH: Yes, the Vsm makes it perfectly clear, but only when it is read without wrong view. --------------------- <. . .> > A: What about VsM? Is it according to you misleading people? It does talk about conventional activities. --------------------- KH: When it is read with wrong view it misleads people. But that is an acceptable risk. And I wouldn't want to ban the Vsm simply because some people will read it with wrong view. :-) There is something I would like to ban – if I had the power – and that is willful, dangerous, exploitative deception. I would like to ban meditation gurus from exploiting mentally deficient people. There is no point is banning ordinary religious rituals, such as a few minutes daily meditation. But you and Htoo were telling people to meditate non-stop for at least seven days, and then to continue meditating until arahantship was reached! Surely that was a recipe for mental illness. I'm sorry if my reaction to your and Htoo's meditation instructions seemed excessive. However, I would like to save people from seriously dangerous misinformation. Ken H #132539 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:28 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: No, it isn't. But wrong-view demands belief in a controlling, >permanent soul. Therefore, when presented with the Dhamma, wrong-view >insists on misinterpreting it. > >I am not talking about you, Alex, or about any of the other meditating Buddhists; I am talking about wrong view, the cetasika. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who here believes in "controlling, permanent soul"? I don't, and it is not part of my posts, so you can't use that against what I write. >KH: Yes, the Vsm makes it perfectly clear, but only when it is read >without wrong view. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VsM makes perfectly clear about choosing the right place, right kammatthana, going to a senior bhikkhu for more details and doing it. > > KH: When it is read with wrong view it misleads people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong view is not reading what it says... Commentary is supposed to explain in greater detail, and it does explain what to do and how to behave. >There is something I would like to ban – if I had the power – and >that is willful, dangerous, exploitative deception. I would like to >ban meditation gurus from exploiting mentally deficient people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also don't approve of gurus and teachers from exploiting people. > There is no point is banning ordinary religious rituals, such as a few minutes daily meditation. But you and Htoo were telling people to meditate non-stop for at least seven days, and then to continue meditating until arahantship was reached! Surely that was a recipe for >mental illness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Normal worldly state of mind is "deranged" from the POV of aryans. Kamatthana if done properly, and of right type (VsM lists 40) can eventually cure it. ///////// Alex #132540 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:42 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, part 2 >1.I believed that mindfulness will increase in direct correlation to >the amount of time I spend on meditation per day. This didn't happen. >Fail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I read that "I've meditated for X amount of years and no results", I wonder: Did a person meditate properly and long enough? Maybe if one meditated longer the results would come. Maybe current lack of mindfulness is due to some kamma obstruction that can clear up soon? Rome wasn't built in a day... Sometimes initial states could be negative until a certain breakthrough occurs and mindfulness starts to noticeably develop. "Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling, having gained no peace of awareness, my thoughts out of control. So I went to a trustworthy nun. She taught me the Dhamma: aggregates, sense spheres, & elements. Hearing the Dhamma, I did as she said. For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.03.02.than.html Even though this Bhikkhuni experiences lots of inner turmoil, it didn't prevent her from sitting in one spot for seven days (rapture & bliss can suggest jhana) and attaining Arhatship on the 8th day. Of course this is harder then meditating for few hours every day for 20 years.... But sometimes intensity pays off. Right? With best wishes, Alex #132541 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How to control your anger! philofillet Dear group An interesting post on controlling anger. I highlight one part: >>>> So 'controlling anger' is not really a prerequisite to developing insight. Of course, we would all like to control our anger, but if we consider more deeply what the Buddha said we may come to the conclusion that this is a mission impossible for all but the already enlightened. Ph: It's good to remember that the Buddha taught that we (ignorany worldlings) know no way away from dosa except through lobha. The point of the Dhamma is not to have pleasant mental states. It is to understand, with detachment. Please enjoy the rest of the post as well. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Nitesh > > kanchaa wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Please suggest me how do you control your anger.... If there is > > someone that you cant get rid of and is contiously bothering you, how > > do you deal with it? How can you practice dhamma.. > > > > You ask about practising dhamma while still having strong anger. > > I think if you look into the texts, you'll find that anger is no bar to > the development of insight. Below are a couple of extracts from the > Satipatthana Sutta (M.10) (the sutta I mentioned in a recent post to > you). It's obvious from these that the person developing insight > described there does so despite the continued arising of anger. > > So 'controlling anger' is not really a prerequisite to developing > insight. Of course, we would all like to control our anger, but if we > consider more deeply what the Buddha said we may come to the conclusion > that this is a mission impossible for all but the already enlightened. > > Jon > > From 'The Way of Mindfulness -- The Satipatthana Sutta and Its > Commentary' by Soma Thera > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > 3. The Contemplation of Consciousness > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in > consciousness? > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands > the consciousness with lust, as with lust; > the consciousness without lust, as without lust; > the consciousness with hate, as with hate; ... without hate, as without > hate; > the consciousness with ignorance, as with ignorance; ... without > ignorance, as without ignorance; ... > "Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating consciousness > in consciousness." > > 4. The Contemplation on Mental Objects > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects > in mental objects? > > (i) The Five Hindrances > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in > the mental objects of the five hindrances. > "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in > the mental objects of the five hindrances? > "Here, O bhikkhus, > [1] when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I > have sensuality,' or when sensuality is not present, he knows with > understanding: 'I have no sensuality.' He understands how the arising of > the non-arisen sensuality comes to be; he understands how the abandoning > of the arisen sensuality comes to be; and he understands how the > non-arising in the future of the abandoned sensuality comes to be. > [2] When anger is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger,' > or when anger is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no > anger.' He understands how the arising of the non-arisen anger comes to > be; he understands how the abandoning of the arisen anger comes to be; > and he understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned > anger comes to be. ... > "Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating mental object > in the mental objects of the five hindrances." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > #132542 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:43 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Vipassanaa_033 (DT 920 ) dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may; a light and slight correction: 1. The Vinaya-pitaka is more than the Patimokkha. [Quote] This volume is the first in a two volume book that attempts to give an organized, detailed account of the Vinaya training rules and the traditions that have grown up around them. The Patimokkha training rules as explained in the Sutta Vibhanga are the topic of the first volume; the rules found in the Khandhakas, the topic of the second. The book as a whole is aimed primarily at those whose lives are affected by the rules: bhikkhus who live by them, and other people who have dealings with the bhikkhus so that they will be able to find gathered in one location as much essential information as possible on just what the rules do and do not entail. Students of Early Buddhism, Theravadin history, or contemporary Theravadin issues should also find this book interesting, as should anyone who is serious about the practice of the Dhamma and wants to see how the Buddha worked out the ramifications of Dhamma practice in daily life. [End quote] 2. More on the Vinaya-pitaka: [Quote] The Buddhist Monastic Code II: The Khandhaka Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu The Khandhakas — literally, "Collections" — form the second major portion of the Vinaya Piá¹­aka, following the Sutta Vibhaá¹…ga and preceding the ParivÄra. There are 22 Khandhakas in all, divided into two groups: the MahÄvagga (Mv.), or Great Chapter, composed of ten Khandhakas; and the Cullavagga (Cv.), or Lesser Chapter, composed of twelve. Each Khandhaka is loosely organized around a major topic, with minor topics inserted in a fairly haphazard fashion. [End quote] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2/bmc2.intro.html#intro yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #132543 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:32 am Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > JK: Yes, meditation is invented word different from samadhi. In the Lord Buddha time, samadhi was considered as usual for those people. In fact samadhi arises with every citta in different degrees from short momentary to deep stage. The Lord Buddha kindly gave instruction of how samma-samadhi could be understood and what was proximate cause of samma-samadhi. It is totally different from modern meditation which people misunderstand that it is special and unique and think that only through meditation one can attain wisdom? > James: Don't go overboard...what I meant is that in the modern word "meditation" is used for those who physically sit on the ground with legs crossed, back erect, hands in lap, and eyes closed. It is said that they are "meditating" because people rarely do that in today's world of chairs and furniture. However, in the Buddha's time, ascetics spent most of the day doing that, and most everyone else also sat on the floor, so there was no need for a special word to differentiate that behavior. Actually, today if you have someone walking, standing, or lying down and call that "meditation", there will be a discordance in people's minds because "meditation" traditionally means sitting on the ground. This is just a semantic issue, it has nothing whatsoever to do with cittas, samadhi, or any of that other stuff you bring up. Also, it doesn't prove anything about the value or non-value of sitting meditation. > > JK: I love vampire diary (the series) but I was not Stephan. James: :-)) I like True Blood more. :-) You're right I can not be definitely sure about it. But Tipitaka showed that 2 jhanna teachers of the Lord Buddha had passed away to arupabramma plane in vain because the Lord Buddha could in time teach them vipassana. We can learn from history, can we not? > James: Okay, this gets a bit complicated. Those two teachers of the Buddha had achieved the immaterial jhanas. The immaterial jhanas are jhanas which take the immaterial planes of existence as an object of concentration. They are also absent of feeling and cannot, therefore, properly be called "samatha". So, again, they take an object of concentration which is outside of one's body and mind. This is completely different from what the Buddha taught because he taught to take the body and mind as object of concentration, or other material objects such as color kasinas. What the Buddha taught was unique and special and no one else was practicing it in India before or during his time (or they would have become enlightened). What many people get hung up on is again that word "jhana". They think that the Four Jhanas and the Immaterial Jhanas must be the same because they are both called jhana. But they are quite different from each other and the results are quite different. > > JK: Vipassana is actually 8 fold paths. I think you don't deny this. And if you don't except Vism, we do have to discuss about sukkavipassaka arahant. > James: I just googled sukkavipassaka arahant and the information states that it is an arahant who has achieved one of the four jhanas as a basis for insight. Jhana is still involved, not just samma-sati. Metta, James #132544 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:34 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas kenhowardau Hi KenH, all, --------- >KH:<. . .> wrong-view demands belief in a controlling, permanent soul. <. . .>. >> > A: Who here believes in "controlling, permanent soul"? I don't, and it is not part of my posts, so you can't use that against what I write. --------- KH: Thank you for the good question. I think we both agree the texts refer to belief in a permanent soul. According to my understanding of those texts 'permanent' means non-momentary. You might argue that a person (for example) who lives for 100 years is neither momentary nor permanent. But I would disagree. I would say belief in the real existence of such a person was belief in a permanent soul. There are *no* non-momentary realities (apart from Nibbana). Therefore, belief in a reality that lasts 100 years is exactly the same (equally as wrong) as belief in a reality that lasts for just a little bit more than a moment. Thanks for the other questions and comments too, of course. They are good to answer, but they are always answered several times every day at DSG. Some people refuse to listen, and continue to ask the same questions, but that's fine. It is all good practice. One day we will have something serious to test us (like a terminal illness) and then we will be thankful for all the practice we have had at seeing through other (lesser) irritations. Ultimately, right now, there are only dhammas. That's the way the world always has been and always will be. Ken H #132545 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:50 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas philofillet Hi Ken H, group There are *no* non-momentary realities (apart from Nibbana). Therefore, belief in a reality that lasts 100 years is exactly the same (equally as wrong) as belief in a reality that lasts for just a little bit more than a moment. Good point, never thought of that. I guess this can help us in our understanding of nimitta...Does this confirm that nimitta is a concept, or is nimitta an exception? Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > #132546 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:54 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas philofillet --- Dear group again Probably was clear, but to clarify: >> There are *no* non-momentary realities (apart from Nibbana). Therefore, belief > in a reality that lasts 100 years is exactly the same (equally as wrong) as > belief in a reality that lasts for just a little bit more than a moment. >Good point, never thought of that. I guess this can help us in our understanding of nimitta...Does this confirm that nimitta is a concept, or is nimitta an exception? Phil > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > #132547 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:34 am Subject: Re: the khandhas are realities. thomaslaw03 Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Thomas, > Op 16 aug 2013, om 05:15 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven: > > > Also, according to the Pali SN 22.95 (PTS SN iii, pp. 140-143), it reports the Buddha as teaching that the five aggregates (khandhas) are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka) (see > > The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 54; and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 951). > ------ > N: Void, I read this as void of the self. I think of Middle Length Sayings the chapter on void, where this is explained. I do not see this as void of reality. As pt said, we read suttas differently, understand them differently. > When we want to understand the meaning of a word, such as su~n~natta, I think that cross references through the whole of the Pi.taka are helpful. > ------ The Pali term for void/without reality is rittaka. It is just without reality/void. The term should be understood together with the next two terms, tucchaka (insubstantial) and asaaraka (lacking essence) (See also PTS, Pali-English Dictionary, p. 571). Thomas #132548 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:40 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Dear group again > > Probably was clear, but to clarify: > > > >> There are *no* non-momentary realities (apart from Nibbana). Therefore, belief > > in a reality that lasts 100 years is exactly the same (equally as wrong) as > > belief in a reality that lasts for just a little bit more than a moment. > > >Good point, never thought of that. I guess this can help us in our understanding of nimitta...Does this confirm that nimitta is a concept, or is nimitta an exception? Here is an excerpt of a 2011 post from Nina on Abhidhamma.org that addresses your question, and in which she quotes K. Sujin on this question as well: "When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: "These are only words. If we use the word concept there is something that is experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to use any term." "She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right now. She said: "It is this moment." Visible object impinges on the eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the impression or sign, nimitta of visible object. "It seems that visible object lasts for a while, but in reality it arises and falls away. Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that is swung around. In this way, we have the impression of a whole, of a circle of light. "We know that seeing arises at this moment, but we cannot pinpoint the citta which sees, it arises and falls away very rapidly and another moment of seeing arises. We only experience the "sign" of seeing. The notion of nimitta can remind us that not just one moment of seeing appears, but many moments that are arising and falling away. Also visible object is not as solid as we would think, there are many moments arising and falling away which leave the sign or impression of visible object. "Visible object that was experienced by cittas of a sense-door process has fallen away; sense-door processes and mind-door processes of cittas alternate very rapidly. Visible object impinges again and again and seeing arises again and again. When their characteristics appear we cannot count the different units of rúpa or the cittas that see, they arise and fall away; the impression of what is seen and of the seeing appears. "Acharn Sujin said: "No matter whether we call it nimitta or not, it is appearing now. Whatever appears is the sign or nimitta of the dhamma that arises and falls away." We cling to what appears for a very short moment, but is does not remain. It is the same with saññå, there is not one moment of saññå that marks and remembers, but countless moments, arising and falling away. "Thus, we can speak of the nimitta of each of the five khandhas: of rúpa, of feeling, of saññå, of sankhårakkhandha, of consciousness. There are nimittas of all conditioned dhammas that appear at this moment, arising and falling away extremely rapidly. "Seeing arising at this moment sees visible object. We notice visible object and while we notice it, we have a vivid impression of it, but it has just fallen away. Seeing falls away but extremely shortly after it has fallen away another moment of seeing arises that experiences visible object. It arises again and again and in between one notices that there is seeing, or, if there are the right conditions a citta with sati can arise that is mindful of its characteristic. However, mindfulness of seeing arises after seeing has fallen away, not at the same time as seeing. > " --- The full post is at this link: http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=365 Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #132549 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Here is an excerpt of a 2011 post from Nina on Abhidhamma.org that addresses your question, and in which she quotes K. Sujin on this question as well: > > "When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) > of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: "These are only > words. If we use the word concept there is something that is > experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but > understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely > one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising > and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to > use any term." ... S: This was from a post of Nina's and a long discussion with Alex which can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118879 Also, lots more to be found on nimitta in 'Useful Posts' under 'nimitta'. Metta Sarah ====== #132550 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: What do we love when we love? ( was Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > What do we love when we love? ... S: Our own pleasant feelings most of the time! ... > > Nothing complicated here. Whether beings have existence or not (I currently suspect they do) is not the point, the point is that we know, and love, and hate people only as concepts, through mind door thinking processes. I could sit in a cool still place and hold hands with my beloved one, and hold hands and hold hands, but still only loving the beloved one as he or she is (re)created by thought process, which include the thought processes of believing in their existence, as a being. We are always alone, cittas lost in thinking. ... S: Yes, alone with our own thoughts - lost in attachment and ignorance most of the day! Not a matter of changing anything - but of understanding life as it is! Metta Sarah ====== #132551 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:47 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sarahprocter... Dear Alex & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional >practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk >about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional >expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and >cetasikas? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If the suttas tell to do something using conventional speech, then I think it is wrong to try to go into conceptually created "ultimate" reality and twist the sutta to mean precisely what it doesn't mean. > > It is sophism to make the sutta mean opposite of what it actually says. > > If the Buddha wanted us not to do something, then why not just say it? > Why say opposite of what it really is supposed to say? ... S: I think that what the Buddha taught was all about life at this moment. What he did was indeed to take the conventional speech of the time and to 'twist' it, to turn the meaning upside down, to indicate that all the dearly held ideas at the time were an illusion, a perversion of thought. The same is true today: "These four, O Monks, are distortions of perception, distortions of thought distortions of view... Sensing no change in the changing, Sensing pleasure in suffering, Assuming "self" where there's no self, Sensing the un-lovely as lovely — Gone astray with wrong views, beings Mis-perceive with distorted minds. Bound in the bondage of Mara, Those people are far from safety. They're beings that go on flowing: Going again from death to birth. But when in the world of darkness Buddhas arise to make things bright, They present this profound teaching Which brings suffering to an end. When those with wisdom have heard this, They recuperate their right mind: They see change in what is changing, Suffering where there's suffering, "Non-self" in what is without self, They see the un-lovely as such. By this acceptance of right view, They overcome all suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html Metta Sarah ====== #132552 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Glad to read your discussion with Pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > As for those people who meditated for decades and are without much progress could be due to not applying samatha skills in daily life. I don't think that it is very helpful for most to attend few retreats, and meditate for only few hours every day. Maybe one should use the samatha skills ALL waking moments from waking to going asleep. Just like you can't heat a pot of water by switching it off all the time, same is here. ... S: Could you clarify what you mean by "samatha" and "samatha skills"? Could you then clarify what you mean by "one should use" as in "one should use samatha skills"? Thx in advance. Metta Sarah ===== #132553 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:04 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas philofillet Dear Rob E Thanks. I guess you weren't drinking the Kool Aid when you posted that. Or were you ^_^ Phil #132554 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, (Thomas, Chuck, Alex & all), [short answers without side-stepping appreciated for this discussion!) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > S: Do you agree that "when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Agree. Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada > are all about dhamma. .... S: Do you agree that hardness is khandhaa, aayatana or dhaatu? Do you agree that hardness is dhamma? Do you agree that when touching the keyboard or table, hardness is experienced? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Each reality is anatta." > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Do you mean " reality = anatta " ? ... S: Anatta is a characteristic of each reality. Do you agree that hardness is anatta? Do you agree that hardness has the characteristics of being anicca, dukkha and anatta? .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Is there anything in our discussion about khandhas (as quoted in the suttas we've been discussing) which is not in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > "not in accordance with...abhidhamma.."? Nikaayas do not say paramattha dhamma. ... S: Do you agree that both the Suttanta and Abhidhamma talk about "Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada are all about dhamma"? Do you agree that these are not just words but what is to be directly known by insight? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Khandhas are to be realized as khandhas. Aayatanas are to be realized as aayatana. Dhaatus are to be realized as dhaatu. Saccas are to be realized through a.t.tha`ngiko maggo. Pa.ticcasamuppaada is to be realized as causal relations between dhammas in simple way. ... S: Is hardness now a khandha? An ayatana? A dhatu? A paramattha dhamma? If not, why not? .. > The Buddha did not say a word "paramattha dhamma". If this is the right word, very helpful word then the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". ... S: Dhammas or paramattha dhammas, dhamma or abhidhamma - the same, all about seeing, visible object, bodily experience, hardness. ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? (This is for Thomas:-)) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > This will be left for Thomas as you indicated here. :-)) ... S: I'm waiting for your reply so that Thomas can learn from it:-)) Let me ask you again - When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? If not, please say what these realities are that should be "really seen" which you referred to. Metta Sarah ======= #132555 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:22 pm Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > ... > > S: Yes, sati does arise without panna, but not in the examples you give with regard to being aware of the characteristic of hardness as a reality (which is what we were discussing.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I know. I did not say on 'characteristics'. I said 'sati without panna' can happen. ... S: yes, and you gave the following examples: >Htoo: I wrote "There can be awareness of hardness without panna." When hit by a stone, there is hardness. Hardness is known. Even by cats, dogs, foxes, wolves. >When hit, hardness is felt at the hit-point. When waddling ashore and getting on land there is hardness as compared to softness. >I understand that children, animals etc will not be aware the full characteristics of hardness. ... S: So it seems that you think there is sati whenever hardness is experienced, such as when animals are hit by stones, when touching land and so on. A few more qus (short answers please!) Can sati arise with body-consciousness at the moment that hardness is experienced? Can sati arise with cittas accompanied by attachment, aversion or ignorance? When sati accompanies cittas which experience hardness, what kind of cittas are they? Do they commonly arise when animals are hit by stones? Metta Sarah ======= #132556 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Third time was not there (The Text Abhidhamma) sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > S: As I understand, all sotapannas have purified adhisiila, all anagamis have purified adhicitta and all arahats have purified adhipa~n~naa (on account of eradicating all kilesa. > > The degree of attainments of pa.tisambhidaa and sa.laabh~n~naa will vary, but adhisiila, adhicitta, and adhipa~n~naa in all cases. Clearly the pa~n~naa varies - no one has the pa~n~naa of the Buddha, for example - but still adhipa~n~naa in each case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Dear Sarah, there are all adhi's. Yes. But what I wrote is on the level of panna. > > 1. Sammaasambuddhas > 2. Paccekabuddhas > 3. Aggasaavakas > 4. Mahaasaavakas > 5. Pa.tisambhidaapatta arahats > 6. Cha.laabhi~n~na arahats > 7. Tevijja arahats > 8. Simple arahats > > This depends on faculty of understanding. Pa~n~nindriya. ... S: yes, but this is another side-step:-))) You were suggesting that not all arahats had developed adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa. I was pointing out that regardless of whether we're talking about a sammaasambuddha or a "simple arahat", adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa have been attained. The work is done. All defilements have been eradicated. There is no more becoming. Metta Sarah ====== > #132557 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon - hard to unwind the differences in emphases and interpretations of basic elements of Dhamma that occur in our conversations, but I guess that's what makes for a good dice game... > =============== J: Yes, and worth the effort, I think. OK, it's my throw :-)) > =============== > > J: If you are drawing a conclusion from a reading of the suttas as a whole, I can only say it must be a very selective reading :-)) > > RE: It probably is a selective readings, since I'm not amazingly well-read, to say the least. However, I am surprised if you doubt the idea that jhana was a very normal aspect of the monks' practice during the time of the Buddha, and has been a major element of monastic life in Buddhist monasteries all around the world ever since. Do you indeed doubt that this is so? > > The suttas that are directed to lay people are much less likely to assume a knoweldge or practice of jhana, but I still think it is fair to say -- if you doubt the "vast majority" idea -- that jhana was a normal and expected part of a monk's life. It doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned in every sutta, since the references to meditative concentration/jhana that *are* made mention it being a basic aspect of a monk's practice. > > I won't try to give a reference at the moment, but if you object to this characterization I will try to find something. > =============== J: Regarding "I am surprised if you doubt the idea that jhana was a very normal aspect of the monks' practice during the time of the Buddha, [etc.]", my point is that in discussing the true role of samatha in the development of the path, we should be guided by the *actual teaching given by the Buddha on the subject* and not by circumstantial matters such as how monks spent their time (let alone by things such as the number of people nowadays who see things a certain way!). Furthermore, you seem to be proceeding on the assumption that if jhana was widely attained in the Buddha's time, it means that jhana was essential to the development of the path. However the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. There is no reason at all why it should not be true: (a) on the one hand, that yes, many monks who lived in the Buddha's time were skilled at jhana and lived lives devoted to its development (in conjunction with the development of the path), and (b) on the other hand, that no, neither the development of awareness/insight nor the attainment of enlightenment, as taught by the Buddha, requires the prior attainment of mundane jhana. There is no inherent inconsistency between those 2 statements. Jhana is a high attainment of kusala, worthy of praise in its own right. What we need to determine is whether, *according to the Buddha's actual teaching as delivered to his listeners*, jhana is a prerequisite for the development of awareness/insight and eventually enlightenment. For these reasons, I don't see any purpose in discussing the relative numbers of persons who had attained mundane jhana before enlightenment. However, what we do know is that there were persons (like Upaali) who hadn't. I would really like our discussion to be concerned mostly with the teachings given by the Buddha to his listeners. Jon #132558 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:38 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: >H: This is from nidaana sa.myutta. This is from Sa.myutta nikaaya. Also in Diigha nikaaya there is mahaanidaana sutta.m. These are abhidhamma things. Unlike abhidhamma pi.taka these two nikaayas along with Majjhima nikaaya and A`nguttara nikaaya are "true teachings of the Buddha" and they were confirmed by 500 (analytical knowledge)Pa.tisambhidaapatta-Cha.laabhi~n~naa arahats. Confirmation was made by Aanandaa as "Eva.m me suta.m". ... S: Do you agree with what we read in the introduction to the Atthasaalinii, (PTS transl): "... 'Bhikkhus, learned is Mahaakaccaana, profoundly wise is Mahaakaccaana. If you had asked me the same question, I would have answered exactly as he has done.' Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word of the Buddha. And it is the same with the Suttas expounded by Aananda and others." S: Do you agree with the Buddha that what Mahaakacaana and other great disciples answered was "true teachings of the Buddha", Buddhavacana? If so, do you also agree with what we continue to read in the same text: >."Now when he laid down the table of contents he foresaw that, two hundred and eighteen years after his death, Tissa Moggalii's son, seated in the midst of one thousand bhikkhus, would elaborated the Kathaavatthu to the extent of the Diigha Nikaaya, bringing together five hundred orthodox and five hundred heterodox Suttas. "So Tissa, Moggalii's son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the Teacher. Hence the entire book became the word of the Buddha." S: And in case there's any dispute about what is meant above by "the whole suttanta", here's another quote from the same source referring to the reciting of the Abhidhamma at the First Council: "Thus at the time of the Rehearsal at the First Council, held by the five hundred, the company of the self-controlled who recited under the presidency of Mahaakassapa did so after previous determination: '[This is the Doctrine, this is the Vinaya], these are the first words, these the middle words, these the later words of the Buddha; this is the Vinaya-Pitaka, this the Suttanta-Pitaka, this the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, this the Diigha Nikaaya.....Khuddaka Nikaaya; these the nine parts, to wit, the Suttas, etc.; these the eightly-four thousand units of text.' And not only this: the various literary expedients appearing in the three Pi.takas such as the lists of contents (uddaana), chapters (vagga), elisions (peyyaala), sections (nipaata) of single, double subjects, etc., groups (sa.myutta), fifties (pa~n~naasa) - all this having been arranged, was rehearsed in seven months." **** Metta Sarah ====== #132559 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, (Thomas & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > S: Each khandha is so fleeting when it arises. They lead to all kinds of illusions of atta, but in reality, just transient dhammas arising and falling away, no atta to be found at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > What Thomas is referring is not about that. He is referring to 'reality'. It is not in Sa.myutta nikaaya. ... S: Is there seeing now? Is visible object experienced now? Do we read about these in Sa.myutta Nikaaya? When you refer to helping beginners "really see realities", what are you referring to if not these dhammas such as seeing and visible object, these khandhas as taught about throughout the SN? Metta Sarah ==== #132560 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: anattaa. sarahprocter... Dear Alex, > >S: So looking at your sentence above about Cuu.lapanthaka, we can >rephrase it in terms of dhammas and say that actually: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >A: We aren't supposed to take a "conventional" speech and rephrase it in such a way as to make the message be opposite of what it says. It is just twisting the words to make them mean the opposite of what the sutta says. This goes with all other sutta teachings as well. ... S: Whatever we read, it must be in accordance with the truth about dhammas as anatta: SN 41:3 (Isisdatta, Bodhi transl): " "But, venerable sir, how does identity view come to be?" "Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for the good persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self....perception..volitional formations....consciousness as self......It is in such a way that identity view comes to be." .... S: When there is he idea that a person really can perform deeds and follow instructions, it is atta-di.t.thi, the idea that self can possess or control rupas, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. There is no understanding of dhammas as conditioned and anatta. Metta Sarah ====== #132561 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:36 pm Subject: What do we love when we love? ( was Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada philofillet Dear Sarah and group > > > > Nothing complicated here. Whether beings have existence or not (I currently suspect they do) is not the point, the point is that we know, and love, and hate people only as concepts, through mind door thinking processes. I could sit in a cool still place and hold hands with my beloved one, and hold hands and hold hands, but still only loving the beloved one as he or she is (re)created by thought process, which include the thought processes of believing in their existence, as a being. We are always alone, cittas lost in thinking. > ... > S: Yes, alone with our own thoughts - lost in attachment and ignorance most of the day! > > Not a matter of changing anything - but of understanding life as it is! > Ph: Well said!! (Your part too, Sarah. (^_|)|™ Phil #132562 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:49 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Third time was not there (The Text Abhidhamma) dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may ask: On: S: yes, but this is another side-step:-))) You were suggesting that not all arahats had developed adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa. I was pointing out that regardless of whether we're talking about a sammaasambuddha or a "simple arahat", adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa have been attained. The work is done. All defilements have been eradicated. There is no more becoming. Metta Sarah ====== ................................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ...... If this question is too far afar; please ignore... Question: Do not most Arahants (Sanskrit: Arahats) have kamma (Sanskrit: karma) to eliminate before "no more becoming?"? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #132563 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:16 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Tranquility and Insight (3) dhammasaro Good friends all, If I may, A clarification: In accordance with the Vinaya-pitaka, monks (female/male) shall not declare before layperson(s) that they have attained the final knowledge of arahant (Sanskrit: arahat). Below the subject Sutta-pitaka: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #132564 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:04 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: I think that what the Buddha taught was all about life at this >moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And sometimes about past (previous lives) and future (results from akusala/kusala kamma). Some also claim that he talked about accumulations from the past. >S:What he did was indeed to take the conventional speech of the time >and to 'twist' it, to turn the meaning upside down, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When He did that, he said that He did so not to confuse anyone. >Sensing no change in the changing, To be precise, anicca means inconstancy/irregularity. It is not necessary simply a change. >Assuming "self" where there's no self, It talked about ancient Hindu metaphysical idea of Atman. Not necessarily a non-metaphysical self, or puggala which Buddha didn't deny. With best wishes, Alex #132565 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:09 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:Could you clarify what you mean by "samatha" and "samatha skills"? >Could you then clarify what you mean by "one should use" as in "one >should use samatha skills"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samatha = calm. Calming akusala tendencies of the mind which tend to make the mind restless, uneasy, over active, etc. By skill I mean being able to easily achieve it anytime one wants, attain it quickly enough, deeply enough, etc. With best wishes, Alex #132566 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Re: anattaa. truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:Whatever we read, it must be in accordance with the truth about >dhammas as anatta: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or it must be in accordance with the rest of the teaching. >S: When there is he idea that a person really can perform deeds and >follow instructions, it is atta-di.t.thi, the idea that self can >possess or control rupas, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere does it state that. First of all, atta is not puggala. While Buddha kept denying certain version of Atta in the 5 aggregates, stopping short saying that natthi atta (Atta doesn't exist). Second: In Bhara sutta and others, the Buddha does NOT refute puggala. Third: Nowhere does Buddha refute control in your version of it. If we read anattalakkhana sutta and others, "no control" means that we can't make the body be permanent, only sukkha, and forever. The body ages, gets sick and dies. We can't also control the body one gets when one is reborn. >There is no understanding of dhammas as conditioned and anatta. Of course every dhamma is conditioned. With best wishes, Alex #132567 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:02 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Knowledge Not Shared By Disciples dhammasaro Good friends all, May I suggest we peruse the Sutta-pitka referenced by good friend Dr. Han Tun? It is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html Comments/discussion? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #132568 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:23 pm Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Dear Htoo & all, ... S: Do you agree with what we read in the introduction to the Atthasaalinii, (PTS transl): "... 'Bhikkhus, learned is Mahaakaccaana, profoundly wise is Mahaakaccaana. If you had asked me the same question, I would have answered exactly as he has done.' Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word of the Buddha. And it is the same with the Suttas expounded by Aananda and others." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. And I accept. There also were some 2000 dhammakkhandhaas and there were saavaka-teachings. But they were approved by the Buddha. Example: Cuu.lavedalla sutta.m preached by Bhikkhunii Dhammadinnaa. The sutta.m was about dhamma discussion between anaagaamii Visaakha (rich man) and his ex-wife Dhammadinnaa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Do you agree with the Buddha that what Mahaakacaana and other great disciples answered was "true teachings of the Buddha", Buddhavacana? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I accept as "Buddha's dhammas" even though it was not 'Buddha's vacana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: If so, do you also agree with what we continue to read in the same text: ."Now when he laid down the table of contents he foresaw that, two hundred and eighteen years after his death, Tissa Moggalii's son, seated in the midst of one thousand bhikkhus, would elaborated the Kathaavatthu to the extent of the Diigha Nikaaya, bringing together five hundred orthodox and five hundred heterodox Suttas. "So Tissa, Moggalii's son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the Teacher. Hence the entire book became the word of the Buddha." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I accept the whole Kathaavatthu as "Buddha's dhammas" even though it (the current text) was not 'Buddha's vacana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: And in case there's any dispute about what is meant above by "the whole suttanta", here's another quote from the same source referring to the reciting of the Abhidhamma at the First Council: "Thus at the time of the Rehearsal at the First Council, held by the five hundred, the company of the self-controlled who recited under the presidency of Mahaakassapa did so after previous determination: '[This is the Doctrine, this is the Vinaya], these are the first words, these the middle words, these the later words of the Buddha; this is the Vinaya-Pitaka, this the Suttanta-Pitaka, this the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, this the Diigha Nikaaya.....Khuddaka Nikaaya; these the nine parts, to wit, the Suttas, etc.; these the eightly-four thousand units of text.' And not only this: the various literary expedients appearing in the three Pi.takas such as the lists of contents (uddaana), chapters (vagga), elisions (peyyaala), sections (nipaata) of single, double subjects, etc., groups (sa.myutta), fifties (pa~n~naasa) - all this having been arranged, was rehearsed in seven months." **** Metta Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The original teachings do not need to include 'later stories'. Stories 1000 years after Buddha's parinibbaana. Milinda Pa~nhaa, for example, appeared after 3rd Buddhists' Council. It is quite good to study. All are Theravadan teachings and explanations on controversial points. Again, I accept it as "Buddha's dhammas' even though it is not "Buddha's vacana". Paa.li texts were not added with new teachings. Paa.li texts were not substracted. They are still in the pure forms. Regarding A.t.thakathaa there were even a.t.thakathaa expounded by the Buddha. Example: "Buddhasa.mva.n.nita a.t.thakathaa". There were texts of a.t.thakathaa made by great Savakaa of the Buddha's time. Saariputta, Mahaakassapa, etc. Example: "Anubuddhasa.mva.n.niya a.t.thakathaa" There were also valuable a.t.thakathaa made after 3rd Council. The son of Emperor Ashoka who became an arahat was sent to Srilanka by the president of 3rd Buddhists' Council "Moggaliputta Tissa". These texts of a.t.thakathaa were written in Sinhalese (Srilanka's speaking language). Example: "Mahaapaccari A.t.thakathaa" Paccari means 'raft'. That a.t.thakathaa seemed to be written on a raft. Before the time of "Ven. Buddhaghosa" there were many other a.t.thakathaa in Sinhalese. Example: "Kurundii A.t.thakathaa" There also were Muula A.t.thakathaa, Mahaa A.t.thakathaa, Poraa.na A.t.thakathaa, Siiha.la A.t.thakathaa, etc. Further more, Cuu.lapaccarii A.t.thakathaa Sa`nkhepa A.t.thakathaa Andhaka A.t.thakathaa No one in Theravadan Buddhists changes "the original Buddha's vacana". No one in Theravadan Buddhists changes "the original texts in Paa.li". There are a.t.thakathaas to that original Paa.li. No one changes anything in A.t.thakathaa to Paa.li texts. After 3rd Buddhists Council there arised many A.t.thakathaa and many were in Sinhalese. There Sinhalese A.t.thakathaa texts were learned by "Ven. Buddhaghosa" and he translated them into 'Magadhii' or 'the language Paa.li'. Ven. Buddhaghosa did not change anything in "the original Buddha's teachings or Paa.li texts". With Metta, Htoo Naing #132569 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:28 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > James: Don't go overboard...what I meant is that in the modern word "meditation" is used for those who physically sit on the ground with legs crossed, back erect, hands in lap, and eyes closed. It is said that they are "meditating" because people rarely do that in today's world of chairs and furniture. However, in the Buddha's time, ascetics spent most of the day doing that, and most everyone else also sat on the floor, so there was no need for a special word to differentiate that behavior. JK: So, it is behavior of sitting, you mean. Maybe this doesn't apply to King Pimpisant, Visakaa vikalamata, Anatabintika who were ordinary people in the Lord Buddha time. They had a lot of works to do, not just sitting but they were ariyan. > James: Actually, today if you have someone walking, standing, or lying down and call that "meditation", there will be a discordance in people's minds because "meditation" traditionally means sitting on the ground. This is just a semantic issue, it has nothing whatsoever to do with cittas, samadhi, or any of that other stuff you bring up. Also, it doesn't prove anything about the value or non-value of sitting meditation. JK: Then what do we do during meditation? ================= > James: I just googled sukkavipassaka arahant and the information states that it is an arahant who has achieved one of the four jhanas as a basis for insight. Jhana is still involved, not just samma-sati. JK: There was this topic discussion in DSG if you'd like to read below: Dear venerable Dhammapiyo, Thanks for the clarification. Exactly so: it is deep insight, not mere intellectual understanding, culminating in Nibbana. At the moment of nibbana, for a flash, there is samadhi at the level of jhana, even for the sukkavipassaka. Also for the sukkavipassaka during actual vipassana nana , for those short moments, samadhi is very powerful. But it is always associated with samma-samadhi of the eightfactored path . It is not the same as the type of samadhi associated with the development of mundane jhana. Robert --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: > Sukkhavipassaka > > "One supported by bare insight." > > This is a commentarial term. > > It means that a meditator who has not achieved jhana has > realized only by or > from Vipassana support. This can also include the > Ariyapuggala. > > See: Vis. Magg. XVIII. > > "Sukkha" means "dry". This means the insight is not necessarily the result of tranquility meditation. Anudmodhana Jagkrit #132570 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:02 am Subject: Re: Third time was not there (The Text Abhidhamma) htoonaing... Dear Sarah, Thanks for your reply post. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------S: yes, but this is another side-step:-))) You were suggesting that not all arahats had developed adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Do not assume like that. Simple arahats do have adhisiila, adhicitta, and adhipanna. Adhisiila --> tevijja Adhicitta --> cha.laabhi~n~na Adhipanna --> pa.tisambhidaa Powerwise if arahat-to-be has As + Ac + Ap + As he will become tevijja. AsAcApAsAc will become cha.laabhi~n~na. AsAcApAsAcAp will become pa.tisambhidaapatta arahat. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I was pointing out that regardless of whether we're talking about a sammaasambuddha or a "simple arahat", adhisiila, adhicitta AND adhipa~n~naa have been attained. The work is done. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Agree. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: All defilements have been eradicated. There is no more becoming. Metta Sarah ====== --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is the goal. There is the way to that goal. It is a single way. Only one way. No other way. It is building up of kusala. Building up of kusala leading to nibbaana or "viva.t.ta kusala". There are 1. kaamaavacara kusala 2. ruupaavacara kusala 3. aruupaavacara kusala 4. lokuttara kusala For those who do not want the platform jhaana can go straight from kaamaavacara kusala via viva.t.ta-kaamaavacara kusala to lokuttara kusala. Unlike other kusala, lokuttara kusala is immediately followed by lokuttara vipaaka. "Akaaliko". With Metta, Htoo Naing #132571 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:15 am Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. jagkrit2012 Dear Nina and friends Thank you very much Nina. > As to natural decisive dependance-condition, pakatupanissaya-paccaya, what has been accumulated conditions the citta that appears. What is your natural decisive dependence-condition of object now? Whatever you like, seafood, japanese food? It is so daily to understand what is in the text. You cannot help having likes and dislikes, until it is a habit. It just depends on conditions, there is no self at all. Life goes on by conditions. JK: If we truly consider this, we can see that there is no control at all. We can not control our decision to do this or do that. It goes by the way we have accumulated. TA Sujin uses Thai words "Prapreut tam ti pen pai" or "Behave accordingly". We walk the way we walk, we talk the way we talk according to our accumulation every moment. =============== > Questioner: > > T.A.Pointing to a thing: > > (N: When we take it for a thing that really exists there is wrong view.) JK: I think most of nowadays Buddhists even in Thailand, they look over the important of wrong view and focus on managing lobha and dosa. I have read many Thai Dhamma discussions in Web and Facebook. Most of them discuss about the way to practice such as: sati-patthanna, yonisomaanasikara etc while ignoring to understand wrong view about self. TA Sujin pointed out that wrong view of atta or dithi is so important and if we carefully notice, atta always arises when things, animals or persons do exit in daily life. This is the foremost kilesa to be understood and eradicated, according to Tipitaka and commentaries. Unless wrong view is eradicated, other kilesas will never show their true realities for us to understand. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #132572 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:50 am Subject: Hardness now as compared to awareness of hardness now ( wasRe: thinking and htoonaing... Dear Sarah, Thanks for your post as a response to mine. With respect, Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------Sarah: Dear Htoo, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: ... > S: Yes, sati does arise without panna, but not in the examples you give with regard to being aware of the characteristic of hardness as a reality (which is what we were discussing.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > I know. I did not say on 'characteristics'. I said 'sati without panna' can happen. ... S: yes, and you gave the following examples: >Htoo: I wrote "There can be awareness of hardness without panna." > When hit by a stone, there is hardness. Hardness is known. Even by cats, dogs, foxes, wolves. >When hit, hardness is felt at the hit-point. When waddling ashore and > getting on land there is hardness as compared to softness. >I understand that children, animals etc will not be aware the full > characteristics of hardness. ... S: So it seems that you think there is sati whenever hardness is experienced, such as when animals are hit by stones, when touching land and so on. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Sarah: A few more qus (short answers please!) ---------------- Htoo: :) Yes. Will be as short as possible. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Can sati arise with body-consciousness at the moment that hardness is experienced? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Can sati arise with cittas accompanied by attachment, aversion or ignorance? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: When sati accompanies cittas which experience hardness, what kind of cittas are they? Do they commonly arise when animals are hit by stones? Metta Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Without panna, it can still be kusala. Because sati is sobhana cetasika. An animal [Bodhisatta naaga] experienced hardness [hit by a stone thrown be children] and endured it [khanti]. There is sati. For other animals_ not common. With Metta, Htoo Naing #132573 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:43 am Subject: Re: Anattaa. Was: Off to Canada htoonaing... Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, (Thomas, Chuck, Alex & all), [short answers without side-stepping appreciated for this discussion!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Will be. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@" wrote: > > > S: Do you agree that "when suttas are understood correctly, they are all about khandhas, conditioned realities - rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana - i.e namas and rupas, i.e paramattha dhammas. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Agree. Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada > are all about dhamma. .... S: Do you agree that hardness is khandhaa, aayatana or dhaatu? Do you agree that hardness is dhamma? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. [tactic of reeping crops?] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Do you agree that when touching the keyboard or table, hardness is experienced? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > Each reality is anatta." >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > Do you mean " reality = anatta " ? ... S: Anatta is a characteristic of each reality. Do you agree that hardness is anatta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Hardness is not equal to anatta. So the answer is no. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Do you agree that hardness has the characteristics of being anicca, dukkha and anatta? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: For this, yes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > Is there anything in our discussion about khandhas (as quoted in the suttas we've been discussing) which is not in accordance with what we read in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > "not in accordance with...abhidhamma.."? Nikaayas do not say paramattha dhamma. ... S: Do you agree that both the Suttanta and Abhidhamma talk about "Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, saccaa, pa.ticcasamuppaada are all about dhamma"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: All about dhammas. Both in sutta.m and abhidhammaa. Historically the Buddha did not preach abhidhamma for the third time. [not police and crime maker. So sometimes it has to be long-winded :) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Do you agree that these are not just words but what is to be directly known by insight? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. :) (binding, tying, locking, fencing?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Are paramattha dhammas as referred to in these texts anything other than the khandhas (and nibbana) as referred to in the suttas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. <........> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > Khandhas are to be realized as khandhas. Aayatanas are to be realized as aayatana. Dhaatus are to be realized as dhaatu. Saccas are to be realized through a.t.tha`ngiko maggo. Pa.ticcasamuppaada is to be realized as causal relations between dhammas in simple way. ... S: Is hardness now a khandha? An ayatana? A dhatu? A paramattha dhamma? If not, why not? .. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Buddha did not say a word "paramattha dhamma". If this is the right word, very helpful word then the Buddha would have preached as "paramattha dhammas". ... S: Dhammas or paramattha dhammas, dhamma or abhidhamma - the same, all about seeing, visible object, bodily experience, hardness. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: So, you equalized all? Ven. Anuruddha described "Tattha(2) vuttaa(2) bhidhammatthaa(4) (2+2+4 = 8), catudhaa(3) paramatthato(5) (3+5 = 8), citta.m(2) cetasika.m(4) ruupa.m(2) (2+4+2 = 8), nibaanaamii'ti(5) sabbatthaa(3) (5+3 = 8)." This gaathaa says: Tattha = out of these vuttaa = being preached (out of these dhammas preached) abhidhammatthaa = abhi + dhamma + attha (great_in number) (essence) catudhaa = four folds paramatthato = parama.m + attha + to (non-mistaken)+ meaning + (by means of) sabbatthaa = by all means Ven. Anuruddhaa wrote as a summary on abhidhammaa. Abhidhammatthasa`ngaha is like a key to open abhidhamma texts. "Out of these dhammas there are citta, cetasika, ruupa, and nibbaana by means of unmistakable-meanings." Dhamma = 4 magga-cittas + 4 phala-cittas + nibbaana + pariyatti dhamma = opposite of adhamma dhamma = niyaama dhamma = kusala dhamma = sammaa dhamma = lokadhamma (4 good and 4 bad) dhamma = everything exists dhamma = everything non-exist dhamma = doctrine dhamma = tradition dhamma = permanence dhamma = ............. Suttanta dhammas = dhammas(flowers) that are lined with a thread. Abhidhamma = dhammas that preached by the Buddha are greater in number and greater in terms of method of delivery. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? (This is for Thomas:-)) >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > This will be left for Thomas as you indicated here. :-)) ... S: I'm waiting for your reply so that Thomas can learn from it:-)) Let me ask you again - When you refer to "really seeing realities", would you agree that these realities to be seen are the same khandhas referred to? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Khandhaas, aayatanas, dhaatus are there in the texts if they are not seen not sensed. They are to be really seen and sensed. If seen and sensed the teachings will be long-lasting. If not seen and sensed then the teaching will regress to disappearance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: If not, please say what these realities are that should be "really seen" which you referred to. Metta Sarah ======= --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You can be taught from 'A' to 'Z' how to swim in the classroom. With respect, Htoo Naing #132574 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:20 am Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > JK: So, it is behavior of sitting, you mean. Maybe this doesn't apply to King Pimpisant, Visakaa vikalamata, Anatabintika who were ordinary people in the Lord Buddha time. They had a lot of works to do, not just sitting but they were ariyan. > James: If they were ariyan then they had to do some sitting meditation- maybe during Full Moon Days?? > JK: Then what do we do during meditation? > James: I already covered that: Right Mindfulness (samma-sati) and Right Concentration (samma-samadhi). > ================= > > > James: I just googled sukkavipassaka arahant and the information states that it is an arahant who has achieved one of the four jhanas as a basis for insight. Jhana is still involved, not just samma-sati. > > JK: There was this topic discussion in DSG if you'd like to read below: > > Dear venerable Dhammapiyo, > > Thanks for the clarification. Exactly so: it is deep insight, > not mere intellectual understanding, culminating in Nibbana. At > the moment of nibbana, for a flash, there is samadhi at the > level of jhana, even for the sukkavipassaka. Also for the > sukkavipassaka during actual vipassana nana , for those short > moments, samadhi is very powerful. But it is always associated > with samma-samadhi of the eightfactored path . It is not the > same as the type of samadhi associated with the development of > mundane jhana. > > Robert > > --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: > > Sukkhavipassaka > > > > "One supported by bare insight." > > > > This is a commentarial term. > > James: Therefore, this is a commentarial term, unsupported by the suttas. So it is complete hogwash. > > It means that a meditator who has not achieved jhana has > > realized only by or > > from Vipassana support. This can also include the > > Ariyapuggala. > > > > See: Vis. Magg. XVIII. > > > > "Sukkha" means "dry". This means the insight is not necessarily the result of tranquility meditation. > > Anudmodhana > > Jagkrit > Metta, James #132575 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:32 am Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. philofillet Dear Jagkrit, Nina, group > JK: If we truly consider this, we can see that there is no control at all. We can not control our decision to do this or do that. It goes by the way we have accumulated. TA Sujin uses Thai words "Prapreut tam ti pen pai" or "Behave accordingly". We walk the way we walk, we talk the way we talk according to our accumulation every moment. > Ph: If we don't understand our accumulations, the Dhamma will be exploited as an escape route, with greed for comfort. > > JK: I think most of nowadays Buddhists even in Thailand, they look over the important of wrong view and focus on managing lobha and dosa. Exactly! Though I would say it comes down to managing dosa, esp fear. Just as people use pills to manage anxiety. This is a very natural thing for the Dhamma to become in our modern age of seeking fast results, especially when fuelled by reading suttas without understanding. Sutta anthologies should be stamped LOBHA DITTHI on every page in giant red letters. People get so much comfort from their beloved sutta anthologies. Understandably. Believing that one has accesss to the wisdom described by them just by being sble to read them is a very attractive medication for dosa. Phil P.S We students of Ajahn Sujin have to stay aware that we of course are not free from using Dhamma to seek pleasant moods with lobha ditthi, we are not immune. #132576 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:43 am Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. philofillet Hello again . > Sutta anthologies should be stamped LOBHA DITTHI on every page in giant red letters. People get so much comfort from their beloved sutta anthologies. Maybe MOHA would be better. But it would be uneffective, of course. Delusion can't be defeated by warnings about delusion. Panna has to understand how little we understand. And that goes against the ways of the world. Humiility and patience are in such short supply. Phil. #132577 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:45 pm Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. jagkrit2012 Dear Phil and friends > Ph: If we don't understand our accumulations, the Dhamma will be exploited as an escape route, with greed for comfort. JK: Yes, in that case, lobha with dithi hind itself very nicely without awareness. Sometime, people, who don't carefully consider about accumulation, will say "it's the way it is". It is the way I am. What can we do? In the opposite, with that ignorance, they will accumulate more and more the way they are. Only true understanding about cause and result of accumulation will help them little by little abandon accumulating of unwholesomeness they usually use as their escape excuse as well. ============= > Ph: Sutta anthologies should be stamped LOBHA DITTHI on every page in giant red letters. People get so much comfort from their beloved sutta anthologies. Understandably. Believing that one has accesss to the wisdom described by them just by being able to read them is a very attractive medication for dosa. >Maybe MOHA would be better. But it would be uneffective, of course. Delusion can't be defeated by warnings about delusion. Panna has to understand how little we understand. And that goes against the ways of the world. Humiility and patience are in such short supply JK: When coming back to accumulation, we have been accumulated the way we learn things in life until we hear dhamma about anatta. From birth, we learn every things with self understanding, not understanding self. Whose learning, whose knowledge, whose wisdom and whose accomplishment ! Everything about self accumulation.No exception, if we study Tipitaka like we study conventional subject. Only if we are aware that studying every sutta is to reflect realities which help us to understand more and more about anatta or no self. Otherwise, it comes down to be only words and stories which never lead us to understanding sacca dhamma, ultimate truth as the Lord Buddha kindly spent 45 years giving his teaching for others to follow. TA Sujin always stresses that anyone who studies dhamma must be well-reasoned and straightforward. Studying dhamma is only to understand realities nothing else. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #132578 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > > JK: So, it is behavior of sitting, you mean. Maybe this doesn't apply to King Pimpisant, Visakaa vikalamata, Anatabintika who were ordinary people in the Lord Buddha time. They had a lot of works to do, not just sitting but they were ariyan. > James: If they were ariyan then they had to do some sitting meditation- maybe during Full Moon Days?? JK: I pretty much doubt about this :) ===================== > JK: Then what do we do during meditation? > James: I already covered that: Right Mindfulness (samma-sati) and Right Concentration (samma-samadhi). JK: I can you elaborate a bit more. For example, I'm sitting in a couch and watching true blood. I want to meditate at that moment. What shall I do? Thank you Jagkrit #132579 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon - > ... > > J: ... I'd be surprised if you're able to find any sequence of suttas that tends to bear out your assertion that most if not all of the Buddha's followers had extensive jhana practice. > > RE: I don't think that the number of times such a thing is asserted within a given number of suttas is really relevant to how many monks were practicing/attaining jhana, except for those suttas where it is relevant. ... When talking about the steps of the path, jhana is very often mentioned as a necessary element, and there are suttas in which Right Concentration is directly defined as Jhana by the Buddha. So when Right Concentration is defined, one may substitute jhana in those passages. > =============== J: Regarding, "there are suttas in which Right Concentration is directly defined as Jhana by the Buddha, so when Right Concentration is defined, one may substitute jhana in those passages", that approach does not take account of the overall context of the factors of the NEP as being mental factors that co-arise at moment of path consciousness. When considered in this light, that is to say, of samma-samadhi as one of 8 momentary mental factors, the reference to the 4 jhanas does not connote prior attainment of mundane jhana. And in fact it is only in relatively recent times (i.e., within the last 100 years or so) that it has been taken to have that meaning. > =============== > RE: Even in discussions of Dry Insight, it is said that jhana of the correct level must arise in order for the enlightenment sequence to take place. > =============== J: Not quite. What is said is that when enlightenment is attained, the path consciousness is of a level that corresponds to jhana. The implication here is that as mundane path consciousness is developed, so is the appropriate level of concentration. There is no suggestion that mundane jhana of the correct level must arise in order for the enlightenment sequence to take place. > =============== > RE: so Jhana is Right Concnetration, Right Concentration is Jhana, and one way or another it is an essential element of Enlightenment and the path. > =============== J: Regarding "Jhana is Right Concentration", if that were so then a person of another following who had never heard the teachings but who was able to attain jhana would be developing one of the factors of the NEP. That could not possibly be correct, as the NEP is exclusively the teaching of a Buddha. Hence the importance of understanding the context of the NEP factors. > =============== > RE: The Buddha practiced it, extolled it, taught it, and employed it in the most important stages of his personal career - reaching Enlightenment, and in his Parinibbana. It's a big part of Buddhism, and certainly those who practiced under him during his life, and witnessed his Parinibbana, understood Jhana as an essential and normal part of their culture and tradition. I find it hard to believe that those who witnessed the Buddha's parinibbana from the 4th jhana, and who knew that he reached his enlightenemnt in and through jhana, would think that it was an incidental attainment that no one else should bother to develop. > =============== J: All this is circumstantial evidence at best (certainly no smoking gun :-)), but it seems there's an assumption being made as to the significance of jhana attainment (namely, if the Buddha attained it and extolled it, and it was attained by many of his followers, it must be necessary for path development), and that assumption is not confirmed by the words used by the Buddha in teachings given to listeners. > =============== > RE: I don't know what the definitions of Traditional and Orthodox should mean, if they don't include those elements of practice that the Buddha himself made full use of, taught and extolled, from the very founding of the tradition itself, and which still exist today in monasteries around the world. > =============== J: As regards the evidential value of what the traditions that "exist today in monasteries around the world", it would first be necessary to ascertain to what extent what is `practised' today is in accordance with what is being described in the suttas. So we are back to analysing the words spoken by the Buddha in giving his teaching. > =============== > > J: The notion that anyone who became enlightened without first attaining jhana must have attained jhana in a previous lifetime is pure speculation > > RE: Well perhaps I've got that wrong, but it is how I understood the ability to reach or practice jhana in this lifetime according to you. Maybe I misunderstood what you said in the past. In any case, it's not that crucial. What's important to me is that jhana was practiced, developed and maintained as a critical element of the path ["Right Concentration" is defined as Jhana by the Buddha in sutta,] and that anyone who attains enlightenment must, at the very least, go through Jhana in order to complete the enlightenment sequence. > > I do recall you saying that the ability to attain jhana in general comes from past-life accumulations. Am I wrong about that too? > =============== J: Past accumulations are always relevant :-)). But there's no textual basis for the assumption that if a person attained enlightenment without first attaining mundane jhana in the present lifetime he/she must have attained jhana in a previous lifetime. That seems to me to be a classic case of rationalising an inconvenient truth :-)). Jon #132580 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa_008 (DT 895 ) sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, You wrote to Rob K: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htoonaing@..." wrote: > When in the early phase there still is akusala. That is why niivara.nas are still there. But as development becomes higher it comes to yathaabhuuta.m like upaadaanakkhandhaas (which are naama and ruupa.m and not akusala at all .... S: upaadaanakkhandhas - khandhas subject to clinging. There can be clinging to any khandha, any dhamma except lokuttara dhammas. So if there is clinging to pleasant feeling now or visible object, for example, it is upadanakhandha - khandha that is the object of clinging. Always akusala when clinging arises. If the attachment's not known when it arises, how can it ever be eradicated? ... >while niivara.nas are akusala). Again aayatanaa are naama and ruupa.m not akusala. .... S: Aren't cittas rooted in lobha, dosa and moha, manaayatanaa? Aren't all akusala mental factors dhammaayatanaa? When they arise, can they not be the object of awareness and understanding? > > Next comes bojjha`ngaa. There are jhaana factors in bojjha`ngaa. That is why samaadhi is required for attainment of magga-pannaa. ... S: 7 bojjha'ngaa - Mindfulness (sati) Keen investigation of the dhamma (dhammavicaya) Energy (viriya) Rapture or happiness (piti) Calm (passaddhi) Concentration (samadhi) Equanimity (upekkha) These are enlightenment factors, not jhaana factors, surely? At a moment of right understanding (dhammavicaya), there must be passaddhi and samadhi arising together. Metta Sarah ======= #132581 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:56 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: So, doesn't this just come down to "the understanding of the khandhas"? > >R: I think you make a logical argument that this is the case, and I can't find anything wrong with that analysis. The question is: what do we do with it, and how do we understand the kandhas vis a vis conventional experiences and practices, and we draw different conclusions about that. .... 'We' don't do anything with it, nor do 'we' understand the khandhas vis a vis conventional experiences. This is the point! As soon as there's an idea of doing somehting or qus about how to understand anything, there is an idea of someone there, not an undersanding of conditioned khandhas arising and falling away. ... > > So maybe it is not enough to say there are only dhammas or only kandhas, but our understanding has to include how we make sense of what we experience 99% of the time in conventional terms. ... S: Whatever we say or don't say, there are only dhammas, only khandhas. As soon as we introduce an idea about making sense of experience in conventional terms, we forget about khandhas. As discussed so very often, none of this suggests that we don't use conventional terms as we're doing now. ... <....> > So, yes, it's all kandhas, and that is the Buddha's teachings, but how we take those kandhas, together or separately, and how we understand the way they really take place and interact through conditions and create accumulated experiences, and what kinds of objects they really refer to, are all very important and make a difference in how we understand the teachings. .... S: Again, more qus about "how to take those khandhas..", "how we understand... and create...." just detract from the understanding of dhammas, of khandhas now. For example, whilst thinking about "how to take the khandhas", there are many moments of thinking about concepts. In between there are moments of seeing visible object. All of these dhammas are conditioned, no matter what the thinking imagines. ... <...> > The conclusion that since everything is kandhas there is no necessity to engage in kusala conventional activity, etc., I also think is misguided. Or that activities such as meditation, charity, abstentions, projecting metta, etc., that are clearly indicated in the texts, are really superfluous. ... S:The Buddha taught about everything that is real. So we learn about what is kusala, such as metta or dana, what is akusala, such as greed or hatred. By understanding more about fleeting dhammas, not self, there will be less attachment to oneself and one's experiences, more consideration and care for others. If on the other hand, one just tries to be a good, kind person, it is just more clinging to one's precious self that is being accumulated. ... > > So I agree there are only the kandhas, and everything breaks down into kandhas, but that still leaves a lot to sort out. ... S: What is left out is the Self and the sooner it's cleared out, the better!! ... > >S: So you are suggesting the development of right intellectual study (pariyatti), i.e. panna (right understanding) and also the arising of cetana, viriya, other cittas, cetasikas and rupas, but all anatta. > >R: Yes, indeed. The question is: when we have these thoughts, these volitions, these activities, which themselves break down into more volitions and rupas of activities, should we not continue to develop them? Instead, there is a tendency here to dismiss all conventional-seeming intentional activity, rather than engaging it and seeing what it consists of. We have to *stop* activities? Why? Why not do as the Buddha prescribed and still see what it is composed of in terms of the elements of experience? ... S: In reality, no 'conventional activities', just khandhas, just conditioned dhammas to be understood. No self who can decide to engage or not engage in anything. ... > > >S: Can we not say that when panna develops, all the other 'rights' develop, such as the other eightfold path factors including right effort? Cetana is not a path factor - intending to become enlightened does not lead along the path. It arises with every citta. So when panna and the other path factors develop, the cetana that accompanies them will also be of the 'right' kind - no self involved at all. > >R: Well, right intention is one of the path factors. ... S: The second path factor is samma sankappa. This is sometimes (misleadingly imo) translated as "right intention". It is NOT cetana cetasika, it is vitakka cetasika. At the moment of right understanding, the vitakka or samma sankappa, leads the understanding to the object (the dhamma) to be understood. It 'touches' the object. Without its assistance, understanding cannot understand anything. It's also sometimes translated as "right thinking", but this is confusing too. For example, at a moment of understanding of visible object, samma sankappa is there. No intention or thinking involved. Metta Sarah p.s. Pls note all - we leave for Thailand on Thursday, so posting will be limited for the next few days and during the next month while we're in Thailand and Vietnam, it'll be sporadic. Please keep up all the good discussions! =========== #132582 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Jagkrit), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > English session alive on Saturday, part 2. > > Q: > > T.A.: <..> > T.A. ... S: A good transcipt! Can you give me the link to the discussion? Where are they found? Looking forward to joining everyone on Sat at the Foundation. Metta Sarah ====== #132583 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:23 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >KH: The Middle Way is a unique kind of program. It is followed in a >single moment, before anyone can "do" anything. So program might not >be the best word for it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Where does VsM say so? ... S: Vism (Nanamoli transl) "VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11)" S: Only ever a single moment, this moment, that awareness can be aware! MN 131 (Bodhi transl) "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes; For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state;" **** Metta Sarah ====== #132584 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:49 pm Subject: Re: Off to Canada philofillet Dear Sarah, Rob E, group > As soon as we introduce an idea about making sense of experience in conventional terms, we forget about khandhas. But surely there must almost always be forgetting about the khandas due to accumulations think in conventional terms Couldn't it be that when we are living our lives in paramattha terms we are forcing panna where it isn't ready to go. I know I find myself thinking things like "just dhammas rising and falling away, nothing to get upset about." That is using the Dhamma for comfort i the same way meditators do. (Well, not as grossly wrong.) Do we really have te accumulations for patience that allows consideration of khandas to arise when it arises, without pushing to deepen our understading of the khandas? Phil #132585 From: "Buddhatrue" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. buddhatrue Hi Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > > James: If they were ariyan then they had to do some sitting meditation- maybe during Full Moon Days?? > > JK: I pretty much doubt about this :) > James: Why???? Usually the lay followers of the Buddha observed the Uposatha Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha.html > ===================== > > > JK: Then what do we do during meditation? > > > James: I already covered that: Right Mindfulness (samma-sati) and Right Concentration (samma-samadhi). > > JK: I can you elaborate a bit more. For example, I'm sitting in a couch and watching true blood. I want to meditate at that moment. What shall I do? > James: Are you serious? You really don't know what you would do? I hope you aren't just pulling my leg. Well, first of all, you would need to turn off True Blood. You can't watch TV and meditate. Television is DEFINITELY not a wholesome object of meditation! :-) You should avoid the five strands of sensuality as meditation objects because they aren't wholesome. You would need to sit on the floor or on a meditation cushion, straighten the back, put your hands in your lap, close your eyes (or half close), and then bring mindfulness to the front (of your mind). BTW, this is the standard description in several suttas. Then you practice mindfulness of the Four Foundations of mindfulness until concentration increases more and more and you slip into jhana. This is samma-sati leading to samma-samadhi. You keep at this practice until your concentration becomes strong enough to stay in the first jhana long enough to lead to the second jhana, etc. If your concentration is superb and unblemished, you will be able to break into the truth of reality and become enlightened- but that takes a lot of practice! This whole process cannot arise in a single moment while one is watching True Blood (unless there has been previous practice). > Thank you > > Jagkrit > Metta, James #132586 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. sukinderpal Dear K. Jagkrit, > >S: Most of those who become monks today, are likely to have difficulty > > maintaining just the 5 precepts. Had they any understanding and were > > honest, they would have therefore remained as laypersons to continue > > study the Dhamma. To have ordained instead and continue breaking the > > monastic rules, therefore reflects a foolish decision on their part, > > given that the akusala kamma is greater than had they remained a > layperson. > > JK: I totally agree with you that within nowadays environment it is > difficult to maintain all monk precepts. There are not many > monasteries which strictly apply firm ancient precepts with right > understanding that all precepts are for eradicating kilesa. > > And it is true that breaking precepts during the ordainment causes > severe result of akusala kamma than as a layperson. Once parents whose > son is old enough to get ordain ask whether it is good to have their > son get ordained? They got reply that if they don't want their son go > to hell, don't ! > Sounds quite severe, but probably very close to the truth. Nowadays it has become a fashion to ordain, and in large numbers, as if by doing so, the merit which they assume the ordaining to be, is multiplied. The number of sheep with Thai citizenship is growing everyday. And the probability of sheep having kusala is quite remote, developing understanding is an impossibility. > >S: So what in fact is the kinder action, encouraging these monks to > remain > > as monks regardless of whether they continue to break the monastic > > rules, or make them realize that they are not fit to become monks and > > that they should instead disrobe and live their lives as Lay Buddhists? > > JK: To speak the truth about bad result of violating monk precepts is > loving kindness. > It comes down to the citta of course, but I think it is good nevertheless, to pass on such a warning to whoever we come into contact with. Thanks for your response K. Jagkrit. Hope to see you in Kaeng Krajarn in a few days, if not also at the foundation this Saturday. Metta, Sukin #132587 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 20 aug 2013, om 10:11 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Can you give me the link to the discussion? Where are they found? > > Looking forward to joining everyone on Sat at the Foundation. ----- N: Same link as what Ell gave, but you have to press the English flag and then you get the English. Same for youtube which is more underneath. :< http://www.dhammahome.com/live> Nina. #132588 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: English session alive on Sunday, part 2. jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah You can go to the record by this link: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/dhammahome-live-en But they don't have the record which Nina just posted. They have 4 records of 3 or 4 weeks discussion only in English. Jagkrit #132589 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:48 pm Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas htoonaing... Dear Ken H, Thanks. With respect, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: When it is read with wrong view it misleads people. But that is an acceptable risk. And I wouldn't want to ban the Vsm simply because some people will read it with wrong view. :-) There is something I would like to ban – if I had the power – and that is willful, dangerous, exploitative deception. I would like to ban meditation gurus from exploiting mentally deficient people. There is no point is banning ordinary religious rituals, such as a few minutes daily meditation. But you and Htoo were telling people to meditate non-stop for at least seven days, and then to continue meditating until arahantship was reached! Surely that was a recipe for mental illness. I'm sorry if my reaction to your and Htoo's meditation instructions seemed excessive. However, I would like to save people from seriously dangerous misinformation. Ken H --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks. "Maa pacchaa vipparisaarino". With respect, Htoo Naing #132590 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:05 am Subject: Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear James > > > James: If they were ariyan then they had to do some sitting meditation- maybe during Full Moon Days?? > > > > JK: I pretty much doubt about this :) > > James: Why???? Usually the lay followers of the Buddha observed the Uposatha Days: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha.html JK: Yes, in Uposatha days, some followers stay on 8 precepts of sila but I can not found in any texts showing that they meditated as well in this day as you explained. ================== > James: Are you serious? You really don't know what you would do? I hope you aren't just pulling my leg. JK: Of course not ! James. I really want to know. > James: Well, first of all, you would need to turn off True Blood. You can't watch TV and meditate. Television is DEFINITELY not a wholesome object of meditation! :-) JK: Ok, good start ;) > James: You should avoid the five strands of sensuality as meditation objects because they aren't wholesome. You would need to sit on the floor or on a meditation cushion, straighten the back, put your hands in your lap, close your eyes (or half close), and then bring mindfulness to the front (of your mind). BTW, this is the standard description in several suttas. JK: I'm familiar with this type of position, OK. But bring mindfulness to the front ?? of my mind ?? need more explanation, please. > James: Then you practice mindfulness of the Four Foundations of mindfulness until concentration increases more and more and you slip into jhana. This is samma-sati leading to samma-samadhi. JK: This is what I'm not familiar with. From what I know, the most popular meditation technics are 2 kinds. One is focusing on breath in and out. Second is focusing on your belly which swells and deflates. I don't think being mindful on body, feeling, mind and dhamma can bring good concentration as you explained. > James: You keep at this practice until your concentration becomes strong enough to stay in the first jhana long enough to lead to the second jhana, etc. If your concentration is superb and unblemished, you will be able to break into the truth of reality and become enlightened- but that takes a lot of practice! JK: I think if you slip into jhanna, your mind should be in deep serene and empty. Or what is your understanding about stage of jhanna? What level you are in? Can you explain more about stage of jhanna? I'm curious that what can one break into the truth of reality with that empty stage of mind ?? > James: This whole process cannot arise in a single moment while one is watching True Blood (unless there has been previous practice). JK: I think the one who has been skillful with previous jhanna will never waste his time watching TV like us, don't you think ?. Thank you Jagkrit #132591 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. nilovg Dear Jagkrit and James, Op 20 aug 2013, om 16:05 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > JK: Yes, in Uposatha days, some followers stay on 8 precepts of sila but I can not found in any texts showing that they meditated as well in this day as you explained. ------ N: When I was in Sri Lanka laypeople would be sitting on the temple grounds and recite the mahaasatipa.t.thaana sutta. They were very good at Pali. Nina. #132592 From: "htoonaing@ymail.com" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:24 am Subject: Vipassanaa, Satipa.t.thaanaa, Pubbabhaagamaggaa htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, These are pieces of dhammas from different Paa.li and different A.t.thakathaa and .Tiikaa. I think they would help some people who can understand what they mean. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing -------------------------------: Quote [1] "Catunna.m, bhikkhave, ariyasaccaana.m yathaabhuuta.m adassanaa ananubodhaa appa.tivedhaa evamida.m diighamaddhaana.m sandhaavita.m sa.msarita.m mama~nceva tumhaaka.~nca". Pathama Ko.tigaama_Sutta.m_Sa.myutta Nikaaya Quote [2] "Apicaaha.m, Aavuso, imasmi.m yeva byaamamatte ka.levare sasa~n~nimhi samanake loka~nca pa~n~napemi lokasamudaya~nca lokanirodha~nca lokanirodhagaamini~nca pa.tipadanti." Rohitassa Sutta.m_Sagaathaavagga Sa.myutta.m Quote [3] "Khandhaana~nca pa.tipaa.ti, dhaatuaayatanaana~nca abbhocchinna.m vattamaanaa sa.msaaroti pavuccati". (Visuddhimagga) Quote [4] "Jaanatoha.m, bhikkhave, passato aasavaana.m khaya.m vadaami. No ajaanato no apassato". Muulapa.n.naasa_majjhima Nikaaya Quote [5] "Yathaabhuuta.m ~naa.naaya satthaa pariyesitabbo" Sa.myutta Nikaaya Quote [6] "Atthaana'meva pa.thama.m, patiruupe nivisaye. Atha~n~na manusaaseyya, na kilisseyya pa.n.dito". Dhammapada Paa.li Quote [7] "Jaataana.m paccuppannaana.m khandhaana.m nibbatti lakkha.na.m jaati, Uppaado abhinavakaaro udayo naama vipari.naama lakkha.na.m khayo bhi`ngo vayo naama". Quote [8] "Di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati. Sute sutamatta.m bhavissati. mute mutamatta.m bhavissati. Vi~n~naate vi~n~naa.namatta.m bhavissati". Baahiya Daaruciriya Sutta.m Quote [9] "Atiita.m na nvaagameyya, nappa.tika`nkhe anaagata.m. Yadahita.m pahiinanta.m appatta~nca anaagata.m. Paccuppanna~nca yo dhamma.m, tattha tattha vipassati. Asa.mhiira.m asa.mkuppa.m, ta.m vidvaa manubyuuhaye". Baddekaratta Sutta.m_Majjhima Nikaaya Quote [10] "Pavatta.m abhibhuyyitvaa appavatta.m pakkhandati. Pavatta.m sa`nkhaaraa appavatta.m nibbaana.m." Pa.tisambhidaamagga Quote [11] "Sacca.m gayhati pubbabhaage, bhaavanaaya pana va.d.dhamaanaaya pa~n~natti.m samatikkamitvaa sabhaaveyeva citta.m ti.t.thati." End quoting: With Metta, Htoo Naing #132593 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. jagkrit2012 Dear Khun Sukin > S: Sounds quite severe, but probably very close to the truth. Nowadays it > has become a fashion to ordain, and in large numbers, as if by doing so, > the merit which they assume the ordaining to be, is multiplied. The > number of sheep with Thai citizenship is growing everyday. And the > probability of sheep having kusala is quite remote, developing > understanding is an impossibility. JK: Sometimes, speaking the truth is bitter. But the truth is the truth. People do something different from the past because they ignore the truth but easily being caught away with cultural fashion. ============ > It comes down to the citta of course, but I think it is good > nevertheless, to pass on such a warning to whoever we come into contact > with. JK: Yes, with the right time and the right words. > Hope to see you in Kaeng Krajarn in a few days, if not also at the foundation this Saturday. JK: See you there, Krub. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #132594 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Off to Canada nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 20 aug 2013, om 09:56 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Pls note all - we leave for Thailand on Thursday, so posting will be limited for the next few days and during the next month while we're in Thailand and Vietnam, it'll be sporadic. ----- N: Have a very good journey and Isend my love to T.A. and all friends. First in our favorite hotel Peninsula. My thoughts are with you. I hope to hear from all your experiences, also the conventional ones, the couleur locale. Nina. #132595 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Ken H, Recently Ken H. suggested that you do not understand the position held by some of us. By commenting on what you wrote here, I want to try to show that what he said is true. > > >S: Are what you refer to as 'the full range of conventional > >practices' anything other than more khandhas? For example, if we talk > >about 'sitting on a chair', is this not just a conventional > >expression referring to various khandhas - rupas, cittas and >cetasikas? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > If the suttas tell to do something using conventional speech, then I > think it is wrong to try to go into conceptually created "ultimate" > reality and twist the sutta to mean precisely what it doesn't mean. > > > > It is sophism to make the sutta mean opposite of what it actually says. > > Alex, I agree that the Buddha instructed us to do certain kinds of > actions and practices in order to promote the path, > The Buddha taught the Path as the Fourth Noble Truth. There is no reality outside of the Four Noble Truths. Dana, Sila and Samatha bhavana, not conventional activities, come under the First Noble Truth, and it is the Fourth Noble Truth which understand this. > and that it is an intellectual trick in a way to say "that's not what > he really meant, because there are only dhammas." > Now and at anytime, in any situation and conventional activity, there are only nama and rupa, no beings doing this or that. This is the understanding which reads the Buddha's discourses as pointing at dhammas. > > I think it highlights the fact that there is more than one way to look > at dhammas, even if we agree that life is a series of moments that > arise one at a time, and that each one has a certain reality to it > before it falls away. > No, it does not highlight that there is more than one way to look at dhammas, it just shows that the Buddha's direct audience did not need him to spell out everything. Life is not a "series" of moments, it is one citta with accompanying cetasikas conditioned to arise and fall away. This one citta and cetasikas does not have "certain" reality, but defines *the* reality knowable by panna. Anything else is just postulation of the ignorant mind. > > The dsg philosophy appears to be that since there are no people to > "do" anything, and since there are only dhammas, no conventional > activities, then we should refrain from doing anything that appears to > be a conventional activity vis a vis the path. Why? Because to do so > would promote the idea of a self that can do something, which is the > opposite of the understanding that there are "only dhammas." > No, this is not the line of reasoning. You are setting up stage for what follows. It is not a question of refraining from following some conventional activity, but simply, what is not the Path, is not the Path! And the wrong path is the wrong path! > I think there is another way of looking at it, which is not considered > by anyone holding the above view. I think it goes something like this: > "If there are only dhammas, and no conventional activities, why > refrain from doing anything? > This is your own premise. > Why not instead do everything the Buddha prescribed > The question is, did the Buddha prescribe anything? I say no, he did not! He simply described the nature of reality. In other words, what we as uninstructed worldlings take for real, he pointed out that in fact what exists are the khandhas, dhatus, paramattha dhammas. > and realize that in doing so, there are only cetanas and other > cetasikas arising, accompanied by the rupas and other cittas and > mental factors that they condition to arise?" > The objective is to see that in fact there is no one who does anything, only nama and rupa with different characteristics and performing functions. If this does not happen when unhindered by ideas about self and doings, why would it happen when motivated by the idea of self and conventional doings? Understanding the reality of the moment is to see that concepts do not exist and thereby the tendency to take them for reality is weakened. And you are telling us to "do" with the idea of self, which is approaching concepts as though they were real, and expect that this will allow for the understanding of nama and rupa to arise? A contradiction, therefore, impossible ideal!! > In doing so, one will come to realize that the "activities" being done > are really series of arising rupas and namas, and then will eventually > realize that there is no one doing these things, but that they arise > through conditions. > What arises through conditions? The conventional activities and / or series of rupas and namas? Insight into nama or rupa one at a time, is understanding the First Noble Truth. This has nothing to do with the idea that activities are really a series of arising namas and rupas. There are only conditioned mental and physical phenomena, therefore concepts are not real / do not exist. You appear to be arguing for the existence of conventional activities using the concept of ultimate realities as support. > But that doesn't mean that those series of namas and rupas that make > up those activities are "not to be done." The opposite is the case. > All the "doings" experienced and not experienced are ultimately, the functions and manifestations of namas and rupas. Citta and cetasikas are mental phenomena which can condition speech and body intimation both of which are rupas. All these arise by conditions and when known, have already fallen away, hence no control. What is sometimes also known, is the value of kusala, of which panna is the best, and the harm of akusala, where ignorance is seen as the root of the problem. This knowledge accumulates and at some point manifest through speech and body. Whats important is that, kusala increases by virtue of understanding them for what they are, namely as impersonal elements. On the other hand, to "do" with the idea of self, itself an instance of akusala, can only lead to decrease rather than increase of all forms of kusala. So really, what you said above, namely that "the opposite is the case", is wrong. > I think the main problems that keep people from understanding this way > of looking at dhammas are: > a - that dhammas should be mainly looked at as isolated events that > have no relation to each other; and > Dhamma is the teaching of the Buddha about dhammas. These dhammas have the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Dhammas are conditioned by other dhammas, all equally fleeting. Any relationship between them can therefore be understood when one of these dhammas is object of very high level of panna. Talking about relationships while taking the attention away from the present moment reality, must therefore be result of ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding. > b - that dhammas are totally separate from conventional activities, > Conventional reality being shadows of ultimate reality is saying that, the former are products of the thinking process, itself a reality, based on the rising and falling away of the latter. So no one is saying anything about them being separate. > in "another reality" and thus activities have no relation to reality > at all, but are basically 3-D hallucinations on the part of citta. > "3-D hallucinations" is your own mischaracterization of what is being said here. Shadows are shadows, not hallucinations. > The Abhidhamma Sangaha does *not* agree with this. > You means that you heard about conventional reality being "shadows" of ultimate reality from somewhere else, and not DSG? > Instead, it describes our conventional conceptual experience of > reality as a "shadow" or distorted image of the realities that are > really taking place. > The Abhidhamma Sangaha does not say this, shadows does not mean "distorted". > I think this distinction is absolutely critical. Those who have a > radical view of dhammas and see them separately from conventional life > have exaggerated the separateness of dhammas from conventional forms. > Were there no ultimate realities rising and falling away, there would not be concepts / conventional reality. No one is denying the usefulness of concepts, be it to point out realities or other concepts. What we are saying is that while they can be used to point out ultimate realities, this is all that they can do. > Instead of seeing those forms as distortions, they see them as > hallucinations made out of whole cloth. They ardently deny that > conventional activities and objects "break down into dhammas" and that > dhammas are a more complete understanding of how objects exist. > Concepts are neither distortions nor hallucinations, these latter are functions of ignorance and wrong understanding. What we are saying is that while concepts can be used to point at ultimate realities, this is all that they can do in this regard. They can't be broken down into ultimate realities, because they are products of thinking. Therefore any analysis is done only by way of more thinking, in other words, more concepts. Being shadows of ultimate realities, they can't be "worked out" in order to understand those ultimate realities. To suggest that this can be done is akin to thinking that a book can be lifted off the table by trying to lift its shadow. > Instead they say that objects do not exist at all, and that there are > only dhammas which are of a wholly separate type. > Dhammas are not separate from concepts. Concepts are formed from the experience of dhammas through the five senses and the mind. The tree out there for example, is a concept thought about, based on the experiences by seeing consciousness of visible object, body-consciousness of hardness etc. All these experiences and object of experience have the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Is "tree" presumed to also have these three general characteristics? is it conditioned by other fleeting realities? If not, then it can't be said to exist / be real. > I think this is a terrible mistake. It turns those who think this into > the Buddhist equivalent of Platonists or Gnostics, who see no relation > between life and "ultimate reality," but see the ultimate as an ideal > reality separate from everything we experience. > And you say that you understand our position! A fleeting instance of the Five Khandhas *is* life. Or if you want, you could point to life-faculty the nama, and life-faculty, the rupa. Either way, *life* is a conditioned reality, in other words, a paramattha dhamma. The "everything you experience", which you call life, this is a story about "self"! > This also leads to the idea that meditation, alms-giving, refraining > from killing, etc., > By putting them all in one basket, are you now trying to force all the argument ever made against meditation to also apply to dana and sila? If so, let me remind you that dana and sila are very much encouraged here, particularly in light of the development of the perfections. "Meditation" is of course rejected, and therefore should not be put into this same category. > are not really important precepts of Buddhism, but just code for > kusala or akusala dhammas arising and so we don't have to worry about > such conventional operations. > Dana and sila are realities! If you do not agree with this, let us discuss it. > If we were to understand that conventional life was a distortion of > reality, not a hallucination, > How is the computer screen in front of you a "distortion" of reality? > and that objects and activities do exist, but they exist as series of > arising dhammas, not as stable, fixed realities, > Pariyatti is intellectual understanding about present moment realities. Patipatti is direct understanding about present moment realities. Pativedha is insight into different aspects of present moment realities. What special understanding is this one about objects and activities being series of arising dhammas? And why would you characterize the concept of paramattha dhammas as "stable" and "fixed"? > we would then understand how to meditate, give alms, refrain from > killing, etc., > You mean, you can then justify "meditation" while at the same time believing in the existence of paramattha dhammas? There has never been any kind of "understanding" expressed, just lots of stories that encourage more ignorance and attachment. > but see them as dhammas as our perception became more clear, and > eventually our view of all of these things that were indeed promoted > by the Buddha would be seen as he saw them -- kusala or akusala > dhammas, we would see them broken down into impersonal kandhas. Rather > than being wholly separate, or impervious to our efforts, the right > kinds of cetana can begin to penetrate what we are already doing and > what we go ahead and practice as sati sampajanna develops and > satipatthana becomes more accessible to citta. > > I think it's a much better, much more practical way to look at > dhammas, that actually does service to everything the Buddha said. No > longer do we have to do convoluted yogas of "twists and turns" and > parsing and distorting the words of the Buddha in order to force them > to make sense to a polarized philosophy that denies his worldly > teaching for his teaching about the world of dhammas. They are in fact > a continuum that can be followed and practiced. > As I said, the stuff of ignorance and attachment, and an excuse not to refer to the reality "now". > > When we look at dhammas as isolated events, this also contradicts the > word of the Buddha, for he talked about many many things as continued, > sustained realities that took place over many many moments in which > many dhammas arise and fall away. > You mean if I said that giving dana to the poor is good, I am actually pointing to a series of cittas all of which therefore need to be taken into consideration and understood? > If you look at his contention that he can go into jhana at any time > and enjoy this refined state while walking, sitting, etc., clearly > this attainment is not one that arises in a single moment, but takes > place over as many sustained moments as "he" would like, so we cannot > say that the Buddha's teaching applies only to a "single-moment reality." > Jhana cittas one following another interspersed by sense sphere cittas, one following another. > Most of the teachings are about sustained experiences over time, and > it is by understanding the single dhamma's reality and the conditions > that lead to it, how it passes accumulations and states, etc., that we > understand these larger units, which are included in the stages of > insight. > Please share your knowledge with regard to these larger units, and not just state that they need to be taken into account in order to justify "doing" meditation or anything else. > Single-dhamma addiction can be a very dangerous thing for the path. It > is as if we taught that we can only talk about single letters of the > alphabet, and never talk about how they are combined to form words. > Such a philosophy could never make sense. It takes the smallest unit, > and turns it into a god, which it is not. > The Buddha, by pointing out the existence conditioned nama and rupa and their characteristic of anatta, showed us that what we otherwise take for real and existing, namely beings and things, or atta, are in fact the result of self-view. You apparently do not understand this, but instead keep trying to make a case for atta through misapplication of the concepts of citta, cetasika and rupa. > To understand the dynamics of a single dhamma is important, to see how > citta arises in response to a sense moment or a thought-moment etc. > and what kinds of cetasikas may accompany such a moment, and how they > function. But then we also have to take the blinders off and look at > what these moments add up to in series and sequences, something that > is hated and despised in some quarters around here, among those who > want to stay in the comfy compartment of the single dhamma forever. > Please share your understanding with regard to that which some of us are unwilling to accept due to our attachment to the single-moment theory. Not just what that is, but also how it is consistent with the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths. Sukin #132596 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:51 am Subject: Re: Off to mind-made abstract land of paramattha dhammas truth_aerator Hi Sarah, > > > >KH: The Middle Way is a unique kind of program. It is followed in a >single moment, before anyone can "do" anything. So program might not >be the best word for it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Where does VsM say so? > ... > S: Vism (Nanamoli transl) > > "VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11)" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) It doesn't refute a "person". b) This is a rare quote from a later book in KN (miscelleneous Nikaya). I wouldn't put everything in a single obscure quote from obscure nikaya that contradicts 99.999% of the rest of TP and even Visuddhimaga that deals with people and what they should do. With best wishes, Alex #132597 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Off to Canada philofillet Dear Sarah > > Pls note all - we leave for Thailand on Thursday, so posting will be limited for the next few days and during the next month while we're in Thailand and Vietnam, it'll be sporadic. Have a great trip, I should e able to join you at KK in January. Good timing for me to take a break too, until your return. I have a new writing project I started in Canada, need to get offline. See you in October, unless the barricades are completely overrun. Phil #132598 From: "azita" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:17 am Subject: Re: Off to Canada gazita2002 Hallo Sarah, Jon Safe travels and kindly give my hallos to T.A and all the others in Bkk, and also to the wonderful dhamma group in Vietnam. one question: is metta as simple as just being friendly.? Some days it seems so easy to smile at a stranger walking by, for no other reason than just being friendly. Lobha or metta, and I guess I know the answer to that - only right understanding can really know. patience, courage and good cheer, azita, stuck-in-cairns-and-still-doing-renos ;( > p.s. Pls note all - we leave for Thailand on Thursday, so posting will be limited for the next few days and during the next month while we're in Thailand and Vietnam, it'll be sporadic. Please keep up all the good discussions! > =========== > #132599 From: "azita" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma as refuge. gazita2002 Hallo Khun Jagkrit thank you for your posts, I find them very fresh and clear and I hope you will continue to post. I understand you will be going to KK with T.A. and the others very soon and I would so appreciate, and I think maybe Nina would also, some little 'wisdoms' from you, from your time in KK. Khopkhunkha laanumodana azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Khun Sukin > > > S: Sounds quite severe, but probably very close to the truth. Nowadays it > > has become a fashion to ordain, and in large numbers, as if by doing so, > > the merit which they assume the ordaining to be, is multiplied. The > > number of sheep with Thai citizenship is growing everyday. And the > > probability of sheep having kusala is quite remote, developing > > understanding is an impossibility. > > JK: Sometimes, speaking the truth is bitter. But the truth is the truth. People do something different from the past because they ignore the truth but easily being caught away with cultural fashion. >