37000 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:19am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner22-Contact /Phassa(h) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** Phassa accompanies each of the cittas which arise in different processes: in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door processes (1). Phassa also accompanies the cittas which do not arise in a process of cittas (2), it accompanies the patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum) (3) and the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness). Although these cittas do not arise in a process, they experience an object: the same object as experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life (4). Phassa which accompanies these cittas contacts that object. When there is seeing, visible object is experienced through the eyesense and at that moment there is eye-contact (cakkhu-samphassa). Phassa is eye-contact only at the moment of seeing-consciousness (5). The phassa accompanying hearing-consciousness (sota-vinnana) is ear-contact (sota-samphassa), The phassas arising with the five sense-cognitions (pancavinnana) are named after the relevant sense-base (6). ..... (1)-Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Chapter 13 (2)-Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Chapter 17 (3)-Bhavanga-cittas arise all through life, in between the processes of cittas (4)-Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Chapter 15 (5)- At the moments of citta during the eye-door process phassa is "mind-contact", mano-samphassa. (6)-The phassas accompanying all the cittas other than the five sense-cognitions are called mano-samphassa. ********** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37001 From: Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] â?~Cetasikas' study corner21-Contact / Phassa(g) Hi, Phil and TG - In a message dated 9/28/04 5:52:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hi TG > >My question was not -- "Are things impermanent?" The question was -- "Why > >are things impermanent?" In other words....What is the cause of > impermanence? > > > > Sorry. I misunderstood. I got the feeling you were asking Sarah to prove > that cittas are > impermanent. That's what we have Dhamma for, and knowing the answer directly > (rather than in the superficial way I was referring to) will take many > lifetimes in all likelihood. > > As for why cittas are impermanent, the cause of impermanence, I wonder > if that wouldn't > fall under the unconjencturables "that would bring madness and vexation to > anyone who > conjectured about them." One of these four is "conjecture about (the > origin etc of) the world," > according to the Thanissaro Bhikhu translation. > > Sorry if I've misunderstood your question again. Certainly the above > answer is the only one I > would give. > > One thing I read recently from someone here - probably Nina - that made an > impression on me > was a recommendation to remember that the most direct cause of a citta > arising is the previous one > falling away. We can get caught up in conjecture about the working out of > kamma, but the most direct > cause is right there. Different topic. Sorry. > > Metta, > Phil > ============================== Here are some thoughts of mine on this particular "why" question: Let us accept without a "why", at least for the moment, that (1) whatever arises does so only on the basis of the coming together of requisite conditions and is maintained only on the basis of the maintaining of requisite conditions, and let us also accept that (2) up until a given point in time, t, whatever arose also subsequently ceased or was set to cease. Then, starting at that point in time, t, requisite conditions for maintaining a new dhamma, d, are such that they must, by (2), have ceased or be set to cease, and thus, by (1), d must cease as well. And hence (2) is extended beyond time t. So, my point is that given that nothing can arise or be maintained accept according to causes and conditions, then so long as it has been the case that whatever arises also ceases, such must continue to be the case! The "why" question thus reduces, it seems to me, to be a "how" question, namely "How did it ever get started that what arises ceases?" And I think that the appropriate reply to that is that inasmuch as there is no discernable beginning to the phenomenal flux, that question lacks coherence. This analysis doesn't definitively answer why, but it may fill in some explanatory gaps sufficient to give a drop more of a better "feel" about the matter. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37002 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:01am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 10 ) by Htoo Dear Dhamma Friends, Rob M's ebook at files section. Continue-: Page 41 & 42 1. Page 41 and 42 depict with cartoon. In the cartoon, Rob M mention that The Buddha gives 'a key' to 'the manussa'. The Buddha disappears. The manussa does not know how to use the key and he tries to put it into a wall. And as he know that the key is given by The Buddha, he worships 'the key'. 'The Key'. As far as I see, there are many who worship 'the key' instead of using 'the key'. ''Have you learned suttas? Do you know nikayas? Do you know vinayas? These are The Buddha's words. These are the key? We all should worship it.'' Many do 'key worshiping', :-). Page 43 2. This figure and its explanation is very good and shows how saddha or confidence or faith should be in balance. Page 44 3. Sati is here referred as 'mindfulness' 'attentivenes'. Sati is a key word in Buddha's Path. But there is no satisfactory translated English word for it. Attentiveness may confuse with manasikara or attention. Mindfulness again is not the exact equivalent word for sati. There are many people who are mindful. But they do not have sati. Page 45 4. Metta & Khanti Here is a good explanation. While metta is to sentient beings, khanti may be to sentient beings or situation. Adosa is interpreted as metta. This is not about right, I believe. Metta is more than adosa. Khanti is more than adosa. Both metta and khanti are not cetasika. They are made up of cetasikas. 5. Tatramajjhattata Under this heading, the second sentence should come first and the first sentence should follow it. The second sentence is like opening sentence and definition of tatramajjhattata. Sabbe satta kammassaka and upekkha are more than tatramajjhattata. The second sentence is about right. It is balance. In a tank, there are two sides of wheels with chain. When the engine power is increased in one side, the tank will deviate to the other side. When the other side is increased in power then the tank will again deviate. There has to be a balance when the tank is to go in a straight line. Charioteer is a good example and this is normally shown as an example for tatramajjhattata. This cetasika is frequently confused with upekkha. Page 46 is OK. That is nothing to criticize or add or discuss. Page 47 6. The table here at least make some clarity. These 12 cetasikas are highly complicated to understand. But they are recognized together when we are in good mood while doing kusala dhamma. Page 48, 49 straight forward. Page 50 7. Here there is a pictorial demonstration on rupa. In the explanation, I think eye-sense should be 'eye-sense-base'. There are 1. cakkhu pasada ( eye-sense-base ) 2. sota pasada ( ear-sense-base ) 3. ghana pasada ( nose-sense-base ) 4. jivha pasada ( tongue-sense-base ) 5. kaya pasada ( body-sense-base ) 6. hadaya vatthu ( heart-base ) Upper 5 are also called ayatana while hadaya vatthu is not an ayatana. 7. itthatta bhava rupa 8. purisatta bhava rupa 9. jivita rupa As kammaja rupa, these 9 rupa each combine with 8 inseparable rupa and form rupa kalapa. These 9 rupa kalapas are all kammaja rupa kalapa. May these criticisms be beneficial. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37003 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 075 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Among 52 total cetasikas, the first three cetasikas have been discussed in the previous post. They are phassa or contact, vedana or feeling and cetana or volition. Sanna is also a universal mental factor that always arises with each citta. There are 89 cittas and all have been explained. All these 89 cittas do have sanna as their accompanying cetasika. Sanna is perception. Sanna is cognition. Sanna or perception sees or senses or knows the mark on the arammana that is taken by the king citta. Sanna advises the king citta to note that mark which he cognises. Citta is to know the arammana or object. It is not its function to cognises any mark on the arammana or the object of its attention. This is done by sanna. But as sanna and citta cannot be separated, it may be right to say that citta cognises. These terms especially terms of mind and psyche are a bit complicated and sometimes there seems no clear line of demarcation between some words. Some say sanna is memory. This is not quite right. But memories are built up by constellation of these sanna. The constellation is just illusion. When there is mental darkness or avijja or moha, the illusion of constellation of sanna make a picture of real. But this is not a reality. The reality is sanna. And the citta. Sanna on the other hand may be a conventional word for Pali speakers. But sanna as a cetasika does have its own characteristic. It is to mark, to cognize, to find newness, to find alienity, to find foreigness. Sanna is impermanent. It is anicca. It arises and falls away. It just cognises or mark. There is no permanent sanna. If someone believes that there is a permanent sanna, then he is not the wise and he does not know anicca, dukkha, and anatta. Here a sanna arises. But it never arises on its own. It always accompanies citta which is the leader. The citta is aware of the object of its attention. But it does not cognise which is sanna's function. The arising sanna cognises the object. As he marks or cognizes the object he looks for what is new here at the present object or arammana. If there is a new mark, sanna cognises it and reports it to the king citta and citta is aware of the object with that mark. If there is some experienced marks, it cognises those marks and reports all to the king citta. The citta is aware of the object with those old marks. When billions and billions of sanna arise and fall away, there left an illusion. This is something like a series of electric bulbs depicted in a picture of Mickey Mouse and some words. When electricity runs along the light bulbs each light bulb is lit. Each single light bulb is a sanna. Electricity runs from the 1st bulb to the last bulb. But there left an illusion of light depicting as a mouse and words. This illusion is what we know as memories. Sanna is not memory while memories are made up of sanna and other mental components. When this distinction is not clear, sanna and panna are mixed up. Sanna arises in any citta and its function is to cognise or perceive. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37004 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:07am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 19 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The jhana practitioner has just attained the 5th rupa jhana. For the first time when the 5th rupa jhana citta arises, it immediately falls away and it is followed by bhavanga cittas. These bhavanga cittas are continuously flowing cittas which take the object of the past and they have to stop when mano dvara avajjana citta arises. This mano dvara avajjana citta take the 5th rupa jhana citta as its object and this object is then assessed by later and later javana cittas. As soon as jhana citta arises, the practitioner has been in the another domain rather than in the former domain. Domain here means he is no more in the area of 4th jhana but he is now in the 5th jhana. After scrutinization of jhana factors the practitioner realises that he has been in the 5th rupa jhana. This 5th rupa jhana has to be exercised to become much more efficient. He has to be able to take the 5th jhana at his will. He has to be able to direct his mind to the 5th rupa jhana. He has to be proficient in making his mind how long he will be in 5th rupa jhana. He has to be able to emerge from his 5th rupa jhana at the pre- decided time. He has to be proficient in examining the jhana factors in his 5th rupa jhana and the whole jhana. Repeated exercises make him a perfect jhana practitioner and he now knows his jhana factors very well. But through repeated examination he realises that his 5th rupa jhana is based on rupa. This may draw him down back to the 4th rupa jhana with sukha. If he regains sukha, this may invite piti and finally all 1st jhana factors will back and because of vitakka he may well be pushed into kama vitakka. Bearing in his mind the danger of rupa, he starts to dispassionate on rupa. He reattend on jhana again with dispassion on rupa and when he is well calm with that dispassion, that is when there is just ekaggata and upekkha as jhana factors there arise the 1st arupa jhana citta without any rupa nimitta. As there is nothing, the object is empty space which is boundless. This boundless space is like the space without any object. But citta and associated cetasika such as ekaggata and upekkha jhana factors can take it as object. These mental faculties all depend on this boundless space. The place where deva dwell is called devayatana. Like this the place where citta and cetasikas of 1st arupa jhana dwell is also ayatana. This ayatana is boundless space or akasa. So it is called as akasanancayatana. The citta and cetasikas that take this akasanancayatana as their object is called akasanancayatana arupa jhana citta. This is the first arupa jhana. After a while the practitioner has to practise his 1st arupa jhana to become proficient. May you be able to attain 1st arupa jhana With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37005 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:31am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. R> I understand that you wish to prove that the commentaries R> composed by Buddhaghosa and also the earlier texts such as R> Milindapanha are not to be trusted In the case of the Milindapanha I did not seek to prove anything about the work as a whole. I discussed only the Amara Dialogue, in response to Sarah asking what I thought of it. Whether the work as a whole can be trusted depends on what you mean by this. On this list I notice that terms like 'trustworthy', 'authentic', 'genuine' -- and their opposites -- are often tossed about with very little precision; texts are designated by one or another of these terms without the writer making it clear just what he means by them. On the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, the Pali Milindapanha is a composite text. It consists of an older portion (parts II & III, and a small section of part I) and a later one (parts IV to VII and the legendary material in part I). The older portion can probably be trusted as an accurate account of how the Dhamma was understood by the 1st century Sarvastivadins of Kashmir. The later portion is a Southern Indian or Sinhalese appendage and can probably be trusted as an accurate account of how the Dhamma was understood in Anuradhapura in the 5th century, and perhaps for a century and a half before this. But if by 'trustworthy' you mean is it faithful to the Buddha's teaching, then I would say that this needs to be decided on a dialogue-by-dialogue basis. My overall assessment is that most of the positions defended by "Nagasena" are faithful to the Suttas, but in the Sinhalese sections they are often defended by patently dishonest arguments. Fortunately the author's eristic repertoire is fairly narrow, so an alert reader should have no problem separating the wheat from the chaff. From an historian's point of view the value of the Milindapanha (or rather, of sections II & III of it) is that it provides a glimpse of an important midway stage in the development of Buddhist doctrine: the great councils have been concluded, all the non-Mahayana schools have closed their canons, but Abhidharma is still mainly a categorial affair; systematic Abhidharma, such as one finds in the Mahavihara Commentaries, is barely in its infancy. So here the Milindapanha can be trusted as an important historical source. Moving on now to Buddhaghosa. Rather than confine ourselves to him, perhaps it would be more convenient just to speak of the Mahavihara commentators (MaCs) en bloc, since the points of disagreement between Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala and Mahanama are not very substantial. Here too it is not my intention to prove that these authors "cannot be trusted." I am too much of a vibhajjavadin to resort to such a blanket judgment about authors whose writings range over such a huge field. The following is a brief summary of what I would consider worthwhile and worthless in these writers' oevre: GRAMMAR: completely reliable. I seldom study a Sutta without having its commentary at my elbow. The MaCs were excellent grammarians and I rarely have reason to doubt the way that they unravel the syntax of a complex sentence or analyse the case relations in a compound word. WORD EXPLANATIONS: of mixed reliability. Reliable when they are doing exegesis (drawing out the meaning that words and phrases would have had for the Buddha's audience); unreliable when doing eisegesis (reading what they want into a text). To ascertain which is which one needs to study the history of the development of Buddhist thought so as to know which ideas are early and which evolved later. BUDDHIST HISTORY: highly unreliable. The MaCs were not Herodotuses. The Mahavamsa, the historical portions of the Samantapasadika and the Kathavatthu Commentary should be read not as history but as sectarian legend aimed at painting their own side white and their rivals black. If one is concerned with truth rather than just finding confirmation for the things one already believes, then Buddhist history should be learned from those who have taken into account the full range of historically relevant data. Lamotte's History of Indian Buddhism is probably the best place to begin. VINAYA: mostly reliable. Occasionally Buddhaghosa appears intent on proving the correctness of the received manner of Vinaya observance of the Mahavihara, no matter how at odds this is with the Buddha's own adjudications. But such cases are exceptional; mostly his opinions are reasonable and his jurisprudence sound. SUTTA: of mixed reliability. See remark above on exegesis vs eisegesis. Besides their eisegesis, another cause of unreliability is the MaCs' humourlessness, philistinism, and literalistic treatment of the rhetorical and satirical devices the Buddha sometimes employs. ABHIDHAMMA: almost completely unreliable. The Abhidhamma of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and that of the MaCs share many of the same terms but otherwise have virtually nothing to do with each other. Canonical Abhidhamma is a work of genius; the Commentarial system, reduced to its essential features, could have been concocted by any third-rate thinker familiar with Plato and Locke, without knowing anything about Buddhism at all. HARD SCIENCES & SOCIAL THEORY: completely unreliable. The MaCs' contribution to the sciences clearly bears the stamp of its time and appears to be the product of speculation rather than observation, or else is just the reporting of received opinion and prejudice. Whether this has any serious consequences for what they have to say on the Dhamma is an interesting question. It seems to me that it does at least throw their conception of paramattha dhammas into a parlous state. Every paramattha dhamma, it is claimed, has a sabhava. And that sabhava is partly constituted by the dhamma's NAME. Not just any old name that people might care to give it, but its name in the dialect of Magadha, which is its true and absolute name. How seryously can one take a claim like this, coming as it does in the very same paragraph as a claim that Magadhan is the root language of all living beings and will be spoken by wolf-children? I need to go out now, and will continue later with the rest of your post. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37006 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:47am Subject: Theory and Practice - Eric & Herman / Lo.....ng post Hi Eric and Herman *, > Sukin: > One person cannot make another enlightened. But if the conditions are > there, he will speak with wisdom and if his audience has the right > accumulations, wisdom can arise in him too. But if someone has never > heard the Dhamma (except for Buddhas), then this kind of wisdom can > never arise. > >Eric: You see we are in a quandary here. What about > when the Buddha was not a Buddha? -S> He is an exception. This is related to the traditional belief that only one Samma-Sambuddha can arise in one sasana. The Pacekabuddhas, though more than one can arise at the same time, for any one to even be around is extremely rare, (millions if not billions of years, I think). Anyway, one difference between the two is that the former teaches, but the latter doesn't. However, both would be enlightened to the same dhamma, meaning both would have the same Right View. So even if we disregard what the tradition says, wouldn't you at least agree that any one else who becomes enlightened, he would be teaching the same Dhamma? Also according to tradition, is the belief that anyone at all, savakas or Buddhas, all must in the past (lives) heard and considered much of the correct dhamma, `bahusutta'. This of course, goes hand in hand with the necessity of developing the parami. The Buddha when he was not the Buddha had developed the parami to "perfection". And this is the difference in `conditions' which resulted in him to not needing to hear the Teachings in the last life to become enlightened. With the accumulated self-view from countless lifetimes, it is hard enough to understand Anatta after hearing the Dhamma, but *impossible* it is to realize the same without hearing about it. More on this below. -------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: It *must* start with a conceptual description; this > happened even in the case of Sariputta. > And if a person does understand dhamma, lack of words to describe the > experience is no excuse. > > Eric:Well, I would not say *must*. Maybe for you but > maybe another sense could enlighten another. -S> For example? > ------------------------------------------- > Sukin: But only very great `insight' can glimpse the 4NT via > developed understanding of the conditioned nature of realities, > particularly a firm understanding of anatta. Do you know anyone else > who teaches anatta? > > Eric: Krishnamurti, Ramana used it along with (Self). > Jed Mckenna uses it and I am sure others. > Herman: There are many people who understand that there is no self at the > helm of all that takes place. David Hume, for one, wrote about this at > length. It is not a slight on the Buddha to suggest that others come to > similar realizations as him, independently. It would be, however, very > silly to institute a priesthood to promote the worship of and taking > refuge in David Hume. Or to take out a trade-mark on his insights. *-S> This is why I used `anatta' and not any other word such as `non- self' and so on. I don't claim to understand `anatta' very well and do admit to often using it without any clear understanding. But I do believe that anatta comes together with anicca and dukkha. I believe that only a firm understanding of conditionality will provide any basis for a correct understanding of this concept. A scientist, because he has been conditioned in a certain way, may view everything in terms of impersonal happenings. He may come to adopt a position where he will explain sentience with some scientific theory, hence believing that there is `no self' behind anything. Or someone may have a glimpse into the `uncontrollability' of some experience and begin to question all of his own experience to determine if there is a `self' or `soul' behind any of it. Some may come to observe that there is only action and reaction under specific conditions and conclude that there is no self who stands outside of these conditions. It is not difficult after a good time of being disinterested and objective with regard to one's interaction with the world, to come to a conclusion about there being only `phenomena'. But is this the understanding of anatta? What *is* that which is anatta? If there are only conditions, only impersonal phenomena, what are those conditions and phenomena? What is observed from which the conclusion about no-self been drawn? When concluding that all is not-self, is there any idea of some "thing" out there which has this property? Or if there is no individual `self' is there any idea about some other `SELF' which is the only reality? As I said above, anatta comes together with anicca and dukkha. So there are no `things' which have this property. If there is, then inevitably there will be a "self" in `here' to have the property of anatta! And this is a contradiction. Understanding anatta comes together with the understanding of conditions. Krishnamurti, Ramana and Hume may have come to the conclusion that there is no `self' in here. But what next? They have been satisfied with some explanation or the other, but are these rooted in one form of eternalist or annihilationist view? Most if not all views existed at the Buddha's time, but none of those satisfied him. His accumulated panna was enough to overcome the lobha accompanying any wrong view. Everyone else gets stuck at the kind of lobha. This is why I think sometimes that `reasoning' is not enough to draw anyone away from wrong view. I view `view' ;-), as a inclination to interpret. Because it seems to influences our thinking well before there is any clear cut formulation of our ideas. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > `Formal', according to whom? Did someone teach him this? > > Eric: He discovered it and formally taught it. Formal as in > methodical. What is with the aversion to the word > 'formal'? Do you informally eat or brush your teeth? > One day eat with a shovel and the next with a spoon? > One day brush your teeth with a tooth brush and the > next a hair brush? -S> I saw my wife doing her prayers this morning and the thought came to my mind that "perhaps if she could see through and stop this ritualistic practice, then and only then can any understanding be developed. Rituals seem to be directly opposed to the development of understanding". Of course only with sotapatimagga can any inclination to rites and rituals be eradicated. However, it is important that intellectually there is the recognition and understanding of what constitutes rites and rituals and when pointed out to, to at least acknowledge it. You seem to only see wrong in gross forms of rites and rituals, why is it? Don't you think that in the end it boils down `attitude of mind'? Did you see my description of silabbataparamasa to Htoo? In that `formal' was not the only thing I objected to. More on this below. > Sukin: And "who" does "what"?! If there is not understanding of what is > going on, is this the `cause' leading to the correct `result'? Is > this encouraging of blind faith and the following of rites and > rituals? > > Eric: Dont quite understand you here. The reference > to rites and rituals in the suttas is to the belief > that slaughtering live stock would get you to heaven > and not about samadhi bhavana in the 'formal' systematic > way of regarding sense impressions i.e. 4 foundations of > mindfulness. -S> As above I ask, why limit rites and rituals only to the more obvious and gross type of practice? > ----------------------------------------------------- > Sukin; > Yes theorizing is an annoying habit, but I don't believe in it. But > there is no control over what will arise as long as conditions for > wrong view and other akusala are still present. The concept of > `meditation' as I see it can in fact be a product of such theorizing. > > Eric: Like any other subject. -S> But extremely harmful compared. Because this is where we put all our effort into understanding what Dhamma is. And this being the only chance we have to get it right, I think we must deal with it very seriously and quickly. ----------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: Pariyatti as often expressed here, is panna, though of the very > basic level. It is the correct understanding in terms of conceptual > description, of what is happening NOW. > > Eric: But then all you 'know' is the conceptual Matrix of NOW > and not "NOW". -S> It is better this and to know it than think wrongly that one *is* directly experiencing the NOW when in fact only `shadows' and `illusions' are the object of one's awareness. It is better to have only pariyatti than be lead by wrong view to dwell in miccha patipatti. Part of pariyatti is to come to the knowledge of and realize in experience the different manifestations of wrong view and practice. ------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: To want something more is the work of `lobha' or else a > misunderstanding of the Teachings. > > Eric: So you feel there are no wholesome aspirations? -S> Chandha, determination and whatever is involved cannot be fruitful if not accompanied by panna. If there is no understanding of the present mental state, what use is aspiration? If any aspiration is accompanied by other akusala mental factors, will this lead to any good? -------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: Also not knowing that pariyatti is *not* about words but a level > of understanding, one may reason that one must leave all this behind > and directly `look', meditate. > > Eric: Above you say it is words and now you say it is not? > So which is it? -S> It is always a reference to `understanding' and not the actual words which constitute any statement. Referring to the same concepts, different people have different understandings, some right and some wrong. However we all *do* need the correct words to direct our understanding. For example, were we not told about the difference between `seeing', `visible object' and `thinking', we would still be thinking that the people, things and general situations we perceive are real in some sense. But upon hearing this, panna might see some sense in the suggestion and immediately have a glimpse of the difference between reality and concept. To some people, it does not make sense or there is no interest, so there won't be any appreciation, less any experience no matter how slight, of this distinction. And this is the difference between panna and lack of. ------------------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: But this is wrong understanding of the moment, conceptually, and > instead believing in a concept of `doing something', where a `self' > is projected into a future state. > > Eric: Yep, that is how it starts. Then maybe you find you are > not in Kansas anymore (reference to the Wizard of Oz). -S> What about the possibility of landing in Oz and not realizing that it is not real? ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: One starts with self view and ends up feeding it further with any > consequent illusion of result. > > Eric: That is one possiblility. But there is much to > realize if you are honest at this point and you > see this in action and not merely think this thru. > You realize, 'holy shit, I have been deluding > myself my whole life!'. This is a big turning point > if 'felt' in ones bones or ones guts. There can be > great joy here too. Because identity view is being > dismantled and many burdens related to 'self' are > being dropped. Many fears and doubts can fall away > at this time. -S> Or one may gravitate to views accepting the concept of Buddha nature, or Tao, or Universal Mind, all of which give a sense of `self' being insignificant. But the point is, how does one determine if at any given stage, that one is upon or not the correct path? ---------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: But the same applies to any reality, even jhana cittas must > be seen with satipatthana. > > Eric: Indeed, but one must see them not from the veil > of conceptualization but thru direct perception. > One must first cultivate the jhanas and then see > this, otherwise all this is just more thought and > talk. You know, 'the commentators said...blah, blah, > blah'. -S> Not all conclusions are the result of theory and reasoning based on this. There is a dhamma now and can to some degree be known to have the characteristic of anatta and anicca. There are kusala cittas and akusala, both have these same characteristics. Though jhana has not been experienced, this is not any discredit. What is important is the development of the more important kind of panna unique to the Buddha; one does not and must not wait for any particular mental state. -------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: I think the idea that one can and must decide > to do away with theory, is a misunderstanding not only of the > significance of the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and > pativedha, but also from *not* knowing the moment and having instead > only a wrong view of it. > > Eric: When you are ready, via death or your own Right > Intentions you will see it is the Right thing > to do. It is scary because that is all we know > but a new type of 'food' will eventually feed > the mind or spirit. You will eat kilesa for > breakfast lunch and dinner till there are none > left! -S> If you are referring to the N8FP, then Right Intention is a mistranslation if not wrong understanding on the part of the translator for sammasankappa, which is in fact vitakka cetasika and should rightly be called Right Thought. I realize that many people prefer the translation as Right Intention. It seems here that they like to identify with a sense of `doing' and `achievement', willing to accept the concept of anatta and conditionality only to a limited degree. ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: Regarding urgency at the time of death, I don't know what I will > do, maybe out of `fear' I might think about meditation. :-( But this > would be due to self-attachment and lack of confidence. > > Eric: What was the Buddha doing on the eve of his enlightenment? > What was he doing when he died? -S> Not anything that he would ask you and I to imitate in outward behavior. Even if we know for a fact that he went in and out of jhanas, do you think he means us to do the same? Why would he? If what he did is the `result' of causes and conditions, should we attempt to summon up similar states or should we study the causes? And in considering what the causes are, what do you think is more valuable, the development of jhana or satipatthana? > ------------------------------------------------- > Herman : One of the realities to be discovered is that humans are a group-animal, > and that many people can just not function without authority figures, > the leaders of the pack. Being an island unto yourself and knowing the > Dhamma for yourself is just not an attractive proposition for most. For > these people the preference is to be told what to think and what to do, > and the idea that insight is transcendental and unattainable for > themselves is very comforting. *-S> Mana can indirectly condition a need to identify with or else disown any other being or Teachings. There are many reasons for this, but I don't think it helps to generalize and refer to such ideas as "humans are a group-animal" or that "people cannot function without a leader". Dhammas arise and fall in an instant and there is no need for anyone to be labeled as `this kind of person or that'. "Being an island unto yourself" can come from realizing that indeed the world is just this arising and falling of momentary realties. There is no pushing any `self' into such a realization, hence the idea that it may be due to it `not being an attractive proposition' is unnecessary. However this does not mean that a particular Teacher and his Teachings cannot consequently be seen as the one and only correct set of teachings. The ariyans faith in the Buddha is real and strong indeed as compared to us putthujanas. On the other hand, one may rebel against the idea of submitting to any particular teacher and not realize that one is in fact coming from a position of having being influenced by numerous other teachers. Look forward to your reply. Sorry for the length of the post. Metta, Sukin. 37007 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L and Phil, Andrew, I appreciate your kind post and especially your last q how to develop right understanding. Answering Emails also helps me to consider more. And I am inspired by Phil who answered some of your Q. Since I am off for India Oct 11 and have to finish something, I will not react to all your points, but I go into some of them, especially your last points. A: I can develop these perfections one >> at a time. op 28-09-2004 01:52 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Ph: When you read the book you'll learn that we don't choose to develop the > perfections one at at time, > they arise due to (guess what?) conditions. We have to develop all of them, > but how and when this occurs > is not so controllable, and takes - you got it- a long, long time. N: Phil said it!!! A: I'm not so keen on trying to live a normal average joe >> daily life with a little bit of mindfulness. I want to realize that >> life is practise. N: Ah, you have to lead a normal average joe daily life with a little bit of mindfulness. It cannot be otherwise. See what Phil answers and my comment, he inspires me here. > Ph: Life is practise, yes, absolutely, but "a little bit of mindfulness" is > what > abhidhamma is all about. K Sujin (through Nina) reminds us again and again > that we cannot expect a lot of mindfulness (sati). We cannot control if and > when > it arises. It arises due to conditions. In fact, another one of her > students, Allan Driver (I forget his ordained name) said "one moment of sati > in a lifetime? Wealthy man!" or words to that effect. > So it will take many lifetimes. N: Yes. The late Ven. Dhammadharo said it all with such conviction and inner strength. There should not be the slightest bit of trying to be mindful, then it is spoilt again. Then it is not sati that is so completely anatta. We have to learn that dhammas are non-self, whether we like it or not. The idea of self enters surreptiously, mind you, for all of us, but it should be realized. When there is just one moment of sati and pañña no matter how short, arising because of its own conditions, we are on the right track. We are very rich!!! It falls away, but, whatever we learn is accumulated and can condition a moment of right sati later on. So, don't worry. A: Can you elucidate on how this understanding is developed? Intellectual.., or what? Cause I am often very slow with understanding, this is a rather big obstacle in the road for me the vast majority of the time. N: We all are slow, no wonder. We are all in the same boat. Such an amount of ignorance and wrong view accumulated. We have to discuss more on nama and rupa, this is very basic. Remember, the first stage of tender insight is knowing the difference between nama and rupa. I hope others will also give input about this important subject. So, I would recommend the Elephant Footprint Simile (M.N. sutta 28), maybe Wheel no 101 is on line. Sariputta speaks about the khandhas, and about four Great Elements, rupas, inside the body and also outside. Take heat, it is in the body, but also outside: it burns up villages, towns, etc. Fire does not know anything, it just burns. It is hot. But we cling more to heat in the body. It has to be realized as only rupa. It does not know anything, it does not know, I am hot. We should thoroughly reflect on rupa, as different from nama. As Azita said: Thus, first we have to have correct theoretical understanding, and then there will be for sure conditions for the arising of sati, it arises because of its own conditions. When you read the sutta it is of no use to try and catch the elements of the body, that is not the way. It is a good sutta to discuss here. A: Eh we can take the traditional 'make merit in your youth' stand and abstain completely but perhaps you have something with trying to understand what is conditioning it and what lies underneath it, if not to reduce the underlying defilements and tendencies towards unwholesomeness, to gain some understanding in the least. N: Understanding is the key factor. My husband, Lodewijk, said something interesting. Talking about perfections, he finds the perfection of truthfulness so important. Being sincere, truthful to yourself, not seeing yourself as being wiser than you are. But, he said, what is so disturbing as to truthfulness? The latent tendencies of defilements such as ignorance, desire and wrong view. They condition the arising of akusala cittas with wrong view and therefore we are deluded time and again. We cling to sati. We want it all for ourselves and a lot of it, at once. You see that the perfections are closely connected with the development of right understanding. Leading one's ordinary, daily life, yes, with the development of the perfections. A. Sujin stresses that in helping others where we can, we think less of ourselves. It does not help to think of my sati, or, oh, when will it come. Better not think of it. Helping: it depends on the situation of each one of us. It can be by way of Email, or speaking kind words. Read Phil's posting of Wholesome Deeds. Reading that is also mental development, kusala. It gives you ideas how to develop kusala. We have my old father. We give him stimulating talk for his mind which at times is wandering. The other day we were discussing the future of Europe, very good for him as ex-parlementarian. We were just like three idealistic youngsters debating. All this is just daily life. We do not have to retire from political engagement or any engagement in the world. We have to be natural, we have to know our natural accumulations, not leading an artificial life. But in the beginning we are likely to have such ideas: separating Dhamma life and worldly life. Nina. 37008 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Universal Causality ... !!! BlankFriends: Caused by What ? Ignorance causes mental construction to arise. Mental construction causes consciousness to arise. Consciousness causes name-&-form, mind-&-matter to arise. Name-&-form cause the-6-sense-sources to arise. The-6-sense-sources cause contact to arise. Contact causes feeling to arise. Feeling causes craving to arise. Craving causes clinging to arise. Clinging causes becoming to arise. Becoming causes birth to arise. Birth causes ageing, decay, & death to arise. Ageing, decay, & death cause suffering to arise. So is the emergence of this entire mass of pain..!! There is becoming, birth, presence, decay, & ceasing of the moments of time. There is becoming, birth, presence, decay, & ceasing of the lives of the being. There is becoming, birth, presence, decay, & ceasing of the galaxies of the universe. This sweeping yet exhaustive description of causality applies to all these three extreme timescales and all those in between. Verily of Universal Generality is this Dependent Co-Arising (Paticca Samuppada)! Dig it & keep digging. Then understanding will ever expand: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-002.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-044.html The Buddha has said: Profound, Ananda, is this dependent origination, and profound does it appear. It is through not understanding, not penetrating, this subtle law that this world resembles a tangled ball of thread, a bird's nest, a thicket of grass or reed. Any person who does not understand this, does neither escape from the lower states of existence, nor from the course of pain, misery & suffering, nor from this ever-returning round of rebirth. Digha Nikaya 15 Whoever understands Dependent Origination understands the Dhamma. Whoever understands the Dhamma understands Dependent Origination. Majjhima Nikaya 28 PS: Today is Full-moon Uposatha day, Observance day, Poya day: May all benefit! More info on this Buddhist Holy Day: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37009 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] â?~Cetasikas' study corner: cause of impermanence Hi TG and Phil, op 28-09-2004 02:37 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: My question was not -- "Are things impermanent?" The question was -- "Why > are things impermanent?" In other words....What is the cause of impermanence? N: I did not keep all posts. Excellent questions. We read in the K.S. IV, 64 (or XXXV, II, 4, §93) Kindred Sayongs on Sense, Duality: There are many intricate conditions concurring for that one short moment of seeing. So, I find it understandable that seeing cannot last. As Phil said, also the preceding citta is a condition. It is the first one in the process after the bhavanga-cittas and it adverts to visible object. There is also kamma-condition that produces seeing. There are also the cetasikas that condition seeing. Eyesense and visible object are rupas dependent on conditions: the four great Elements arise together with these rupas and uphold, support them. The more you know conditions the clearer it will become. TG said: < when hardness presents itself, phassa performs its function so that > citta can experience the object. > The Buddha taught that feeling, perception, mental formations, and > consciousness were in reality not "separable." He explained that he only separated them for purposes of analysis.> True, the five khandhas in this human plane always arise together. When there is seeing, there is also feeling, etc. Now the analysis: this is not for the sake of theory at all. It is for detachment from the idea of self. When you see the whole you cling, and how. Think of the whole body, you cling. But parts are not so attractive, they are insignificant. So it is with the khandhas, they are nama and rupa. The Buddha taught how to be aware of a single nama and rupa very precisely so that we would really penetrate its true nature of impermanence and anatta. Each one falls away. Nothing worth clinging to. Rupa is quite different from nama and we should learn their different characteristics when they present themselves. This is the only way to over come doubt as to nama and rupa Nina. 37010 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner21-Contact /Phassa(g) Dear Azita, op 28-09-2004 03:33 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > A: while reading this, the thought came to me "why on earth do I > believe all this c....? I've never experienced it, and it sounds > ludicrous!!!" > That thought was quickly followed by "bec it feels so...right" > I'm sure understanding grows so slowly but surely, that there must > come a time when there is little reason for doubt to arise. N: Very common that doubts arise until you are a sotapanna. We all have such moments. Once Ven. Dhammadharo was speaking about excruciating doubts and that impressed me. He was so convinced. But to have firm understanding we should begin with nama and rupa! I just heard on MP3, when you are hungry, is it nama or rupa? Nama, rupa cannot feel hungry. When hardness appears, it shows that there must be a nama that experiences it. It is body-consciousness, as we learn. But now we should learn that hardness and the experience are quite, quite different. Let's continue this in India. Do you know Thai? I have to make notes for Lodewijk anyway, and I can give you summaries of all the talks we have in Thai in India. Nina. 37011 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Deeds of Merit: sam and vip in bhaavaana Hello Phil, op 28-09-2004 12:55 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Mildly surprised to read that samatha "eliminates" kusala. I'm used to > reading that it "temporarily suppresses it." Maybe I'm confusing "eliminate" > and "eradicate." N:weakens their strength is added. It is not eradicated. 37012 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner19- doorway Dear Azita, op 28-09-2004 03:08 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > A: this sentence puzzles me. The fact that the citta needs a > physical base in the nama/rupa realms is clear to me, but this dvara > is a mystery! N: Doorway is just the means through which citta can know an object. Mat explained about this. We should not think of door in a litteral sense. But a dhamma, a rupa functions as doorway. S: The >> cittas which arise in the mind-door process also have as their > vatthu the >> 'heart-base'. > > A: ...so what is/are their dvara? I guess I don't know what dvara is? N: The last citta arising before the mind-door process starts, which is the bhavangacitta. Thus, the mind-door is nama. Is there anything you find unclear? dvaara: gate or entrance. Process of cittas: viithi: a road or path way. The way they go. They proceed or occur, in Pali: pavattati. These are all words to help you to understand the processes of cittas which experioence an object through a doorway. The object reaches the citta as it were through a doorway. This is all figurative. Nina. 37013 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:23pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 076 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna arise with each arising citta. There are another 3 cetasikas that always accompany each citta. They are ekaggata or one-pointedness, jivitindriya or mental life, and manasikara or attention. Ekaggata is one-pointedness. It pinpoints at a spot. It concentrates at a point. It fixes at a point. Ekaggata cetasika advises the king citta to fix at a point so that the king citta can work much more effectively. Ekaggata is a cetasika that always arise with each of 89 cittas whether it is kusala or akusala or abyakata like vipaka or kiriya citta. It has its own specific function. That function is to fix at a point. It also advises other cetasika to fix at the same point that he and the king citta fix at. Ekaggata itself is a cetasika and it is not concentration. Concentration comes from dilution. Less and less dilution means become concentrated. Normally the mind always follow sensuous things as its object. It changes its object frequently. At a time the object is here, at another moment, the object is not the same and may totally change. Cittas at different objects are like dilution. When citta takes the same object again and again for a long time, at each moment ekaggata will be at the same object. Instead of spreading away, it becomes concentrated. To said to have a concentration, there have to be many many cittas. One of 2 moha mula citta is called uddhacca citta. It is upekkha sahagatam uddhacca sampayutta citta. This citta is moha mula akusala citta that arises when beings become restless and upset. This citta when it arises successively, it is said that restless. In that uddhacca citta, there does arise ekaggata cetasika. Ekaggata is translated as concentration. Uddhacca is translated as restlessness, upsetness, spreading. These two are totally different and completely opposite. But characterwise, ekaggata is to fix at a point. Uddhacca is to spread wide and far away. There are jhananga dhammas. Akusala cittas also have jhananga dhamma. That is why some akusala work do need a good concentration. This concentration is called miccha-samadhi. Ekaggata in akusala jhananaga are miccha-samadhi. Here what is important is that there is no miccha-sati at all. Why? Sati never arises with akusala citta. But there are miccha-samadhi. Why? Ekaggata cetasika does arise with akusala citta. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37014 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:49pm Subject: Jhana Journey ( 20 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When in akasananca ayatana jhana, the arupa jhana citta takes the object boundless space. This space is not the space outside of this earth. But it is the space that emerges from removal of existing patibhaga nimitta. In the 5th rupa jhana, the object has to spread to cover the whole universe. After voiding of this cover, there left nothing and this space is boundless. This space is akasa nimitta pannatta. It is not a reality. It is just a pannatta. The 1st arupa jhana citta take pannatta as its object. This akasananca ayatana arupa jhana also needs to be practised. When the practitioner practises diligently through different exercises he becomes proficient in 1st arupa jhana. He can access at any time whenever he wants. He can stay in 1st arupa jhana as long as he wants. He will be able to arise from arupa jhana at the defined period. He is proficient in examining and scrutinizing jhana factors in 1st aruapa jhana. When overall weightage of 1st arupa jhana is done and jhana itself is scrytinized, the practitioner notices that akasananca ayatana arupa jhana is quite close to rupa 5th jhana. To be freed from this danger, he has to ascend a step up. Akasa that arises from patibhaga nimitta may re-fuse with patibhaga nimitta. To prevent this, he must run away from akasa. He becomes dispassionated on akasanancayatana object and he is searching for a further step. The object of 1st arupa jhana is limitless. It is boundless. As it is limitless and boundless, the citta that take it as the object can said to be limitless and boundless. The thana or place is akasanancayatana that is boundless space. The thanii or he who dwell in akasanancayatana is akasanancayatana arupa jhana citta. This citta is also boundless and limitless. There is no rupa involved in these arupa jhana citta. At a time when citta still and calm, there arise the 2nd arupa jhana citta. This new citta takes old cittas that are limitless and boundless as its object is also limitless and boundless. This is 2nd arupa jhana citta. This citta take the object of paramattha dhamma. This paramattha dhamma is citta. The citta here is akasanancayatana 1st arupa jhana citta. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37015 From: matt roke Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:32am Subject: [dsg] Picking up thread with Ken and Robert (was The Buddha as physician) Hi Ken, Sorry about the misunderstandings. I hope the following is not off track. ============================ ============================ Ken> I know a Sotapanna can have desire for sense pleasures. Was I right in assuming he could have desire for mental objects, such as alobha? ============================ The Sotapanna may experience an object with lobha or dosa. He may have alobha followed by lobha. Or he may have lobha followed by dosa and the thought *I don't like lobha* but he knows that there is no self that thinks this. But I don't think he would say "I do not like lobha, therefore I shall have alobha instead." The Sotapanna knows that there is not a self with lobha or alobha. He knows that there is not a self that can stop lobha arising or make alobha arise. And he knows that the cittas which have desire for alobha are not the same cittas that condition alobha. MattR 37016 From: Egbert Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner22-Contact /Phassa(h) Hi everyone, Just a quick question or two: ==== > Phassa also accompanies the cittas which do not arise in a process of cittas (2), it accompanies the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- consciousness) the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum) (3) and the > cuti-citta (dying-consciousness). Although these cittas do not arise in a process, they experience an object: the same object as experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life (4). ==== In terms of citta, what on earth is rebirth, life, dying and previous life? Is there any way of knowing any of these cittas without corelating them with events in the body? Of course I am happy to be told what the knowable characteristics of these cittas are, but they appear up front to be referring to non-citta realities. This would make them after-the-fact convenient inferences without any knowable characteristics. Kind Regards Herman 37017 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > Please allow me to butt in again. > Ph: "When the time comes." I think that shows good understanding of the way > conditions work > Maybe I can be a condition that encourages you to read it now! ;) Well for instance, my meditation came one day and I was filled with energy. At that point I might be well enough to read the chapter on good will and start generating loving feelings for myself and then extend them to my family. > Life is > short and it's a great book. Also, I think that rather > than just concentrating on one chapter of Abhidhamma in Daily Life at a > time, in detail, you can read Perfections > easily, a chapter at a time, and it'll help the gist of abhidhamma to appear > before your mind in a way that you > can respond to. The whole package. > > And to be honest, I think engaging Nina in long e-mails when you haven't > really *got* the gist of her > teaching (well, the Buddha's teaching, through K Sujin, through Nina) it is > demanding for her, time-wise, > without really being rewarding for you. > > >I can develop tehse perfections one > > at a time. > > Ph: When you read the book you'll learn that we don't choose to develop the > perfections one at at time, > they arise due to (guess what?) conditions. We have to develop all of them,> > but how and when this occurs > is not so controllable, and takes - you got it- a long, long time. > I developed renunciation by following suggestions in Ayya Khema's "Being Nobody, Going Nowhere." There are meditations on good will and metta. I do not believe that we have to wait many lifetimes for these to accumulate by chance. If that were the case, why would we, who are interested in practising the Buddha's teachings, be any more favored with these perfections than someone who is not? Simply put, we can develop these perfections, and the Buddha has laid out a system of practise that can result in final apprehension of spiritual truths, or, arahantship, in one lifetime. The condition is that "anyone practises these four foundations of mindfulness in this way." Well, I want to know how to practise exactly right, that is why I am here, I already practise somewhat, and I sure think I fit the description of 'anyone.' So, seven years if i practise well, maybe longer if I don't. Hell maybe one week! I'm still open to hearing about how the perfections and satipatthana can relate to each other and culminate in the realization of unbinding but I think we can actively develop them, in fact I myself have done that very same thing. > Nina has said this several times, you know. I appreciate Nina's works and her contributions to us all but I do not look to her, nor the high preist at my temple, as one whose words should be given unquestioned acceptence. Sometimes I give this designation to the Buddha, and I'm criticized for even doing that. Something about 'put[ting] no head above your own' sound familiar? > I can relate to what you said > about not retaining what you read in books, > but retaining what you read in > books and retaining what a teacher like Nina says to you directly in e-mails > should be different. Please reread each of her e-mails several times. As > you > said before, we are very fortunate to have her here, teaching us directly, > but > to tell the truth it seems to me sometimes that you're not *really* > listening. > The following > bit provides an example: > > > Well I have realized that your 'Abhidharma in Daily Life' applies to > > just that, daily life. The way I sometimes practise the four > > foundations of mindfulness is to establish myself in what I can of > > them, and make *that* daily life. So it's a total practise, I just > > need to fill in the missing parts. That's where I think Abhidharma > > can help. I'm not so keen on trying to live a normal average joe > > daily life with a little bit of mindfulness. I want to realize that > > life is practise. > > Ph: Life is practise, yes, absolutely, but "a little bit of mindfulness" is > what > abhidhamma is all about. K Sujin (through Nina) reminds us again and again > that we cannot expect a lot of mindfulness (sati). We cannot control if and > when > it arises. It arises due to conditions. In fact, another one of her > students, Allan Driver (I forget his ordained name) said "one moment of sati > in a lifetime? Wealthy man!" or words to that effect. > So it will take many lifetimes. So in the next block you say that there are methods for mindfulness all day. Look, I have practised intentionally so that I have been as mindful as reasonable possible of all feelings going on in my body at any given time, and the conditions were the books there, the four requisites, and my desire to practise. I don't believe we are only restricted to a little bit of mindfulness. The Buddha prescribed knowing a pleasant feeling when one is feeling a pleasant feeling, similarly for painful and neutral feelings, he prescribed us to divide the body into the four elements and reflect on that, he prescribed a way to develop mindfulness of breathing, it is all described so that it is to be practised continually for a period of time anywhere from one week to seven years. If we don't practise very well, it may take even longer. I still like the seven year mark and hope to realize it when I have developed a reasonable understanding of what's involved in practising the four foundations (hopefully which will not take more than a few more years so I can still be in my youth for this) Certainly mindfulness and awareness can be influenced by outside causes and conditions to arise, but I have developed them in the past myself and I am betting on the fact taht I will continue to be able to do so in the future. > > Is it possible that this kind of teaching is not right for you at this > time? I was saying > that to TG in another thread. Maybe there are accumulations that make > certain teachings right > for different people at different times. There are other teachers who allow > for > maintaining sati in a more continuous way. For example, Ajahn Chah said > something like > "30 minutes without sati means 30 minutes crazy" or words to that effect. > Maybe those > teachers are more suitable for you now. I am thinking of your well-being, > and Nina's. > I think she will urge patience again and again and again, and you will > insist on a more > ambitious practise again and again and again. In any case, please read > Perfections. It's not > heavy going and will really give you a nice feeling for the gist of > abihdhamma, in my opinion. > I'm not even sure I can read these and take away a good understanding.. I'd like to wait till I'm ready and can actually put some of them into practise before I read, but maybe I'll take a look beforehand anyway. > Sorry for sticking my nose in again. Peace to you, Andrew. You're an > interesting fellow, > and even when I don't agree with your ambitious approach it encourages me to > look at > a possible lack of ambition on my part. Thanks for that. > > Metta, > Phil Thanks for your opinions, Phil -AL 37018 From: Egbert Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Dear Edwina (a fairly safe translation of Dighanaka) :-), I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the rigorous scholarship, sound reasoning and clever humour in your posts. That I agree with you on many points is neither here nor there, but that fact goes to explain why you don't hear much from me. Kind Regards Herman > In the case of the Milindapanha I did not seek to prove anything > about the work as a whole. I discussed only the Amara Dialogue, > in response to Sarah asking what I thought of it. > > Whether the work as a whole can be trusted depends on what you > mean by this. 37019 From: Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hi Phil, That's a good point about the desirability of whiskey has to do with pleasant bodily feeling. I hadn't thought of that, so I guess that blows my argument. On the other hand one might ask why does one like a taste that is accompanied by neutral feeling or dislike a taste that is accompanied by a neutral feeling. Ordinarily we are equanimous toward neutral feeling but there is definitely a lot of like and dislike when it comes to taste. The other question was, isn't it a little hedonistic to say that pleasant bodily feeling is always the result of virtuous (kusala) intention? I don't remember Nina's answer but we might consider the difference between proximate cause, which could be some unvirtuous (akusala) desire, and the kamma from some previous life of which this consciousness is the result. Additionally we could say the Buddha certainly didn't sanction the valueing of pleasant bodily feeling. Rupa is dukkha and feeling is dukkha. Larry 37020 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Butchers, Carpenters and Anapanasati Sutta Hi Jon and everyone, Thanks for your post. Your post has led me to consider more. This is the result. Just when you thought the thread was over and done with :-) ======== J > > It is not without reason that it is said that > As the crested, > blue-necked peacock, > when flying, > never matches > the wild goose > in speed: > Even so the householder > never keeps up with the monk, > the sage secluded, > doing jhana > in the forest. Note that it is a *sage* that is referred to here, not just any ascetic doing jhana (understanding is the key, as always), so the comparison is clear. ========== H > I am curious as to how particular designations, like sage, sotapanna etc are to be read and understood. In the SuttaNipata we have: 650: By birth a brahmin is not born, by birth a non-brahmin is not born, By actions a brahmin is born, by actions a non-brahmin is born.. 651. By actions a farmer is born, by actions a craftsman is born, By actions a merchant is born, by actions a workman is born.. 652. By actions a robber is born, by actions a soldier too, By actions an adviser is born, by actions a king too. 653. Thus the wise see action as it really is, Seeing it dependently arising become clever in the results of actions. I read this as saying that however you are designated is not yours for life, like a job in the public service. A carpenter is a carpenter because he carpents, and when the man would butcher he is not a carpenter but a butcher. A sotapanna is not so for the duration, but only while he is sotapanning. A sage is anyone who acts sagacious, and when he reverts to foolishness he is a fool. I read you as saying that once a sage always a sage, like in the public service. Can a sage act foolishly? Can a fool act wisely? I would say that by actions a sage is a sage, and by actions a fool is a fool. None of this public service, job for a lifetime, stuff :-) One who listens to and follows the Buddha's instructions is wise by virtue of those actions, and one who credits his vaporous accumulations, or the lack thereof, for their action contrary to the best advice receives the temporary status and rewards accorded to those actions. Kind Regards Herman 37021 From: plnao Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew Thanks for your patience with my never-ending busy-bodyiness. > Well for instance, my meditation came one day and I was filled with > energy. At that point I might be well enough to read the chapter on > good will and start generating loving feelings for myself and then > extend them to my family. Ph: Metta is very powerful, for sure. I wrote in that other post that these days I don't believe in intentional practice of Metta, but that goes against the grain of what most Buddhists believe. I have faith that your practice of loving-kindness will help a lot. BTW, the other day when typing a post, I did a funny typo. Instead of "loving-kindness" I typed "living-kindness." And I think "living kindness" is in fact the best translation of metta that I've ever heard! Metta in daily life, arising here and there in the most mundane situations. > > Nina has said this several times, you know. > > I appreciate Nina's works and her contributions to us all but I do not > look to her, nor the high preist at my temple, as one whose words > should be given unquestioned acceptence. Sometimes I give this > designation to the Buddha, and I'm criticized for even doing that. > Something about 'put[ting] no head above your own' sound familiar? Ph: I know I was very obnoxious on this point. This "unquestioned acceptance" is something I've been thinking a lot about lately. Yesterday I even googled "submission" and "Buddha" to see if anything would come up. Except for one person's post at a group like this, nothing did. It just seems to me that there is all this desire on the part of everyone to put their own spin on teachings, to find their own interpretations, to tailor their own understanding. It stands out at DSG. I don't know if it's a western thing in particular, or a male thing. (The way men never want to ask for directions when they're lost, perferring to figure it out on their own.) I think of the customs in Asia, in which people do prostrations to the Buddha. Needless to say I'm not saying we should do prostrations to Nina, intellectually. But in my opinion when we come across a teacher that we respect there should be a period - who knows how long - during which we are fairly submissive to the teaching, giving it time to soak in before we leap back with our own opinions. Stress on "fairly" here. It's all middle way. I'm sure some people would think, do think, that I am wanting to be Nina's pet by "parroting" everything she or K Sujin says. I find this "parroting" to be a very foolish word, a very wrong-view word. Part of mental development (bhavana, one of the categories of the wholesome deeds) is studying Dhamma, and obviously repeating the words of one's teacher is a part of that. I wish people would think twice before they talk of "parroting." It makes them sound as if they have no respect for Dhamma. OK, getting off topic. My point was to say that I think a period of listening respectfully without allowing the mind to leap up into one's own views, or maybe more importantly without allowing mind to leap off to compare the teaching one is listening to to other teachings, is important. Of course Ayya Khema is wonderful. I have two binders filled with those essays. But while I'm listening to one teacher, I concentrate on one teacher. I think that's the only way for the teaching to soak in. Again, as usual, just my opinion. Ph>>. In any case, please read > > Perfections. It's not > > heavy going and will really give you a nice feeling for the gist of > > abihdhamma, in my opinion. > > > A> I'm not even sure I can read these and take away a good > understanding.. I'd like to wait till I'm ready and can actually put > some of them into practise before I read, but maybe I'll take a look > beforehand anyway. This was so obnoxious of me. Obviously you have already been developing the perfection of patience or you would have told me to bugger off. I want a clean copy of some of my favourite passages from "Perfections" so I think I will after all start posting some passages. This won't be aimed at you - though I hope you'll enjoy them. As I said above, I believe repeating the words of one's teacher is a form of bhavana. Or should I say, the words of one's good Dhamma friend. Nina says she's not a teacher. Catch you later, Andrew Metta, Phil 37022 From: plnao Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:38pm Subject: Perfections - Introduction. Hello all I've decided to start posting brief passages from Nina's "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" available at abhidhamma.org. I find typing out passages from a favourite book to be a form of bhavana. I know we're already looking at "Cetasikas" but this book is quite different. For those of you who think this is too much posting of book passages, thank you for your patience. Needless to say, comments would be very welcome. Metta, Phil from the introduction: "If the Buddha had not attained enlightenment and taught us the truth of all realities, we would live in complete darkness, not knowing the way to develop right understanding, not knowing what is right and what is wrong. It is a blessing that the Buddha taught us the way to develop right understanding. It is a blessing that there still is opportunity to hear the Dhamma 'which Only becomes manifest at rare intervals covering immeasurable aeons.'" "The Bodhisatta was unshakable in his resolution to develop the paramis (perfections) in order to attain Buddhahood for the welfare and happiness of other beings. He always had in mind to alleviate the sufferings of beings and he was prepared to give his life for them. He was mindful of his ultimate goal, the attainment of Buddhahood, also when he encountered great difficulties and obstacles. He practised the perfections with constancy and vigour, out of compassion for us, so that we too can attain enlightenment." 37023 From: Egbert Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:38pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hi RobK, The following is only half-serious, the rest is half-funny, but I'm not sure which applies where :-) ====== > I feel I have grown up on Jataka and find them all very helpful. > Even the rather disparaging comments are useful: they warn. I was a > bit romantic in my youth and would feel downhearted when (as happened > several times) a love would desert me for another. Now I feel almost free of jealously - if my current girlfriend goes with another man, > then I feel that is the way it should be. ====== Of course this ready acceptance could also be a condition for her leaving in the first place. If there is neither joy in the coming or going of a partner, there clearly is no desire for an engaging relationship to start with, which may well become obvious to her. :-) Kind Regards Herman 37024 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:01pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Dear Herman, I owe you another post on rebirth which I will try to do over the weekend. I like your comments.I explain my thinking below. In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > Hi > ====== Robert: I feel I have grown up on Jataka and find them all very helpful. > > Even the rather disparaging comments are useful: they warn. I was > a > bit romantic in my youth and would feel downhearted when (as > happened > several times) a love would desert me for another. Now I > feel almost free of jealously - if my current girlfriend goes with > another man, > then I feel that is the way it should be. > > ====== > > Of course this ready acceptance could also be a condition for her > leaving in the first place. If there is neither joy in the coming or > going of a partner, there clearly is no desire for an engaging > relationship to start with, which may well become obvious to her. :-) > > =============== It doesn't seem to work that way so far. I always thought the more attached and devoted I was the more I would be loved back. Funnily enough it almost seemed to drive them away. But I know what you mean- my girlfriend does wish I was more romantic. That is the way of the world - attachment looks to be something healthy and beneficial. I think we learn from Dhamma that attachment is not something we need to encourage because as worldlings we have accumulated so much already. A litle bit of detachment - even/especially in affairs of the heart- is an element that cuts through many potential and real problems. RobertK 37025 From: Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:02pm Subject: cause of impermanence Hi all, My 2 cents worth, the abhidhamma answer to this question is that impermanence is a concept and concepts are unconditioned, so there is no cause of impermanence, or any other concept. However, Nyanatiloka translates vitakka as thought-conception. He doesn't go so far as to say vitakka is the creation of a concept, but concept has to come from somewhere so maybe this is it, or possibly vitakka and vicara together. This raises the question, does vitakka-vicara create the general characteristics of reality? Larry 37026 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hello Larry, I have some queries here... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Azita, > > Long time no chat. I can't find any fault with your explanation of nama > and rupa. I was just looking at things from a slightly different > perspective, one which may or may not be helpful. Looking at experience > as it arises, red is experience and desire is experience. A: I know you've just stated that you're looking from a slightly differen perspective, and I'd like to add mine on the last sentence. 'Looking at experience as it arises, red is a concept and desire is nama, which can be experienced bec. it arises with citta .' when you say 'red is experience' what do you mean by this? Desire doesn't > really experience something else any more than red does. They are just > what they are, consciousness. The relationship of desire with object of > desire is a conceptual one; that is also an experience in addition to > red and desire. It would be unusual but the relationship could even be > reversed: redding (colouring) desire instead of desiring red. > A: I'm kinda lost here, don't know what you mean. > As for a bad taste and not liking the bad taste, I can see a difference > between the two. Take whiskey for example. If you have never tasted > whiskey and you take a little sip, you probably will think it tastes > bad, but you still might like it. Abhidhamma seems to say there is no > such thing as a bad taste; there is only flavour and secondarily liking > it or not. At this point, I'm skeptical. > > cheerio, Larry A: I see Phil has given some comment too. I'm not so sure that Abhidhamma says there is no 'bad taste'. I tend to 'believe' that there has to be good taste/bad taste, otherwise what would kusala/akusala vipakacitta in a taste sense door process have as object? Patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 37027 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner4-Introduction(a) Hi Sarah, Thank you for the links you sent TG, Howard and me, I have enjoyed all of them. ------------------- > note 190: "Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop of water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 `ko.tis' of feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million). ----------------------- That reminded me of one of the tapes you had given me (India 23/10/01 (3)). As I remember, there was a conversation about how hard it was to see dhammas. Someone said, "When there is no right understanding, they are very, very fast," to which K Sujin replied, "When there is right understanding they are faster!" :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Howard & KenH, > > Whilst I'm giving links to suttas and commentary notes, you may like to > check the following with relevance to another discussion you were having > here: > 37028 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:34am Subject: Re: Picking up thread with Ken and Robert (was The Buddha as physician) Hi Matt, You wrote: ---------- > Sorry about the misunderstandings. I hope the following is not off track. > ---------- I think my question was off-track (very badly worded) but your answer was excellent, thank you. ------------- KH: > > I know a Sotapanna can have desire for sense pleasures. Was I right in assuming he could have desire for mental objects, such as alobha? > > === M: > The Sotapanna may experience an object with lobha or dosa. He may have alobha followed by lobha. Or he may have lobha followed by dosa and the thought *I don't like lobha* but he knows that there is no self that thinks this. But I don't think he would say "I do not like lobha, therefore I shall have alobha instead." The Sotapanna knows that there is not a self with lobha or alobha. He knows that there is not a self that can stop lobha arising or make alobha arise. And he knows that the cittas which have desire for alobha are not the same cittas that condition alobha. > ---------- As I said, an excellent answer! Thanks again. Ken H 37029 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Dear Dighankha, --- dighanakha wrote: > It is actually one deception and then two overt lies. > The first overt lie is explicitly denoted as such by the narrator: > "so musaa abhaasi". .... S: Thank you very much for this assistance. One more question. Where does it say --in this Jataka (536)or elsewhere-- that the previous lives related by Kunala refer to other lives *as* the Bodhisatta? For example, it says 'Then the Great Being, with the knowledge of one who remembers his former births, making Punnamukha a personal witness, related a circumstance seen *in a former existence*.......' Also for other past lives told by Kunala (or in other tales within Bodhisatta tales), I'm not sure the 'characters' would appear in a list of previous lives as Bodhisatta, would they? I appreciate your helpful assistance here. Metta, Sarah ======= 37030 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:07am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner23-Contact /Phassa(i) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** When the cittas of the sense-door process have fallen away, the object is experienced through the mind-door. When the mind-door- adverting-consciousness (mano-dvåråvajjana-citta) adverts to the object through the mind-door the phassa accompanying the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta contacts that object. The mano-dvåråvajjana- citta is succeeded by the javana-cittas which experience the same object and the phassas accompanying the javana-cittas contact that object. The javana-cittas are, in the case of the non-arahats, either akusala cittas or kusala cittas. Most of the time the javana-cittas are akusala cittas; since we have accumulated many kinds of defilements akusala cittas are bound to arise. When we, for example, see a pleasant object, we are likely to be attached to it and to have pleasant feeling on account of the object. However, attachment does not arise at the moment of seeing-consciousness. Seeing-consciousness is vipåkacitta (citta which is result) and it is invariably accompanied by indifferent feeling. The phassa which accompanies the seeing-consciousness is also vipåka. When we like what we see there are javana-cittas which are lobha-múla-cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) and these may be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. The phassa which accompanies akusala citta is also akusala. The phassas which accompany different kinds of citta are different and the feelings which accompany the cittas are different as well. ***** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37031 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: CSC 4-[Sarah: "citta is..."] Dear Dan, Sorry for the delay. It's never been easy for me to dash off a reply to you and even now it's a bit of a rushed post, checking BB's notes and the Sammaditthi Sutta as I write;-). --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thank-you for the well-considered comments and post. I have a number > of questions still [and I'm also working on the kamma-vipaka issue at > the same time]. ... S: I always look forward to any of your considerations. Pls share them as you go along. ... D:> My question is: Is not the idea of "conceptual right view" a trap, > much like the notion of "conventional right effort"? ... S: I think it can be as you say. Certainly 'conventional right view' would be, if taken for right view of the 8fold path. For 'conceptual right view' , I'd need to see a context. Like in the discussions on kamma or generosity, it's not wrong to say 'giving is good' or 'we experience the results of good deeds' in a general sense like in the suttas. It depends on the understanding which has to be more and more refined. ... D: > This question arises because I see you and Jon and Rob K and Mike and > me and others being very careful to consider the "samma" in "right > effort" and make a strong case for "conventional right effort" as > really a form of wrong effort -- not just a lesser degree of Right > Effort, but qualitatively distinct and quite different from Right > Effort. .... S: Yes as usually used. (I recommend others to read posts, esp. one Dan wrote, on 'effort' in U.P.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts But of course, this doesn't mean that as understanding grows we cannot say 'pull your socks up' or 'make an effort to be nice' and so on. It always comes back to the undestanding as I said before. .... D: > My guess is that "conceptual right view" (e.g., BB in his > introduction to Samma Ditthi sutta > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/r_view/r_view00.htm) is akin > to "conventional right effort" in that it is not simply a lesser > degree of Right View but is distinctly different from Right View in > essential quality with very little truly in common. .... S: Looking at the intro as we speak. Ok, his first 2 paragraphs are fine with the stress on right view as the forerunner of the path. However, he continues: BB: "Right view, as explained in the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta, has a variety of aspects, but it might best be considered as twofold: conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of the principles enunciated in the Buddha's teaching, and experiential right view, which is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching." .... S: Like you, I believe this is wrong. Looking at the commentary, right view is divided into a) mundane (lokiya) and b) supramundane (lokuttara). Mundane right view as discussed in the sutta and commentary is not conceptual but direct/actual development of satipatthana. Whenever we read about knowledge of kamma or the wholesome and unwholesome, for example, or knowledge in conformity with the 4 Noble Truths under mundane right view, this is direct knowledge gained by insight and the development of the vipassana nanas. As the commentary stresses and we know, supramundane right view is 'understanding connected with the noble paths and fruits'. Both kinds of right view are experiential, not conceptual, but the one who has reached the stage of sotapanna has the 'perfect confidence in the Dhamma' etc. It's interesting in the commentary, it specifically mentions two kinds of worldlings 'one outside the Dispensation and one within the Dispensation' and this may be what you're referring to with your comments, Dan. "Herein, one outside the Dispensation who believes in kamma is one of right view on account of the view of kamma as one's own, but not on account of that which is in conformity with the truths, because he holds to the view of self. One within the Dispensation is of right view on account of both." S: Pausing here, I think there can be 'conceptual right view' about kamma which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view above and not necessarily the first kind (outside the Dispensation) which is clearly along the lines of what you said about right conventional effort. However, 'conceptual right view' should not be taken for mundane right view as described in the sutta or for the development of satipatthana. A helpful condition *if* it's right, that's all. Again, if we have the idea that just studying or memorising details in itself will lead to mundane right view, (as opposed to understanding present realities), there may well be silabbataparamasa creeping in again. .... BB: "Conceptual right view, also called the right view in conformity with the truths (saccanulomika-sammaditthi), is a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning. Such understanding, though conceptual rather than experiential, is not dry and sterile. When rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth embedded in the formulated principles of the Dhamma, it serves as a critical phase in the development of wisdom (panna), for it provides the germ out of which experiential right view gradually evolves." .... S: According to the Nyantiloka dict, saccanulomika-nana is the same as anuloma-nana (adaptation or conformity knowledge), the last of the 9 insight knowledges or vipassana nanas and definitely *not* conceptual. So it doesn't make sense to me either, but maybe I've missed something. .... D: >They may *sound* > like they are the same thing when people talk about them, but with > Right View the talk is a description of the piercing, direct view of > reality that is Right View; whereas with "conceptual right view", the > talk is a piecing together of a theory by logic and rationation. ... S: Agreed. Of course, Right View has to develop, but even in the very beginning it has to be understanding of a present dhamma, however slight or brief, not just thinking about it. .... D:> There are certainly different kinds and degrees of pañña, including a > conceptual understanding of Dhamma doctrines. But can > conceptualizations -- *any* conceptualizations -- really be > called "right view"? My working hypothesis is that conceptualizations > are simply ditthi, which is to be distinguished from Samma Ditthi, > not only in degree but also in kind. ... S: Not necessarily. As I said, the development of samatha has concept as object. It has to be accompanied by samma ditthi, but not samma ditthi of the 8fold or 5fold path. It's still 'right'. Ditthi usually refers to 'wrong' view. Wise conceptual reflection about kamma now is not satipatthana but if it's 'right' there has to be 'right view' there. ... > > S: Now I don't think I've used `conceptual right view' as a phrase, > > I don't know that you have either. I was just rudely bringing the > discussion back to MY question! ... S: ;-) that's what I thought as I was carefully trying to keep out of trouble. ... S:>We can also use exact the right > phraseology but > > with wrong view....so it just depends on the meanings intended, I > think. ... D:> You bet. But doesn't "conceptual right view" really sound like an > oxymoron? Isn't Sammaditthi really about clear viewing of reality > rather than "correct" conceptualization of reality? ... S: I don't have this same problem with it. I agree the former is taken for the latter and that's wrong, but.... ... S:> > p.s Where did you get your U Kyaw Khine transl of Dhs from and how > is it? D: <...> >There are 2000 > copies in print. I don't recall the name of the man who sent me the > book, but Rob K has one as well, so maybe he can help. ... S: I'd be grateful for any help. I've been troubled by my PTS one for close on 30 years, so I think an upgrade is very over-due. .... Metta, Sarah ====== 37032 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:10am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner22-Contact /Phassa(h) Hi Herman, You asked, ------------- > In terms of citta, what on earth is rebirth, life, dying and previous life? > ---------------- It's strange that you should use the expression, "what on earth." It suggests there is something incongruous about citta in terms of rebirth, life and dying. Existence can only ever be the present moment of citta. Or do you know of some other, ultimately real, form of birth, life and dying? ---------------- H: > Is there any way of knowing any of these cittas without correlating them with events in the body? ----------------- Yes, it's called satipatthana. ---------------- H: > Of course I am happy to be told what the knowable characteristics of these cittas are, but they appear up front to be referring to non-citta realities. This would make them after-the- fact convenient inferences without any knowable characteristics > ---------------- I think you have it the wrong way around> Non-citta realities can, at best, be referring to citta realities. At worst, they refer to no reality at all. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Just a quick question or two: > ==== > > Phassa also accompanies the cittas which do not arise in a process > of cittas (2), it accompanies the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > consciousness) the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum) (3) and the > > cuti-citta (dying-consciousness). Although these cittas do not > arise in a process, they experience an object: the same object as > experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti- citta > of the previous life (4). > ==== > 37033 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:23am Subject: Just a Dog ..... Dear Group, Twelve years or more ago, I forget exactly when, a stray dog - a Great Dane/Alsatian cross-breed, a gentle giant we called Rusty - came into the lives of myself and my family. He was to stay for only one night 'until we find his owner' ... but we never did, and he never moved on. Nothing very special about him - just a dog. Changes inevitably came, children grew up, finished school, went to University, moved out of home - the dog and I lived companiably together on a small rural property. He was good natured, gentle, obedient mostly - except when hiding at bath-time, and disobeying the rule about not going on carpets by entering the study to listen whenever he heard the Sound Files of the BrahmaViharas being chanted. This morning, just before I left for work, he started fitting. I panicked a little but, looking back over today, what seems strange is that I somehow found the strength alone to lift a 46g kilogram fitting dog into the hatch-back of my small car. It took four of us to lift him out at the Veterinary Hospital. An anxious day, many tests, no definite conclusions - but, what there is doesn't bode well. The Vet says "Chris, it's something we've never seen before in our combined forty years of practice, so I'm taking the CT Scan results to the University tonight, we'll know something definite by mid-morning tomorrow - I want you to be prepared to make some decisions ..." Rusty is on a valium/phenobarb./wide spectrum antibiotic drip, in 'twilight' sleep. There is so much 'important' suffering in the world, brutal, horrific, unfair, and seemingly ever increasing - and I see so much grief and trauma everyday at the hospital. Trying to get things in perspective here. Just a dog. But I keep remembering scenes from the past. Rusty - as a pup whirling round and round on the rotary clothes hoist when his teeth caught in a towel he had been trying to pull off; Rusty - as a young dog bailed up by a scotty bantam hen (one tenth his size) with her a dozen chicks behind her outstretched wings; as an inquisitive black and tan pup making a nuisance of himself when my son was milking our house cow and having his furry face painted white with an accurate squirt from a teat; at Christmas time proud of his red santa hat and cotton wool beard with tinsel round his collar; a hullaballoo in the front paddock, Rusty running fast towards the house, couldn't see what was chasing him, thought it might be a goanna or a red- bellied black snake ... turned out to be a Chihuahua named Dolores who was visiting next door. Just a dog. I don't know what the decisions are that I will need to be "prepared to make" - not exactly. But I can guess ... My daughter, who was eleven years old when we found him under our car after a Debating contest one night at the school, took time off work to sit with us today. My son is wandering in India, somewhere south of Goa, last we heard, and he will be fiercely against what I know the Vet will be asking ... As a follower of the Teachings, I always look to them to see how I am to live. The First Precept is "I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing living beings" In the Dhammapada v.246-7, the Buddha says: "Whoever destroys living beings, speaks false words, who in the world takes that which is not given to him, or goes too with another's wife, or takes distilled, fermented drinks -- whatever man indulges thus extirpates the roots of himself even here in this very world." Somehow - though this is very clear - it is against what every compassionate person I know will be expecting me to do .... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37034 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions on meditation Dear Robert Mc, --- Robert McDaniel wrote: > Can anyone point a newbie towards some references that go over > performing Samatha and Vipassana meditation, including posture, etc. ... Welcome to DSG! As you'll have noticed I'm sure, Rob/Robert is a very popular name round here, so I've given you a Mc;-). One of our members even called his child Robert a couple of years ago if I recall correctly. Pls also look under Useful Posts at past messages under these headings: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts samatha vipassana samatha and vipassana posture meditation I'd be glad to hear any comments on any of them. I'd also be glad to hear a little more about your interest, where you live etc if you feel inclined. Metta, Sarah ======= 37035 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:15am Subject: Dear Htoo (1) Dear Htoo, I've been meaning to add some comments or questions to your posts, but I got very behind and am only catching up now. As I have a lot of yr posts in front of me, I think I'll just use a similar format to the one you use for RobM's book. So, as you always kindly stress, I'd also like to stress that I greatly appreciate all your contributions here and I find many are really helpful and packed with useful information. I've also enjoyed your discussions with Sukin, Joop, Phil, Nina and others. I'm glad you're making many friends here and that I'm no longer the only one giving feedback;-). (Btw, Joop, you may like to read Nina's book on 'Rupas' when you have time and also to post/discuss any sections which you have problems with). post no: 36461 Samatha, vipassana..... Htoo:> Now I catch the point. The same idea as before. Jhana do exist even before The Buddha. They arose because there were right conditions. Even though they did not eradicated, they did know which was good and which was bad. Which was defilement and which was wholesome thing. They did develop jhana even before arising of The Buddha. Siddhattha first approached Alara. After that approached Udaka. These two teacher at least attained all rupa jhanas. They were not taught by The Buddha. But they taught Siddhattha. Within a short period, Bodhisatta attained all 4 rupa jhana and all 4 arupa jhana. But he knew these 8 jhanas were not the way of liberation.< ... S: Yes!! .... Htoo: All jhana kusala cittas do have panna. Who say that there is just concentration? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Usually I just see concentration stressed rather than panna from the very beginning which really understands kus and akus and the object etc as I wrote about in 36457 ... 36472 Samatha, vipass .... S: vipaka - as you say, if we talk about a conventional event like a storm, the suffering is from 'worst....to virtually none'. Better to stress vipaka in daily life like hearing as you do later, I think. 36634 Dh Thread 066 H: "Even though he is now a sotapanna, he is not in phala cittas all the time". S: I understand the phala cittas are just two or three cittas which follow the magga cittas as you wrote before. In other posts you also suggest 'staying' on phala samapatti even without rupa and arupa jhana cittas.(eg 36704). Is this correct? (I also question the use of the phrase 'staying in satipatthana' even for anagamis in that post, but I think that's just language use). Also I'm not happy about 'his trying continuously in meditation' or 'he tries to cultivate the already existing his sotapatti magga nana to obtain higher nana' etc. I know it's just word usage, but it sounds too much like a self doing and I don't follow the second phrase here. 36672 dh thread 067 Exellent, esp the following clearly put in an area where there is so much mis-understanding: Htoo: >But anagami magga itself is an appana samadhi. This is why one of Dhammapada verse says that without jhana, panna cannot arise and without panna, jhana cannot arise. It is for lokuttara jhanas. It is not for loki jhanas like rupa jhana or arupa jhana. When dhammas are not well understood some people argue that without jhana, nibbana cannot be obtained and they try jhana first and then try to develop panna. This is wrong. For magga nanas to arise, rupa jhana or arupa jhana are not necessary even though if it is good the practitioner is proficient in these 8 jhanas. And these 8 jhanas may have some help in attaining higher nana like magga and phala nanas. But they are not necessary. That is their absence do not hinder arising of magga nana or phala nana. There are sukkavipassakas even in The Buddha time. Sukka means 'pure'. This means that they do not possess any rupavacara jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas. But they did attain arahatta magga nana through panna.< .... Also 36768 069 - well written. 36674 vism XiV, 101 Very good. Please add more on the Vism threads. Metta, Sarah ===== 37036 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dear Htoo (2) Dear Htoo, 36709 Tracing 01.. What you write doesn't make too much sense, I'm afraid. Do you agree with this defn from Nyantiloka's dict on the 2 meanings of kaya (as I understand, alw referring to realities, not concepts as you suggest I think): ***** káya (lit: accumulation): 'group', 'body', may either refer to the physical body (rúpa-káya) or to the mental body (náma-káya). In the latter case it is either a collective name for the mental groups (feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness; s. khandha), or merely for feeling, perception and a few of the mental formations (s. náma), e.g. in káya-lahutá, etc. (cf. Tab. II). Káya has this same meaning in the standard description of the 3rd absorption (jhána, q.v.) "and he feels joy in his mind or his mental constitution (káya)", and (e.g. Pug. 1-8) of the attainment of the 8 deliverances (vimokkha, q.v.); "having attained the 8 deliverances in his mind, or his person (káya)." - Káya is also the 5th sense-organ, the body-organ; s. áyatana, dhátu, indriya. ***** 36786 Reincarnation.... S: So easily an idea of person being reincarnated creeps in. I'm rather sceptical about the stories of people remembering past lives, visits to hell and so on. Who knows? 36791 Theory and Practice S: I'm glad you appreciated Sukin's post. Pls encourage him to write more. Your correspondence is useful for us all. 36796 Dh thread 069 & Explanation S: Your explanations of the terms and Pali is always v.useful. many thx. 36797 Dh Thread 070 Good. We cannot say 'only jhana cittas are samma-samadhi', even if only lokiya samadhi. Samma samadhi arises with each moment of kusala surely? Definitely with any lokiya moments of satipatthana. In a couple of places you've mentioned the same cetasikas arising with lokuttara cittas as the rupa or arupavacara jhana cittas they arise in 'the vicinity' of. Of course the nature of the cetasikas must be different I think because of the accompanying panna and object, nibbana, even if they are the same 'kinds'. Interesting topic to discuss. 36856 Dh Thread 071 and 36907 D.T.072 Excellent. I always enjoy your posts on cittas and cetasikas. 36935 RobM's theory... RobM 'practising breaking link with emotions'. To be honest, if I see a phrase like this in a book I don't read on. As you explain, it suggests an idea of self and a misunderstanding of vedana which arises with every citta. He's fortunate to have your help. Sorry, Rob. 36938 Dh Thread 073 on feelings, vedana. Excellent. There are still some I haven't read. I hope any comments or misunderstandings of mine will be taken OK. Thank you again for all your posts and assistance to all of us. Metta, Sarah ===== 37037 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/29/04 12:05:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi all, > > My 2 cents worth, the abhidhamma answer to this question is that > impermanence is a concept and concepts are unconditioned, so there is no > cause of impermanence, or any other concept. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Larry, don't you find this a wee bit troublesome? Is it not a fundamental fact, is it not completely true, is it not an *actuality* that whatever arises - that is, every conditioned dhamma - ceases? Calling that fact a concept does not make it anything less than a preeminent actuality! Isn't impermanence a property, a lakkhana? Are the tilakkhanas "unreal" just because they require inference for us non-arahants to "see" them? Can they not be seen directly by wisdom? (And even if they cannot, they remain preeminent realities in my eyes - at least as real as the "dhammas" to which they apply.) Impermanence does not arise or cease. But it is a *fact*, a *truth*, an *actuality* that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, i.e., they cease. Larry, ceasing is a reality, ceasing occurs - though it does not, itself, arise or cease, and it is characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. And, being a characteristic of phenomena, ceasing has causes - the causes are the arising of those dhammas and the very dhammas, themselves. If there were no dhammas, there would be no impermanence. If there were no arising, there would be no ceasing. Now it is true that though arising occurs, arising does not arise, nor does it cease. Likewise for ceasing. They are empty, they are ungraspable, but they are not imagined. They are realities, realities of a different sort from the so called paramattha dhammas, but realities nonetheless. Emptiness is different from unreality. Abhidhamma, grasped wrongly, will lead us into a host of problems. I believe that Nagarjuna's life work was devoted to an attempt to avoid such problems and to correct excesses along lines similar to what is being discussed here. If we let ourselves fall into a doctrinaire rut, going overboard in our view of what is "real" and what is not, we will end up making the Dhamma, itself, unreal, imagined, and worthless. The "salvation" lies in the concept of emptiness, and in avoiding the extremes of "real" and "unreal". It is valid, I believe, to distinguish real from imagined, and to distinguish mentally constructed from mentally unconstructed, but we must take care in being too quick to identify mentally unconstructed with real and mentally constructed with imagined. Moreover, we must take care in our priorities: Pedantic details of inessential characteristics of multitudes of listed dhammas should not weigh more heavily than the tilakkhana, whose realization are the entrees to enlightenment and liberation. It seems to me that we are starting to see here what can emerge from an extreme disparaging of so-called pa~n~natti and an extreme over-dependence on scholastic inessentials at the cost of devaluing essentials. Care must be taken. -------------------------------------------------------- However, Nyanatiloka> > translates vitakka as thought-conception. He doesn't go so far as to say > vitakka is the creation of a concept, but concept has to come from > somewhere so maybe this is it, or possibly vitakka and vicara together. > This raises the question, does vitakka-vicara create the general > characteristics of reality? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Now here you are expressing some interesting thinking, I think. Whether your speculation here is correct or not I don't know, but I do think it is good that there is enough questioning in your mind about this matter to cause you to want to consider further. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37038 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:58am Subject: Re: Just a Dog ..... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Twelve years or more ago, I forget exactly when, a stray dog - a > Great Dane/Alsatian cross-breed, a gentle giant we called Rusty - > came into the lives of myself and my family. Friend Christine, I am very sorry to read about the current medical problems of your dog Rusty. It is very apparent that he has become a member of your family. Personally, I think he is more than `just a dog'. I remember with fondness all of the various posts where you have mentioned him. Anyway, I wish you luck with the difficult time you are facing and the difficult decisions you may have to make. Metta, James 37039 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a Dog ..... Dear Chris & James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > I am very sorry to read about the current medical problems of your > dog Rusty. It is very apparent that he has become a member of your > family. Personally, I think he is more than `just a dog'. I > remember with fondness all of the various posts where you have > mentioned him. Anyway, I wish you luck with the difficult time you > are facing and the difficult decisions you may have to make. .... This is a very kind message, James, and I would like to express just the same sentiments if I may, Chris. I know how much Rusty must mean to you and your family and will be thinking of you over the next few days. I'm sure James speaks for everyone here too. Let us know how it goes. For Newbies, you can see a pic of Rusty in the album of 'significant others' in photos: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup Metta, Sarah ===== 37040 From: Egbert Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:42am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner22-Contact /Phassa(h) Hi Ken, Thanks for your reply. Sorry for posting the bulk of my reply above your post, I'm just finding that a little easier in this case. I probably was vague in formulating my questions, but I have not found an answer in your post. What caught my eye in the section Sarah posted, which became enough of a reason for my posting, was: "the same object as experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life (4). Now you say existence can only ever be the present moment of citta. What on earth is a previous life? In terms of citta, what is a life? Can you tell me what differentiates (ie by what are they known to be different) rebirth, life-continuum, dying consciousness from other cittas? You are saying satipatthana knows, say, a dying consciousness from another consciousness. What is it that it knows? Or do I have to wait and find out for myself :-) Some more comments interspersed below. > > In terms of citta, what on earth is rebirth, life, dying and > previous life? > > ---------------- > > It's strange that you should use the expression, "what on > earth." It suggests there is something incongruous about citta in > terms of rebirth, life and dying. Existence can only ever be the > present moment of citta. Or do you know of some other, ultimately > real, form of birth, life and dying? > > ---------------- I was present at the conception and births of my children. I have buried one of my children. I cradled its lifeless form in my arms. If you are saying that only citta are real, than we have no common ground to discuss further. Because in order to discuss, we need the Internet, and it is not a citta. How then to discuss :-)? === > H: > Of course I am happy to be told what the knowable > characteristics of these cittas are, but they appear up front to be referring to non-citta realities. This would make them after-the- fact convenient inferences without any knowable characteristics > > ---------------- > > I think you have it the wrong way around. Non-citta realities can, > at best, be referring to citta realities. At worst, they refer to no reality at all. > > Ken, you may as well be telling me the world is your dream. Anyways, as a person kind enough to reply to my posts and willing to share your insights with me you have my gratitude. Kind Regards Herman > Kind regards, > Ken H > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Just a quick question or two: > > ==== > > > Phassa also accompanies the cittas which do not arise in a > process > > of cittas (2), it accompanies the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > > consciousness) the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum) (3) and the > > > cuti-citta (dying-consciousness). Although these cittas do not > > arise in a process, they experience an object: the same object as > > experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti- > citta > > of the previous life (4). > > ==== > > 37041 From: ericlonline Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:04am Subject: Re: Just a Dog ..... Dear Christine, My family too growing up took in many strays that became part of our family. A picture of one of them is in my office. It was difficult but necessary to put him down when he became a whimpering unmoving little old dog with constant pain in his eyes. There are some suttas in the Majhimma Nikaya about monks 'taking the knife', i.e. suicide, when the pain they had due to incurable illness became unbearable. If Rusty cannot 'take the knife', then you will be obliged to do it for him. In this instance, forget about what some old book tells you and follow your heart Christine! PEACE E 37042 From: Andrew Levin Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > Hi Andrew > > Thanks for your patience with my never-ending busy-bodyiness. > > > > Well for instance, my meditation came one day and I was filled with > > energy. At that point I might be well enough to read the chapter on > > good will and start generating loving feelings for myself and then > > extend them to my family. > > Ph: Metta is very powerful, for sure. I wrote in that other post that these > days I don't believe in intentional practice of Metta, but that goes against > the grain > of what most Buddhists believe. I have faith that your practice of > loving-kindness > will help a lot. > So you admit the perfections can be developed intentionally. Thats the whole point. Now to me the question is just how much of them is needed to see the Noble Truths and realize unbinding. That's what it's all about, right? Honestly, I think I've got a decent shot at it in this very lifetime. [teachers & views] Phil, I can see where you're coming from that I'm not being receptive enough to Nina. But I am trying to put together an understanding of the Dharma and not just as I hear it from one source but putting it together from all angles. It's one dharma, and we've got to get it down pat, there's no blind subservience to anyone. I would direct your attention to the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta or Satipatthana Sutta, in which both the Buddha says, 'experiencing a pleasant feeling, he knows 'i experience a pleasant feeling'. This is all-encompassing, encompasses all feelings. I know this is possible, I have done it, I can speak from experience that one can follow these outlines or instructions and make attainments in a number of years, its really possible. The contemplation of the body in the body is similarly knowing thoroughly the postures of the body, actively reflecting on the four elements that constitute the body, and of course we don't have to wait for sati to arise to do the repulsiveness of the body meditation or the cemetary contemplations. Yes, some conditions have to be correct, but largely I think this is something that can be developed by each person to perfection and acheive results. I think that once I'm advanced enough in contemplating the breath and the body and feelings, I will then move onto mental objects and finally Dhammas, the last of which are the Noble Truths. After that, it's just practising the way leading to the end of suffering in mindfulness till the end. What else matters? > > Ph>>. In any case, please read > > > Perfections. It's not > > > heavy going and will really give you a nice feeling for the gist of > > > abihdhamma, in my opinion. > > > > > > A> I'm not even sure I can read these and take away a good > > understanding.. I'd like to wait till I'm ready and can actually put > > some of them into practise before I read, but maybe I'll take a look > > beforehand anyway. > > This was so obnoxious of me. Obviously you have already been developing the > perfection of patience or you would have told me to bugger off. Nah, I am generally not a patient person. When it comes to time anyway. This morning I was going nuts just waiting an extra 15 minutes for my cab to be here, I literally could almost not stand it, I would go insane. Sometimes, however, I have patient forbearance and tolerate harsh words without responding back. I go on and off, personally, with this virtue. Anyhow, I don't take your statement as obnoxious, I've read some of the first few chapters and they're good. I will continue to read and probably also look for other sources on the ten perfections. Thank you for your suggestion, in fact. > Catch you later, Andrew yes, be well phil 37043 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Nina, Rob K Dear Larry, Howard, Nina, Robert K and all How are you? Howard has answered the main part of Larry's issue by way of Yoniso Manasikaara (exercising relevant mental orientation), which is the prerequisite for the Right View. I will add only a few things here. Larry quoted and wrote: "However, Nyanatiloka translates vitakka as thought-conception. He doesn't go so far as to say vitakka is the creation of a concept, but concept has to come from somewhere so maybe this is it, or possibly vitakka and vicara together. This raises the question, does vitakka-vicara create the general characteristics of reality?" The Pali term "Vitakka" is a very simple common term in any language, the most general meaning of which is "Thinking". With due respect for Nyanatiloka, we need not be led astray by such a big phrase as "thought-conception". Similarly, the most general meaning of the Pali term "Vicaara" is "Rethinking" in the sense of thinking again, looking again. In fact, one of the synonyms of vicaara is anupekkhanataa (thinking or looking at the object again and again.) Thinking and rethinking are mental associates (cetasikas) that can think and rethink any types of objects, be they realities (paramattha dhammaa) or unreal things (paññatti dhammaa). As such, the question as to whether vitakka and vicaara create the general characteristics of reality became meaningless. It should not have been even raised in the first place! The general characteristics of reality are to be observed and discovered. They are not manufactured by thinking or by any other mental associates or by the mind. As thinking and rethinking are mental associates, they themselves are realities (paramattha dhammaa) [if Rob M is reading this, please note how I linked paramattha and dhamma, or paññatti and dhammaa for that matter]. As such, we also need to observe and discover the three characteristics of thinking and rethinking as well. The three characteristics are what distinguish realities from non- realities. By applying Theravada observation methods such as Satipa.t.thaana to realities, we discover their three characterisitcs. By contrast, we cannot discover the three characteristics if the objects we take were unreal things (paññatti dhammaa) because the unreal things do not have the three characterisctics. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/29/04 12:05:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Larry > ============================= With metta, Howard 37045 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:23am Subject: Re: Dear Htoo (1) >Htoo: All jhana kusala cittas do have panna. Who say that there is just concentration? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Usually I just see concentration stressed rather than panna from the very beginning which really understands kus and akus and the object etc as I wrote about in 36457 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Understand. Emphasis or stress or point of interest cause confusion, sometimes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 36472 Samatha, vipass .... S: vipaka - as you say, if we talk about a conventional event like a storm, the suffering is from `worst....to virtually none'. Better to stress vipaka in daily life like hearing as you do later, I think. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I meant that bad things and good things come in wave forms. They have a rhythm of regular or irrugular. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36634 Dh Thread 066 > H: "Even though he is now a sotapanna, he is not in phala cittas all the time". S: I understand the phala cittas are just two or three cittas which follow the magga cittas as you wrote before. In other posts you also suggest`staying' on phala samapatti even without rupa and arupa jhana cittas.(eg 36704). Is this correct? (I also question the use of the phrase `staying in satipatthana' even for anagamis in that post, but I think that's just language use). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is difficult to answer. But what I have read was that when sotappatti magga nana has been achieved, sotapatti phala samapatti can be done. So the answer to your question 'Is this correct?' is to be honest 'don't know' from me but I think I read it in a dhamma book which might be a commentary. I think, we have agreed or have discussed on the words or usage that is 'the language'. That is 'staying in satipatthana'. Puthujana and sikkhas stay in satipatthana to develop higher nana. Arahats all stay in satipatthana not to do anything but they just stay. The difference is that our staying is intermittent with a very wide gap. Learned people narrow the gap. Arahats do not have any gap. I will be discussing cittas of arahats late in the series. I think, the book I read said sotapam, sakadagam, and anagam can all stay in phala samapatti of their respective nana. I might find another appropriate word for 'staying in phala' and also for 'staying in satipatthana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Also I'm not happy about `his trying continuously in meditation' or `he tries to cultivate the already existing his sotapatti magga nana to obtain higher nana' etc. I know it's just word usage, but it sounds too much like a self doing and I don't follow the second phrase here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: So far I released 75 messages for Dhamma Thread. I must apologise all readers that I did not check grammar, spellings, punctuation, and to the worst 'to check sense' or 'to check whether the message makes any sense'. I did 'like this' because of short of time. I may at a time leave the internet. So I just pressed all messages. Sarah, you already know me well. My writing was very poor. I even did not know that I had to leave a space before the next sentence, after a 'coma' and how to put into quotation marks. A friend just reminded that I should have done so and so. This makes me improved. 'his trying continuously in meditation' This I meant just continuation. ''His recognition of nama and rupa especially marks on them which are anicca, dukkha, and anatta''. You will prefer this sentence instead. :-) The second sentence was my own words which derived from 'bhiyyo'. May be I put in the wrong way. It should have been ''He tries to cultivate the mind which recognises nama and rupa with their 3 marks and this cultivation finally help arising higher nana which is higher than the existing nana.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36672 dh thread 067 Exellent, esp the following clearly put in an area where there is so much mis-understanding: Htoo: >But anagami magga itself is an appana samadhi. This is why one of Dhammapada verse says that without jhana, panna cannot arise and without panna, jhana cannot arise. It is for lokuttara jhanas. It is not for loki jhanas like rupa jhana or arupa jhana. When dhammas are not well understood some people argue that without jhana, nibbana cannot be obtained and they try jhana first and then try to develop panna. This is wrong. For magga nanas to arise, rupa jhana or arupa jhana are not necessary even though if it is good the practitioner is proficient in these 8 jhanas. And these 8 jhanas may have some help in attaining higher nana like magga and phala nanas. But they are not necessary. That is their absence do not hinder arising of magga nana or phala nana. There are sukkavipassakas even in The Buddha time. Sukka means 'pure'. This means that they do not possess any rupavacara jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas. But they did attain arahatta magga nana through panna.< .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks. You may know that I repeated this very frequently in and around those posts. Because once a dangerously deviated man took a verse from Dhammapada and shook the groups. Actually he does not have any insight. He is so craving to jhana that he said that he had all 8 jhanas and he was fully alert even when he was sleeping. I heard that he self-ordained and following the wrong way. Self- ordain means 'dress up like a monk without formal ordination'. But once he used a word like 'wrap with a rag'. As he made a lot of confusion to people, I attacked all that might lead to confusion. Another reason why I touched this area was that there are still many people who believe that without jhana, arahatta magga cannot be attained. They argue with suttas and they said only jhanas are samma- samadhi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Also 36768 069 - well written. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36674 vism XiV, 101 Very good. Please add more on the Vism threads. Metta, Sarah ===== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I will. But I lost among the busy messages. :-) With Metta, Htoo Naing 37046 From: connieparker Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:38am Subject: Re: Just a Dog ..... Sorry you're down, Rusty. I think we all wish we could just think you better and you could keep on breaking the "No Carpet" rule to listen to brahma viharas chants and go on showing us your own understanding of them. You're a good dog and have been very giving. You mean a great deal to your family and have given them a lot of happiness. When you leave, they'll still have all those fond memories. Not to worry. They're good people and will be ok when you're not there to take care of them any more. Trust their kamma. Don't sweat the small stuff - things like the "No Carpet" rule were meant to be broken and you were right to do so. Don't worry or be embarrassed when you can't control your bodily functions. No one expects you to and they understand. It's just the way things are and no one is mad at you. It's just your turn to relax and let your people take care of you for awhile. I hope you're hearing the chants or some other dhamma in your twilight sleep and that whenever it is your time to leave, that would carry into the next go-round with lots of conditions to hear and consider more dhamma. From the stories we've all read of you, it seems you have a lot of good accumulations. Don't be too disappointed if you do end up with a human rebirth - you don't have to be vegetarian! peace, connie p.s. to Chris Whatever the decisions you have to make now turn out to be, and I'm assuming the worst, I'm sure you'll do the right thing, however hard. You know the compassionate thing isn't always the easy thing and sometimes what people would call compassion has more to do with dosa and just making it easier on themselves. If Rusty does end up human, the dogness of his honesty will be both a burden and a blessing, no doubt. Maybe being able to chew a bit on cooked pork and chicken bones will be some kind of trade-off there - not that I'd wish him to be someone who finds consolation in food!! I'm sure there's nothing new I could say about how hard it is to accept a loved one's death or illness and to watch them when you feel so helpless and have to stare that 'nothing I can do' in the face. Equanimity is so much harder than compassion. Maybe Rusty knows more about acceptance and the brahma viharas right now than we do. Best wishes to you all and whatever comfort there is in knowing you're in our thoughts. all the brahma viharas to the best of my ability, connie 37047 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dear Htoo (2) Sarah: Dear Htoo, 36709 Tracing 01.. What you write doesn't make too much sense, I'm afraid. Do you agree with this defn from Nyantiloka's dict on the 2 meanings of kaya (as I understand, alw referring to realities, not concepts as you suggest I think): ***** [ quote ] káya (lit: accumulation): 'group', 'body', may either refer to the physical body (rúpa-káya) or to the mental body (náma-káya). In the latter case it is either a collective name for the mental groups(feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness; s. khandha), or merely for feeling, perception and a few of the mental formations (s. náma), e.g. in káya-lahutá, etc. (cf. Tab. II). Káya has this same meaning in the standard description of the 3rd absorption (jhána, q.v.) "and he feels joy in his mind or his mental constitution (káya)", and (e.g. Pug. 1-8) of the attainment of the 8 deliverances (vimokkha, q.v.); "having attained the 8 deliverances in his mind, or his person (káya)." - Káya is also the 5th sense-organ, the body-organ; s. áyatana, dhátu, indriya. ***** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 36786 Reincarnation.... S: So easily an idea of person being reincarnated creeps in. I'm rather sceptical about the stories of people remembering past lives, visits to hell and so on. Who knows? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is an example to help those with uccheda ditthi or annihilistic viewer. They would say 'After death there is nothing. Before this life there is nothing. Everything depends on the physical body.' For those with sassata ditthi or eternity viewer, they are stubborn people and hard to understand real dhamma. Yes, as you said these ideas such as reincarnation may make them worse. The post was directed to miracles and their existence. And these can all be explained. The idea of the Heaven and the Hell was also directed. These people would think that 'There is only a life. That life is this current life. After that who did good will be in the heaven and who did bad will be in the hell.' This is also wrong. There were people who could tell their past lives' stories. Some could tell 5 or 6 successive lives. That is from 'human' to 'snake' to 'cat' to 'dog' to 'human'. For me I do not believe 'there is a permanent self changing from this to that. But they are linked. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36791 Theory and Practice S: I'm glad you appreciated Sukin's post. Pls encourage him to write more. Your correspondence is useful for us all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sukin is nice and good at Dhamma. Especially essence of Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36796 Dh thread 069 & Explanation S: Your explanations of the terms and Pali is always v.useful. many thx. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I would also suggest to check on own dictionary with own eyes. I think still there may be some words that do not appear in the heading in Pali-English dictionaries. I am still learning and just a beginner in Pali. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36797 Dh Thread 070 Good. We cannot say `only jhana cittas are samma-samadhi', even if only lokiya samadhi. Samma samadhi arises with each moment of kusala surely? Definitely with any lokiya moments of satipatthana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: But some argue. This is why I am writing on these. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: In a couple of places you've mentioned the same cetasikas arising with lokuttara cittas as the rupa or arupavacara jhana cittas they arise in `the vicinity' of. Of course the nature of the cetasikas must be different I think because of the accompanying panna and object, nibbana, even if they are the same `kinds'. Interesting topic to discuss. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Characterwise, functionwise each cetasika behaves the same. But powerwise, there is much difference. As you said, this is because the object is 'nibbana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36856 Dh Thread 071 and 36907 D.T.072 Excellent. I always enjoy your posts on cittas and cetasikas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is because we have the same interest that is realities. But there are people who are allergic to paramattha dhamma, abhidhamma etc. They would say, 'Suttas do not say this and that.' I just help dhamma studying. No one can walk on the others' path. The Buddha walked on the Path. He showed the Path and taught how to access to the Path. But The Buddha cannot afford us walk on the Path. We have to walk on our own feet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36935 RobM's theory... RobM `practising breaking link with emotions'. To be honest, if I see a phrase like this in a book I don't read on. As you explain, it suggests an idea of self and a misunderstanding of vedana which arises with every citta. He's fortunate to have your help. Sorry, Rob. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-) Annamanna paccayo. :-) I am learning from Dhamma friends . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 36938 Dh Thread 073 on feelings, vedana. Excellent. There are still some I haven't read. I hope any comments or misunderstandings of mine will be taken OK. Thank you again for all your posts and assistance to all of us. Metta, Sarah ===== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I also would like to thank you Sarah. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37048 From: connieparker Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:23am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence Larry: ...does vitakka-vicara create the general characteristics of reality? hi, Larry, The general characteristics of reality are just what they are and it's our making an understandable/graspable whole of them that is 'created'/composed by sanna, manasikara, vitakka-vicara, cetana and all. The variegated, painting citta(s). Then, we take this picture/nimitta for reality. So it's our understanding/view of the characteristics and not the characteristics themselves that's the creation. Seems we don't really live in the present 'reality' at all, but 'in the past through the mind door'/present concepts. The true characteristics of realities are only present/experienced before 'we' involve 'ourselves' with concepts... like looking up at stars that may have burned out ages ago. Hope that doesn't short change you on your 2 cents. Really hard for me to try thinking of how the different cetasikas can have a function at all when they are so fleeting, connie 37049 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Nina, Rob K --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: Dear Larry, Howard, Nina, Robert K and all How are you? Howard has answered the main part of Larry's issue by way of Yoniso Manasikaara (exercising relevant mental orientation), which is the prerequisite for the Right View. I will add only a few things here. Larry quoted and wrote: "However, Nyanatiloka translates vitakka as thought- conception...snip..snip.. As such, we also need to observe and discover the three characteristics of thinking and rethinking as well. The three characteristics are what distinguish realities from non- realities. By applying Theravada observation methods such as Satipa.t.thaana to realities, we discover their three characterisitcs. By contrast, we cannot discover the three characteristics if the objects we take were unreal things (paññatti dhammaa) because the unreal things do not have the three characterisctics. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Suan, May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma? Thanks in advance. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37050 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:36am Subject: Intro Vis. 103, 104 and Tiika. Intro Vis. 103, 104 and Tiika. Vis. 103. III. i. B. That of the 'fine-material sphere', however, is of five kinds (57)-(61) like the profitable (9)-(13). But the profitable occurs in a cognitive series with the impulsions as an attainment [of jhana], while this occurs in an existence [in the fine-material sphere] as rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and death. Vis. 104: 104. III. i. C. And as that of the fine-material sphere [was like the profitable of that sphere] so that of the 'immaterial sphere' (62)-(65) is of four kinds like the profitable too (14)-(17). And its occurrence is classed in the same way as that of the fine-material sphere. Intro Vis. 103 and 104. After the Visuddhimagga has dealt with kusala vipaakacittas and akusala vipaakacittas of the sense-sphere, kaamavacaara cittas, it now deals with the vipaakacittas of higher planes of citta: the plane of ruupaavacaara citta or ruupajhaanacitta (fine-material jhaana) and aruupavacaaracitta or aruupajhaanacitta (immaterial jhaana). Thus, these cittas are the results of kusala kamma that is ruupajhaana and aruupajhaana. ================= Text Vis. 103: 103. III. i. B. That of the 'fine-material sphere', however, is of five kinds (57)-(61) like the profitable (9)-(13). ============== N: The ruupaavacaara vipaakacittas produced by ruupaavaacaara kusala cittas are accompanied by the same jhana-factors. Recapitulating the ruupaavaacaara kusala cittas, classified according to five stages of jhaana, as given by Vis. XIV, 86: Vis.86.< The consciousness of the 'fine-material sphere' is fivefold, being classed according to association with the jhana factors. That is to say, (9) the first is associated with applied thought, sustained thought, happiness(piiti or enthusiasm), bliss (sukha, happy feeling), and concentration, (10) the second leaves out applied thought from that, (11) the third leaves out sustained thought from that, (12) the fourth makes happiness fade away from that, (13) the fifth is associated with equanimity and concentration, bliss having subsided. > ========= Text Vis. 103: But the profitable occurs in a cognitive series with the impulsions as an attainment [of jhana],while this occurs in an existence [in the fine-material sphere] as rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and death. =========== N: The translator uses , but the Pali gives , which literally means rebirth. Thus, the vipaakacitta occurs in the following life. Kusala rupaavacaaracitta (ruupa-jhaanacitta) arises within a process of cittas, during the moments of javana-cittas (impulsion). These cittas which are of a high degree of kusala kamma do not produce result in the same life. If one¹s skill in jhaana does not decline and the last javanacittas arising before the dying-consciousness are jhaanacittas, the jhaanacitta can produce vipaaka in the form of rebirth-consciousness of the following life. And then also the bhavanga-cittas and the dying-consciousness are of the same type of ruupaavacaara vipaakacitta. As we have seen before, kusala kamma of the level of ruupa-jhaana, fine-material jhaana, can lead to rebirth in ruupa-brahma planes where there are less sense impressions. There are no nose, tongue, body or sexuality in those planes. Only seeing, hearing, and the experience of mental objects occur. There are no cittas rooted in dosa, since there are no conditions for aversion in these planes. But there can be cittas rooted in lobha. Those who have a limited degree of absorption of the first jhaana will be reborn in the lowest plane of ruupa-brahmans, namely, the plane of Brahma¹s Retinue. Those with a medium and a high degree of absorption of the first jhaana will be reborn accordingly in higher ruupa-brahma planes: the plane of Brahma¹s Ministers and the Great Brahmaas. Each stage of jhaana can be of a limited, a medium or a high degree of absorption, Each of these degrees produces its result accordingly (Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, A.T. P. 108, 109) > The Tiika states that the ruupaavacaara vipaakacitta is similar to the ruupaavacaara kusala citta that produces it, with regard to the accompanying cetasikas, contact, etc. and with regard to the object. Jhaanacitta can have as object the meditation subjects of samatha, such as the kasinas, the brahmavihaaras, etc. . It does not occur with another object. The kamma and the vipaaka in this case are of the same plane of citta (bhuumi). Thus, of the fine-material plane of citta, ruupaavacaara bhuumi. The Tiika explains that with the fifth jhaana the supranatural powers can be attained, but that this does not give a result. We read in The Expositor (p. 380): N: Thus, in the following life. ******* Vis. 104: Text: ================ And as that of the fine-material sphere [was like the profitable of that sphere] so that of the 'immaterial sphere' (62)-(65) is of four kinds like the profitable too (14)-(17). =========== N: To recapitulate: There are four stages of aruupajhaana and all four aruupa-jhaanacittas are accompanied by the same two factors as the fifth ruupa-jhaanacitta, by equanimity and concentration. The four meditation subjects of aruupa-jhaana are not dependent on any materiality. They are: Boundless Space, Unbounded Consciousness, Nothingness, Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception. ======== Text Vis: And its occurrence is classed in the same way as that of the fine-material sphere. ======== N: Thus, the Kusala arupaavacaaracitta (aruupa-jhaanacitta) arises within a process of cittas, during the moments of javana-cittas, and these can produce their results accordingly in the next life as rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and dying-consciousness. The aruupaavacaara vipaakacittas have the same object as the aruupaavacaara kusala citta which produces it. ************* Nina. 37051 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hi Larry and Phil, op 29-09-2004 01:25 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Hi Phil, > > That's a good point about the desirability of whiskey has to do with > pleasant bodily feeling....On the other hand one might ask why does one like a taste > that is accompanied by neutral feeling or dislike a taste that is > accompanied by a neutral feeling. Ordinarily we are equanimous toward > neutral feeling but there is definitely a lot of like and dislike when > it comes to taste. N: The moments of tasting, vipaakacitta, is accompanied by indifferent feeling, but this is closely followed by akusala cittas with like or dislike and these are conditioned by accumulated inclinations. Different conditions for different dhammas. L: The other question was, isn't it a little hedonistic to say that > pleasant bodily feeling is always the result of virtuous (kusala) > intention? N: It is so difficult to disentangle all these feelings. Bodyconsciousness is a very short moment. So is the accompanying feeling, how can we catch it? When it is pleasant it is the result of kusala kamma. Jon gave in August an example of pleasant temperature when lying in the sun. The heat was a desirable object that body-consciousness accompanied by pleasant bodily feeling experienced. But at the moment of vipaakacitta, citta does not know it is agreeable. Mental feeling is more prominent, it accompanies the seven javana cittas. L: Abhidhamma seems to say there is no such thing as a bad taste; there is only flavour and secondarily liking it or not. At this point, I'm skeptical. N: No, this is not said. There are desirable and undesirable objects. T.A. adds:< intrinsically desirable and undesirable, or imagined to be so.> Remember the discussion with Rob M: generally thought to be desirable, by government officials, etc. A sound produced by anger that is heard is an undesirable object. Hearing is accompanied by indifferent feeling, it does not know that the object is undesirable. It only hears, that is its function. No need to go into this, because we often do not know whether an object is desirable or not, and why should we? It is not important, it does not lead to detachment. Thus, there is the ruupa that is flavour and when that appears, we know that there is a nama that experiences it. It is merely the vipaakacitta that tastes, but it has no like or dislike, does not know what it is, does not know whether it is agreeable or not. Only after that there are akusala cittas with like or dislike. And there is even more to this. An example: you swallow stale orangejuice: even when swallowing there is tangible object, it can be cold or pressure, one of the three Great Elements. Tangible object can impinge anywhere in the body, also inside. You dislike the taste and you wince or shudder. Here citta produces rupas. These rupas are experienced by body-consciousness accompanied by bodily feeling, and then there are reactions again with mental feeling. This to show that in the human plane we are nama and rupa, and all the time there is body-consciousness accompanied by bodily feeling, but just in a moment. This is not so in rupa-brahma planes, where there is no body-consciousness, and in arupa-brahma planes where there is no rupa at all. As Phil said, This is an important point. We should not mix in medical science or psychology. Why so? Because the Dhamma leads to detachment, detachment is the goal. We learn that nama and rupa have different characteristics as they appear one at a time. As I said before, if there is the slightest bit of attachment, if we try to catch, lobha reigns and we shall not know the truth. More understanding of conditions leads to detachment. L: I don't remember Nina's answer but we might consider the > difference between proximate cause, which could be some unvirtuous > (akusala) desire, and the kamma from some previous life of which this > consciousness is the result. N: It need not be kamma of a previous life. But let us not try to find out too much, it distracts from the present moment. L:Additionally we could say the Buddha > certainly didn't sanction the valueing of pleasant bodily feeling. Rupa > is dukkha and feeling is dukkha. N: He taught right understanding of all nama and rupa so that we can see them as impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. Nina. 37052 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:34am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: hi, Larry, The general characteristics of reality are just what they are and it's our making an understandable/graspable whole of them that is 'created'/composed by sanna, manasikara, vitakka-vicara, cetana and all. The variegated, painting citta(s). Then, we take this picture/nimitta for ..snip..snip.... 'we' involve 'ourselves' with concepts... like looking up at stars that may have burned out ages ago. Hope that doesn't short change you on your 2 cents. Really hard for me to try thinking of how the different cetasikas can have a function at all when they are so fleeting, connie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Connie, Thanks for you example of 'star' in comparison with passed realities. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37053 From: plnao Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Just a Dog ..... Hello Christine Rusty sounds like a wonderful dog. Sorry things are looking bad. As for the issue of euthanasia, I wonder if it's completely inappropriate to turn to a post that I expect I'll turn to whenever one of the difficult ethical questions or other controversial issues comes up. The wonderful message from Matt about the sexism of lack of same of the Buddha. : >>>>Whether women corrupted the sasana or not does not change what reality is arising and inpinging on the sense door right now. Whether the Buddha held those views or not, whether the Jataka Tales are true or fiction, whether the Teaching will last 500 or 5,000 years does not change what reality is arising and impinging on the sense door right now. In the citta moment that arises right now there is no Jataka Tales, no women, no men, no Bhikhunis, no sexist views and no self; male or female. Understanding the Dhamma negates the stories and that is what makes it so beautiful and its followers so unique.<<<< Ph: Do you know what I mean? When we are in the moment, there is no issue of whether the Buddha prohibited suicide or not (though as Eric mentioned, it seems he didn't) and there is no need for you to feel guilty about it - though it will obviously be a terribly painful decision, if it comes. If you consider the emotional realities arising during the decision I suspect you will find karuna there, and it will make your decision a wee bit easier. Eric said "follow your heart." I guess that's what I'm getting at. If we kill in daily life, for example mosquitoes, there are unwholesome factors at work - all that dosa- and obviously in more horrific forms of killing there are very unwholesome factors at work. What you're talking about is completely different, it seems to me. If you put Rusty to sleep because you no long er loved him or because it was a nuisance to take care of him, that would be wrong. Obviously that wouldn't be the case here. There would be karuna. There's no karuna when we kill a mosquito or slaughter a cow. There's only dosa, or greed or other unwholesome factors. Metta, Phil 37054 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:29am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 21 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When in 2nd arupa jhana, the object if the 1st arupa jhana cittas and the citta that takes this object is 2nd arupa jhana citta. This 2nd arupa jhana citta is called 'vinnananca ayatana' citta. This vinnananca ayatana jhana has to be practised to become efficient. The practitioner has to be able to access to this jhana whenever he wants. He also has to be able to stay in 2nd arupa jhana as long as he wants as he predetermined. He has to be able to emerge from his arupa jhana at the exact point of time as he predetermined. He has to be able to contemplate on 2nd arupa jhana. More importantly, he has to be proficient in examination and scrutinization of jhana factors. Through this exercise, once he realises that this 2nd arupa jhana is also quite close to the 1st arupa jhana. Because this jhana takes the object 1st jhana cittas and this is close to rupa nimitta. Through repeated examination and through his realization of less efficientness of 2nd arupa jhana, he becomes dispassionated to this jhana and he has to search for higher jhana so that he may not be pulled down back to lower jhanas. Through repeated and continuing practice, finally he is able to drop the 2nd arupa jhana. The drop here means he nullify the 2nd arupa jhana. This jhana is voided. When this happen is that when the 3rd arupa jhana arises. This 3rd arupa jhana is a citta that take the object of 'nothingness'. This nothingness derived from nullifying of the existing 2nd arupa jhana. It is called 'akincinna ayatana' jhana. Kinca means 'something'. Akinca means 'not something or nothing'. So the object is the idea of nothing. This is just a name and it is a panatta. This 3rd arupa jhana citta only arises when the existing 2nd arupa jhana is lost and nothing arises as an object except the object that the idea of nothingness. May you attain 3rd arupa jhana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37055 From: plnao Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew > So you admit the perfections can be developed intentionally. That's >the whole point. Well, of course you *can* choose to try to develop them, but I think you'll find it much more deeply encouraging to find them arising naturally in your daily life. That's the way I feel about metta, though as we know an intentional practice of metta meditation is very popular amoungst Buddhists. When metta arises in daily life, not because I intentionally conditioned it that morning by meditating on it but because it is coming a little bit closer to becoming my nature as coarse defilements are eradicated, that seems much more encouraging to me. And I guess the same thing applies for the other perfections. You can decide to try to be energetic, or patient, or determined, or generous, but can you *be* those things by will? Trying to do so requires so much self-driven will power that it seems to me to go against the point, which is becoming more detached from self and its desires. It seems to me that you would risk becoming more dependent on self whenever you set up practice goals. >Now to me the question is just how much of them is >needed to see the Noble Truths and realize unbinding. That's what >it's all about, right? Honestly, I think I've got a decent shot at >it in this very lifetime. Ph: Well, they're all needed, fully and completely. That's why they're called "Perfections!" (I assume that this is a good translation of the Pali paramis - it's certainly the word that is always used in English) And I think the fact that they're called "perfections" tells us that there is a long way to go, and we should go with patience, and determination, and as we go they will be developed naturally as they arise in daily life. Being mindful of the times that they arise will condition more of the same. Yes, I think we've all got a shot at it in this very lifetime. Just being born human at a time when the Buddha's teachings are in the world is very encouraging. But I have a hunch that intending to make it happen in this lifetime dooms us to becoming more tightly bound-up in self. If we press ahead patiently with small moments of mindfulness we are certainly moving towards the unbinding. We shouldn't try to predict when it will come, in my view. I know you are fond of the Satipatthana Sutta's promise of "If a monk develops this for 7 years ... 7 months" and so on. That's got you on a timeline way of thinking. It feels dangerous to me, but I'm just a beginner and that Sutta's been kicking around a long, long time. I trust you've read a lot of commentary and/or worked with a reliable teacher to look more deeply into what the Sutta is getting at. Metta, Phil 37056 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi again, Larry - I've been re-thinking my post to you on the matter of impermanence, characteristics, concepts, and paramattha dhammas, and I find that I'm not fully satisfied with what I had to say. I think this a very deep and difficult matter, and I'd like to add a few more thoughts on it below that constitute a bit of a backing off from my stated position and a move more towards your perspective. In a message dated 9/29/04 8:21:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 9/29/04 12:05:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > LBIDD@w... > writes: > > >Hi all, > > > >My 2 cents worth, the abhidhamma answer to this question is that > >impermanence is a concept and concepts are unconditioned, so there is no > >cause of impermanence, or any other concept. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Larry, don't you find this a wee bit troublesome? Is it not a > fundamental fact, is it not completely true, is it not an *actuality* that > whatever > arises - that is, every conditioned dhamma - ceases? Calling that fact a > concept > does not make it anything less than a preeminent actuality! Isn't > impermanence a property, a lakkhana? Are the tilakkhanas "unreal" just > because they > require inference for us non-arahants to "see" them? Can they not be seen > directly > by wisdom? (And even if they cannot, they remain preeminent realities in my > eyes - at least as real as the "dhammas" to which they apply.) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I feel I'm treading on dangerous ground. While I still maintain that the tilakkhana are preeminent facts that may well be directly known by wisdom, I do have to admit that as characteristics of a dhamma such as a hardness-experience, they are perhaps that in name only - that is, they are only *called* characteristics. For a particular instance of hardness experienced a while ago, what was its impermanence? The hardness had occurred, and now there is no hardness. And we then *say* it was impermanent. But if we consider the hardness, where in that hardness was the impermanence? Nowhere! It was not to be found. If we say that its impermanence was its "propensity to cease", that doesn't help matters. Nowhere in that hardness was there to be found a "propensity to cease" - there was just the hardness. To expect to find impermanence in that hardness is like a farmer telling us that a seed has the power to sprout, and us then asking the farmer where in the seed that power is to be found! The tilakkhana are not things or events or anything at all! So, you are right, Larry. Aniccatta, dukkhatta, and anattata - I purposely use the "ness" endings - are concept only. Yet it is actual, it is true, it is real, it is a fact that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, and they are unsatisfying, impersonal, and dependent. What is the main problem? I think it lies in "thing making", in reification. We tend to make "things" out of all our experiences, and this is most problematic when it comes to abstractions such as impermanence, though certainly not exclusively so. ------------------------------------------------------ > Impermanence does not arise or cease. But it is a *fact*, a *truth*, > an *actuality* that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, i.e., they > cease. > Larry, ceasing is a reality, ceasing occurs - though it does not, itself, > arise or cease, and it is characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: And yet it is *not* a thing. It is entirely unfindable. -------------------------------------------- And, being a > > characteristic of phenomena, ceasing has causes - the causes are the arising > > of those dhammas and the very dhammas, themselves. If there were no dhammas, > > there would be no impermanence. If there were no arising, there would be no > ceasing. > Now it is true that though arising occurs, arising does not arise, nor > does it cease. Likewise for ceasing. They are empty, they are ungraspable, > but they are not imagined. They are realities, realities of a different sort > > from the so called paramattha dhammas, but realities nonetheless. Emptiness > is > different from unreality. Abhidhamma, grasped wrongly, will lead us into a > host > of problems. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What I said here I'm still reasonably satisfied with. They are "realities" in the sense of facts, but they are *not* things. ------------------------------------------------ I believe that Nagarjuna's life work was devoted to an attempt to > > avoid such problems and to correct excesses along lines similar to what is > being discussed here. If we let ourselves fall into a doctrinaire rut, going > > overboard in our view of what is "real" and what is not, we will end up > making > the Dhamma, itself, unreal, imagined, and worthless. The "salvation" lies in > the > concept of emptiness, and in avoiding the extremes of "real" and "unreal". > It > is valid, I believe, to distinguish real from imagined, and to distinguish > mentally constructed from mentally unconstructed, but we must take care in > being > too quick to identify mentally unconstructed with real and mentally > constructed with imagined. Moreover, we must take care in our priorities: > Pedantic > details of inessential characteristics of multitudes of listed dhammas > should not > weigh more heavily than the tilakkhana, whose realization are the entrees to > > enlightenment and liberation. It seems to me that we are starting to see > here > what can emerge from an extreme disparaging of so-called pa~n~natti and an > extreme over-dependence on scholastic inessentials at the cost of devaluing > essentials. Care must be taken. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > However, Nyanatiloka> > >translates vitakka as thought-conception. He doesn't go so far as to say > >vitakka is the creation of a concept, but concept has to come from > >somewhere so maybe this is it, or possibly vitakka and vicara together. > >This raises the question, does vitakka-vicara create the general > >characteristics of reality? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Now here you are expressing some interesting thinking, I think. > Whether your speculation here is correct or not I don't know, but I do think > it is > good that there is enough questioning in your mind about this matter to > cause > you to want to consider further. > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >Larry > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37057 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Nina, Rob K Dear Suan, Thank you very much, you explained very clearly, much appreciated! When I studied meaning of Dhamma also paññatti was called dhamma. As you say, conditioned paramattha dhammas have the three characteristics. I like this sentence: discovered. They are not manufactured by thinking or by any other > mental associates or by the mind.> Nina. op 29-09-2004 18:10 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > The three characteristics are what distinguish realities from non- > realities. By applying Theravada observation methods such as > Satipa.t.thaana to realities, we discover their three > characterisitcs. > > By contrast, we cannot discover the three characteristics if the > objects we take were unreal things (paññatti dhammaa) because the > unreal things do not have the three characterisctics. 37058 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana Journey ( 20 )Htoo. Dear Htoo and Sarah, A Question. op 28-09-2004 23:49 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > This is 2nd arupa jhana citta. This citta take the object of > paramattha dhamma. This paramattha dhamma is citta. The citta here is > akasanancayatana 1st arupa jhana citta. N: When the 2nd arupa jhana citta takes as object the 1st arupa jhana citta, this has just fallen away. Can we say, this is a navatabba.m aaramana.m? Not so classifiable object? You remember, Sarah discussed this with me. A difficult subject for me. Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. 37059 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg]objects of arupa-jhanacittas Dear Suan and Htoo, I am so interested. I ma also thinking of which arupa-jhanacitta has navattabba.m aarammana.m, as I also asked Htoo concerning the object of the second arupa jhanacitta. Nina. op 29-09-2004 19:29 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Dear Suan, > > May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it > a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma? 37060 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a Dog ..... Dear Christine, I sympathize with you. You know, I do not like to look at photos, but Rusty could not be overlooked in the album, and it was the photo I liked best of all. Nina. op 29-09-2004 15:20 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > > For Newbies, you can see a pic of Rusty in the album of 'significant > others' in photos: 37061 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vipaka in the kitchen. Htoo. Dear Htoo, Thank you for your sympathetic post. op 26-09-2004 16:48 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > I know. Only arahats have eradicated all the defilements. I just > introduced two words 'recondition' and 'precondition'. >(snipped) > At least reconditioning through our knowledge of dhamma help us > suffering less even though we have not attained higher nanas. > > Confrontation to defilements is a good way as well. While defilements > arise we confront them and at the same time, we know the realities > defilements. As soon as we know that these defilements are realities, > we are developing panna. At least at that time, defilements stop to > arise. > But as long as we have habit, that is as long as we are not mature to > develop higher nanas, this developing of panna among the scatters of > defilements will lapse immediately back to staying with defilements. N: So, it is like a step forward and then backward again, ups and downs. H: I think, here practice will help. In which way it helps? Defilements > become thiner and thiner even though there may be a large bulk inside > of us. The practice makes us as if we are externally free of > defilements. N: Perhaps you think of jhana, but as you know, jhana is not for everybody. But there are all the other ways of kusala, the perfections, and they sure help. You use the word preconditioning, but, we never know what vipaka will come, what losses will come, and it depends on many conditions how we shall react. Since it is all anatta. How could we be prepared for the future? A Question: The worldly conditions are gain and loss, honour and dishonour, etc. and here the Buddha speaks by way of conventional truth, situations in life. If I have a heart-piercing loss, the loss of a dear one, how can we see here the paramattha dhammas which are moments of vipaakacittas? Is it through eyes, through ears? It is hard to analyse here the situation. I think that is why Larry said that vipaaka is a concept. Nina. 37062 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dear Htoo (1)Htoo. Dear Htoo, op 29-09-2004 18:23 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > This is difficult to answer. But what I have read was that when > sotappatti magga nana has been achieved, sotapatti phala samapatti > can be done. > > So the answer to your question 'Is this correct?' is to be > honest 'don't know' from me but I think I read it in a dhamma book > which might be a commentary. N: According to Visudhimagga and other Co, when an ariyan has developed jhana and attains enlightenment, magga-citta and phala-cittas arise, and after some preparation he canlater on experience as often as he wants nibbaana with phalacittas which arise again and again. Nina. 37063 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a Dog ..... Hello James, Sarah, Eric, Connie, Steve, Phil, Nina, all, Thank you for your posts - they have helped enormously. Just being able to tell Rustys' story, and speak about my dilemna, in a place where there are understanding ears to hear, eases things so much. I'm off to work right now - and then later in the morning comes the telephone call ... I've also been thinking on and off through this experience, about how grief over a companion animals' death is one of the "disenfranchised griefs" - just as is, in many places, the loss of a same sex partner and a miscarriage/still birth. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37064 From: Egbert Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:52pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence Hi Connie, Larry, I love this post. The painting image does wonders for me. Still, it pisses me off that all these painting cittas are hurling paintballs around, regardless of whether the canvas is viewed wrongly or rightly, as being pleasant or unpleasant. Even the viewing of the canvas is part of the canvas, as is my being pissed off with the whole show. On and on and on it goes. If it were not were not for the possibility of switching off, there would be a portrayal in there somewhere of me getting implants, just so I could rip my hair out :-) Thanks Connie, and Kind Regards > The general characteristics of reality are just what they are and it's our making an understandable/graspable whole of them that is 'created'/composed by sanna, manasikara, vitakka-vicara, cetana and all. > The variegated, painting citta(s). Then, we take this picture/nimitta for reality. So it's our understanding/view of the characteristics and not the characteristics themselves that's the creation. Seems we don't really live in the present 'reality' at all, but 'in the past through the mind door'/present concepts. The true characteristics of realities are only present/experienced before 'we' involve 'ourselves' with concepts... like looking up at stars that may have burned out ages ago. > Hope that doesn't short change you on your 2 cents. Really hard for me to try thinking of how the different cetasikas can have a function at all when they are so fleeting, > connie 37065 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hello Herman, I read over parts of this post several times, ...... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > Hi Ken, > .....snip.... What caught my eye in the section Sarah > posted, which became enough of a reason for my posting, was: "the > same object as experienced by the last javana cittas arising before > the cuti-citta of the previous life (4). > > Now you say existence can only ever be the present moment of citta. > What on earth is a previous life? In terms of citta, what is a life? > A: For me, there's a fine line bet. the real world of cittas etc and the concepts, last life , this life etc. When it comes to dhammas, I feel like I'm walking bet 2 worlds - here's me writing to you, after this, I'll go for a swim blah blah blah, this is one world; the other one is the world of cittas, cetasikas, rupas, conditions; a juxtaposition. Kinda can't have one without the other, but the difference bet the 2 is that one is the 'real' one and the other is the 'illusory' one. Just a few 'azit amusings'! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37066 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hi Azita, Here's an attempt at clarification but this idea takes a little getting used to, so maybe we should just let it cook for a while. Two people look at the same light, one of them is colour blind. One person sees a red light; the other sees a brown light, or whatever colour a colour blind person sees. It seems obvious to me that in this situation colour is a consciousness, a phenomenon called consciousness. It follows from this that all experienced rupas are consciousnesses. We usually say that consciousness cognizes rupa. What does this mean? In Indian philosophy there is the metaphor of a crystal placed on a piece of coloured cloth. The crystal takes on the colour of the cloth. Similarly when consciousness cognizes red it becomes red. The red that we know and experience is a consciousness. The red that is not a consciousness we can know only through reasoning, like the colour blind person. I'm not claiming that this is an abhidhamma explanation. It is just an attempt to understand experience. Larry 37067 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi all, Many interesting responses, heartfelt and insightful. However, I didn't see any that had the taste of abhidhamma. Suan, I'm not sure if you were saying that concepts do not come from vitakka-vicara. If not, where do they come from? Also, the general characteristics are not what differentiates concept from reality. Own nature (sabhava) distinguishes reality from concept. However, own nature is own becoming, so they are nearly the same. I believe concept is classed as anatta, but I'm not sure. Not seeing a really good answer, I'm considering this to still be an open question: what is the cause of impermanence? Here's another attempt. The cessation of desire is the cessation of impermanence. Therefore desire is the cause of impermanence. Larry 37068 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro Vis. 103, 104 and Tiika. Hi Nina, Am I correct in understanding that there are no resultant consciousnesses in the fine-material and immaterial planes, except for the 3 kinds of bhavanga? If so, how can there be seeing and hearing? Is the only cognitive process in these planes the cycling through the jhanas or continuous dwelling on one jhana? Larry -------------------- N: "As we have seen before, kusala kamma of the level of ruupa-jhaana, fine-material jhaana, can lead to rebirth in ruupa-brahma planes where there are less sense impressions. There are no nose, tongue, body or sexuality in those planes. Only seeing, hearing, and the experience of mental objects occur. There are no cittas rooted in dosa, since there are no conditions for aversion in these planes. But there can be cittas rooted in lobha. Those who have a limited degree of absorption of the first jhaana will be reborn in the lowest plane of ruupa-brahmans, namely, the plane of Brahma¹s Retinue. Those with a medium and a high degree of absorption of the first jhaana will be reborn accordingly in higher ruupa-brahma planes: the plane of Brahma¹s Ministers and the Great Brahmaas. Each stage of jhaana can be of a limited, a medium or a high degree of absorption, Each of these degrees produces its result accordingly (Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, A.T. P. 108, 109) >" 37069 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi Howard, I think this below is very interesting. I hadn't thought it out before, but it looks right to me. Larry ------------------------------- H: "Here I feel I'm treading on dangerous ground. While I still maintain that the tilakkhana are preeminent facts that may well be directly known by wisdom, I do have to admit that as characteristics of a dhamma such as a hardness-experience, they are perhaps that in name only - that is, they are only *called* characteristics. For a particular instance of hardness experienced a while ago, what was its impermanence? The hardness had occurred, and now there is no hardness. And we then *say* it was impermanent. But if we consider the hardness, where in that hardness was the impermanence? Nowhere! It was not to be found. If we say that its impermanence was its "propensity to cease", that doesn't help matters. Nowhere in that hardness was there to be found a "propensity to cease" - there was just the hardness. To expect to find impermanence in that hardness is like a farmer telling us that a seed has the power to sprout, and us then asking the farmer where in the seed that power is to be found! The tilakkhana are not things or events or anything at all!" 37070 From: robmoult Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:24pm Subject: View on Death Hi Christine, At this difficult time, I would like to share with you my personal view on death. Over the past 12 years, there have been many moments when Rusty had an impact on you, on your daughter and on others. Because of that impact, you and the others were changed. Because you and the others were changed, this changed the way in which you impacted other beings. I visualize a pebble being dropped into water; there are concentric rings getting progressively weaker as they expand. Do not limit your view of Rusty to a "collection of bones or fur" or "a stream of momentary cittas and cetasikas". Include in your definition of Rusty the focus of those concentric rings. Those rings will expand forever, yet their focus will always remain the same; that which was essentially Rusty. Metta and Karuna, Rob M :-) 37071 From: Egbert Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence Hi Larry and Howard, Thank you for a very interesting and worthwhile discussion. I am wondering if it is possible that the structure of perception, any perception, is based on impermanence. Only that which changes is perceivable and perceived, so what is perceived at any time are not actualities, but differences in a never ending flux (with no hint of moments of fixed duration). The (dis)ability to take snapshots of a boiling cauldron may suggest steady but short-lived, identifiable states that rise and fall within it, but such a conclusion can only come from taking the snapshots as being their own reality. So e.g. hardness may appear as reality in which impermanence is not to be found, but when hardness is seen as a snapshot of what is in fact never static, the underlying reality becomes known, which is impermanence in which nothing, in any sense, is found. Just my musings, of course :-) Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I think this below is very interesting. I hadn't thought it out before, > but it looks right to me. > > Larry > ------------------------------- > H: "Here I feel I'm treading on dangerous ground. While I still maintain > that the tilakkhana are preeminent facts that may well be directly known > by wisdom, I do have to admit that as characteristics of a dhamma such > as a hardness-experience, they are perhaps that in name only - that is, > they are only *called* characteristics. For a particular instance of > hardness experienced a while ago, what was its impermanence? The > hardness had occurred, and now there is no hardness. And we then *say* > it was impermanent. But if we consider the hardness, where in that > hardness was the impermanence? Nowhere! It was not to be found. If we > say that its impermanence was its "propensity to cease", that doesn't > help matters. Nowhere in that hardness was there to be found a > "propensity to cease" - there was just the hardness. To expect to find > impermanence in that hardness is like a farmer telling us that a seed > has the power to sprout, and us then asking the farmer where in the seed > that power is to be found! The tilakkhana are not things or events or > anything at all!" 37072 From: Egbert Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:59pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Azita, Thanks for your time and consideration. ======= > > > A: For me, there's a fine line bet. the real world of cittas etc > and the concepts, last life , this life etc. > When it comes to dhammas, I feel like I'm walking bet 2 worlds - > here's me writing to you, after this, I'll go for a swim blah blah > blah, this is one world; the other one is the world of cittas, > cetasikas, rupas, conditions; a juxtaposition. Kinda can't have > one without the other, but the difference bet the 2 is that one is > the 'real' one and the other is the 'illusory' one. > Just a few 'azit amusings'! > ======= I like azit amusings :-) I don't want to tie your brain or mine in any more knots than is absolutely necessary, but this cuti-citta seems very specific, and I am attempting to grasp what its function is. Using your musings, it reads like cuti-citta and rebirth- consciousness are real bridges between two illusory states. Which is what I can't get my knotted mind around. What is different about the cittas before the bridge to the ones after the bridge? Why the bridge if it is a continuous stream anyway? Kind Regards Herman > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 37073 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence Hi, Herman (and Larry) - In a message dated 9/29/04 9:47:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Larry and Howard, > > Thank you for a very interesting and worthwhile discussion. I am > wondering if it is possible that the structure of perception, any > perception, is based on impermanence. Only that which changes is > perceivable and perceived, so what is perceived at any time are not > actualities, but differences in a never ending flux (with no hint of > moments of fixed duration). > > The (dis)ability to take snapshots of a boiling cauldron may suggest > steady but short-lived, identifiable states that rise and fall > within it, but such a conclusion can only come from taking the > snapshots as being their own reality. > > So e.g. hardness may appear as reality in which impermanence is not > to be found, but when hardness is seen as a snapshot of what is in > fact never static, the underlying reality becomes known, which is > impermanence in which nothing, in any sense, is found. > > Just my musings, of course :-) > > > Kind Regards > > Herman > ========================== Herman, I believe that what you are saying here is has real depth to it and is important for me to understand? I *think* I do get what you are saying. If I do, then what I say in the next paragraph may be in agreement with it. Please let me knoe. As regards allegedly discrete, momentary phenomena that arise and then cease the instant after, and during that zero-durational moment are utterly static, I'm afraid I'm not at all certain that is how things are. I don't really buy sharp-edged, instantaneous phenomena, because I don't think that any such thing is ever experienced, and what is not experienced is not an experiential reality. I see experience as occurring over time intervals that have positive, not zero, duration, and, moreover, I think these intervals are what theorists working in artificial intelligence might refer to as "fuzzy intervals", without sharp, delineated beginnings or endings. Are you saying something along these lines? (BTW, this understanding does not contradict impermanence, for all that it means to say that conditions are impermanent, is that what is present now will not indefinitely remain - that is, at some time later, it will not be present.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37074 From: Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/29/04 10:20:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Herman, I believe that what you are saying here is has real depth to > it and is important for me to understand? ==================== The question mark in the foregoing is a remnant of a previous formulation. Please change it to a period! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37075 From: robmoult Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:26pm Subject: View on Life (was View on Death) Hi Christine (again), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > At this difficult time, I would like to share with you my personal > view on death. > > Over the past 12 years, there have been many moments when Rusty had > an impact on you, on your daughter and on others. Because of that > impact, you and the others were changed. Because you and the others > were changed, this changed the way in which you impacted other > beings. I visualize a pebble being dropped into water; there are > concentric rings getting progressively weaker as they expand. > > Do not limit your view of Rusty to a "collection of bones or fur" > or "a stream of momentary cittas and cetasikas". Include in your > definition of Rusty the focus of those concentric rings. Those rings > will expand forever, yet their focus will always remain the same; > that which was essentially Rusty. > > Metta and Karuna, > Rob M :-) ===== The above view on death has influenced my thinking since I was a teenager, it even predates my study of Buddhism. I feel that a scholar who can recite Suttas in Pali from memory is much further from the Dhamma than one who puts the four brahamaviharas into action in their lives. I understand that your job involves providing counseling at the local hospital to people who have had traumatic experiences (such as rape victims). Now that you know my view on death, perhaps you can see why I have huge admiration for you. What impresses me most is not your compassion but rather your equanimity. It is not difficult to imagine having compassion for a rape victim... what makes you special is your equanimity. Equanimity is much more than simply meditating on the phrase, "all beings are heirs to their kamma". Equanimity in action means being able to cut off mental proliferation (papanca) at an early stage. You hear something unpleasant, but your mind does not get consumed by it. That is your unique skill that I admire so much. Please don't take this metaphor wrongly, but I see you as "a garbage pail with no bottom". People can dump their most unpleasant things into you (thereby lessening their load) and none of it accumulates (you can come back to work the next day). Because it does not accumulate, you can use judgement to give sound advice rather than get caught up in the emotion of the moment (and that doesn't help anybody). Only an Anagami can perfect equanimity, so I am sure that you must carry some of the burden of your work back with you each evening. I suspect that part of your ritual each evening is to spend some time with Rusty. Your time with Rusty is therapeutic, helping to clean the last remnants of the garbage pail so that you can be effective the following day. The way that I see it, Rusty has helped the thousands of patients that you have seen over the years. That help is part of Rusty's ripples. Should Rusty die, you may want to give another animal a chance to help so many people. Metta, karuna and upekkha, Rob M :-) 37076 From: connieparker Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:57pm Subject: silence Hey, Andrew L, Just reading through some of the early posts for this group and came across the following in #6427 from Jim Anderson: < ...The Buddha made a vinaya rule against the practice of silence (muugabbata) as follows: "Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever observes it, there is an offence of wrong-doing." -- The Book of the Discipline, Part 4, p. 211 trs. I.B. Horner. It also comes with a story of several pages long leading up to the Buddha making this rule. It involved several monks deciding to observe silence together during a rains-retreat (it's at the beginning of the Pavaara.naakkhandhaka, Mahaavagga). > If that strikes a chord, you might be interested in #'s 6445, 6446 and 6572 as well. In particular, the bit on Noble Silence was another reminder to me that we need to take the Buddha's words on his terms instead of trusting our own understanding. Also, it doesn't speak well of my sense of humour, but there's something in one about pigs that made me laugh. I don't know how much of a vow not talking (much) might be in my case, and don't mean to say we should live like monks, but I know, from things people have said to me about my 'never' (their word) talking, it bothers them. Afraid, too, it gives some people the impression that I know more than I do so they probably don't bother telling me things I might not think of on my own. Not saying we should just join in with everyone around us, either. Since most of my outside social life for the last four years has been a weekly meditation group meeting, I'd pretty much forgotten how people talk to each other and there was a bit of 'culture shock' on hearing some of it when I started working again. I guess it's like with your bagel eaters - what is there to say most of the time? Sarah said something to me once about letting metta run my mouth and that seems to work. At least I don't regret anything I do say even if it isn't something I would've bothered opening my mouth for before. peace, connie 37077 From: plnao Date: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:58pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - importance of samatha Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits3.html S. : If someone wants to apply himself to the development of kusala citta with calm to the degree of attainment concentration, which is jhaana, he must have a detailed knowledge of samatha bhaavanaa. He must know which meditation subject he should recollect, and how he should do this with kusala citta accompanied by pa~n~naa, so that there is true calm and he can reach different levels of samaadhi, concentration. He should also know that there are different types of persons who develop kusala citta with calm and that these types of persons can, accordingly, attain different levels of calm. All this is very intricate. Do you wish to develop samatha to the degree of jhaana? W. : One needs to study this subject in great detail, and, moreover, jhaana can only temporarily subdue defilements. Therefore, I prefer to develop insight, vipassanaa. Vipassanaa can eradicate defilements completely, so that they never arise again. S. : It is still necessary to discuss samatha bhaavanaa, because we should know the difference between the level of bhaavanaa which is the temporary subduing of defilements by calm and the level which is the complete eradication of defilements. (end quote) Ph: K Sujin asks "Do you wish to develop samatha to the degree of jhanaa?" In my case, the answer is I wish I could. I hope conditions arise which allow me to develop jhanas some day, or in some lifetime. I have faith that they will because I have a feeling that they are necessary in the higher/later stages of enlightenment. K Sujin and Nina and others' at DSG teach that there is Right Concentration with every citta, in the one-pointedness of that universal cetasika that is often translated as concentration - I forget it's name at the moment. I have trouble accepting this as the form of Right Concentration the Buddha teaches. Surely there is concentration, but it seems to this beginner that concentration to the degree of jhanas is where Right Concentration lies. There are so many suttas that point to that. That being said, I also am skeptical about how many people have the conditions to develop jhanas, and I suspect that there is a lot of false jhanifying going on out there. People who decide to develop jhanas because they know that if they don't they won't get the full benefits of the Buddha's teaching. There is self seeking benefits, I'm sure, a lot of the time. In any case, vipassana in daily life is a noble way and will condition access to jhanas in the future. I have faith in that. On that note, I found this from Nina's first post in the Removal of Distracting Thoughts series: >Co: The kusala citta arising with the ten bases of wholesomeness is not >higher citta, adhicitta. The citta with the eight attainments that is based >on vipassana is higher than that, it is the higher citta. >N: the eight attainments in jhana. B.B. speaks about vipassana based on >jhana, but it is the opposite in this case: here it is jhana based on >vipassana. Also PTS footnote gives: the eight attainments based on >vipassana. Only then the citta is pure, higher citta, because one does not >take jhana for self. Does this mean that jhana can be conditioned by vipassana as I was hoping above? The reason I have trouble sitting now is that I clearly sense self behind it. When I have cultivated vipassana in daily life as a practitioner of "dry insight", this will help me to be liberated from self enough to seek jhanas? Not liberated from self to the point of sotapanna - but self view weakened enough to sit without self seeking jhanas? Should I read it that way? I'm not fretting about this. Jhanas will come in this lifetime, or they won't - according to conditions. I understand that quite clearly. Metta, Phil 37078 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 0:54am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Herman (and Azita), ------------- H: > What caught my eye in the section Sarah posted, which became enough of a reason for my posting, was: "the same object as experienced by the last javana cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life (4). > ------------- KH: The cuti citta `of the previous life' is just a way of describing a particular cuti-citta. There have been countless billions of them. And if we don't get on with our Dhamma studies there will be countless billions to come! ---------------- H: > Now you say existence can only ever be the present moment of citta. What on earth is a previous life? > ---------------- KH: `What WAS a previous life,' might be a better question, but even then, it ties my brain in knots, just like it does yours and Azita's. In absolute terms there is no past and no future - no previous life and no future life - there is only the present moment. As a conventional way of describing absolute reality, the previous life was any and every moment of consciousness between the second- most-recent patisandhi (rebirth) citta and the most recent cuti- citta. --------- H: > In terms of citta, what is a life? > --------- KH: In absolute terms, there is no period of time called a life. There is only the present moment. A person who is well versed in Abhidhamma might recognise the present moment (its citta or any of the cetasikas and rupas) for what it is. It might be a vipaka moment of seeing, hearing, etc., it might be a functional moment, or it might be an impulsive moment. It might be a moment of rebirth, a moment of dying or any of the moments in between. ------------- H: > Can you tell me what differentiates (ie by what are they known to be different) rebirth, life-continuum, dying consciousness from other cittas? > ------------- KH: I could try but not with any great confidence. In fact, I don't think I will try - my brain is in enough knots already. :-) ---------------- H: You are saying satipatthana knows, say, a dying consciousness from another consciousness. What is it that it knows? Or do I have to wait and find out for myself :-) > ---------------- KH: I think the correct list of dhammas that `know' is; citta, panna, sanna and sati. --------------- H: > Some more comments interspersed below. If you are saying that only citta are real, then we have no common ground to discuss further. Because in order to discuss, we need the Internet, and it is not a citta. How then to discuss :-)? > ------------ Exactly! There are no discussions, there is only the present moment of citta. Any ideas of discussion, you, me, the internet and so on are just that - ideas. Ideas occur in various moments of citta as illusory objects. We can't stop them: they keep cropping up. Look, we are having that discussion after all! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37079 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:07am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 22 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Akincinna ayatana' arupa jhana or the 3rd arupa jhana does not related to any of rupa. The kusala of this arupa jhana can give rise to rebirth in arupa brahma bhumis. This arupa jhana also need to be proficient so that the jhana state can be effectively maintained. Otherwise, as jhanas always have enemies, these enemies will at a time destroy all jhanas. The practitioner contemplates on his 3rd arupa jhana. As soon as he contemplates on his 3rd arupa jhana, he knows that it is an arupa jhana citta and it has its accompaniments. He practises his jhanas so that he can access to his 3rd arupa jhana whenever he wants. This means that he may at a time not in arupa jhana but may be in rupa jhana or in kamavacara cittas. When he thinks of 3rd arupa jhana he has to produce his effort to ascend up through different jhanic states and reaches the 3rd arupa jhana. He also needs to practise to plan how long he will stay in 3rd arupa jhana. This is determination on the duration of 3rd arupa jhana beforehand. Through this exercise, he will be able to work with jhanas very effectively. He also needs to be able to rise from his 3rd arupa jhana at a predetermined time. This has to be exact. When the determined period has been achieved he has to emerge from his arupa jhana. More importantly, he has to examine and scrutinize his arupa jhana and the make of arupa jhana. Through this exercise, he sees that there are ekaggata or concentration and upekkha or the feeling of equanimity as jhana factors which are the same jhana factors in 5th rupa jhana. But when he examines the 3rd arupa jhana, the object of this arupa jhana is not the same as 5th rupa jhana. The object here is very subtle. It is the idea of nothingness. As the object is subtle, the jhana is also subtle. And the jhana citta is also subtle. There are viewer and viewee. The viewer is 3rd arupa jhana citta. The viewee is the idea of nothingness. Nothingness is voidness, emptiness and there is nothing at all. When this object is attended, the attending cittas are very subtle. They are so subtle that they cannot be said they have perception. They cannot be said that they have sanna. And equally, they cannot be said that they are without perception or they are non-perception. They cannot be said that they have non-sanna. When this state of mind arises, there is nothing related to rupa appear or occur or arise. So this state is also a state of arupa jhana. There is no hindrances. This is quite sure. So this is a state of jhana. It is arupa jhana. The object here is the 3rd arupa jhana citta. This 3rd arupa jhana citta is viewed by 4th arupa jhana citta. This 4th arupa jhana citta which arises after releasing 3rd arupa jhana and exists as a separate arupa jhana citta sees the passed 3rd arupa jhana citta. This 3rd arupa jhana citta is a reality. This is paramattha dhamma. And this arupa jhana the 4th is the highest of all loki cittas or this mental state or mind state is the highest in all worldly and heavenly consciousness that is 81 lokiya cittas. This 4th arupa jhana is said to be neither perception nor non- perception. It is called ''n'eva sanna nasanna ayatana'' arupa jhana. Sanna is perception. Nasanna is non-perception. Eva means 'such' 'such as'. Na means 'no' 'not' 'none'. Nevasannanasanna ayatana can be understood as neither perception nor non-perception. May you be free from all nivaranas and stay in jhanas. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37080 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana Journey ( 20 )Htoo. Dear Htoo and Sarah, A Question. >This is 2nd arupa jhana citta. This citta take the object of >paramattha dhamma. This paramattha dhamma is citta. The citta here is >akasanancayatana 1st arupa jhana citta. N: When the 2nd arupa jhana citta takes as object the 1st arupa jhana citta,this has just fallen away. Can we say, this is a navatabba.m aaramana.m? Not so classifiable object? You remember, Sarah discussed this with me. A difficult subject for me. Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, It is difficult to say. But I personally feel that it is a paramattha dhamma. When we were children, we walked on the beaches. As a child, sometimes we walked backwards with our back forwarding and seeing our own foot-print there on the sand of the beach. There were many foot-prints as we walked quite a far. Our feet were still moving left and right and left and right backwardly while seeing the footprint in front of the eyes. The sand there was boundless and limitless. The foot-prints there were boundless and limitless. The sand there can be equate with boundless space. The footprints there can be equated with 1st arupa jhana cittas. The second arupa jhana citta or vinnanaca ayatana citta sees these footprints of mind. As patisandhi, bhavanga, cuti cittas can take past object, I think vinnananca ayatana citta can also take past object. Marana asanna javana cittas can take paramattha dhamma or pannatti dhamma. When they take paramattha dhamma, patisandhi, bhavanga, and cuti cittas of next life will also take paramattha dhamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37081 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma Hi RobM & All, (Herman at the end), I'm not a great chart person, but had planned to look at the ones you referred to before now. I also fished out these past posts which may be relevant to the discussions. (There may be others under 'kamma' in UP): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12100 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/19267 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20064 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/32581 I particularly recommend Jon's post 19267 above to everyone as giving a clear summary on the topic, I think. On the charts: --- robmoult wrote: > U Silananda's chart seems to indicate that only cetana in lobha-mula > cittas can condition results according to asynchronous kamma > condition. You have quoted Tiikas indicating that this is incorrect. ... S: I assume you're looking at p141 in his notes. I think this may just be an example. In the more detailed chart on p.137 or on p.311 in CMA, under asynchronous kamma, it has '33 past wh.and unwh. volitions'. Have I misunderstood you? ... > U Narada's Guide to Conditional Relations, Chapter IV, page 197 - > 205, "Detailed Explanation of Asynchronous Kamma" has a lot of > detail on this. I haven't read it all yet, but glancing at the chart > on page 198, I see that: > - 11 faulty volitions exclusive of restlessness can cause rebirth in > the four lower planes > - 12 faulty volitions can arise during life in the sensous or the > fine material spheres ... S: so it's the same by my basic arithmetic. ... > It would appear that U Narada's presentation agrees with the Tiika > and contradicts U Silananda's chart. ... :-/ ... <...> > I said the following: > - the tree fell due to many natural conditions, but kamma was not > involved > - there was a tactile object (a rupa) as part of "tree" and body > sensitivity (another rupa) as part of "leg" together and this was a > condition for body consciousness citta to arise ... S: only because of past kamma. I'm not sure if you saw my recent comments in a post to Dan on this? ... > - because the nature of the rupa was inherently undesireable, the > body consciousness which arose is of the "akusala vipaka" type and > there was unpleasant bodily feeling ... S: kamma conditions vipaka to experience the desirable/undesirable object at that moment. ... <...> > When the tree fell on the leg: > - the arising of the tangible object rupa ("the tree") has nothing > to do with kamma > - body sensitivity rupa ("the leg") is produced by kamma; the kamma > which propelled us into this existence. > > The object of the sense door citta process has nothing to do with > kamma; the object arises because of other conditions. ... S: You're right, but without kamma it would not be the object. A blind person doesn't see visible object. ... >However, it is > the arising of the object which is a condition for the sense door > process to arise. ... S: One of the conditions. ... S: In another post I have in front of me, I thought your breakdown for Herman (t=1 etc)in post 36741 was a great effort. The part I had most difficulty with was under t=4, starting with 'the role of the five sense door adverting citta is to control the flow of the mind....concentrate, one-pointedness...'til almost the end of that section. Again, a little later 'an undesirable object will cause akusala vipaka cittas to arise' is formulated the wrong way round, I think. I'd prefer to say that akusala kamma results in akusala vipaka experiencing an undesirable object that has arisen. (btw, Herman, if you're reading this, I thought your post 35678 to Andrew with the analogy of your 3x3 puzzle was very good. Understanding dhammas such as hardness or visible object is just like this. 'look at the letters, walk away, ......and whammo, the answer will jump out at you'.) Metta, Sarah ====== 37082 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the ocean of concepts. Hi Larry, just butting in. op 30-09-2004 01:43 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: . We > usually say that consciousness cognizes rupa. What does this mean? In > Indian philosophy there is the metaphor of a crystal placed on a piece > of coloured cloth. The crystal takes on the colour of the cloth. > Similarly when consciousness cognizes red it becomes red. N: You explained that very well, I know what you mean. Indian philosophy. I learnt many languages, this opened the gate for me to understand many cultures, religions, that was our kind of life in the diplomatic service. I studied some philosophies, but not thoroughly like Howard. I have the deepest respect for all religions, and I like to listen, I am sincerely interested. But my life is too short. You have studied the Abhidhamma, but in order to profit to the full we have to ask ourselves a few questions. You study Nagarjuna (we see a lot of remnants of him in Nalanda where we go, very interesting), and other Mahayana branches, but it is good to ask ourselves: does it help me in daily life? You find that the red colour is consciousness, but does this lead to detachment? Does it lead to the weakening of defilements? I am truly confronted now with old age, sickness and death. I have to meet difficult situations, the loss of dear ones, unkind people, disappointments, my own faults and vices that cause trouble. We sincerely have to consider our practice in daily life, that is what matters. The Abhidhamma helps us to know in a more detailed way what hinders the practice of the brahma viharas, of metta and compassion when I am with other people. And we are confronted with people all the time. When there is the loss of a dear one, we are sad. But it is actually our clinging to our own pleasant feeling we derived from his company, pure selfishness causes sadness. Just selfishness that creeps in all the time. When I develop metta and karuna, what is in the way? My own selfishness I mistakenly take for metta. I expect too much from others, and this means I need the Brahmavihara of equanimity. But we have to know our own cittas. The Abhidhamma is of great benefit to have more understanding of daily life right now. Understanding leads to detachment. I am thinking of this with the study of the Vis. It can and should help us with the practice. It is not an intellectual exercise. We can profit from the suttas with the understanding of the Abhidhamma. The suttas help us in our daily practice. They go straight to the heart. Larry, do not get drowned in the ocean of concepts, return to the suttas with their very direct language, and many practical counsels. Nina. 37083 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi Larry and Howard, op 29-09-2004 21:00 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: 9snipped) Calling that fact a >> concept >> does not make it anything less than a preeminent actuality! Isn't >> impermanence a property, a lakkhana? Are the tilakkhanas "unreal" just >> because they >> require inference for us non-arahants to "see" them? Can they not be seen >> directly >> by wisdom? (And even if they cannot, they remain preeminent realities in my >> eyes - at least as real as the "dhammas" to which they apply.) N:Right! In our Vis study of the rupas that are characteristics of rupas, lakkhana rupas, we learnt that these are realities. But then I posted another Vis text which I looked up again, I do not mind to repeat here. Vis. XXI, 6, footnote 4 (from the Tiika): (Pm. 825). This footnote is to the text quoting the sutta S.N. III, 22. We should not get stuck with theory. We have to realize first the particular characteristics (visesa lakkhana) of the dhammas that appear now. Seeing has one characteristic, hearing is different, thinking is different, hardness is different. We have such a lot to learn right now. If there is no awareness of all these dhammas there is no hope to understand the three characteristics, which are characteristics *of* dhammas, of the five khandhas, nama and rupa. How could we realize the arising and falling away of nama and rupa if we do not know their characteristics which appear now through the six doors? When time comes, after insight has been developed, the three characteristics of dhammas, of seeing, of hearing, etc. shall be directly known. Then there will not be doubts nor dilemmas. No wondering about realities and concepts. Nina. 37084 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Intro Vis. 103, 104 and Tiika. Hi Larry, op 30-09-2004 02:33 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Am I correct in understanding that there are no resultant > consciousnesses in the fine-material and immaterial planes, except for > the 3 kinds of bhavanga? If so, how can there be seeing and hearing? N:In ruupa-brahma there are less sense impressions. As I wrote: In the aruupa-brahma planes, there is only nama, thus there are mind-door processes. There are also kaamaavacara cittas in the fine-material and immaterial planes, including cittas rooted in lobha. Thus, beings in those planes do not dwell in jhaana all the time. L: Is the only cognitive process in these planes the cycling through the > jhanas or continuous dwelling on one jhana? N: No. There can be the development of paññaa in the fine-material planes. The anaagamii is reborn in the Pure Abodes, one of the fine-material planes and he can attain arahatship there. In the immaterial planes a non-ariyan cannot become a sotaapanna, since he cannot develop understanding of rupa. Nama has to be known as nama and rupa as rupa. This reminds us. We are now in the human plane, we can listen and develop understanding. We can still study the teachings, but time will come that they are no longer available, and that there are periods of time without the teachings. We should remember the Three Divine Messengers of old age, sickness and death (Gradual Sayings III, 35) Andrew L likes to refer to. We may regret that later. Nina. 37085 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:36am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner24-Contact /Phassa(j) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** The following sutta in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Third Fifty, Chapter III, §129, Ghosita) deals with realities as elements and it is explained that different phenomena which arise have different conditions. The sutta does not mention each moment of citta in the process of cittas. It is understood that the pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling referred to do not arise at the moment of seeing-consciousness, but later on in the process. We read: ** -Once the venerable Ånanda was staying at Kosambí in Ghosita Park. Then the housefather Ghosita came to see the venerable Ånanda. Seated at one side he said this to the venerable Ånanda: '"Diversity in elements! Diversity in elements!" is the saying, my lord Ånanda. Pray, sir, how far has diversity in elements been spoken of by the Exalted One?' 'When the elements of eye and objects that are pleasing and eye-consciousness occur together, housefather, owing to the pleasurable contact there arises pleasant feeling. When the elements of eye, objects that are displeasing and eye-consciousness occur together, owing to the unpleasant contact resulting there arises painful feeling. When the elements of eye, objects that are of indifferent effect and eye-consciousness occur together, owing to neutral contact resulting, there arises feeling that is neutral. So when the elements of ear… nose… tongue… body… when the elements of mind and objects that are pleasurable and mindconsciousness occur together. When mind and objects that are displeasing… or mind and objects that are of indifferent effect occur together, owing to the contact resulting, whether it be pleasing, displeasing or neutral, there arises feeling that is pleasing, displeasing or neutral. Thus far, housefather, diversity in elements has been spoken of by the Exalted One.- ** When we read this sutta we can be reminded to see phenomena as elements which arise dependent on conditions. Sometimes the object which phassa contacts is pleasant, sometimes unpleasant; this is beyond control. Because of our defilements, attachment, aversion and ignorance arise time and again. If we learn to see the events of our life as conditioned elements, right understanding will develop. ***** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37086 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: vipaka in the kitchen. Htoo. Nina: Dear Htoo, Thank you for your sympathetic post. > op 26-09-2004 16:48 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > I know. Only arahats have eradicated ...snip.. N: So, it is like a step forward and then backward again, ups and downs. >H: I think, here practice will help. In which way it helps? Defilements become thiner and thiner even though there may be a large bulk inside of us. The practice makes us as if we are externally free of defilements. N: Perhaps you think of jhana, but as you know, jhana is not for everybody. But there are all the other ways of kusala, the perfections, and they sure help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: They do. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nina:You use the word preconditioning, but, we never know what vipaka will come, what losses will come, and it depends on many conditions how we shall react. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Re-conditioning is re-assimilation of data which have already arisen. An example is a loss. There are 'loss', feeling on 'loss', reactions on the 'loss', memory of the 'loss' and knowledge of the 'loss'. 'Loss' has arisen. This cannot be undone. Re-conditioning cannot make anything on the 'loss' which has happened. But re-conditioning can influence on feeling, memory, reactions. So later knowledge on the same event becomes acceptable as it has been re-conditioned. Pre-conditioning on the otherhand do not think of any vipaka. We have conditions and existence right now. They are checked and unnecessary components are removed ( by arahats ). As preconditioned well beforehand, there will not be any bad reactions at all. But vipaka is vipaka and this vatta cannot be pre-conditioned. Kilesa vatta is modified by arahatta magga nana. Kamma vatta is also modified by kamma cetana in arahatta magga citta. Still vipaka vatta is there without any modification. This vatta will stop rotating at the end of cuti citta of arahats. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nina: Since it is all anatta. How could we be prepared for the future? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is the best way to stop the future. To stop the future is to be in the state of timeless. Nibbana is timeless. We should approach to Nibbana. The door to Nibbana is cuti citta of arahats. So the first thing to obtained is arahatta magga nana. Again this state is the highest mental states. As there are many kilesas through out our samsara, these kilesas cannot be washed away with a single cup of water. They have to washed several time. Four stages of enlightenment are all higher mantal states. There also is an approaching path to these state. We all know that there are siila, samaadhi, and pannaa. Pannaa exists in different forms. We have to study dhamma repeatedly through all possible way. That is why I am posting persistently. This is a form of study. When I write, I have to think, have to read, have to discuss, have to ask. All these add pannaa. From exchange of knowledge and understanding, we gain further and pannaa become accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nina: A Question: The worldly conditions are gain and loss, honour and dishonour,etc. and here the Buddha speaks by way of conventional truth, situations in life. If I have a heart-piercing loss, the loss of a dear one, how can we see here the paramattha dhammas which are moments of vipaakacittas? Is it through eyes, through ears? It is hard to analyse here the situation. I think that is why Larry said that vipaaka is a concept. Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: 'Heart-piercing loss'. Yes. This is a hard situation. I understand. If not well learned, such loss may even cause apnoea or breathing stop. If there is no one to support nearby, then this might lead to the death of the second. So say heart-breaking death. This is a manifestation of dosa kilesa. An example. Someone sees the death of her nearest relative right in front of her. And this is totally unexpected event. What would happen to her. She sees and then falls to the ground and death. From the observers, it takes just seconds. 'O! Mom! Gosh! Boom!! But there happen many many countless cittas. If I say these, it would sound like regurgitating theory again. But there arise seeing, hering, thinking, feeling unacceptableness, arising of dosa, upayasa and death. Actually kilesas kill her. If she does not want to die, she has to kill kilesas first. If kilesas are cleared and eradicated, even own incoming death will not cause any fire that will burn up. That is the fire of dosa. Upanisa sutta takes through different process starts from ignorance to nibbana. At least we are in the stage of confidence or saddha. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37087 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dear Htoo (1)Htoo. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Htoo, op 29-09-2004 18:23 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: >This is difficult to answer. But what I have read was that when >sotappatti magga nana has been achieved, sotapatti phala samapatti >can be done. >So the answer to your question 'Is this correct?' is to be >honest 'don't know' from me but I think I read it in a dhamma book >which might be a commentary. N: According to Visudhimagga and other Co, when an ariyan has developed jhana and attains enlightenment, magga-citta and phala- cittas arise, and after some preparation he canlater on experience as often as he wants nibbaana with phalacittas which arise again and again. Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks Nina. But you said 'when an ariyan has developed jhana and attains enlightenment..'. Is this jhana rupavacara rupa jhana or arupavacara arupa jhana or lokuttara appana jhana? My understanding is that those who never attain rupavacara rupa jhana can still attain lokuttara kusala cittas and lokuttara vipaka cittas without any rupavacara rupa jhana or arupavacara arupa jhana. These ariyans can stay in phala samapatti of their respective lokuttara vipaka cittas which are the only vipaka cittas that serve as javana cittas because of the power of the arammana which is nibbana. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37088 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:20am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 077 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 7 universal mental factors. Phassa or contact, vedana or feeling, cetana or volition, sanna or perception, ekaggata or one- pointedness, jivitindriya or mental life, and manasikara or attention. The first five cetasikas have been discussed in the previous posts. Jivitindriya is a cetasika. It is mental life. It is not a citta. But it accompanies a citta. Any citta has jivitindriya as its accompanying cetasika. Without this cetasika, citta the king cannot survive. And without this jivitindriya cetasika, citta will never arise. Jivitindriya is a life faculty. It is a life. It support the citta to live on his own. This cetasika also support other associated cetasikas with his life faculties. Without jivitindriya, these cetasikas cannot also arise. Actually these nama dhamma cetasikas are difficult to understand. They always co-exist when in a citta. These cetasikas and citta are inseparable. They are like milk. In milk there are water component, protein components, salt components, vitamin components and many other unrecognized particles. But they cannot be separable as milk. Like this citta and cetasikas including jivitindriya cetasika are not separable. This is the nature. This relation between and among nama dhammas is called sampayutta paccaya. Even though they cannot be separated, jivitindriya does it job. That is the job of supporting citta and associated cetasikas with life faculties. As it has its own characteristic and it does its own job or function, it is worthy to study this cetasika. Jivitindriya exists in all kind of citta. At patisandhi, it arises together with patisandhi citta and support patisandhi citta along with sampayutta dhamma other cetasikas. Jivitindriya cetasika also supports bhavanga cittas. Because of this cetasika, bhavanga cittas have life and they serve as life continuum when there are no other vithi cittas arise. Again at cuti, jivitindriya cetasika also arises with cuti citta and this is the last jivitindriya cetasika in that whole life and its job has done. It dies out and there is no more life. All kammaja rupa, cittaja rupa and aharaja rupa die out with this jivitindriya cetasika death while cuti citta passes away. While vithi cittas arise, again jivitindriya cetasika arises with each of these vithi cittas and it supports them as life faculties. Panca dvara avajjana citta is a vithi citta which is a non-javana kiriya citta. This citta is the first citta in any series of panca vinnana vithi vara. It is supported by jivitindriya as life faculties. Each of all panca vinnana cittas are supported by their co-arising jivitindriya cetasikas. All sampaticchana cittas whether akusala or kusala, all santirana citta whether akusala or kusala/ upekkha or somanassa, are supported by this cetasika jivitindriya without which they cannot arise at all. The most important citta among 89 cittas is mano dvara avajjana citta. This citta can do many things. It can take any object unlike other cittas who do have at least limitations. This citta mano dvara avajjana citta is also supported by jivitindriya cetasika and without its support, mano dvara avajjana citta will never arise. There are different javana cittas which mostly create kamma. These javana cittas are also supported by jivitindriya cetasika. Except kiriya javana cittas, all other javana cittas create kamma while they arise. All akusala cittas are supported by jivitindriya. All kusala cittas are supported by jivitindriya. Kusala cittas here comprise kamavacara kusala cittas, rupavacara kusala cittas which are rupa jhanas, and arupavacara kusala cittas which are arupa jhanas. There are 8 lokuttara cittas. All these 8 lokuttara cittas are also supported by jivitindriya cetasika. While these 8 lokuttara cittas are viewing nibbana as their object, jivitindriya cetasika support them so that they can see nibbana. Jivitindriya is life. Without jivitindriya, there will be no life. If there is no life nothing will have essence and we all do not need to learn anything. But as there are jivitindriya everywhere, we do need to learn what jivitindriya and its function. Through this, we can follow the liberation path. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37089 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:31am Subject: : 'Cetasikas' study corner19- doorway-Nina Dear Nina, thank you and yes I understand a little more. I remember asking a similar q. a long time ago and I can't even remember the answer. No more queries at the moment, I'll have a think on this one for a while. Patience, courage and good cheer Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > op 28-09-2004 03:08 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > > > A: this sentence puzzles me. The fact that the citta needs a > > physical base in the nama/rupa realms is clear to me, but this dvara > > is a mystery! > N: Doorway is just the means through which citta can know an object. Mat > explained about this. We should not think of door in a litteral sense. But a > dhamma, a rupa functions as doorway. > S: The > >> cittas which arise in the mind-door process also have as their > > vatthu the > >> 'heart-base'. > > > > A: ...so what is/are their dvara? I guess I don't know what dvara is? > N: The last citta arising before the mind-door process starts, which is the > bhavangacitta. Thus, the mind-door is nama. > Is there anything you find unclear? > dvaara: gate or entrance. Process of cittas: viithi: a road or path way. The > way they go. They proceed or occur, in Pali: pavattati. These are all words > to help you to understand the processes of cittas which experioence an > object through a doorway. The object reaches the citta as it were through a > doorway. This is all figurative. > Nina. 37090 From: Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the ocean of concepts. Hi, Nina & Larry - Larry, Nina quotes you on the following: "We usually say that consciousness cognizes rupa. What does this mean? In Indian philosophy there is the metaphor of a crystal placed on a piece of coloured cloth. The crystal takes on the colour of the cloth. Similarly when consciousness cognizes red it becomes red." I think the metaphor is not a good one - it is substantialist. It presents consciousness as something existing and waiting, then cognizing red by "becoming red", like a crystal becomes red when placed on a red cloth. Consciousness, in this view, is a like an already existing substance that becomes infused by redness. It is better to think of consciousness, I believe either as an operation of encountering red as red arises, the two mutually arising, or to think of it as the experiential presence of red, than to think of the consciousness as already "there" and becoming transformed. The thing is: How we think about a matter, the metaphors we use, affect our views and condition predispositions. A substantialist metaphor lends itself to atta-view, I believe. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/30/04 5:50:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Larry, > just butting in. > op 30-09-2004 01:43 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > . We > >usually say that consciousness cognizes rupa. What does this mean? In > >Indian philosophy there is the metaphor of a crystal placed on a piece > >of coloured cloth. The crystal takes on the colour of the cloth. > >Similarly when consciousness cognizes red it becomes red. > N: You explained that very well, I know what you mean. Indian philosophy. > I learnt many languages, this opened the gate for me to understand many > cultures, religions, that was our kind of life in the diplomatic service. I > studied some philosophies, but not thoroughly like Howard. I have the > deepest respect for all religions, and I like to listen, I am sincerely > interested. > But my life is too short. You have studied the Abhidhamma, but in order to > profit to the full we have to ask ourselves a few questions. You study > Nagarjuna (we see a lot of remnants of him in Nalanda where we go, very > interesting), and other Mahayana branches, but it is good to ask ourselves: > does it help me in daily life? You find that the red colour is > consciousness, but does this lead to detachment? Does it lead to the > weakening of defilements? > I am truly confronted now with old age, sickness and death. I have to meet > difficult situations, the loss of dear ones, unkind people, disappointments, > my own faults and vices that cause trouble. We sincerely have to consider > our practice in daily life, that is what matters. The Abhidhamma helps us to > know in a more detailed way what hinders the practice of the brahma viharas, > of metta and compassion when I am with other people. And we are confronted > with people all the time. When there is the loss of a dear one, we are sad. > But it is actually our clinging to our own pleasant feeling we derived from > his company, pure selfishness causes sadness. Just selfishness that creeps > in all the time. When I develop metta and karuna, what is in the way? My own > selfishness I mistakenly take for metta. I expect too much from others, and > this means I need the Brahmavihara of equanimity. But we have to know our > own cittas. The Abhidhamma is of great benefit to have more understanding of > daily life right now. Understanding leads to detachment. I am thinking of > this with the study of the Vis. It can and should help us with the practice. > It is not an intellectual exercise. > We can profit from the suttas with the understanding of the Abhidhamma. The > suttas help us in our daily practice. They go straight to the heart. Larry, > do not get drowned in the ocean of concepts, return to the suttas with their > very direct language, and many practical counsels. > Nina. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37091 From: Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence Hi, Larry - Yet a couple more thoughts: Impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self, are nominalized terms for certain relations, I think. Impermanence for the relation between an earlier mindstate and a later one of a particular feature being present in the earlier, and be absent in the later. Unsatisfactoriness for the relation between dhammas and mindstates of not satisfying. Not-self for the relation of conditionality. These relations are realities, though not of the same sort as the paramattha dhammas related by them. For non-arahants, certainly for worldlings, they are known only conceptually, by inference. For higher ariyans, I would suspect they are know directly, by means of pa~n~na With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37092 From: plnao Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:49am Subject: Perfections - introduction pt. 2 Hello all From Nina's "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" available at http://abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm "During this pilgrimage we discussed the Buddha's perfections in relation to our lives. We have accumulated many kinds of defilements during countless lives and thus there are conditions for the arising of unwholesomeness, akusala, time and again. Because of our defilements we do not have enough strength to walk the Path the Buddha taught and therefore we need to accumulate all kinds of wholesome qualities which can support us whole we develop right understanding of realities. We are not destined to become a Sammasambuddha, but if we develop the perfections along with satipatthana there are conditions to attain enlightenment, one day, during one life, we do not know when. When we develop the perfections we should not expect any gain for ourselves, our goal should be the eradication of defilements. If this is not our goal dana, sila and the other wholesome qualities are not perfections leading to enlightenment." 37093 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dear Htoo (1)Htoo. Dear Htoo, If you have any spare time, you may find it useful/interesting to look at these past messages from Useful Posts: Fruition Attainment (phala-samaapatti) & Pleasant Abiding (sukha-vihaara) 18141, 18204, 18317, 18453, 18583, 23999, 24069 Let us know if you have any comments on any of them too. (I think they are mostly Nina's translations and additional notes on a series from the Foundation in Bangkok). Metta, Sarah ====== 37094 From: dighanakha Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:14am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Sarah. S> One more question. Where does it say --in this Jataka S> (536)or elsewhere-- that the previous lives related by S> Kunala refer to other lives *as* the Bodhisatta? S> For example, it says 'Then the Great Being, with the S> knowledge of one who remembers his former births, making S> Punnamukha a personal witness, related a circumstance seen S> *in a former existence*.......' S> Also for other past lives told by Kunala (or in other tales S> within Bodhisatta tales), I'm not sure the 'characters' S> would appear in a list of previous lives as Bodhisatta, S> would they? I'm afraid I have no idea what the official position is here. I had supposed that any former birth story taught to exemplify some point would be a former birth of the Bodhisatta as a Bodhisatta, and not of him in the days before he obtained abhinihaara. But I could well be mistaken. I cannot actually recall any statement asserting either to be the case. Nor can I think of any Pali phrase to search for that would be likely to yield an answer. It's the sort of question for which one needs one of those Burmese Tipitaka memorizers. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37095 From: dighanakha Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:17am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert, R> (I think you doubt even suttanta such as Jataka?). I do not doubt that the Jatakas and their commentary were approved by the sangha in 5th century Anuradhapura. I do not doubt that some of them contain some good Dhamma. And I do not doubt that others contain tawdry nonsense. So it would appear I have no doubts at all about the Jataka. :-) R> But you do seem to trust the Nikayas. I trust that the first four Nikayas, together with the Agamas (in Sanskrit fragments and Chinese translation) give us the best account we can hope for of how the Dhamma was understood by the early Indian sangha. I trust that some of them may report the Buddha's actual words, or something close to them. But more importantly than this, I trust that they can be accounted as the Buddha-word in the sense of the Uttara maxim: "Whatsoever is well-spoken, all that is the word of the Blessed One ..." (ya.m ki~nci subhaasita.m sabba.m ta.m tassa bhagavato vacana.m arahato sammasambuddhassa -- A iv 162-6) A well-spoken utterance is one that leads to wanting little, contentment, seclusion, aloofness from society, arousing energy, virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge and vision of liberation. By these criteria I trust that the Nikayas are "well-spoken" and therefore the Buddha-word. R> Christine recently posted some sutta extracts from the R> Anguttara Nikaya: R> What is your opinion of these quotes? The first is a statement in which a certain foolish woman is described as 'foolish'. The second is a rather neutral statement about women in general. The third is a deprecatory statement about women in general, but of a relatively tame character, especially when set alongside the Kunala. R> And again, he spoke of Migasala who had enquired of Ananda R> about Kamma as: "Just a foolish, witless female woman, with R> just a woman's wit" (Anguttara Nikaya Chapter VIII PTS) If Migasala was foolish there's nothing wrong with saying so, if one does it at the right time, with mettacitta, and in circumstances that would make it a useful thing to point out. The phrase "with just a woman's wit" seems a doubtful translation to me, though the passage is difficult since there are three variant readings: ammakapa~n~naa: "with old womanish/granny-like understanding". andhakapa~n~naa: "with dim understanding", "with the understanding of the blind"; "with the understanding of an Andhakan" ambakapa~n~naa: with inferior understanding R> 'And what, Master Gotama, is a woman's aim?" "A man, O R> brahmin, is a woman's aim, her quest is for adornments, her R> mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and R> her ideal is domination." ( Anguttara Nikaya VI.52) In the Sa.myoga Sutta (A. iv 58-59) the Buddha speaks of the "woman who has gone beyond her womanhood" (itthii itthattam ativattati) and the "man who has gone beyond his manhood" (puriso purisattam ativattati), in each case by not attending to it (na manasikaroti), not attaching to it (na rajjati) and not delighting in it (n'abhiramati). As for the passage above, I think the "woman's aim" described is probably typical of a woman who has found no higher aim in life than this, or who lives in a society that permits her nothing higher; in other words, a woman who has *not* "gone beyond her womanhood." But the behaviour described is not exactly vicious, is it? I mean wanting to boss your husband about isn't quite the same as wanting to cut his throat and drink his blood (à la Kunala Cuckoo). R> "Monks, there are these five disadvatages in a black snake. R> What five? It is unclean, evil-smelling, timid, fearful and R> betrays friends. Even so, monks, there are these five R> disadvantages in a woman. What five? She is unclean, R> evil-smelling, timid, fearful and betrays friends. These are R> the five. (Anguttara Nikaya III) R> Even in the DighaNikaya there are some suttas that us R> moderns may not easily understand. take the Aganna sutta: In my opinion, moderns actually understand the Aganna Sutta much better than the commentators did. In a line-by-line comparison Richard Gombrich has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody of the Rig Veda's Hymn of Creation and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Its account of anthropogenesis pokes fun at the speculative excesses of the brahmins, as well as serving as an allegory of how craving begets dukkha. Everything in the brahminical scheme is reproduced in the Aganna, but turned upside down. For example, in the brahminical scheme there is darkness in the beginning but then the gods of the sun and moon are created and will provide light on condition that brahmins not neglect to offer them sacrifices and chant mantras (which keep the sun and moon working). But in the Buddha's scheme the sun and moon are an inferior replacement that arise when the gods lose their self-luminosity; they follow their own laws and no brahmins are needed to chant mantras and keep them going. To appreciate the parody properly one needs to read both the brahmin and the Buddhist text in their original languages as the humour involves a lot of punning. But if you don't fancy learning Vedic Sanskrit, the next best thing is Gombrich's article, "The Buddha's Book of Genesis?" -- Indo-Iranian Journal 35, pp. 159-178, which you should be able to find in the library of any Japanese university that has a good indology department. There is also a briefer discussion in his book "How Buddhism Began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings (Athlone Press 1996). Buddhaghosa, unfortunately, saw neither the joke nor the allegory of the Aganna Sutta, took the whole thing literally, and left the Theravada tradition saddled with a creation story so laughable it makes the creationism of Christian fundamentalists seem like sound science. R> One I have problems with is somewhere where either the R> Buddha or a commentary talked about Rahu and the moon eating R> the sun or something during an eclipse. Right. These are the Suriya and Candima Suttas, somewhere in the first part of the SN. I might be able to help you with your problems. But it will have to wait until the third and final part of my reply. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37096 From: dighanakha Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:21am Subject: Re: Dighanakha Sutta, MN74 Hello Sarah. Thanks for taking the time to post this long discussion of the Sutta. S> Here is your four line signature sign off which had me S> rather puzzled: S> "The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this S> persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' S> is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to S> non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to S> non-grasping". (Dighanakha Sutta) S> The Nanamoli/Bodhi translation gives a note about the S> commentary explanation of DighanakhaÕs view (Ônothing is S> acceptable to meÕ or as you translate 'everything is not S> pleasing to me'), saying it is an annihilationist S> (ucchedavaadin) view and that it Ôexplains this assertion to S> mean: ÔNo [mode of] rebirth is acceptable to meÕ. S> I see no reason at all not to accept the commentary S> interpretation, I wouldn't expect you to. :-) S> though B.Bodhi adds his own further interpretation that S> Dighanakha is a 'radical sceptic of the class satirically S> characterised at MN 76.30 as 'eel-wrigglers'!. Yes, I think this is rather more plausible than the commentator's view. The MaCs have a habit of heavy-handedly glossing all sorts of binary pairs in the Suttas as being synonymous with ucchedavada and sassatavada, no matter how far-fetched this equation may be. We had an example on this list last week, with the atthita / natthita binary of the Kaccayana Sutta. The Dighanakha Sutta is yet another case. Had Dighanakha wanted to say that "no mode of rebirth was acceptable" to him, there are plenty of ways he could have done it without resorting to something as oblique as 'everything is not pleasing to me' (sabba.m me na khamati). But a fuller discussion of this sutta must await a later post. S> When the Buddha questions whether the view itself is S> acceptable to Dighanakha (called Aggivessana by him), the S> latter agrees it Ôwould be the sameÕ. More notes from the S> commentary as paraphrased say: Ôthe Buddha suggests, by his S> question, that DighankakhaÕs assertion involves an inherent S> contradiction, for he cannot reject everything without also S> rejecting his own view, and this would entail the opposite S> position, namely that something is acceptable to him. S> However, though Dighankha recognises the implication of the S> BuddhaÕs question, he continues to insist on his view that S> nothing is acceptable to him.Õ S> S> As the notes also point out, having clearly identified the S> view above with ÔannihilationismÕ, Ôannihilationism is close S> to non-lust,etc, because, though involving a wrong S> conception of self, it leads to disenchantment with S> existence.Õ S> S> B.Bodhi again suggests that Ômost sceptics, while professing S> a rejection of all views, surreptitiously adopt some S> definite view, while a few abandon their scepticism to seek S> a path to personal knowledge.Õ He also suggests that Ôif S> [this view] is understood as radical scepticism, it could S> also be seen as close to non-lust in that it expresses S> disillusionment with the attempt to buttress the attachment S> to existence with a theoretical foundation and thus S> represents a tentative, though mistaken, step in the S> direction of dispassion.Õ S> S> Hmm, interesting. What are your comments on these comments? Here also I think it is Bodhi who is on the right track. And he phrases it very well. S> It may be a little simpler for those of us who just follow S> the ancient commentary with confidence in its value;-). Sure, the MaCs often make things simpler, and in the process blur over subtle but important distinctions. Some good Dhamma gets lost in the process. S> ÒA wise man among those recluses and brahmins who holds the S> doctrine and view ÔNothing is acceptable to meÕ considers S> thus: ÔIf I obstinately adhere to my view ÔNothing is S> acceptable to meÕ and declare: ÔOnly this is true, anything S> else is wrong,Õ then I may clash with the two others: with a S> recluse or brahmin who holds the doctrine and view S> ÔEverything is acceptable to meÕ and with a recluse or S> brhamin who holds the doctrine and view Ôsomething is S> acceptable to me, something is not acceptable to me.Õ [i.e S> eternalist and partial eternalist views accord. to the S> comy]. S> So, ÔForeseeing for himself clashes, disputes, quarrels, and S> vexation, he abandons that view and does not take up some S> other view.Õ S> At this point, D., IÕm rather perplexed. Usually people use S> a signature line or lines because they include useful S> reminders or a particular message. I assume that by S> identifying with these lines and the name too, that you see S> value in this particular view. Is this right? Surely, we are S> none of us interested in views that just lead to clashes, S> disputes etc? Sarah, please re-read what you typed above. Dighanakha's view leads to clashes, disputes etc. *when obstinately adhered to*. Now go back to the first page of the Sutta and read the final paragraph. When the view espoused by Dighanakha is not obstinately adhered to, the Buddha describes it as: asaaraagaaya santike - close to non-attachment asa--ogaaya santike - close to non-fetteredness anabhinandanaaya santike - close to non-delighting anajjhosaanaaya santike - close to non-cleaving anupaadaanaaya santike - close to non-grasping Naturally Dighanakha is pleased to hear this ("Master Gotama commends my point of view..."), but then the Buddha adds the qualification that you have cited above. S> How does Dighanakha abandon his wrong view in the sutta? He S> listens to the BuddhaÕs teaching about how the body S> consists of impermanent elements only, which are not self. S> ÒIt should be regarded as impermanent, as suffering, as a S> disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as a calmity, as an S> affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not S> self. when one regards this body thus, one abandons desire S> for the body, affection for the body, subservience to the S> body.Ó S> Feelings too are Ôimpermanent, conditioned, dependently S> arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and S> ceasing.Õ Only one feeling arises as a time, experiences its S> object and falls away. S> By understanding the nature of these realities for what they S> are, there is dispassion and the well-taught noble disciple S> becomes liberated. S> ÒA bhikkhu whose mind is liberated thus, Aggivessana, sides S> with none and disputes with none; he employs the speech S> currently used in the world without adhering to it.Ó S> Now you mentioned in one of your posts that Ôit is only from S> the commentators that we get the idea that the BuddhaÕs S> Dhamma has to do with paramatha dhammas and citta-khanas. S> These terms are not found in the Tipitaka......Õ S> Whilst IÕm sure youÕre right about the actual terms (for S> dhammas/ultimate realities and momentary cittas), we can see S> that even in this sutta of your choice presumably, that: S> a) Dighanakha becomes a sotapanna (and Sariputta an arahant) S> whilst listening to the Buddha explain the danger of wrong S> views and the impermanence and so on of elements, of S> dhammas, which are conditioned and devoid of self. S> b) Quoting again from the sutta, Ôhe employs the speech S> currently used in the world without adhering to itÕ. This S> means we shouldnÕt get hung up on the language or S> terminology thatÕs used as I understand it. I quite agree. And would you agree that it follows from this that we should not suppose the Buddha was telling Dighanakha to go chasing after *language-based* physical and psychical atoms called 'paramattha dhammas'? Would you agree that the fact that the Buddha referred to feeling as 'vedanaa' is because that is what feeling happens to be called in the language shared by him and Dighanakha? Or would you hold with the commentators that vedanaa is the ultimate name for feeling in every state of existence, in every world system, and that it forms the sabhava of feeling, and needs to be known if the reality of feeling is to be seen as it really is? S> Let us hope we all learn to become ÔindependentÕ by S> penetrating Ôall conditioned states as subject to arising S> and cessationÕ and relinquishing any wrong views that our S> worlds consist of anything other than paramatha dhammas or S> impermanent elements without self or core. "Without self or core", but with a real and eternal name in the dialect of Magadha? _______________________________ [from another thread] Hello Christine. Ch> (Interesting I.D. - being the name of the one who attained Ch> Stream Entry at the same time and from the teaching of the Ch> same sutta which conditioned in the Great Disciple Sariputta Ch> the attainment of Arahatship.) Yes, the MaCs say he was Sariputta's errant nephew. Ch> You may be interested - or not - in previous discussions Ch> surrounding 'Negative aspects of the Buddha's teachings Ch> about women' from the Anguttara Nikaya - a little harder to Ch> set aside than the Jatakas .... Ch> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/19461 Thanks for the references. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37097 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dear Htoo (1)Htoo. Dear Sarah, Thank you very much. I have noted those numbers. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Htoo, > > If you have any spare time,..snip.. > > Fruition Attainment (phala-samaapatti) & Pleasant Abiding (sukha- vihaara) > 18141, 18204, 18317, 18453, 18583, 23999, 24069 (I think they are > mostly Nina's translations and additional notes on a series from the > Foundation in Bangkok). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 37098 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Foundation Bulletin, translated from Thai. Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Fruition Attainment, Phala-samåpatti Issue of analysis: Can the ariyan who has not attained jhåna enter fruition attainment, phala-samåpatti? (1 The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not attained jhåna is not able to enter fruition attainment. The sources which support the conclusion of this issue: 1. Gradual Sayings, Book of the Sixes, Ch 1, § 9, Mahånåma. 2. Middle Length Sayings I, 44, Lesser Discourse of ...snip...snip..snip > abiding different from the ³peaceful abiding², arana vihåra, which is > fruition-attainment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah and Nina, Thanks Sarah for your kind suggestion and Nina for her kind effort in writing up this message. The old message was snipped nearly all as all have read in their past. Regarding samapatti, I am still thinking non-jhanalabhi sotapam, sakadagam, and anagam can stay in phala samapatti. I hope Nina will repeat them here. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37099 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:54am Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 4 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Nina: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 4 The Commentary (of the Path of Discrimination) to the Chapter on ³Attainment of Cessation² (Nirodha Samåpatti, Ch XXXIV) explains three classifications of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåna: ³There are three kinds of insight knowledge: ..snip.. For the latter two attainments it is necessary to be able to attain jhåna which is in conformity with those attainments.² 4. Lokuttara cittas have been classified by way of ..snip.. of the five jhånas 11. The reason for this is that there are two kinds of ariyans: the ariyan who has lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhåna factors(of the different stages of jhåna) and who can therefore enter fruition-attainment, and the ariyan who has lokuttara cittas unaccompanied by jhåna factors and who can therefore not enter fruition-attainment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Lokuttara cittas are accompanied by 7 bojjhanga dhammas. There are vitakka, piti, ekaggata, upekkha. Vitakka arises in the form of samma- sankappa. Piti arises in the form of piti-sambojjhanga. Ekaggata and upekkha arise in the forms of ekaggata-sambojjhanga and upekkha- sambojjhanga. I am still wondering sotapams should be able to stay in sotapatti phala samapatti. They do not have rupavacara jhana. But they have attained lokuttara appana jhana whcih is sotapatti magga citta. In case of rupa jhana all jhana citta arise only once when they are for the first time. But at later time, they arise without limitation and they arise countlessly without any intervening other citta. But in case of sotapatti magga citta, it arises only once. After cessation of sotapatti magga vithi, there follow other vithi vara. At an unspecified time, sotapatti magga equivalent cittas can arise. But as magga cittas never arise twice, the equivalent cittas are its resultant citta phala cittas. Again there is no lokuttara kiriya citta. This is also because magga cittas all arise once. When sotapatti magga appana citta has arisen, later phala cittas should be accessible for all those who have registered as sotapam. They have won the stream to nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nina: In what way is the ariyan who is a person with ³dry insight², sukkha vipassaka (without jhåna attainment), different from the ariyan who is able to attain jhåna, who is jhåna-låbhí (låbhí : possessing)? If the ariyan whois without jhåna attainment could enter fruition- attainment, he would be the same as the ariyan who is able to attain jhåna. There must be a difference between the ariyan with dry insight and the ariyan with jhåna attainment,who is jhåna låbhí. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think, I personally think, there should not be any discrimination between ariyas. I think, the difference is jhana power abhinnas. Those who do not attain rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas will not try to obtain abhinna after arahathood. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37100 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:15am Subject: Re: A Pleasant Abiding --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: ..snip..snip..snip.. Fruition attainment, phala-samåpatti, has been explained in the `Visuddhimagga', Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (explaining who can enter fruition attainment and who cannot). The text (Vis. XXIII, 6,7) stating: `All ariyans can enter fruition-attainment' can be misunderstood when we do not know the context." ****** Hope this helps a little, Metta, Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As I told Nina, sotapams, sakadagams, anagams, and arahats who are ariyas have attained their respective magga nana. They have been registered as sotapams, sakadagams, anagams, and arahats. They should all be able to attain phala samapatti. They have attained lokuttara appana. :-) I hope this will be able to explain when sotapatti magga, sakadagami magga are attained without rupavacara rupa jhana and arupavacara arupa jhana cittas. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37101 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:27am Subject: Re: Dear Htoo (1) About Rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Sarah: Btw, Joop, you may like to read Nina's book on `Rupas' when you have time and also to post/discuss any sections which you have problems with). Joop: Thanks Sarah, I've already read it and I'm doing it again now. But the problems I have are partly the result of the comparison of the theory of rupa in the Abhidhamma and the theory of physics, for example particle physics, quantum physics, string-theory and big-bang- theory. That's why asked many times (to RobM and Htoo) if "rupa" had to be translated with "matter" and the theory of rupa is an ontology; or that it had to be translated with "experienced material qualities" because the theory of matter in a phenomenology. If it is an ontology than I don't agree with it because than I prefer the theories of physics, in that situation the theory of rupa is just an outdated pre-scientific Indian theory of 2500 years ago. (The theories of physics are purely mathematical theories so the objects of it don't have a "self"!) But I'm sure it is a phenomenology and my question is: what are the consequencies of that point of view ? That also the reason I like the recent discussion about "cause of impermanence" to what I had a little contribution too (#36995). It's not so difficult to imagine that 'thoughts" are volatile, but it's difficult to imagine that materiality is (and why 17 times slower than nama?). What I also don't understand is why (also in the ebook of Nina) "bhutani" is translated by "elements" ? C.A.F. Rhys Davids translates it in the Dhamma-sangani with "phenomena", literally "the-things-that-have-become". She doesn't use the term "phenomenology" but "Sensationalism"! (Introductory Essay, page lv) Metta Joop 37102 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:43am Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - importance of samatha Hey Phil, W. : One needs to study this subject in great detail, and, moreover, jhaana can only temporarily subdue defilements. Therefore, I prefer to develop insight, vipassanaa. Vipassanaa can eradicate defilements completely, so that they never arise again. S. : It is still necessary to discuss samatha bhaavanaa, because we should know the difference between the level of bhaavanaa which is the temporary subduing of defilements by calm and the level which is the complete eradication of defilements. My sources say that Sujin teaches a mixture of samatha and vipassana type meditation. This quote seems to confirm this. I mean, how can she know this above? Ph: K Sujin asks "Do you wish to develop samatha to the degree of jhanaa?" PH: In my case, the answer is I wish I could. I hope conditions arise which allow me to develop jhanas some day, or in some lifetime. I have faith that they will because I have a feeling that they are necessary in the higher/later stages of enlightenment. K Sujin and Nina and others' at DSG teach that there is Right Concentration with every citta, in the one-pointedness of that universal cetasika that is often translated as concentration - I forget it's name at the moment. I have trouble accepting this as the form of Right Concentration the Buddha teaches. Ditto Ph> Surely there is concentration, but it seems to this beginner that concentration to the degree of jhanas is where Right Concentration lies. There are so many suttas that point to that. I agree Ph> That being said, I also am skeptical about how many people have the conditions to develop jhanas, and I suspect that there is a lot of false jhanifying going on out there. It is for each to find out for themself. I would not worry about others attainments etc. Ph> People who decide to develop jhanas because they know that if they don't they won't get the full benefits of the Buddha's teaching. There is self seeking benefits, I'm sure, a lot of the time. OK Phil, I touched on this with Sukin. There are Right Aspirations that can come from 'self'. If the conceit 'I Am' is not eradicated till Arahantship, then EVERYONE before that operates from 'self'. There is either good kamma or bad kamma at this stage. Wanting (chanda) good things (jhana) at this stage is a wholesome desire. PH> In any case, vipassana in daily life is a noble way and will condition access to jhanas in the future. I have faith in that. Great but they are not mutually exclusive pursuits. PH> On that note, I found this from Nina's first post in the Removal of Distracting Thoughts series: >Co: The kusala citta arising with the ten bases of wholesomeness is not higher citta, adhicitta. The citta with the eight attainments that is based on vipassana is higher than that, it is the higher citta. >N: the eight attainments in jhana. B.B. speaks about vipassana based on jhana, but it is the opposite in this case: here it is jhana based on vipassana. Also PTS footnote gives: the eight attainments based on vipassana. Only then the citta is pure, higher citta, because one does not take jhana for self. PH: Does this mean that jhana can be conditioned by vipassana as I was hoping above? They go hand in hand. As experience gets progressively more subtle (jhana), insight goes along seeing that there is no place for the 'I' to land. This subtle 'I sense' must be seen and eradicated with insight. PH: The reason I have trouble sitting now is that I clearly sense self behind it. Fine, sit with that. Learn about that and then try and deconstruct that sense of self in whatever fashion you find it. PH> When I have cultivated vipassana in daily life as a practitioner of "dry insight", this will help me to be liberated from self enough to seek jhanas? Not liberated from self to the point of sotapanna - but self view weakened enough to sit without self seeking jhanas? Should I read it that way? I dont think so. Again, there are wholesome aspirations that can still be developed with 'self'. They will help to weaken and undermine that self sense. In a way you are using self to dismantle self. Sort of getting the pot to boil and then your 'self' becomes the lobster. Here is some good info from Thanisaro on meditation in general. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/index.html Check out: Basic Breath Meditation De-perception Emptiness A Guided Meditation One Tool Among Many:The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice THe Path of Concentration and Mindfulness Hope it helps! PEACE E 37103 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:46am Subject: Re: OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > Hi Andrew > > > So you admit the perfections can be developed intentionally. That's > >the whole point. > > Well, of course you *can* choose to try to develop them, but I think > you'll find it much more deeply encouraging to find them arising naturally > in your daily life. That's the way I feel about metta, though as we know > an intentional practice of metta meditation is very popular amoungst > Buddhists. When metta arises in daily life, not because I intentionally > conditioned > it that morning by meditating on it. Well for example every once in a blue moon energetic meditation will come to me, I will be filled with more energy than I know what to do with. At this point I either turn to dhammapada's 'seeker' section which tells me to meditate constantly, or look at the perfections to say, develop a mind of good will (which is the instruction for what a noble disciple should do in certain cases, it can clearly be developed), and get two in one shot. Basically the causes and conditions are necessary but we can cultivate these causes and conditions all the same. > >Now to me the question is just how much of them is > >needed to see the Noble Truths and realize unbinding. That's what > >it's all about, right? Honestly, I think I've got a decent shot at > >it in this very lifetime. > > Ph: Well, they're all needed, fully and completely. That's why they're > called "Perfections!" (I assume that this is a good translation of the > Pali paramis - it's certainly the word that is always used in English) I take it to mean each one should be a perfection in and of itself, but that doesn't mean they're all necessary for enlightenment. For Buddhahood, yes, all the perfections, but I don't know that we need every one of them to see the noble truths - my experience indicates that it's in fact not necessary. > Yes, I think we've all got a shot at it in this very lifetime. > Just being born human at a time when the Buddha's teachings are in the world > is very encouraging. But I have a hunch that intending to make it happen in > this lifetime dooms us to becoming more tightly bound-up in self. If > we press ahead patiently with small moments of mindfulness we are certainly > moving towards the unbinding. We shouldn't try to predict when it will > come, > in my view. I know you are fond of the Satipatthana Sutta's promise of > "If a monk develops this for 7 years ... 7 months" and so on. That's got > you > on a timeline way of thinking. It feels dangerous to me, but I'm just a > beginner > and that Sutta's been kicking around a long, long time. I trust you've read > a > lot of commentary and/or worked with a reliable teacher > to look more deeply into what the Sutta is getting at. I think we've got more of a shot than just an off chance cause of being born in the Buddha's dispensation, in Sutta Nipata II.4, the Buddha lists in one verse, "austerity, celibacy, seeing the noble truths, realizing unbinding, this is the highest protection." Anyway, yeah I've read commentaries on the sutta but the Buddha gave us plain instructions on how non-return or arahantship, levels of sainthood, can be attained, and they don't even involve the perfections. I'm willing to give ground that they help us progress towards the fact but I will go out on a limb here and say that austerity with a single perfection, in my case, renunciation, is enough to see the noble truths. Certainly one can continue on in the next lifetime developing paramis and furthering one's spiritual practise but there's no need to believe it has to be done over many lifetimes, to say nothing of 'countless' lifetimes. This dhamma dispensation is already 50% through, give yourself another 10 lifetimes and you're probably safe but any longer than that and you're getting into muddy territory. Again, the Buddha said contemplation of the body in the body, feelings in the feelings, mind in mind (in this case I assume states of consciousness, and possibly, but not necessarily their concommittants, to be mind-in-mind), and mental objects in mental objects (including the four noble truths) is the way to enlightenment. Never have I heard him say we need to develop the perfections. They are virtues that will help along the path but I say uninterrupted mindfulness of all that is happening in one's psycho-physical complex, pratised correctly to give one necessary insights, is the way to enlightenment. > Phil a.l. 37104 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Dear Dighanakha, --- dighanakha wrote: > I'm afraid I have no idea what the official position is here. I > had supposed that any former birth story taught to exemplify some > point would be a former birth of the Bodhisatta as a Bodhisatta, > and not of him in the days before he obtained abhinihaara. But > I could well be mistaken. I cannot actually recall any statement > asserting either to be the case. .... S: I'm only giving comments based on what I've heard, not read. I'm also not particularly familiar with the Jatakas and have forgotten many I read a long time ago. But, don't you think: a) it is stressed when it is the Bodhisatta or 'future Buddha' being referred to b) it would be rather obvious at Buddhist Councils and to those with far greater familiarity with them if there was a glaring inconsistency between say the Harita Jataka and the Kunala Jataka? c) We have approximately 540 'birth stories' of Bodhisattas (some repetition and sometimes more than one 'birth' included). If all tales of previous lives within these were included, then the number would be much larger.... d) I'm sure the official position is that there is no inconsistency and once again our ignorance blinds us to what may be a simple explanation;-). But, this is just speculation and I should rest my case here as I feel reasonably satisfied on this point which surprised me when I first read it. .... >Nor can I think of any Pali > phrase to search for that would be likely to yield an answer. > It's the sort of question for which one needs one of those > Burmese Tipitaka memorizers. ... S: Let's keep an open mind and share any further info we come across anytime. I'd like to get into a discussion on the nirutti/discrimination of language issue which you've raised several times, but: i) I have very little time before going to India and must give some priority to some behind-the-scenes tasks. ii) I'm not sure of the value in it or whether you really wish to hear any other comments iii) my understanding is very limited, so there'd be glaring holes and could just sound to you like your parody;-). Anyway, if you wish, we could start and maybe both learn a little in the process, but it's up to you. I have many other posts waiting for replies I'd like to give, including more on our other threads which I may or may not get round to. Thankyou for the feedback on the sutta comments meanwhile;-). I appreciate your comments and contributions meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ====== 37105 From: connieparker Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:23am Subject: Finding suttas Kind of a p.s. here, Phil - Should've said the Anguttara are relatively easy depending on which system is used! Who'd think that A IV 58-59 and AN VII 48 are the same thing? Have fun looking things up anyway! connie 37106 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma, Htoo. Dear Sarah and Htoo, I understood that dosa-muulacittas cannot arise in the fine material planes. Correct? Nina. op 30-09-2004 11:28 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > U Narada's Guide to Conditional Relations, Chapter IV, page 197 - >> 205, "Detailed Explanation of Asynchronous Kamma" has a lot of >> detail on this. I haven't read it all yet, but glancing at the chart >> on page 198, I see that: >> - 11 faulty volitions exclusive of restlessness can cause rebirth in >> the four lower planes >> - 12 faulty volitions can arise during life in the sensous or the >> fine material spheres 37107 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Deeds of Merit - importance of samatha Hello Phil, op 30-09-2004 05:58 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Ph: K Sujin asks "Do you wish to develop samatha to the degree of jhanaa?" > > In my case, the answer is I wish I could. I hope conditions arise which > allow me to develop jhanas some day, or in some lifetime. I have faith that > they will because I have a feeling that they are necessary in the > higher/later stages of enlightenment. N: It is not said that jhanas are necessary in the later stages of enlightenment. But it is best to consider our life now, understanding dhamma now. The first stage is already very hard. Ph: K Sujin and Nina and others' at DSG > teach that there is Right Concentration with every citta, in the > one-pointedness of that universal cetasika that is often translated as > concentration - N: There is one-pointedness, ekaggata cetasika with every citta, and it can be kusala, akusala vipaaka or kiriya. Its function is seeing to it that citta experiences only one object. Ph.... it seems to this beginner that concentration to the > degree of jhanas is where Right Concentration lies. There are so many suttas > that point to that. N:There is right concentration in jhana and also in vipassana, it is one of the Path factors. Ph:... In any case, vipassana in daily life is a noble way and will condition > access to jhanas in the future. I have faith in that. N: The aim of vipassana is the eradication of defilements. It depends on the individual whether he is inclined to jhana. > On that note, I found this from Nina's first post in the Removal of > Distracting Thoughts series: > >> Co: The kusala citta arising with the ten bases of wholesomeness is not >> higher citta, adhicitta. The citta with the eight attainments that is based >> on vipassana is higher than that, it is the higher citta. > > >> N: the eight attainments in jhana. B.B. speaks about vipassana based on >> jhana, but it is the opposite in this case: here it is jhana based on >> vipassana. Also PTS footnote gives: the eight attainments based on >> vipassana. Only then the citta is pure, higher citta, because one does not >> take jhana for self. > Ph: Does this mean that jhana can be conditioned by vipassana as I was hoping > above? N: The monk referred to was on his way to arahatship, and it was in the Buddha's time. People at that time had no misunderstandings about jhana. They also could develop jhana and use that as a foundation for vipassana. Higher citta, adhicitta:when there is right understanding and right mind-fulness there are: higher sila, higher citta and higher pañña. A. Sujin repeated this many times. Ph: The reason I have trouble sitting now is that I clearly sense self > behind it. When I have cultivated vipassana in daily life as a practitioner > of "dry insight", this will help me to be liberated from self enough to seek > jhanas? N: To what purpose? As you know right jhana is extremely difficult, many conditions have to be fulfilled. Nina. 37108 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhana Journey ( 20 )Htoo. Dear Htoo, Thank you for the simile, it is clear. Nina. op 30-09-2004 11:39 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > There were many foot-prints as we walked quite a far. Our feet were > still moving left and right and left and right backwardly while > seeing the footprint in front of the eyes. > > The sand there was boundless and limitless. The foot-prints there > were boundless and limitless. The sand there can be equate with > boundless space. The footprints there can be equated with 1st arupa > jhana cittas. > > The second arupa jhana citta or vinnanaca ayatana citta sees these > footprints of mind. As patisandhi, bhavanga, cuti cittas can take > past object, I think vinnananca ayatana citta can also take past > object. > > 37109 From: Egbert Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence Hi Howard, Larry, Yes, Howard, I'm sure we're on the same wavelength. And I've got some more thoughts. See below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and Larry) - > > In a message dated 9/29/04 9:47:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > > > Hi Larry and Howard, > > > > Thank you for a very interesting and worthwhile discussion. I am > > wondering if it is possible that the structure of perception, any > > perception, is based on impermanence. Only that which changes is > > perceivable and perceived, so what is perceived at any time are not > > actualities, but differences in a never ending flux (with no hint of > > moments of fixed duration). > > > > The (dis)ability to take snapshots of a boiling cauldron may suggest > > steady but short-lived, identifiable states that rise and fall > > within it, but such a conclusion can only come from taking the > > snapshots as being their own reality. > > > > So e.g. hardness may appear as reality in which impermanence is not > > to be found, but when hardness is seen as a snapshot of what is in > > fact never static, the underlying reality becomes known, which is > > impermanence in which nothing, in any sense, is found. > > > > Just my musings, of course :-) > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > > > ========================== > Herman, I believe that what you are saying here is has real depth to > it and is important for me to understand? I *think* I do get what you are > saying. If I do, then what I say in the next paragraph may be in agreement with it. > Please let me knoe. > As regards allegedly discrete, momentary phenomena that arise and then > cease the instant after, and during that zero-durational moment are utterly > static, I'm afraid I'm not at all certain that is how things are. I don't > really buy sharp-edged, instantaneous phenomena, because I don't think that any > such thing is ever experienced, and what is not experienced is not an > experiential reality. I see experience as occurring over time intervals that have > positive, not zero, duration, and, moreover, I think these intervals are what > theorists working in artificial intelligence might refer to as "fuzzy intervals", > without sharp, delineated beginnings or endings. Are you saying something along > these lines? (BTW, this understanding does not contradict impermanence, for all > that it means to say that conditions are impermanent, is that what is present > now will not indefinitely remain - that is, at some time later, it will not > be present.) > You raised a very important observation. And that is that when sensing e.g. hardness there is no impermanence to be found. (I hope I haven't paraphrased you incorrectly). I can't say much more than how very true that is. But it leads me to think that when folks go in search of paramattha dhammas, they will probably find them (by forming them), and miss the underlying impermanence in doing so. It seems to me that only when the metaphorical mind door is guarded, that is when impermanence is known. That is when vision, hearing, feeling is literally awash. As opposed to the sensing of objects, which is like looking at a photo. Two important facts about looking at a photo are: Photos are of a present, now past. Photos cannot capture change/motion. As long as one senses discrete objects, one is looking at the past, which excludes the possibility of seeing impermanence. Kind Regards Herman 37110 From: bernard.vital Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:28am Subject: Question I will come to Thailand from the 11th of December till the 14 of Januar. Not only for holiday. I also want to do some Buddhist study and a retreat in a monestry for one or two weeks. I am a duch man 40 years, I am gay (but not so explictly) and I am Buddhist. Can you give me some information about doing a small Buddhist course in English and about the posibilities of hving a retreat in a monestry... I hope to recieve soon a message from you. If you like to have more information about me please look at my website± www.vitalmoors.nl under the chapter my life you can find some details about my life. In the meantime I wish you a happy time withou suffering.... Vital Mr. Vital E.H. Moors Westerbaenstraat 212 2513 GK Den Haag The Netherlands +3170-3648843 bernard.vital@z... www.vitalmoors.nl 37111 From: plnao Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew Only time for a quick note today. As it happens, I was thinking about just what you said this morning. >Never have I heard him say we need to develop the >perfections. They are virtues that will help along the path I think this is right. The Perfections are very inspiring, and for me point at the conventional person rather than the person in absolute terms. In absolute terms a person is rupa and nama, but we know of course that over the years people have accumulations that *do* lead to the sense of a lasting character. This is an illusion, but it is a powerful illusion, and the Perfections- in my opinion- help us to understand what we mean when we make the mistake of saying "he is a good person." (That "is" is wrong if it is believed to be a stative verb rather than showing a momentary coming together of conditions.) When we develop the perfections we have many opportunities to consider what it means to be a good person in the Buddha's terms, but we are also constantly reminded - if we have right understanding - that this goodness is illusionary and fleeting. So there is a healthy middle way balance between a sense of virtuous character (which is a concept, but is inevitable in daily life) and the impersonality a bunch of wholesome cittas rising and falling away. That's why I love the Perfections, and that's why they're very helpful for beginners like myself, in my opinion. Bridging the gap between conventional understandings of virtue and virtue in the absolute, momentary, anatta sense. I think what the Buddha taught more explicitly about what we need to work on are the 37 factors. I googled them: 37 Factors of Enlightenment or Wings of Awakening (bodhipakkhiya-dhammá) The set of teachings that the Buddha himself said formed the heart of his message. Four Foundations of Mindfulness (satipatthana) Four Right Efforts (sammappadhana) Four Bases of Power (iddhipada) Five Faculties (indriya) Five Strengths (bala) Seven Factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga) Eight Fold Path (ariya-magga) Metta, Phil 37112 From: Egbert Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:00pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Ken, I really appreciated this post, all of it. But I'll snip most of it, for brevity only. ==== > > Exactly! There are no discussions, there is only the present moment of citta. Any ideas of discussion, you, me, the internet and so on are just that - ideas. Ideas occur in various moments of citta as illusory objects. We can't stop them: they keep cropping up. Look, > we are having that discussion after all! :-) ==== If I were a radical phenomenologist (I'm actually a centre-left one :-)), I would have to agree with you on the above, and also reject all beings as illusory objects. All that would be known at any given time would be whatever nama and rupa is arising, only the nama and rupa. Beings would be concepts, and their birth, dying and death would be a more compounded, grosser form of concept. But the cuti-citta is real, right?? And it in no way corelates with the imagined death of imagined beings, right?? Or does it?? :-) Kind Regards Herman 37113 From: Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:18pm Subject: Vism.XIV,105 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 105. III. i. D. The 'supramundane resultant' is of four kinds (66)-(69) because it is [respectively] the fruitions of the consciousnesses associated with the four paths (18)-(21). It occurs in two ways, that is to say, as [fruition in] the cognitive series of the path and as fruition attainment (see Ch. XXII). So resultant consciousness in all four planes is of thirty-six kinds. 37114 From: plnao Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:27pm Subject: I saw a persimmon tree Hello all This morning was talking to Naomi in the bathroom, maybe looking out the window (nice view of Fuji) as we talked, and I suddenly noticed the persimmon tree across the street was full of bright orange fruit. It made me realize that I don't look around me with much attention, because the persimmons would have already been orange for a couple of weeks now, and it was the first time this year I noticed persimmons. (They are very common trees.) We discuss a lot about the importance of seeing and debate about just what it means in absolute terms but maybe I am so absorbed in my Dhamma studies that I have stopped looking around me and seeing things in the plain old "there's a persimmon tree over there" conventional sense. When I first heard about "investigation of realities/phenomena" as one of the factors of enlightenment, I thought it meant going out and looking hard all around me, to see as much of the world as I can. That wasn't right. It is more subtle than that, more penetrative into the three characteristics of things. But now I realize that I am not looking enough at the world around me in the plain old "nice tree!" way. Otherwise I would have seen that tree much sooner. Also thought about the colour implications. Surely it was the bright orange as visible object, as rupa, that caught my eye. Larry and Howard and others have been having some very interesting, complex exchanges about the implications of seeing red, for example. If I understood correctly, Larry has said that red is consciousness, which I take to mean nama rather than rupa. In my opinion, this is going a little more deeply into analyzing the implications of seeing colour than is necessary. Can't we keep it simple? I think of this passage from K Sujin's "Realities and Concepts." "When we say that we like colours, what are these colours? The colours of eyebrows, eyes, nose, or lips. If there were no colours appearing how could there be eyebrows, eyes, nose or mouth? There could not be. However, when we see colours such as red, green, grey, blue or white we should know that colour is only the reality which appears through the eyes. Nevertheless, we like the colours of eyes, nose and lips, thus, we like concepts. Paramattha dhammas are real. However, when we like something we like both the paramattha dhamma which appears and the concept which is formed up on account of that paramattha dhamma." Personally speaking, that's about as deep as I need to go into thinking about seeing colour. It's a reality, a rupa, and we form concepts on account of it. But I'm a beginner. Who knows if, as the years go by, this understanding will be revealed as insufficient and I'll want to go much deeper into what it means to see colour, the way Howard and Larry and others do. Time will tell. It's all very interesting. Metta, Phil 37115 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:48pm Subject: Re: I saw a persimmon tree --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > In my opinion, this is going a little more deeply into analyzing the > implications of seeing colour than is necessary. Can't we keep it simple? > I think of this passage from K Sujin's "Realities and Concepts." > > "When we say that we like colours, what are these colours? The colours of > eyebrows, eyes, nose, or lips. If there were no colours appearing how could > there > be eyebrows, eyes, nose or mouth? There could not be. However, when we > see colours such as red, green, grey, blue or white we should know that > colour is only > the reality which appears through the eyes. Nevertheless, we like the > colours of eyes, nose and lips, thus, we like concepts. Paramattha dhammas > are real. However, when > we like something we like both the paramattha dhamma which appears and the > concept which is formed up on account of that paramattha dhamma." > > Personally speaking, that's about as deep as I need to go into thinking > about seeing colour. It's a reality, a rupa, and we form concepts on account > of it. +++++++++++++++++ Dear Phil, I think this is the right way. Now there is colour and there is the eyebase and there is seeing. It is by investigation of just these simple realities in the present moment that understanding grows. In the Atthasalini they warn that even madness can result from speculating wrongly about Abhidhamma. RobertK ] 37116 From: Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 0:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/30/04 6:37:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > You raised a very important observation. And that is that when > sensing e.g. hardness there is no impermanence to be found. (I hope > I haven't paraphrased you incorrectly). > ======================= Your paraphrase is fine. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37117 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > >> > On the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, the Pali > Milindapanha is a composite text. It consists of an older portion > (parts II & III, and a small section of part I) and a later one > (parts IV to VII and the legendary material in part I). The older > portion can probably be trusted as an accurate account of how the > Dhamma was understood by the 1st century Sarvastivadins of > Kashmir. +++++ I don't know much about the sarvasativadins, are they still popular? Do the tikas on the Milindapanha record how a sarvastivadin text become part of Theravada? ++++++++++++++++++ > > > ABHIDHAMMA: almost completely unreliable. > > The Abhidhamma of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and that of the MaCs > share many of the same terms but otherwise have virtually nothing > to do with each other. Canonical Abhidhamma is a work of genius; > the Commentarial system, reduced to its essential features, could > have been concocted by any third-rate thinker familiar with Plato > and Locke, without knowing anything about Buddhism at all. +++++++++++ I am very pleased you honor Abhidhamma. I had a recent converation with a scholar from a western university who says the Abhidhamma wasn't even recited at the first council! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ . > > The MaCs' contribution to the sciences clearly bears the stamp of > its time and appears to be the product of speculation rather than > observation, or else is just the reporting of received opinion > and prejudice. Whether this has any serious consequences for what > they have to say on the Dhamma is an interesting question. It > seems to me that it does at least throw their conception of > paramattha dhammas into a parlous state. Every paramattha dhamma, > it is claimed, has a sabhava. And that sabhava is partly > constituted by the dhamma's NAME. Not just any old name that > people might care to give it, but its name in the dialect of > Magadha, which is its true and absolute name. ++++++++++++ I found this paragraph hard to understand. When the commentaries explain the nature of dhammas and say that "They bear their own characteristics" this is only a metaphorical device. The tika to the Mulapariya sutta explains: "this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributions as that of a "being" etc. Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence,etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as "sky-flowers" etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas (i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. These dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities. And though there is no real distinction (between these dhammas and their characteristics), still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device (upacaaramatta)." enquote The name is only a useful designation - The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani calls realities (such as rupa and nama) vijjamana pannatti to distinguish between non real concepts such as human and dog (called avijjamana pannattis) But the words in both cases are designated pannatti -concept. If you mean the commentaries though that even past Buddhas used pali language - that they believed it was a base language -I think you are right. I think it must be that way and the suttas support this belief: The Digha nikaya says "ninety-one aeons ago the Lord, the Arahant, the fully enlightened Buddha Vipassi arose in the world. Thirty-one aeons ago, the Lord Buddha Sikhi arose; in the same thirty-first aeon before this Lord Buddha Vessabhu arose. And in this present fortunate aeon the Lord Buddhas Kakusandha, Konagamana, and Kassapa arose in the world. And, monks, in this present fortunate aeon I too have now arisen in the world as a fully enlightened Buddha. ..In the time of the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty- thousand years;"" We see that these past Buddhas - even 91 aeons ago- had Pali names (according to the suttas). RobertK 37118 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:10pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > Hello Robert, > > R> (I think you doubt even suttanta such as Jataka?). > > I do not doubt that the Jatakas and their commentary were approved > by the sangha in 5th century Anuradhapura. I do not doubt that > some of them contain some good Dhamma. And I do not doubt that > others contain tawdry nonsense. > > So it would appear I have no doubts at all about the Jataka. > > I trust that the first four Nikayas, I trust that they can be accounted as the > Buddha-word in the sense of the Uttara maxim: "Whatsoever is > well-spoken, all that is the word of the Blessed One ..." (ya.m > ki~nci subhaasita.m sabba.m ta.m tassa bhagavato vacana.m arahato > sammasambuddhassa -- A iv 162-6) > > A ) > > R> Even in the DighaNikaya there are some suttas that us > R> moderns may not easily understand. take the Aganna sutta: > > In my opinion, moderns actually understand the Aganna Sutta > much better than the commentators did. > > In a line-by-line comparison Richard Gombrich has shown beyond > any reasonable doubt that the Sutta is a lively and ingenious > parody of the Rig Veda's Hymn of Creation and the Brihadaranyaka > Upanishad. Its account of anthropogenesis pokes fun at the > speculative excesses of the brahmins, as well as serving as an > allegory of how craving begets dukkha. To appreciate the parody properly one needs to read both the > brahmin and the Buddhist text in their original languages as the > humour involves a lot of punning. But if you don't fancy learning > Vedic Sanskrit, the next best thing is Gombrich's article, > Buddhaghosa, unfortunately, saw neither the joke nor the allegory > of the Aganna Sutta, took the whole thing literally, and left the > Theravada tradition saddled with a creation story so laughable it > makes the creationism of Christian fundamentalists seem like > sound science. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=== To be honest even without reading said article I doubt it would change my thinking. You said in another post that Buddhaghosa and the other commentators were, with regard to grammer, "completely reliable." "I seldom study a Sutta without having its commentary at my elbow. The MaCs were excellent grammarians and I rarely have reason to doubt the way that they unravel the syntax of a complex sentence or analyse the case relations in a compound word."" It seems unlikely that over the past 2600 yeras of the sasana that the sangha were so blind as to not be able to tell when the Buddha was making a joke. I did do a google search in case I could find it on-line and found an interview with Richard Gombrich http://www.ordinarymind.net/Interviews/interview_jan2003.htm Just as aside he says about Dependent origination that "A Polish lady called Joanna Jurewicz has finally understood it." I wonder if you have read the paper she wrote?. According to Theravada it is very deep and hard to comprehend. I was surprised he says he is not a Buddhist, his book about the sangha in Sri Lanka was very good. ============================ > > R> One I have problems with is somewhere where either the > R> Buddha or a commentary talked about Rahu and the moon eating > R> the sun or something during an eclipse. > > Right. These are the Suriya and Candima Suttas, somewhere in the > first part of the SN. I might be able to help you with your > problems. But it will have to wait until the third and final part > of my reply. +++ I look forward to it. RobertK 37119 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Herman, ------------------- H: > If I were a radical phenomenologist (I'm actually a centre-left one :-)), I would have to agree with you on the above, > ---------------------- KH: You have thrown me with this talk of a "radical phenomenologists:" I don't know how to relate to that. You go on to imply that a radical phenomenologist would only know nama and rupa. That might be the case at the intellectual level but not at a direct level, surely. Only a disciple of the Buddha knows (understands) nama and rupa directly. ---------------------- H: > and also reject all beings as illusory objects. > ---------------------- KH: When you say, "reject," I don't think you mean that anybody rejects the use of concepts, do you? I think you are saying that we (or some of us) know that the concepts we are using are not real. ---------------------- H: > All that would be known at any given time would be whatever nama and rupa is arising, only the nama and rupa. > ----------------------- KH: Forgetting this "fundamentalist phenomenologist" for now, can we just say: Sometimes there is consciousness of concepts, and at other times there is consciousness of paramattha dhamma (nama or rupa), but at any given time, there are, ultimately, only namas and rupas. If the conditions are right, any one of those namas and rupas (some are more accessible than others), can be taken as an object of right mindfulness (satipatthana). (That satipatthana would occur in the succeeding citta process (allowing only for a few bhavanga cittas in between).) ------------ H: > Beings would be concepts, and their birth, dying and death would be a more compounded, grosser form of concept. > ------------ KH: Yes, I suppose birth, death and dying are a grosser form of concept in that they are more obviously conceptual. ------------ H: But the cuti-citta is real, right?? ------------- Yes, all cittas are real. However, the cuti-citta is different from every other citta in the current lifetime. In my previous post, I didn't want to say just how it was different because I would have had to look up a textbook, and I was too lazy. I still am, sorry, but I know the cuti-citta takes as its object a moment of kamma that will dictate the circumstances in which the all cittas of the next lifetime arise (in heaven, hell, animal world or human world etc.). ------------------ H: > And it in no way corelates with the imagined death of imagined beings, right?? Or does it?? ------------------ Of course it does! Just about every absolute reality has its conceptual equivalent. In most cases, the cuti-citta correlates with the cessation of heartbeat and breathing. (The correlation will be less obvious where artificial respiration or resuscitation are involved.) Clear as mud? :-) Ken H 37120 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all Htoo asked: "May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma?" The object of the 4th Jhaana can be one of the kasi.nas such as pathaviikasi.na (see Dhammasanganii, Section 165). Details of all types of the Jhaana objects can be studied in Chapters 3 through to 10 in Visuddhimaggo. A Jhaana object at the levels of memory-made nimitta is a paññatti dhamma. Please see the following passage regarding an advanced Jhaana nimitta (pa.tibhaaga nimitta) such as the one for the 4th Jhaana in Section 57, Visuddhimaggo. "Tañca kho neva va.n.navantam, na sa.n.thaanavantam. Yadi hi tam iidisam bhaveyya, cakkhuviññeyyam siyaa o.laarikam sammasanupagam tilakkha.nabbhaahatam, na panetam taadisam. Kevalañhi samaadhilaabhino upa.t.thaanaakaaramattam saññajametanti." The following is my off-the-cuff translation of the above Pali passage. "As a matter of fact, that Jhaana nimitta has neither color nor shape. If it were to have such things, it would have been possible for it to be seen by the crude eyes, to be reachable for observation, and to be inflicted by three characteristics or within the reach of three characteristics (arising, poising and diappearing). This Jhaana nimitta, however, is not something like that. It is purely a memory-made mere appearance to the attainer of Jhaana concentration." The above Pali passage also carries an unintendended warning to those Sanskritists who want to translate the term "nimittam" as "perceptual image" indiscriminately. Jhaana nimitta has neither color nor shape or look. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: Dear Larry, Howard, Nina, Robert K and all How are you? Howard has answered the main part of Larry's issue by way of Yoniso Manasikaara (exercising relevant mental orientation), which is the prerequisite for the Right View. I will add only a few things here. Larry quoted and wrote: "However, Nyanatiloka translates vitakka as thought- conception...snip..snip.. As such, we also need to observe and discover the three characteristics of thinking and rethinking as well. The three characteristics are what distinguish realities from non- realities. By applying Theravada observation methods such as Satipa.t.thaana to realities, we discover their three characterisitcs. By contrast, we cannot discover the three characteristics if the objects we take were unreal things (paññatti dhammaa) because the unreal things do not have the three characterisctics. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw --------------------------------------------------------------------- - Dear Suan, May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma? Thanks in advance. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37121 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma, Htoo. Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah and Htoo, > I understood that dosa-muulacittas cannot arise in the fine material > planes. > Correct? ... S: That's what I understand. I think there was a typo and RobM meant to refer to 12 faulty volitions bringing results during life.... I'll leave him to sort out the spheres and charts and numbers now which I know he will. Metta, Sarah p.s my basic arithmetic looked wrong, but again I know RobM will follow and sort it out;-). ====== 37123 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 1:55am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner25-Contact /Phassa(k) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** We have different contacts through the eyes and through the ears. When we are at the opera, we may dislike the sight of someone who is singing but we may like the sound. There are different objects and different contacts; there can be like and dislike at different moments. In reality there is no singer nor is there a person who can look at him and listen to his singing at the same time. There are only different elements, nåmas and rúpas, which each have their appropriate conditions for their arising and can only be experienced one at a time. The citta and the accompanying cetasikas which experience visible object arise at one moment; the citta and the accompanying cetasikas which experience sound arise at another moment, in another process of cittas. The dislike of visible object cannot arise at the same time as the attachment to the sound; they arise in different processes of cittas. Cittas succeed one another very rapidly and at each moment there is a different contact accompanying the citta. Because of ignorance we do not know the reality which is experienced at the present moment. We do not know whether it is sound, visible object or a concept. We think that all these realities can appear at the same time. We think most of the time of concepts instead of being aware of realities as they appear one at a time. ***** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37124 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:12am Subject: "Hope for the best, even when expecting the worst ..." Dear Group, On Wednesday, I explained to a kindly Veterinarian that I wouldn't have Rusty 'put down', but would prefer further investigations. I said that only if he couldn't be kept comfortable while 'allowing nature to take it's course' would we need to discuss 'other options' again. Today, I visited Rusty at the Animal Hospital. He has had most of the back of his neck shaved, has drips connected to each front paw and a catheter connected elsewhere. He is feeling very sorry for himself (and I am too!). But he knew I was there, which is more than he has known for the last couple of days. The CT scan showed no tumours, but, instead, a 1/2 cm space across the back of the top of the cranium filled with air, indicating that he has brain degeneration - he also has inflammatory meningitis. It may be that in a few days time he can come Home, and continue treatment orally instead of by drip. The hospital staff - the receptionists, the cleaners, the veterinary doctors, the university trainees, were all beaming and coming by continually to say how glad they were to have such an 'unexpected win'! So ... brain degeneration ... that's sad, yes, no one would deny it ... but that's just the way it is ... and, really, how much brain does a furry chap need in order to lie on the grass in the morning sun, and under a shady tree in the afternoon; to chase hares and magpies across the paddocks; to come when called for dinner; and to know who it is that loves him unconditionally? :) :) :) :) :) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37125 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Upacara samadhi Dear Aries, I don't think anyone replied to your questions (the list has been very busy for the last few weeks), so belatedly I'd like to at least welcome you to DSG! Please share a little more about yourself and your practice. Where do you live? --- gautama_buddha2004 wrote: > Dear friends, > > I am new to this group. > > I want to ask those who have experienced upacara samadhi or if better > jhana . > > Have you ever felt that during meditation , suddenly you don't see > your body anymore but have subtle conciousness? > > For those who have, what do you do after that to shift to higher > state? .... May I ask what makes you have an interest in upacara samadhi and jhana and what makes you think your meditation experiences are related in some way? When we have an idea of 'doing' something 'during meditation', do you think this suggests any idea of self? I ask because this is a hotly contested issue here;-) You make also like to look at some of the posts under jhana, concentration and samatha in Useful Posts and let us know what you think. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts My own idea is that there can be many very special and unusual experiences during meditation and it's very easy to take these for being a developed state of insight or samatha/jhana. I hope we hear more from you. Metta, Sarah ====== 37126 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard My apologies to you and others for coming back on posts from a week or more ago, but have not had a chance until now. A general holiday today (Chinese national day) gives me a chance to do some catching up. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > ========================== > For me there is an advantage. The term 'content' (for me) lacks a > connotation of of independence/self-existence moreso than does the term > 'object'. > > With metta, > Howard Yes, and I can see that that 'experiential content' would be more comfortable from a phenomenological point of view. ;-)) But 'content' may carry other connotations, such as being a part of, or something included within, a bigger whole, in this case 'experience' (however one understands that term, whether as a noun or a verb). Such a way of thinking would run counter to the emphasis otherwise found in the texts of dhammas as being at all times separately and individually knowable to panna. It is I think significant that sense-door consciousness and the object of sense-door consciousness are in separate categories under various different classifications of dhammas (e.g., as khandhas, elements, sense-bases, foundations of mindfulness), with the emphasis on these different categories each being knowable to, and to be known by, insight knowledge. Jon 37127 From: jonoabb Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ========================== > I am interpreting 'vi~n~nana' in the scheme of dependent origination > to refer to the self-oriented knowing: the illusory sense of a subject > encountering an object. This, of course, is the consequence of sankhara, which in turn > is a consequence of avijja. For further clarification, there is my whole > sequence of past posts on this matter to look at. I'd really rather not go through > that all again at this juncture, though. > > With metta, > Howard That's OK, I'm not asking for an explanation of the links of dependent origination , or for anything covered in your earlier posts; I'm simply following up on the nature of the moment of experiencing, which is the original issue of this thread (as I recall -- it's in danger of getting lost in the mists of time!). Here you refer to vinnana in the scheme of dependent origination as 'self-oriented knowing: the illusory sense of a subject encountering an object', which I gather you see as being somehow related to your earlier statement about a merging of consciousness and its object. However, I think this is not quite to the point of this thread, and I'll try and explain why. We have agreed previously that at every moment of sense-door consciousness there is present both the dhamma that is consciousness (vinnana, citta) and the dhamma that is the object of the consciousness (in the case of a moment of seeing, for example, these are seeing consciousness and visible-object). Now the question we are considering is, what is the relationship between these 2 dhammas -- the dhamma that is consciousness and the dhamma that is the object of that consciousness -- at that moment? The relationship we are seeking to establish is the general relationship pertaining between consciousness and its object, common to all instances of consciousness and its object, and thus does not depend on considerations such as the state of enlightenment or otherwise of the being in question ot the particular kind of citta concerned. Now putting aside for the moment such considerations as the possibility of misinterpretation by others (since all of us here are alert to this danger and can discount it for the purpose of the present discussion), is it not correct to say that the citta experiences the object of citta? Jon 37128 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: flippin off the moon Hi, Joop Thanks for the reply. --- jwromeijn wrote: ... > On the first question: we never know that, of no text at all, not of > the Pali canon and not of other buddhist or buddhological texts. All > I have is my intuition, my intelligence and my experience (for > example for meditation) But surely the Pali canon is in a category of its own here (why otherwise are we discussing it?). We know it is the word of the Buddha or at least the best available record of it. We may not have been able to verify a great deal of it by direct experience as yet, but to the extent that that has been possible we have found it to be proven true. As for our intuition, intelligence and 'meditative' experience, we know from the Kalama Sutta and our own experience in just this lifetime that these are not reliable guides. The only truly reliable guide it seems to me is the actual word of the Master as we have it, and to that I would add the explanations given by the ancient commentators. > But in general I'm not sure if this kind of discussions are > fruitfoll, cf my post # 36719 Perhaps not, but I hope I have explained why I have trouble responding with any enthusiasm to suggestions to spend more time discussing the views/works of latter day commentators ;-)). Jon 37129 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:34am Subject: "input from someone who has left the Group" 1 Dear Friends, We always welcome feedback from those who choose to leave DSG and I've been given permission to share any extracts from a couple of letters from a member who has just left the group. I don't believe 'J.' ever posted to the list and I'd be grateful if any of you can respond and give him any encouragement or feedback as clearly he has much to contribute. He'll be following this thread and may respond. Metta, Sarah ***** Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) J:>It is a fine group and serious and sincere people sharing. However for me it is too many words, too much analysis, too complex for my poor brain, each post in general needs more time and thought to consider. I find the intense analysis and semantic detail really requiring a working knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and I just don't have that much time left in this lifetime. Actually I find the Dhamma very simple. It comes down to the Dhamma Seals and the realization which follows "deep hearing of the Dhamma". All that analysis keeps the intellect busy but it seems to me to delay the move to enlightenment and Nibbana. To be attached to all the analysis is still attachment and may help understanding but impede personal transformation. As I see the Abhidhamma it is what was developed because analytical minds were actually looking for a "theology" (pardon the expression) of Buddhism, not being satisfied with the Teaching of the Buddha directly. Likewise most of the Vinaya was designed to handle the behavior of monks and nuns because they could not seem to follow the simple injunction of the Dhammapada,183 "To shun evil. To do good. To purify one's heart. This is the teaching of the Buddha." That is too simple for active minds, is it not? So many questions, so many answers. The Buddha had no suttas, no sacred writings, to chant, to quote, to analyze. Just people to whom to share his realizations. His final message was "Be a lamp unto yourselves." The light which comes from that "lamp" is shining as brightly today as then, and is just as misunderstood today as it was to many of his followers who didn't understand Konnadana's realization... "What rises, passes away!" Just too simple. Be well, enjoy, learn much, find the Way. Walk On!< ***** 37130 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:38am Subject: Implausibilities? (was, Re: "... as parasites a tree." ???) Greetings, Dighanakha --- dighanakha wrote: > Hello Sarah (and Jon), ... > S> As Jon also wrote before to Howard: > > J> Actually, there are a number of aspects to the teachings > J> that run counter to either our taught values or innately > J> held beliefs, but many of these things we have now come to > J> recognise as having merit or as more than likely being in > J> accordance with the way things are.Ó > > Jon, do you think that the above statement about wolf-children > growing up speaking Pali is likely to be in accordance with the > way things are? There are a number of statements in both the suttas and commentaries that taken literally would be inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge (I am thinking of, for example, references to the geography of the world, the first occurrence of human life on earth, development of species, changes in lifespan, etc; Rob K has just mentioned others). However, I do not consider that these differences lessen the reliability of the teachings on doctrinal matters. I tend to assume, based on my experience to date, that a clearer meaning will emerge in due course as understanding is further developed. I don't know how it was for you, but when I first became interested in the teachings there was much about what I read that was 'impossible' or at least 'highly fanciful', and certainly unscientific. However, gradually over the years the fanciful became plausible and the merely plausible became in turn a likely explanation. Similarly, my interest initially was only in the suttas, and in particular those that talked about the 'practice', but again over time there has come to be an appreciation of a much broader part of the teachings including the commentaries. So while I can't immediately offer any worthwhile comment on the passage you have quoted, it wouldn't for me be a cause for any doubt about the worth of the commentaries as a whole, because I find them to be totally consistent when it comes to doctrinal matters. Which brings me to the question of how you see the issue(s) you have raised as affecting an understanding of the essential teaching of the Buddha. I'd be interested to hear you on this (a sweeping question, I know, but trying to get back to what's important ;-)). Jon 37131 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:48am Subject: Sunrises and Sunsets - Input 2 Dear Friends, The following is the second letter from 'J', following a brief note from me. I wonder if any of the 'mature' members in particular, like Howard, Joop or Lodewijk c/o Nina, or other lurking or semi-lurking friends like AndrewT might have comments to add. ('J', thank you again so much for sharing your background, interests and practice so beautifully. S.) Metta, Sarah ***** Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT) >Dear Sarah, Thank you for your kind email. I have thought many times about sharing my reactions to DSG and felt it would be received as too critical by many. The DSG is dedicated to developing an understanding of the Abhidhamma, as I understand it. For those who are interested in such study this Group is a good thing and I don't and haven't wished to detract from that purpose. My response is personal and not intended to cause reaction. My current path includes "sitting" at sunrise and sunset in the outdoors. This is my Buddhist Altar these days and in a very urban setting. My goal is simplicity. I don't count breaths, I don't focus on any topic, just waiting with the sunrise and sunset. I have had a variety of experiences and realizations as a result with no hooks. As a personal challenge I have been dealing with anger reactions most of my life and in this current activity a new sense of peace and serenity has emerged and the angry reactions are disappearing. (I wish I could say it was perfect but...). One of the other responses is that I have heard the Dhamma sounded in many activities right here in the world right where I am. They speak of impermanence, of suffering and liberation from suffering, of nonattachment, of self as an assemblege from and with all and everything (interdependence), and all the concepts are just words. It is all very simple, and I feel that this is what the Buddha experienced as he moved from ascetisim to simple "sitting" and realization. Now having shared all that I am aware that there are many paths to enlightenment and to each his own. One might consider me an elder now in my 70s and I have learned finally not to go where things make my brain hurt. Mostly I am letting go of many things, that is just my path these days. Back to your suggestion. I don't feel like rejoining and posting at this time and starting something. But if you want to edit what I have written and post it as "imput from someone who has left the Group" and solicit responses I will be happy to lurk a bit and consider responding if it is fruitful. I repeat I don't which to create a problem or a distraction. If something constructive can come out of this, good. My qualifications include university training in comparative religion and a resulting lifelong study of the same. My dedication to a Buddhist "set" is built out of my reading of the Kalama Sutra, followed by practicing therefrom. I am more interested in what people are experiencing rather than what they are understanding. In that light I will further share with you that in my meditations at sunrise and sunset I notice that there is a "time" when there is total silence, the world turns gold and pink, and then the invitations to distraction begins as the activities of the world begin to waken and invite interaction. The "peace" continues where I am as I do not respond, until it is time to interact. Wherever I stop during a busy day, including 5 dogs, 4 cats, a wife, and shepherding the affairs of 9 farmers markets, I find that in stopping I am still in that peace, and the world goes on being busy. In my morning and evening meditations the dogs come out and play and one or more will come and touch me with their nose and then go back to play. Several are now joining me in "quiet time" (a much better word for meditation; meditation implies following a procedure, a technique). My "Quiet Times" unstructured began about two months ago with better results than anything experienced with formal meditation practices for years. So Sarah, if you can make anything out of all this "stuff" well and good. If any of it is worth sharing with others. Feel free to share it with them.< ***** 37132 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:04am Subject: MP3s of discussions in India 2001 Dear Phil, Dan, KenH & All, We thought it would be relatively easy to share discussion recordings from our last visit and then add others, but we've not been very successful at all, mainly due to time constraints. However, we have managed to 'encourage' a lurking member/friend, Tom W. to put the tapes which he edited from the last India trip with A.Sujin (which he, his wife Beverly, Nina, Jon, Kom and 100+ others joined) on his website in a DSG corner. The tapes are clear and for anyone who'd like a taste of A.Sujin, Nina and friends discussing dhamma, please test it out if you can and share any feedback. We still hope to make other discussions available and perhaps someone in Bangkok like *Sukin* can let the list know if the regular discussions are being broadcast live anytime. ***** Here is the link to the dsg corner on Tom's website, and the names of the files with English discussion (the discussion on the other files is in Thai). Tom has some helpful note on the website that describes how to download the files to your harddrive (rather than play them from the website). http://www.westheimers.net/dsg/ india 2-2 [4.9 KB, 28 mins] india 2-3 [5.2 KB, 29 mins] india 3-1 [5.6 KB, 37 mins] india 3-2 [4.8 KB, 27 mins] Metta, Sarah (& Jon) ============== 37133 From: matt roke Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:14am Subject: [dsg] Flip-flopping Hi Sarah and Ken, I had planned to get back to Ken about this topic but got distracted. Although it will mean going into deep waters and I'm not an accomplished swimmer. ========================= ========================= Sarah:> Actually, the only comment you've made on DSG which I've seriously questioned and am still puzzled by is the one in (35790) to Ken H when we were away. I think he responded with some surprise too, but I forget how it went. You wrote: M: 'My understanding is that citta and its accompanying cetasikas experience a reality. That concept (thought) is made up of many cittas. And that citta is said to experience a concept because the reality of each citta that makes up the concept is experienced.' S: This para makes no sense to me. Would you kindly elaborate, perhaps using your own example of seeing and visible object and perhaps a later concept of a visible object? ========================= ========================= It went like this: Ken:> Thinking is real - I am sure we all agree on that. In other words, the cetasikas, sanna, vicara, vitakka, cetana, samadhi and all the other cetasikas that work together to create thoughts are real. However, I understand that the thoughts they create are not real. Matt:> I would have to add citta to that list Ken> There is confusion over what each of us means by `a thought.' There is confusion as to who is of the opinion, `a thought is a paramattha dhamma' and who is of the opinion, `a thought is not a paramattha dhamma.' Matt:> Thought (concept) is not a paramattha dhamma Ken:> I think the misunderstanding can be cleared up by asking, "In a moment when citta experiences a thought, what is the object (arammana) of that citta?" My impression is that citta takes an object but the object doesn't really exist (is not a paramattha dhamma). Note I am not talking only about the `referent' of the object: I am saying the object itself is illusory. Matt:> My understanding is that citta and its accompanying cetasikas experience a reality. That concept (thought) is made up of many cittas. And that citta is said to experience a concept because the reality of each citta that makes up the concept is experienced. Ken:> I can almost grasp that, but not quite. For the time being, I'll stick with my current understanding: When there is pannatti, the presently arisen citta (together with its cetasikas) is creating a concept and is experiencing its own creation. There seems to be an object of experience, but in the ultimate sense that object is illusory. If you think that is seriously wrong, please try again. ============================== ============================== Ken wrote: "In a moment when citta experiences a thought, what is the object (arammana) of that citta?" My impression is that citta takes an object but the object doesn't really exist (is not a paramattha dhamma)". The object of a citta is dhamma; it is a reality which is either rupa or nama. And a concept is not dhamma; it is not a reality, neither rupa nor nama. Therefore to say that an object of citta is a concept is the same as saying that a reality is a non-reality and that citta experiences nothing. Ken wrote: "When there is pannatti, the presently arisen citta (together with its cetasikas) is creating a concept and is experiencing its own creation. It would seem that this is inferring that the citta and its cetasikas experience two objects; the one they originally arose to experience and the one they created. My understanding is that citta experiences the visible object and sanna marks (and remembers) it. It is then experienced in the mind-door where sanna marks it. What is experienced and marked in both doors is an object and there is no story or concept in that object. That happens in the following conditioned citta process in the mind-door. There can be audible object and because of sanna there can be recognition of the sound. But it is the conditioned citta process of the mind-door that there is knowing that it is a sound, that it is the sound of a bird, and there is knowing it by name as a *sound* or a *sound of a bird*. Everyday life is citta experiencing objects through the sense-doors and in conditioned processes through the mind-door. No one in charge or doing the thinking. So what I meant when I wrote to Ken was that a citta experiences a reality but not a concept and that something is known (there is concept) because of the conditioned process of citta (where citta experiences a reality). MattR 37134 From: matt roke Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:17am Subject: [dsg] Q. Intro Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika. Hi Larry and Nina, I know you brought this up quite a few days ago but I am still trying to catch up with you all. Just wanted to add something to what Nina wrote. ======================== ======================== L:> One thing that is a little unconvincing is that a smell, taste, or sound are never accompanied by unpleasant feeling. N:> I think you mean the experience of smell, etc., not the smell itself. L:> The bitter taste of medicine, the smell of a corpse, or the sound of fingernails scraping a blackboard seem to me to be very unpleasant. N:> Agreed. L:> This is a direct sensation of unpleasantness that preceeds aversion. L:> I'm not saying that unhappy feeling accompanies taste, for example; rather I would say pleasant or unpleasant feeling accompanies taste and I would call it a bodily feeling because it is dependent on conditions of the tongue base sensitivity. I would call bodily feeling any feeling that arises with material consciousness. L:> However, this insistence on neutral feeling with taste might give us a glimpse of an arahant's experience. Apparently food neither tastes good nor bad for an arahant. I see this as being like the touch of a feather. The touch of a feather can be either pleasant or unpleasant dependent on bodily sensitivity; if a feather touches the eye it can be unpleasant. So tongue sensitivity must change with a path moment. L:> I realize this throws a spanner in the nama rupa distinction, but in the spirit of abhidhamma in daily life I think we have to call them as we see them. L:> As for a bad taste and not liking the bad taste, I can see a difference between the two. Take whiskey for example. If you have never tasted whiskey and you take a little sip, you probably will think it tastes bad, but you still might like it. Abhidhamma seems to say there is no such thing as a bad taste; there is only flavour and secondarily liking it or not. At this point, I'm skeptical. ========================= When you talk about the unpleasantness of the object and aversion towards it I think that like most people you are referring to the same thing. The citta that experiences the object is either kusala vipaka-citta or akusala vipaka-citta, so it does not arise with lobha or dosa as would a kusala or akusala citta, which follows afterwards. An adult may find the smell of a very strong cheese most appealing, so the citta that follows is likely to be with lobha, while a child will find it most unpleasant, so the following citta will most likely be with dosa. If we felt the same way as the child then we would think that the smell of the cheese (direct sensation) is unpleasant and so we would have aversion for it. We mistake the dosa that arises as being both the unpleasant smell of the cheese and the aversion for it. The citta that experience an object through a sense-door is accompanied by a neutral feeling. If it arose with lobha or dosa then all beings would react the same way towards objects. The reason people have different likes and dislikes is because the lobha and dosa arise afterwards, due to conditions. Also, an anagami, arahat and a Buddha could not be freed of these unwholesome states if the citta (experiencing an object) had to be accompanied by lobha if it were a pleasant object or dosa if it were unpleasant. MattR 37135 From: matt roke Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hi Phil and all, ========================== ========================== P:> As far as I know, abhidhamma says that the sense processes are the same, whether it's seeing, say, or hearing, or smell. But we know from science and we can confirm from our own experience that the olfactory sense follows a different path in the brain than other senses. ========================== Citta is diverted to a particular sense-door, which is different to the other sense-doors. The citta that experiences the object in one door cannot experience an object in any of the other doors and the sense door process that follows can only happen in that door not in any other. That's makes them all different and they follow different paths. MattR 37136 From: Bill Saint-Onge Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Hope for the best, even when expecting the worst ..." Christine, LOL--wonderful story. Right now, we have a blind cat who is otherwise healthy. We too were encouraged to have him 'put down' due to 'quality of life' issues, but refused. He's in no pain, apparently, and gets around the house remarkably well. Certainly in one of my more crude previous lives :) I would have had him killed, but in this one, well, lucky cat! My daughter clinched the decision for us with "You know dad, someday you'll be old and blind." LOL Unconditional love? At least unconditional respect for other sentient life...the least we can do as we go about dismembering the planet. With metta, Bill christine_forsyth wrote: Dear Group, On Wednesday, I explained to a kindly Veterinarian that I wouldn't have Rusty 'put down', but would prefer further investigations. I said that only if he couldn't be kept comfortable while 'allowing nature to take it's course' would we need to discuss 'other options' again. Today, I visited Rusty at the Animal Hospital. He has had most of the back of his neck shaved, has drips connected to each front paw and a catheter connected elsewhere. He is feeling very sorry for himself (and I am too!). But he knew I was there, which is more than he has known for the last couple of days. The CT scan showed no tumours, but, instead, a 1/2 cm space across the back of the top of the cranium filled with air, indicating that he has brain degeneration - he also has inflammatory meningitis. It may be that in a few days time he can come Home, and continue treatment orally instead of by drip. The hospital staff - the receptionists, the cleaners, the veterinary doctors, the university trainees, were all beaming and coming by continually to say how glad they were to have such an 'unexpected win'! So ... brain degeneration ... that's sad, yes, no one would deny it ... but that's just the way it is ... and, really, how much brain does a furry chap need in order to lie on the grass in the morning sun, and under a shady tree in the afternoon; to chase hares and magpies across the paddocks; to come when called for dinner; and to know who it is that loves him unconditionally? :) :) :) :) :) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37137 From: gazita2002 Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:25am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner25-Contact /Phassa(k) Dear Sarah and others. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. > ......snip..... > Because of ignorance we do not know the reality which > is experienced at the present moment. We do not know whether > it is sound, visible object or a concept. We think that all these > realities can appear at the same time. We think most of the time > of concepts instead of being aware of realities as they appear one > at a time. > ***** > [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > A: there is another thread about the Paramis, which started me thinking about the wonderful patience. I have noticed that even on hte conceptual level, knowing that these different realities, mentioned above, are occuring now, has been a condition for me to be less impatient with daily life. Sometimes when things are'nt going the way 'I' want, I'll have a 'dhamma' thought about the things that are going on, and there is usually lots more than I'm focused on,e.g. cool breeze, sweet smells, someone smiling, bird call. Concepts I know, but I think these concepts come from experiencing the reality [without Sati, I might add :-( ] thro a sense door and almost instantly conceptualising. Thanx for these posts, Sarah. Patience, courage and good cheer Azita. Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 37138 From: matt roke Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hi Dighanakha, ======================== ======================== D:> Though Matt's comment has met with the list's general approval, I am not myself satisfied with it. The Jataka stories' judgments on women are grossly in error and this casts a shadow of doubt on the good judgment of the commentators. To try and lift this shadow by appealing to some other doctrine from these same commentators would be a case of "Ask my fellow if I be a thief!" And it is only from the commentators that we get the idea that the Buddha's Dhamma has to do with paramattha dhammas and citta-khanas. These terms are not found in the Tipitaka -- not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. ========================= Let me express similar thoughts using the Buddha's Dhamma. Whether women corrupted the sasana or not does not change the fact that all creatures are subject to suffering. Whether the Buddha held those views or not, does not change the fact that all suffering is rooted in selfish craving and ignorance. Whether the Jataka Tales are true or fiction does not change the fact that with the extinction of craving and ignorance there will be liberation from suffering and from this Samsara. Whether the Teaching will last 500 or 5,000 years does not change the fact that the way to the extinction of suffering is the 8 fold-path. The Dhamma and the path are for cultivating wisdom. And wherever this is found there is no pessimism about the Jataka Tales, there is no quandary regarding people's views, there is no disdain of men or other beings, there is no repugnance of sexist views, there is no holding dear of women only, and there is no indulgence in the gratification of what is viewed as self and who we are. ========================= ========================= D:> Why trust what a man has to say about micro-scale momentary mental events, if he can't even get it right about the observable behaviour of one half of the human race? ========================= Here is another way to divide the world into two groups where the behaviour of one half is notable because of its indifference. In one group we can put all the people in the world who are starving, who are destitute, who have Aids, who have been maimed, who have lost one or more of their faculties, who are ill, who have been injured, who are incapacitated, who are mentally deranged, who have just lost loved ones and who are dying. And in the other we can put all those who are healthy, with full stomachs, who have a home and possessions, who have family and friends and who do not have any of the afflictions of the first group. When there is no understood that this world is this way because of the law of kamma and because it is the nature of Samsara, then there can be dissatisfaction with the state of things and a desire to change it. Lobha and dosa are common to us all and they can arise when conditioned by what we may think are injustices, of which there are many in this world. It is not pleasing to see a being harmed or to seu a being harm. But finding freedom from this unpleasant state does not come from trying to change the kamma or the mind of others but in understanding our own. MattR 37139 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Pleasant Abiding, Htoo Dear Htoo, Thank you for answering my questions. I take no your last post which also covers your former ones baout this subject. I have to be a bit short, I only have one more Email working week next week, before India! op 30-09-2004 16:15 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > As I told Nina, sotapams, sakadagams, anagams, and arahats who are > ariyas have attained their respective magga nana. They have been > registered as sotapams, sakadagams, anagams, and arahats. > > They should all be able to attain phala samapatti. They have attained > lokuttara appana. N: Also someone who is a sukkhavipassaka, with dry insight, experiences nibbaana with samaadhi of the degree of attainment concentration. The reason is the object which is nibbaana. Those who are jhaanalabhi can attain enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by the different jhanafactors. At the moment of enlightenment, magga-citta arises, and then it is followed in the same process by phalacittas, fruition consciousness. The magga-citta conditions the vipaakacitta, fruition consciousness by way of anantara-paccaya and other conditions. There is no delay, we chant: akaliko. ( we shall chant this many times in India!). Vis. VII, 31: However, those who are jhaanalaabhi can experience nibbaana again with phalacittas in the course of life. The Vis. describes details later on. See what Larry just posted; In Pali:< ta.m maggaviithivasena ceva samaapatti vasena ca dvidhaa pavattati. > The Tiika elaborates somewhat. It has two positions, .thaana. Thus, within the process enlightenment occurs, and later on as samaapatti. I have some work with this Tiika next week. My last one. Htoo: N: That is the way I also think. It is bhaavana when we sincerely consider and write about Dhamma. It is a way of developing kusala. When those who receive our post do not react that is not our concern, we just try to help and develop understanding ourselves. You are always an example for me, having so much equanimity, not minding whether people react or not, or even when they dislike what you write. With appreciation, Nina. 37140 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Cetasikas' study corner18-Contact / Phassa(d) Hi Howard & All, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] > > ***** > > We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length > > sayings I, no. 18) that Maha-kaccana explained to the monks concerning > > contact: > > > > -This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your reverences, when > > -there is visible object, when there is visual consciousness, one will > > -recognise the manifestation of sensory impingement (phassa)... > > > > When there is the concurrence of the ear, sound and > hearing-consciousness, > > there is the manifestation of ear-contact. When there is the <...> H:> The foregoing displays, I believe, a subtle difference between > Abhidhamma Pitaka and Sutta Pitaka. > In the suttas, it is said that sense-door object and > (activated/energized/arisen) sense organ serve to condition > corresponding sense consciousness, > and *the coming together of the three* is contact. But here contact > seems to > be presented as a subtle, mental, kammic formation - a formation within > sankharakkhandha - which *manifests* as that convergence, i.e., which is > a needed > condition for the convergence of the three. As Nina writes, for example: > "When > there is the concurrence of body-sense, a tangible object such as > hardness and > the experience of hardness, there is the manifestation of body-contact." .... S: I think it depends how the suttas are understood again. >*the coming together of the three* is contact. Simply put, without an experiencing of the object with the mental factor phassa contacting the object, there would be no 'coming together'. The rupas would not be experienced. Remember, rupas are only experienced. Nina already replied and I'd like you to take another look at a post I wrote ages ago to you on phassa, concerning some arguments of Prof Kalupahana's which I thought were inaccurate. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27298 Please let me know if you're still not satisfied as I think it's an important area, esp. as we're almost at the end of the ch on phassa cetasika. You mention in the suttas that 'contact is the convergence', but remember, we're talking about realities/actualities and the only realities here are cittas, cetasikas and rupas. So which would such a convergence be? By the way, I thought your answer to TG on the 'why' qu was very good (37001) and thank you for helping out there;-).TG, let me know if there was anything else. No entity, but there is a reality, phassa, which has particular characteristics different from other mental factors, touching or contacting the object. The characteristic of contacting is phassa. On your discussion with RobM on 'whatever in the cosmos....'That do I know'. Whatever the Buddha puts his mind to, that he knows with his omniscient wisdom. metta, Sarah p.s we briefly discussed the bhikkhu giving up ties to family etc and you mentioned the Buddha. Perhaps we can say, giving up all ties of a household nature or as a family member, don't you think? ==================================== 37141 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 4:44am Subject: The Sotapanna from Crete Hi All, There is this little puzzle. All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan. What to make of that? And then there is this. All sotapannas lack self-belief. I am a sotapanna. What to make of that? For what purpose, and whose use, is the term sotapanna in circulation? Kind Regards Herman 37142 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 5:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] "input from someone who has left the Group" 1 Hello all (and J, if you happen to be around still) > > "To shun evil. > To do good. > To purify one's heart. > This is the teaching of the Buddha." > Yes, but if we just set out with the intention of doing good unaware of all the lobha that motivates us, we'll end up binding ourselves tighter to the wheel. I can't think of any more effective way of purifying the heart than vipassana in the light of growing understanding of realities. What is the single teaching that differentiates the Dhamma from all other great teachings, from all other religions? It is not shunning evil or doing good. We can get that from most spiritual traditions. It is anatta. Liberation comes from seeing deep into matter and mind. I love Dhammapada - it is a great inspiration to me. Come to think of it, I think it was only about 18 months ago, around 6 months before I came to DSG, that I asked at another group why it was necessary to study anything more than Dhammapada. So I can relate to J. I can also tell him now that with only suttas, even more complex ones that Dhammapada, we will not see into anatta. Abhidhamma lays out conditions clearly, and it lays out paramattha dhammas. And understanding them lays out the road to understanding anatta. And understanding anatta is the first step towards knowing it directly. This is nothing that no one has heard before, and if J were to read it he wouldn't be convinced. As I said the other day to someone, people with different accumulations respond to different teachings. The Buddha's Eightfold Path is a very wide one, with room for many ways to walk it. J will find his and I feel metta as I say that, and mudita, because his heart is oviously in the right place. Metta, Phil 37143 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deeds of Merit - importance of samatha Hi Eric (and thanks for the feedback, Nina) > Ph> That being said, I also am skeptical about how many people have > the conditions to develop jhanas, and I suspect that there is a lot > of false jhanifying going on out there. > Eric: > It is for each to find out for themself. I would > not worry about others attainments etc. Right. And I thought afterwards that my statement stunk of sour grapes. I should feel mudita for anyone who achieves jhanas and not speculate on whether its bogus or not. More likely, there will be both mudita and akusala speculation, because wholesome and unwholesome factors always arise pell-mell. > > Ph> People who decide to develop jhanas because they know that if > they don't they won't get the full benefits of the Buddha's > teaching. There is self seeking benefits, I'm sure, a lot of the > time. > > OK Phil, I touched on this with Sukin. There are > Right Aspirations that can come from 'self'. If the > conceit 'I Am' is not eradicated till Arahantship, then > EVERYONE before that operates from 'self'. There is either > good kamma or bad kamma at this stage. Wanting (chanda) good > things (jhana) at this stage is a wholesome desire. Ph: Thanks for putting this so succinctly. It's something I've babbled at great length to Sarah about, without ever reaching a conclusion. Technically speaking, this "I am" wrong view is eradicated at Sotapanna rather than Arahant, if I'm not mistaken, but even then I see your point. But understanding this in theory and sitting like I have done at times in recent weeks and feeling downright silly to be doing such an unnatural, results-oriented activity is different. But yes, I do see what you mean. I think there is possibly value in this kind of aspiration, even if fuelled by self. At the beginning. Stress on possibly. I really don't know yet. I think the purpose of this post for me was to remind myself that it would be wrong to close the door to any new directions in understanding that come my way. Conditions may arise that find me sitting again. I am open to it. >> PH: The reason I have trouble sitting now is that I clearly sense > self behind it. > > Fine, sit with that. Learn about that and then > try and deconstruct that sense of self in whatever > fashion you find it. Ph: I can see this too. When I was sitting with attention on the breath there were some moments when I sensed how everything hinged on the next breath, and it gave me some very helpful (although crude) insight into the three characteristics. "Deconstruct that sense of self in whatever fashion you find fit." That's a good line. That's what we're all trying to do, and we should respect and encourage each other no matter whether we sit, stand walk or run. Thanks for the links. Metta, Phil 37144 From: jonoabb Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Intro Visuddhimagga XIV, 101. Hi Larry Just butting in here. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, > > My main question about concept and realty is that kamma seems to be more > realistic when it is discussed conventionally. Take beauty for example. > As kamma result it can be either kusala or akusala, either a matter of > wholesomeness or attachment. But beauty isn't just one flash of color. > It is a complex formation. Strictly speaking any complex formation is a > concept and a concept isn't a kamma result and concepts don't age or > become disfigured. Additionally, beauty comes packaged in desirability. > It seems to me this means beauty is "with roots" and the roots can be > either kusala or akusala, inciting virtue or lust. Additionally, I think > in some sense "kamma" = "sankhara". This whole round of existence is > caused by desire, so that makes it all kamma result, even the desire. > Even functional cittas, including an arahant's javana cittas. Yes, beauty is the result of kamma, but it is not vipaka in the strict sense of the term. There are many things about this life that 'come with' the patisandhi citta but which do not necessarily involve direct sense-door experiences on our part: is our life an easy or a hard one, do we experience generally good health, are people generally kind and courteous to us, do we have any physical abnormalities, etc? All these and more are determined by past deeds, but are not themselves moments of vipaka. Of course, good fortune in these general things normally means a good measure of kusala vipaka too, but this does not always follow. Some people may live in generally comfortable circumstances but experience a lot of akusala vipaka in the form of painful bodily feeling (through ill-health or injury), having to endure a lot of harsh speech from relatives or colleagues, etc. Then there is the example from the texts of the person who had a lot of money but who lived in conditions of poverty because of being too stingy to spend money even on himself. As you say, beauty is the result of kamma. But the good-looking person's moment to moment vipaka is generally not related to their looks, except when their appearance is a condition for a reaction of some kind on the part of another person that manifests as a pleasant or unpleasant sense-door experience for the (good-looking) person; but in that case the 'beauty' is not the *cause* of the experience, merely one condition out of many. Jon 37145 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:03am Subject: Relations [Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence] Hi, Larry and all - In a message dated 9/30/04 7:49:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > Hi, Larry - > > Yet a couple more thoughts: Impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and > not-self, are nominalized terms for certain relations, I think. Impermanence > for > the relation between an earlier mindstate and a later one of a particular > feature being present in the earlier, and be absent in the later. > Unsatisfactoriness for the relation between dhammas and mindstates of not > satisfying. Not-self > for the relation of conditionality. These relations are realities, though > not > of the same sort as the paramattha dhammas related by them. For > non-arahants, > certainly for worldlings, they are known only conceptually, by inference. > For > higher ariyans, I would suspect they are know directly, by means of pa~n~na > > With metta, > Howard ============================== I think that understanding relations as they really are may be very important. We are likely, I think, to make "things" out of them in our thoughts, and that kind of reification may be even more dangerous than our reifying paramattha dhammas such as hardness and sights (visual objects). Paramattha dhammas, though dependent and not self-existent entities, are still reasonably described as actual, observable events, and there is not as much danger in thinking of them as things. But relations are different. In the same way that Nagarjuna, in his first chapter of MMK accepts conditions for phenomena as actualities, due to objectivity and regularity of preoccurrence or of co-occurrence, and their explanatory usefulness, but dismisses "causes", by which he means phenomena that have a hidden "causal power" connecting them to the "caused" phenomenon, so should we view relations as matters of objective and regular correlations that can be properly made, without any substantial "relation-things" being involved. We should treat relations in general in the same matter-of-fact way that the Buddha treated conditionality in the suttas, in terms of objectivity, regularity, dependability etc. So, there is, for example, a general preamble to one formulation of dependent origination along the lines of "When this is, that is. When this arises, that arises" - a matter-of-fact statement, without reliance on presumption of occult powers. It seems to me that this is also very much the non-substantialist flavor of the Patthana book of Abhidhamma. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37146 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner18-Contact / Phassa(d) Hi Howard Just butting in --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Nina) - ... > ================================ > The foregoing displays, I believe, a subtle difference between > Abhidhamma Pitaka and Sutta Pitaka. > In the suttas, it is said that sense-door object and > (activated/energized/arisen) sense organ serve to condition > corresponding sense consciousness, > and *the coming together of the three* is contact. But here contact > seems to > be presented as a subtle, mental, kammic formation - a formation within > sankharakkhandha - which *manifests* as that convergence, i.e., which is > a needed > condition for the convergence of the three. As Nina writes, for example: > "When > there is the concurrence of body-sense, a tangible object such as > hardness and > the experience of hardness, there is the manifestation of body-contact." > > Do you see the difference? In the suttas contact is the > convergence, > itself - the event of concurrence, whereas in Abhidhamma it is a dhamma > that is a condition for that. I agree that the term 'contact' is used differently in the suttas than in the Abhidhamma (and the same goes for certain other terms also). But I think if we consider each carefully it becomes apparent that there is no actual inconsistency. In the Abhidhamma, 'contact' is one of the universal cetasikas, meaning that it arises with every citta, while in the sutta passage you mention contact is used to refer to the moment when sense-door consciousness experiences the sense-door object. I think these 2 usages can sit happily together, although it may take some getting used to the 'abhidhamma' approach. Jon 37147 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warning - controversial post / TG Hi TG Nice to see you around again ;-)). Just butting in. --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Ken H ... > There is zero evidence in the Suttas that the Buddha had any kind of > goal in > mind for us to see things as "Dhammas." (Although the opposite can be > pointed to.) I agree that the teachings are not about seeing *things* as dhammas. But I think they are very much about seeing *dhammas* as dhammas. Is this the point you are making here? I'm not sure what you mean by "the opposite can be pointed to"; perhaps you could give a reference? Jon 37148 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner21-Contact /Phassa(g) Hi again TG Hope I'm not too late to come in on this one ;-)) --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Sarah > > A couple of questions below if you will indulge..... ... > TG: #1 Could you explain why "it has to fall away"? I'm hoping to get > actual reasons, not a statement along the lines of...."all things are > impermanent" > or that "cittas are extremely short lived." Actual reasons, and if you > don't know that's fine too. I don't have a reference to hand, but from memory the Buddha said that everything that is of the nature to arise must fall away. So things fall away because they arise. And why do they arise? Because of conditions ;-)). (Of course, this is just parrotting; I make no claim to knowledge by direct experience.) > #2 If I turn on and off a light switch, am I not forcing visual > consciousness to arise? (given that an organisim is present that can > experience visual contact.) If the eyes are open while this is going on, then visual consciousness is arising all the time, regardless of whether the light is on or off. Jon 37149 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/1/04 5:18:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Hi, Howard > > My apologies to you and others for coming back on posts from a week or > more ago, but have not had a chance until now. A general holiday today > (Chinese national day) gives me a chance to do some catching up. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >========================== > > For me there is an advantage. The term 'content' (for me) lacks a > > connotation of of independence/self-existence moreso than does the term > >'object'. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > Yes, and I can see that that 'experiential content' would be more > comfortable from a phenomenological point of view. ;-)) > > But 'content' may carry other connotations, such as being a part of, or > something included within, a bigger whole, in this case 'experience' > (however one understands that term, whether as a noun or a verb). Such a > way of thinking would run counter to the emphasis otherwise found in the > texts of dhammas as being at all times separately and individually > knowable to panna. It is I think significant that sense-door > consciousness and the object of sense-door consciousness are in separate > categories under various different classifications of dhammas (e.g., as > khandhas, elements, sense-bases, foundations of mindfulness), with the > emphasis on these different categories each being knowable to, and to be > known by, insight knowledge. > > Jon > ========================== The cautionary you give on the use of 'content' has merit. Language ceratinly has its problems! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37150 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sunrises and Sunsets - Input 2 Hello J, and all > My response is personal and not intended to cause > reaction. My current path includes "sitting" at > sunrise and sunset in the outdoors. This is my > Buddhist Altar these days and in a very urban setting. > My goal is simplicity. I don't count breaths, I don't > focus on any topic, just waiting with the sunrise and > sunset. Ph: Ah, sounds good. Simplicity appeals to me as well. I have a feeling some discussions at this group would lead one to conclude that abhidhamma is not about simplicity, but it really is if one doesn't hold on to any need to over-analyze. When I was talking with one of our members, Robert K, we agreed that ironically enough, abhidhamma has a certain affinity with zen. They are both about direct experience, a freedom from language. We give names to the paramattha dhammas that are catalogued and categorized in abhidhamma, but this is not an end in itself. When we come to consider them in daily life, it is as essences, momentary realities, not as Pali words, though there surely is some clinging to the terms. It doesn't have to stay that way. > I have had a variety of experiences and realizations > as a result with no hooks. As a personal challenge I > have been dealing with anger reactions most of my life > and in this current activity a new sense of peace and > serenity has emerged and the angry reactions are > disappearing. (I wish I could say it was perfect > but...). Ph: As I've often posted here, one of my two big hindrances is anger. Since coming across abhidhamma and with its help seeing through to a better understanding of anatta, the anger has been very, very rare, though there is no vowing not to speak angry words, like I used to, in vain. Through abhidhamma I have come to see people as they are in absolute terms, rupa and nama, and there is nothing to get angry at there. And we can hold on to an appreciation of people in conventiional terms. I feel more affection towards people than ever thanks to better understanding the way we are all in the same boat, at the mercy of conditions but doing whatever we can to deal with the hardship of being human. Abhidhamma helps me to better understand obstructions to metta. > >> Now having shared all that I am aware that there are > many paths to enlightenment and to each his own. One > might consider me an elder now in my 70s and I have > learned finally not to go where things make my brain > hurt. Mostly I am letting go of many things, that is > just my path these days. Ph: Abhidhamma is very liberating in the sense of "letting go." Yes, at times, there can be this clinging to terminology, but for someone like yourself who is fond of letting go, letting go will not be a problem. I'm pretty good at letting go here, if I say so myself. When there is a post that threatens to give me a headache, and there are many, I let go of it in a hurry and move on to.....reading my past posts! (haha) May I recommend that you let go of this group for awhile, but don't let go of abhidhamma just yet? When I first came here and was absolutely flabbergasted by the heavy discussions it was reading Nina's books that really grabbed me. I think I made a very wise decision by reading her "Perfections" along with her more well-known and, for the neophyte, a wee bit heavier going "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." Alternating a chapter at a time. And when I was into them, I came back to the group, and asked Nina some questions. She was (and still is) so kind and supportive. Certainly didn't (doesn't) make my brain hurt. Here is a contents page that contains links to the two books I mentioned. Reading them, getting into the flavour of abhidhamma through them - I have faith that you'll see that abhidhamma doesn't have to make the brain hurt. It's very liberating, very beautiful, very gentle. http://abhidhamma.org/contents.htm Metta, Phil 37151 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/1/04 5:25:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Now putting aside for the moment such considerations as the possibility of > misinterpretation by others (since all of us here are alert to this danger > and can > discount it for the purpose of the present discussion), is it not correct to > say that the > citta experiences the object of citta? > ========================= No, that formulation is not one that I accept as useful. When there is the experience of hardness, what I believe is the case is that hardness is present. The hardness is rupa and its (experiential) presence is vi~n~nana [in the harmless, non-self sense]. I find speaking of a citta experiencing an object as putting forward two self-existing entities in which the first is an agent that cognizes the second, and this makes "the citta" into an actor - a homunculus, a little person". That's how I see it, and it has no appeal to me. But that's me. Obviously you see it differently. That's fine. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37152 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:52am Subject: Deeds of Merit - meditation subjects in daily life Hello all, More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket available at zolag.co.uk and abhidhamma.org. "W" in the following exchange with K Sujin is Ms. Wandhana. W: Which subject among the forty meditation subjects do you think we should recollect in our daily life? Which subjects are suitable as a condition for the development of calm with the purpose of subduing defilements? This is another level of kusala besides the levels of daana, generosity, and siila, morality. S. : The monks are accustomed to practise continuously, for a long time, four meditation subjects of samatha, in order to have calm of citta and to subdue defilements which can disturb them. Laypeople can also practise these four meditation subjects. The Dhamma and the Vinaya which the monks practise can also be applied by layfollowers in their own situation, as a means of subduing defilements. W. : What are these four meditation subjects? S. : Recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa (loving kindness), perception of repulsiveness and mindfulness of death. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 37153 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Cetasikas' study corner18-Contact / Phassa(d) Hi, Sarah - I had spent about 25 minutes in crafting a detailed reply to the following post of yours, the gist of which was to stick by my seeing a difference on thos point between sutta and abhidhamma, and before sending it, Windows froze up and I lost my post. At htis point, I really don't have the "stomach" to attempt to recover what I had written, so I'm going to let it go, at least for now. Sorry. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/1/04 6:35:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > > Hi Howard &All, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >>[Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] > >>***** > >> We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length > >>sayings I, no. 18) that Maha-kaccana explained to the monks concerning > >>contact: > >> > >>-This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your reverences, when > >>-there is visible object, when there is visual consciousness, one will > >>-recognise the manifestation of sensory impingement (phassa)... > >> > >>When there is the concurrence of the ear, sound and > >hearing-consciousness, > >>there is the manifestation of ear-contact. When there is the > <...> > H:> The foregoing displays, I believe, a subtle difference between > >Abhidhamma Pitaka and Sutta Pitaka. > > In the suttas, it is said that sense-door object and > >(activated/energized/arisen) sense organ serve to condition > >corresponding sense consciousness, > >and *the coming together of the three* is contact. But here contact > >seems to > >be presented as a subtle, mental, kammic formation - a formation within > >sankharakkhandha - which *manifests* as that convergence, i.e., which is > >a needed > >condition for the convergence of the three. As Nina writes, for example: > >"When > >there is the concurrence of body-sense, a tangible object such as > >hardness and > >the experience of hardness, there is the manifestation of body-contact." > .... > S: I think it depends how the suttas are understood again. > >*the coming together of the three* is contact. > > Simply put, without an experiencing of the object with the mental factor > phassa contacting the object, there would be no 'coming together'. The > rupas would not be experienced. Remember, rupas are only experienced. Nina > already replied and I'd like you to take another look at a post I wrote > ages ago to you on phassa, concerning > some arguments of Prof Kalupahana's which I thought were inaccurate. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27298 > > Please let me know if you're still not satisfied as I think it's an > important area, esp. as we're almost at the end of the ch on phassa > cetasika. > > You mention in the suttas that 'contact is the convergence', but remember, > we're talking about realities/actualities and the only realities here are > cittas, cetasikas and rupas. So which would such a convergence be? > > By the way, I thought your answer to TG on the 'why' qu was very good > (37001) and thank you for helping out there;-).TG, let me know if there > was anything else. No entity, but there is a reality, phassa, which has > particular characteristics different from other mental factors, touching > or contacting the object. The characteristic of contacting is phassa. > > On your discussion with RobM on 'whatever in the cosmos....'That do I > know'. Whatever the Buddha puts his mind to, that he knows with his > omniscient wisdom. > > metta, > > Sarah > p.s we briefly discussed the bhikkhu giving up ties to family etc and you > mentioned the Buddha. Perhaps we can say, giving up all ties of a > household nature or as a family member, don't you think? > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37154 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 7:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Pleasant Abiding, Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Htoo, N: Also someone who is a sukkhavipassaka, with dry insight, experiences > nibbaana with samaadhi of the degree of attainment concentration. The reason ...snip... and develop understanding ourselves. You are always an example for me,having so much equanimity, not minding whether people react or not, or even when they dislike what you write. With appreciation, Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Thanks for your kind words and reply to me. May you be free from any suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37155 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 8:37am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 23 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, All jhanas have been discussed as a basic level. In terms of jhana factors jhanas are classified to have 5 jhanas. All arupa jhanas do have the same jhana factors like 5th rupa jhana. So all arupa jhanas can be assumed as 5th rupa jhanas. Other classification is that there are 4 rupa jhanas and 4 arupa jhanas. So there are in total 8 jhanas. When rupa jhanas are said to exist as 4 in number, it is in accordance with suttanta dhamma or suttanta pitaka. These 4 rupa jhanas are also fit with rupa jhana bhumis. More importantly, it is more practical to count rupa jhanas as four rather than five. Because when the 1st jhana is contemplated and higher jhanas are tried, it is hard to leave only vitakka jhana factor. When it is tried, vicara seems to leave jhana and it is sound like that after 1st jhana, 3rd jhana is achieved. But when counted as 4 rupa jhanas, it fits with four. This series 'Jhana Journey' is started with 'Odata' kasina or while kasina. Those who have achieved 5th rupa jhana, it is not hard to attain all rupa jhanas with other kasinas. When odata kasina or white kasina has been preactised well and the practitioner is proficient in white kasina developing jhana, then he can start other kasinas as well. Other colour kasinas are lohita kasina or red colour kasina, pita kasina or golden colour or yellow colour kasina, nila kasina or brown colour kasina. These kasinas have to be started from the initial stage that is cultivating on parikamma nimitta which is real visual object right in front of the eyes. As the practitioner has already attained all jhanas, this initiation does not take long and soon uggaha nimitta arises. At that time his concentration or samadhi is said to be paikamma samadhi or preparatory ocncentration. From this nimitta, there arise another nimitta in mind that is very similar to uggaha nimitta or mental image. That new image appearing in the mind is called patibhaga nimitta or counter image. As soon as this patibhaga nimitta arises, the samadhi of the practitioner is called upacara samadhi or proximate concentration. At that time there is no more hindrances. As he has had all jhana, it does not take long to develop appana samadhi and soon he develops the 1st jhana with a new colour kasina. As in case of odata kasina or white kasina, he has to contemplate, access and dwell, determine, emerge, and scrutinize on the achieved jhana and through these exercises, the weakest factor in jhana is found and he tries to remove it from the jhana factors and this leads to higher and higher jhana and finally he attains the 5th rupa jhana with that new kasina. After completion of 4 colour kasinas of white, red, yellow, and brown or odata, lohita, pita and nila, then he moves to 4 elementary kasinas one after another. These four elementary kasinas are earth kasina or pathavi kasina, fire kasina or tejo kasina, wind kasina or vayo kasina, and water kasina or apo kasina. For completeness, he has to try another 2 kasinas. One is aloka kasina or light spot kasina and another kasina is akasa kasina or bounded space kasina. After complettion of all 10 kasinas jhana practitioner is ready to refine all of his jhanas through repeated exercise and practice. Asubha kammatthana can give rise to 1st jhana as does kayagatasati kammatthana. Anapanassati kammatthana can give rise to full jhanas that is all 5 rupa jhanas. Metta, karuna, mudita brahmavihara kammatthanas can give rise to up to 4th rupa jhanas. After proficiency of 4th rupa jhana has been achieved, the practitioner has to practise upekkha brahmavihara to develop 5th rupa jhana. Aruppa kammatthanas can practised only by those who have attained all rupa jhana and have practised kasina kammatthanas. As has been described, the 1st arupa jhana arises when the 5th rupa jhana object has been removed and voided leaving boundless space. From this 1st arupa jhana, other three arupa jhana have to arise without any rupa as bases. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37156 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 8:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deeds of Merit - importance of samatha Hey Phil, > Ph> ...because wholesome and unwholesome factors always arise pell-mell. Yep, it is all just passing thru. ---- > > Ph> People who decide to develop jhanas because they know that if > they don't they won't get the full benefits of the Buddha's > teaching. There is self seeking benefits, I'm sure, a lot of the > time. E> OK Phil, I touched on this with Sukin. There are > Right Aspirations that can come from 'self'. If the > conceit 'I Am' is not eradicated till Arahantship, then > EVERYONE before that operates from 'self'. There is either > good kamma or bad kamma at this stage. Wanting (chanda) good > things (jhana) at this stage is a wholesome desire. Ph: Thanks for putting this so succinctly. It's something I've babbled at great length to Sarah about, without ever reaching a conclusion. Technically speaking, this "I am" wrong view is eradicated at Sotapanna rather than Arahant, if I'm not mistaken, but even then I see your point. That is personality view. The conceit 'I Am' is the last to go according to the books. pH> But understanding this in theory and sitting like I have done at times in recent weeks and feeling downright silly to be doing such an unnatural, results-oriented activity is different. I hear you. Then sit with that. 'Who' feels this? Why should this arise if one is just being quiet with oneself. I mean, what is so silly to be alone with just Phil? For me, I can create rapture. I have developed a skill whereby I do not depend upon any outside object for my 'pleasure'. There is an innate satisfaction within the mind that is not dependent upon the 'external' world. (This took a few years to cultivate while sitting.) Seeing this has allowed me to loosen my grasp on the entices of the world. I find during the day that my awareness hovers close to the body and that feeling of goodness is there. No need to go looking for it. PH> But yes, I do see what you mean. I think there is possibly value in this kind of aspiration, even if fuelled by self. At the beginning. Stress on possibly. I really don't know yet. I think the purpose of this post for me was to remind myself that it would be wrong to close the door to any new directions in understanding that come my way. Conditions may arise that find me sitting again. I am open to it. It is a hard practice. It is so much easier to go from sense object to thought looking for the things that please us. The mind fights hard to be trained giving every excuse imaginable. Maybe I will go for a walk or turn on the TV or call a friend or read a book. Diversion upon diversion. Who wants to sit down close the eyes and just watch (boring!) and do battle with the hindrances. But there is no way around it, the 'self' must be dismantled and seen thru. If anyone else knows a shortcut, I am all ears! >> PH: The reason I have trouble sitting now is that I clearly sense > self behind it. E> Fine, sit with that. Learn about that and then > try and deconstruct that sense of self in whatever > fashion you find it. Ph: I can see this too. When I was sitting with attention on the breath there were some moments when I sensed how everything hinged on the next breath, and it gave me some very helpful (although crude) insight into the three characteristics. That is right. But what is interesting is we can use the inconstancy to create a wholesome state of mind. It seems you have to get to the unconditioned via the wholesome. --- E> "Deconstruct that sense of self in whatever fashion you find fit." Ph>That's a good line. That's what we're all trying to do, and we should respect and encourage each other no matter whether we sit, stand walk or run. Indeed! PEACE E 37157 From: Ken O Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi Nori why observe the breath only. Do you mean the other six senses are not working while you are awake. :) dont get stuck to breath because when your attention goes to the other senses, they also exhibit the same characterisitcs as anatta and anicca. thats all Ken O 37158 From: Ken O Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hi Dighanakha To each his own. Even if we will to write till the cow comes home, it will not a single difference to say these are reliable or not. Anyway most of the texts are written after a few centuries - so what is reliable - only one understanding and faith from the text we read. Only then we can say which reliable and that I leave you to your discretion. I always find it a tedious task to explain authenticity of text as I am not interest in dhamma as a historian or an intellect, I am a practitioner. It difficult to accept abdhidhamma because there is little faith due to historical reason and not because of our open minded to try to understand its value. My personal opinion, in fact, a lot of sutta cannot be translated into english without the help of Abdhidhamma because it was Abdhidhamma that explain the term in the concise manner not found in any other texts. Ken O --- dighanakha wrote: > Hello Robert. > > R> I understand that you wish to prove that the commentaries > R> composed by Buddhaghosa and also the earlier texts such as > R> Milindapanha are not to be trusted > > In the case of the Milindapanha I did not seek to prove anything > about the work as a whole. I discussed only the Amara Dialogue, > in response to Sarah asking what I thought of it. > > Whether the work as a whole can be trusted depends on what you > mean by this. On this list I notice that terms like > 'trustworthy', 'authentic', 'genuine' -- and their opposites -- > are often tossed about with very little precision; texts are > designated by one or another of these terms without the writer > making it clear just what he means by them. > > On the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, the Pali > Milindapanha is a composite text. It consists of an older portion > (parts II & III, and a small section of part I) and a later one > (parts IV to VII and the legendary material in part I). The older > portion can probably be trusted as an accurate account of how the > Dhamma was understood by the 1st century Sarvastivadins of > Kashmir. The later portion is a Southern Indian or Sinhalese > appendage and can probably be trusted as an accurate account of > how the Dhamma was understood in Anuradhapura in the 5th > century, and perhaps for a century and a half before this. > > But if by 'trustworthy' you mean is it faithful to the Buddha's > teaching, then I would say that this needs to be decided on a > dialogue-by-dialogue basis. My overall assessment is that most of > the positions defended by "Nagasena" are faithful to the Suttas, > but in the Sinhalese sections they are often defended by patently > dishonest arguments. Fortunately the author's eristic > repertoire is fairly narrow, so an alert reader should have no > problem separating the wheat from the chaff. > > From an historian's point of view the value of the Milindapanha > (or rather, of sections II & III of it) is that it provides a > glimpse of an important midway stage in the development of > Buddhist doctrine: the great councils have been concluded, all > the non-Mahayana schools have closed their canons, but Abhidharma > is still mainly a categorial affair; systematic Abhidharma, such > as one finds in the Mahavihara Commentaries, is barely in its > infancy. So here the Milindapanha can be trusted as an important > historical source. > > Moving on now to Buddhaghosa. Rather than confine ourselves to > him, perhaps it would be more convenient just to speak of the > Mahavihara commentators (MaCs) en bloc, since the points of > disagreement between Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala and Mahanama > are not very substantial. > > Here too it is not my intention to prove that these authors > "cannot be trusted." I am too much of a vibhajjavadin to resort > to such a blanket judgment about authors whose writings range > over such a huge field. The following is a brief summary of > what I would consider worthwhile and worthless in these writers' > oevre: > > GRAMMAR: completely reliable. > > I seldom study a Sutta without having its commentary at my elbow. > The MaCs were excellent grammarians and I rarely have reason to > doubt the way that they unravel the syntax of a complex sentence > or analyse the case relations in a compound word. > > WORD EXPLANATIONS: of mixed reliability. > > Reliable when they are doing exegesis (drawing out the meaning > that words and phrases would have had for the Buddha's audience); > unreliable when doing eisegesis (reading what they want into a > text). To ascertain which is which one needs to study the history > of the development of Buddhist thought so as to know which ideas > are early and which evolved later. > > BUDDHIST HISTORY: highly unreliable. > > The MaCs were not Herodotuses. The Mahavamsa, the historical > portions of the Samantapasadika and the Kathavatthu Commentary > should be read not as history but as sectarian legend aimed at > painting their own side white and their rivals black. If one is > concerned with truth rather than just finding confirmation for > the things one already believes, then Buddhist history should be > learned from those who have taken into account the full range of > historically relevant data. Lamotte's History of Indian Buddhism > is probably the best place to begin. > > VINAYA: mostly reliable. > > Occasionally Buddhaghosa appears intent on proving the > correctness of the received manner of Vinaya observance of the > Mahavihara, no matter how at odds this is with the Buddha's own > adjudications. But such cases are exceptional; mostly his opinions > are reasonable and his jurisprudence sound. > > SUTTA: of mixed reliability. > > See remark above on exegesis vs eisegesis. Besides their > eisegesis, another cause of unreliability is the MaCs' > humourlessness, philistinism, and literalistic treatment > of the rhetorical and satirical devices the Buddha > sometimes employs. > > ABHIDHAMMA: almost completely unreliable. > > The Abhidhamma of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and that of the MaCs > share many of the same terms but otherwise have virtually nothing > to do with each other. Canonical Abhidhamma is a work of genius; > the Commentarial system, reduced to its essential features, could > have been concocted by any third-rate thinker familiar with Plato > and Locke, without knowing anything about Buddhism at all. > > HARD SCIENCES & SOCIAL THEORY: completely unreliable. > > The MaCs' contribution to the sciences clearly bears the stamp of > its time and appears to be the product of speculation rather than > observation, or else is just the reporting of received opinion > and prejudice. Whether this has any serious consequences for what > they have to say on the Dhamma is an interesting question. It > seems to me that it does at least throw their conception of > paramattha dhammas into a parlous state. Every paramattha dhamma, > it is claimed, has a sabhava. And that sabhava is partly > constituted by the dhamma's NAME. Not just any old name that > people might care to give it, but its name in the dialect of > Magadha, which is its true and absolute name. How seriously can > one take a claim like this, coming as it does in the very same > paragraph as a claim that Magadhan is the root language of all > living beings and will be spoken by wolf-children? > > I need to go out now, and will continue later with the rest of > your post. > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker > _____________________________ > Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: > 'everything is not pleasing to me.' > (Dighanakha Sutta) 37159 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi, Ken (and Nori) - In a message dated 10/1/04 12:58:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > > Hi Nori > > why observe the breath only. Do you mean the other six senses are > not working while you are awake. :) > > dont get stuck to breath because when your attention goes to the > other senses, they also exhibit the same characterisitcs as anatta > and anicca. > > thats all > > Ken O > ============================ It is a matter of cultivating increased calm and concentration, which in turn enable greater mental clarity. Indeed, the calm and equanimity resulting from the 4th jhana are optimal for investigation of dhammas, according to the Buddha. But breath as primary area of focus is not entirely unique. Bodily sensations is a wonderful area of restricted attention. Breath is special in some ways, but not unique. One way in which breath is special is the following: When attending to breath, as calm increases the breath becomes more subtle and fine. That increased subtlety calls for greater attention in order to maintain clarity, which then leads to still greater calm and concentration. Continuing in this fashion makes the mind quite powerful and a fit instrument. Another advantage of the breath as object as compared to kasinas and mantras, for example, is that breath arises on its own, not requiring volition for its maintainence. Also, as mental clarity grows, the breath as conventional object is seen through to the actual constituents of earth, air, fire, and water, to use old-fashioned terminology. On the other hand, much Ch'an meditation is along the lines of choiceless awareness that you are urging, Ken, and I agree that there is much sense to that. However, I think that choiceless awareness is actually a more advanced form of meditation, one which is suitable when following, piggy-backed upon, a more focussed mode of meditating, or which is suitable adopted by a person who has, by prior cultivation, reached a stage at which the mind is continually a powerful enough tool to make good direct use of it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37160 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L, op 27-09-2004 18:15 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > AL: So there has to be another way to >>> acquire this right view. I won't say I know how to do it, but the >>> same goes for view of mother and father, possibly that of there > being >>> this world and the next world. It seems there should be some > kind of >>> direct understanding or vision of things as they are. N: I came across a text about father and mother. M.III, no 117, The Great Forty. This is about different kinds of right view. Right understanding of kamma and vipaaka. At least we know now the meaning of this sentence. I have to be off, Nina. 37161 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 4:13pm Subject: Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hello all Another brief passage from Nina's "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" http://abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm "The Bodhisatta did not merely think "I resolve to attain Buddhahood", he developed all the conditions to reach the goal, he developed understanding of the realities appearing at the present moment. He was resolute with regard to the present moment. We need determination for the development of all the perfections; determination serves as their foundation. The perfections have to be developed together with right understanding of nama and rupa, so that there will be conditions to eventually attain enlightenment. Where there is mindfulness of the nama or rupa which appears now we actually develop the perfection of determination, aditthana, without there being the need to think, "I have to develop determination." PH: "Where there is mindfulness of the nama or rupa which appears now we actually develop the perfection of determination, aditthana, without there being the need to think, "I have to develop determination." Reading this makes me wonder what the difference is between the perfection of determination, and that of energy, because the description o the perfection off energy that follows later in the book is almost identical to the above sentence, if I recall correctly. Metta, Phil 37162 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Intro Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika. Hi Matt, I've been trying to think of why we would like something that arises with a neutral feeling and the only thing I can come up with is we like it because we like the pleasant feeling of liking it. This happens occasionally but generally it is an unsatisfactory answer. One thing I am pretty sure of is we don't particularly like neutral feeling and we almost always like pleasant feeling. Is there anything other than pleasant feeling that is likable, not counting pervisions? If so, what's to like about it? Larry 37163 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 4:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > Hi Andrew > Re: Perfections Phil, I also think the perfections are very inspiring and can sort of differentiate us from those 'every-day lifers' as people who abide in these virtues or good qualities of human kind instead of the usual. For me, renunciation means not looking out for hamburgers and sex, as I've been told is very important and normal, but abiding to seek a higher happiness. I imagine the other pefections are very similar. > > I think what the Buddha taught more explicitly about what we need to work > on are the 37 factors. I googled them: > > 37 Factors of Enlightenment or Wings of Awakening > (bodhipakkhiya-dhammá) > The set of teachings that the Buddha himself said formed the heart of his > message. > Four Foundations of Mindfulness (satipatthana) > Four Right Efforts (sammappadhana) > Four Bases of Power (iddhipada) > Five Faculties (indriya) > Five Strengths (bala) > Seven Factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga) > Eight Fold Path (ariya-magga) > Right on. As I've planned on practising from a commentary by Venerable U. Silananda, it's the four foundations of mindfulness, which includes the seven factors of enlightenment and ways of cultivating each, eg contemplation on the woeful states for energy, contemplation on the triple gem or recollection of the deities or virtue for rapture, and the Noble Eightfold Path in the contemplation of dhammas. -a.l. 37164 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:11pm Subject: Science/Truth (1)Herman, Dighanka Dear Herman and Dighanaka and all, I started this letter to Herman because I think he feels the Dhamma should be amenable to western science. Herman:"As long as I can think scientifically, I will apply scientific standards, ". I have to be upfront and say I am not especially impressed by science. It is surely the outstanding cutural achievement of the west - but when I compare it with the Dhamma of the Buddha it seems more like stamp collecting than an investigation into what is real and crucial. I am also convinced that the ancient sangha, including the monks at the Mahavihara in Sri lanka preserved the true Dhamma: I value their words far, far more than that of historians of the 20th century. Now to the main discussion. Herman, you have written that you don't believe in rebirth. You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death…but would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). He finds it "odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function" (p.37). However, Batchelors reliance on science for answers about what happens after death etc. has its own problems. Scientists, despite their metaphysically neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was a chance occurence. The big bang occured (no one knows why or what were the conditions ) and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter came together to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form amino acids. These then formed complex proteins, which later formed bacteria. Life all arose out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why? Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). Recently Dighanaka gave us a link to one of Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) book, and it is useful to know what Dawkins beliefs are as I want to compare them later with Dighanaka's comments about the Aganna sutta. Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, pp.344-345). Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism-of much of science, in short-that has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). So this is where we (the 'west') have arrived at in our thinking. It is not a pretty, or even philosphically sound, place in my opinion. More in the next post. RobertK 37165 From: Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 6:00pm Subject: object of jhana/ Htoo Hi Htoo, You may find this of interest. Perhaps Nina or Suan could give Pali references since you probably don't have this translation. Visuddhimagga III, 117 'As to object': of these forty meditation subjects, twenty-two have counterpart signs as object, that is to say, the ten kasinas, the ten kinds of foulness, mindfulness of breathing, and mindfulness occupied with the body; the rest do not have counterpart signs as object. Then twelve have states consisting in individual essences as object, that is to say, eight of the ten recollections-- except mindfulness of breathing and mindfulness occupied with the body--. the perception of repulsiveness in nutriment, the defining of the elements, the base consisting of boundless consciousness, and the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception; and twenty-two have [counterpart] signs as object, that is to say, the ten kasinas, the ten kinds of foulness, mindfulness of breathing, and mindfulness occupied with the body; while the remaining six have 'not-so-classifiable'32 objects. Then eight have mobile objects in the early stage though the counterpart is stationary, that is to say, the festering, the bleeding, the worm-infested, mindfulness of breathing, the water kasina, the fire kasina, the air kasina, and in the case of the light kasina the object consisting of a circle of sunlight, etc.; the rest have immobile objects. This is 'as to object'. ----------------------- Note 32. Na-vattaba-- 'not so classifiable' is an Abhidhamma shorthand term for something that, when considered under one of the triads or dyads of the Abhidhamma Maatikaa (Dhs., p. 1f.) cannot be placed under any one of the three, or two, headings. Larry 37166 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 1:17am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (1)Herman, Dighanka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > (snip) > So this is where we (the 'west') have arrived at in our thinking. It > is not a pretty, or even philosphically sound, place in my opinion. > > RobertK Hallo RobertK Joop: The world, this planet, any planet, is not a pretty, or even philosphically sound, place at all. That's one fact; the second is that neo-darwinism and other 'results' of natural science are only theories: the best model to explain different physical phenomena. Of course the man you quoted have to big ego's, but that's not important. Your way of reasoning is past-oriented, it's the same way of reasoning as american christian-fundamentalists have. I prefer a future-directed one in which new knowledge and old knowledge (=the Tipitaka) are combined. Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him the relation between science and buddhism. See http://www.mindandlife.org/ It's a pity Tibetan buddhism has such activities and Theravada hardly. Metta Joop 37167 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa Hi Matt Thanks for this. I'm learning (and relearning) a lot from your posts. > P:> As far as I know, abhidhamma says that the sense processes are the same, > whether it's seeing, say, or hearing, or smell. But we know from science and > we can confirm from our own experience that the olfactory sense follows a > different path in the brain than other senses. > > ========================== > > Citta is diverted to a particular sense-door, which is different to the > other > sense-doors. The citta that experiences the object in one door cannot > experience an object in any of the other doors and the sense door process > that follows can only happen in that door not in any other. That's makes > them all different and they follow different paths. Well, I guess it's in the emotive area, in mental feeling, that the olfactory reaction is different. Or in terms of the rupa of the sense organ. I really wouldn't want to think too deeply about it - that's not my way. But it seems to me that the olfactory sense process is different in some dramatic emotive way from hearing, for example, and that the difference can't be explained by Dhamma, only by science, that this is not due to accumulations, because it is the same for all people - it is based on neurology. I guess my point was that we needn't be distracted from the truth of Dhamma if it doesn't click with out investigation of phenomena from a scientific angle. Dhamma is a system of beliefs that liberates people from suffering. It's beyond science, in that sense. So I guess I believe in "Buddhism without 'Buddhism without Beliefs' " ;) Metta, Phil P.S This is not directed at you, Matt, or anyone in particular. No need to reply. 37168 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka ---Dear Herman, Dighanaka, Joop and all, (Herman thnaks for your off-list comments and encouragement to continue writing about this) Joop replied to my earlier http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/37164 post and said "Your way of reasoning is past-oriented, it's the same way of reasoning as american christian-fundamentalists have". It does seem primitive does it not? Among the many sophisticated people of the contemporary world there are still are few stubborn (and some would say simple-minded) folk who take to heart the teachings of the ancients. Could they even be dangerous, after all Plato recommended execution for for anyone refusing to see the impossibility of matter alone producing life! (Plato Laws 909a). What if the Buddhist worldview caught on and people like me got in power! But I think we do not need to worry about this, the sasana is in a slow decline, I think it will be gradually diluted and mixed with other ideas (I hope this comment explains why I am not keen on your idea Joop: "I prefer a future-directed one in which new knowledge and old knowledge (=the Tipitaka) are combined""). Anyway I want to go back to the Aganna sutta and the comments Dighanaka made. Digha Nikaya, Aganna sutta: "Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when after a long period of time this world contracts [and is eventually destroyed]. When the world contracts beings are for the most part born in the realm of Radiance There they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; thus they remain for a long, long time. [ In this realm there is no mattter they are arupa sattas ] Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when after a long period of time this world[starts again and] expands. When the world expands beings for the most part fall from the realm of Radiance and come here [to this realm]; and they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self- luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; thus they remain for a long, long time. "" Dighanaka said about the Aganna sutta that "Richard Gombrich has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody , Buddhaghosa, unfortunately, saw neither the joke nor the allegory of the Aganna Sutta, took the whole thing literally, and left the Theravada tradition saddled with a creation story so laughable it makes the creationism of Christian fundamentalists seem like sound science.""enquote from Dighanaka. There goes that 'Christian fundamentalists' comparison again,( I am starting to sympathise with them). Actually I find it very implausible that the Aganna sutta was a joke or parody and think Buddhaghosa understood it well. We should remember that the Buddha only gave the merest hints of how universes arise and pass away. He wasn't trying to prove anything - especially not in a way acceptable to scientific methodology. But what we can take from the aganna sutta is (different from either Christian beliefs of a God who created it all, or scientic views of chance happenings,) that it all occurs due to various conditions and that there is no beginning to the arising and passing away. For the scientific minded perhaps they could also wonder about the mention of each universe unfolding after it begins and much much later contracting. Current astronomers are locked in a debate as to whether the universe will continue to expand and eventually completely fly apart - or whether it will reach equilibirum and then contract back in. The speed at which it is moving is so close to the balance point that nobody is sure which way it will go. (RobK is betting the house that those who say it will eventually fold in are right). Now I don't pretend to understand it all- I might have this wrong - , my main position is along the lines of Jon who recently said: "There are a number of statements in both the suttas and commentaries that taken literally would be inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge ..However, I do not consider that these differences lessen the reliability of the teachings on doctrinal matters. I tend to assume, based on my experience to date, that a clearer meaning will emerge in due course as understanding is further developed. ...it wouldn't for me be a cause for any doubt about the worth of the commentaries as a whole, because I find them to be totally consistent when it comes to doctrinal matters."" endquote from Jon. More to come later RobertK 37169 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vis. XIV, 102 and Tiika.nama/rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > > ========================== > > > > Citta is diverted to a particular sense-door, which is different to the > > other > > sense-doors. The citta that experiences the object in one door cannot > > experience an object in any of the other doors and the sense door process > > that follows can only happen in that door not in any other. That's makes > > them all different and they follow different paths. > > > Well, I guess it's in the emotive area, in mental feeling, that the > olfactory reaction is different. > Or in terms of the rupa of the sense organ. I really wouldn't want to think > too deeply > about it - that's not my way. But it seems to me that the olfactory sense > process is different in some > dramatic emotive way from hearing, for example, and that the difference > can't be explained > by Dhamma, only by science, ++++++++ Dear Matt and Phil, I have to say I can't detect any behavioural difference between the way the processes occur at the different doors. As Matt said they are all completely different doors. The Abhidhamma explains it for sure. RobertK p.s Matt - I wonder about using the wording "Citta is diverted to a particular sense-door". I know what you mean but it sounds like one citta moving from here to there when we know in fact that completely different cittas arise at each door. 37170 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 4:16am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka Hi Rob and all, I'm very relieved you got my reply :-). I realised after the fact that I had composed it while logged in as one of my chess-playing identities, which is not a member of DSG. By rights the software shouldn't have allowed me to post, but it did, and I thought I'd end up having to rewrite the thing again. It never seems as interesting the second time around :-) Back to the business at hand. > It does seem primitive does it not? Among the many sophisticated > people of the contemporary world there are still are few stubborn > (and some would say simple-minded) folk who take to heart the > teachings of the ancients. I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a claim. > Digha Nikaya, Aganna sutta: "Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when > after a long period of time this world contracts [and is eventually > destroyed]. When the world contracts beings are for the most part > born in the realm of Radiance There they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; > thus they remain for a long, long time. > [ In this realm there is no mattter they are arupa sattas ] Just wondering, the air these beings move through, is it not material? I can forgive the ancients for not considering air to be material, but we know otherwise, don't we? > "There are a number of statements in both the suttas and > commentaries that taken literally would be inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge ..However, I do not > consider that these differences lessen the reliability of the > teachings on doctrinal matters. I tend to assume, based on my experience to date, that a clearer meaning will emerge in due course as understanding is further developed. ...it wouldn't for me be a cause for any doubt about the worth of the commentaries as a whole, because I find them to be totally consistent when it comes to doctrinal matters."" Again I would say that there are many traditions with many doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, long time ago. Kind Regards Herman 37171 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 4:44am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > > Digha Nikaya, Aganna sutta: "Now there comes a time, Vasettha, > when > > after a long period of time this world contracts [and is > eventually > > destroyed]. When the world contracts beings are for the most part > > born in the realm of Radiance There they exist made of mind, > feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly > beautiful; > > thus they remain for a long, long time. > > [ In this realm there is no mattter they are arupa sattas ] > > Just wondering, the air these beings move through, is it not > material? I can forgive the ancients for not considering air to be > material, but we know otherwise, don't we? > > +++++++ Hi herman, Without looking at the pali I assume this must be a misunderstanding by the translator. Whatever the pali word is it can't - at least in this context - mean anything material like air. robk 37172 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:04am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop Dear Herman, Joop and all, Some more on science. Herman: There are many people who understand that there is no self at the > helm of all that takes place. David Hume, for one, wrote about this at > length. It is not a slight on the Buddha to suggest that others come to > similar realizations as him, independently'' As you say Hume did reach conclusions that bear some (superficial) resemblance to the teaching of anatta. "for my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other…I never can catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception" (Hume). However, anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be results and then other conditions coming together to assist the kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. It shatters illusion but it doesn't in any way lead to ethical nihilism because while there are still conditions there must be rebirth and the fruition of results.I would say kamma and rebirth are unavoidable aspects of anatta. And the incredible thing is someone (the Buddha) could comprehand the various conditioned and conditioning factors with detail and precision. Far, far above any ideas Hume ever had. Joop :"Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him the relation between science and buddhism."" Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an interest in Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think these are great for those scientists but it would be very much a one-way street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard to insight into mind. Philosopher of mind Collin McGinn writes in his summary of the different ideas: "The head spins in theoretical disarray; no explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre ontologies loom. There is a feeling of intense confusion, but no clear idea of where the confusion lies" (1993,). My favourite quote is the definition of consciousness in the International Dictionary of Psychology: "Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it" (cited in Crick, 1994, vii) RobertK 37173 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:04am Subject: Deeds of Merit - listening to Dhamma will never be old-fashioned Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.abhidhamma.org/meri3.html We now move to the final two deeds of merit to be considered - listening to Dhamma, and teaching Dhamma. S. : If people with a citta full of confidence in the Triple Gem go to the Temple in order to listen to the Dhamma and study the Dhamma, no matter whether in the Buddhas time, today or at any time, this is actually listening to the Dhamma which the Buddha penetrated at the time of his enlightenment and which he taught to others. Therefore, Buddhists should know that listening to the Dhamma and studying it is not something which is outdated. People who are not up to date do not know this, whereas people who know what listening to the Dhamma really means are not old fashioned. And what is more important, knowledge of the Dhamma is knowledge of the Truth the Buddha penetrated at the time of his enlightenment and preached to others, because he wished in his great compassion to help those who are living in this world. Knowledge of the Dhamma which the Buddha taught is more excellent than all the knowledge one can acquire from other people. (end quote) Ph: " people with a citta full of confidence in the Triple Gem..." This is what it all comes down to. We have it, or we don't. I would guess "citta full of" is not quite the correct way to put it, though.... Metta, Phil 37174 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/2/04 9:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > ... anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely > and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be > results and then other conditions coming together to assist the > kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the > round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and > conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - > it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. ========================== Very well said, Robert. I consider this point to be so important - the intimate connection between anatta and conditionality - that I snipped the foregoing out of the context of your post as a whole for purposes of emphasis. Dependent origination, both in its specific 12-link scheme of dependent origination of dukkha and in its general form of conditionality lies at the core of the Buddha's teaching, both within the Theravada and Mahayana traditions as does anattata/su~n~nata (shunyata) - its other face. While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" (and not be perplexed in including even highly enjoyable dhammas), and also "From craving arises trouble", and "All that I (the Buddha) teach is trouble, its arising, and its cessation", and also "Nibbana is the end of trouble". Any opinions on this, folks? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37175 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 7:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Intro Visuddhimagga XIV, 101. Dear Jon, Thank you, this helps me to better understand the worldly conditions Nina. op 01-10-2004 14:56 schreef jonoabb op jonoabb@y...: > Yes, beauty is the result of kamma, but it is not vipaka in the strict sense > of the term. > There are many things about this life that 'come with' the patisandhi citta > but which > do not necessarily involve direct sense-door experiences on our part: is our > life an > easy or a hard one, do we experience generally good health, are people > generally > kind and courteous to us, do we have any physical abnormalities, etc? All > these and > more are determined by past deeds, but are not themselves moments of vipaka. 37176 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 8:18am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > > > Yes, all cittas are real. However, the cuti-citta is different from > every other citta in the current lifetime. In my previous post, I > didn't want to say just how it was different because I would have > had to look up a textbook, and I was too lazy. I still am, sorry, > but I know the cuti-citta takes as its object a moment of kamma that > will dictate the circumstances in which the all cittas of the next > lifetime arise (in heaven, hell, animal world or human world etc.). > >++++++++ Dear Ken, Nice post, just to point out that cuti-citta takes the object from a previous life. It is the same type of citta and object as patisandhi and bhavanga cittas of this life. What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is during the process around the time of cuti-citta. Technical stuff, but helps us to see how automatic and unamenable to self control it is. So cuti-citta is coming - but it is going to no different from the bhavanga we experience every day. robk 37177 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 8:24am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka Dear Robert K, Herman, Howard, Nina and all Robert wrote: "Without looking at the pali I assume this must be a misunderstanding by the translator. Whatever the pali word is it can't - at least in this context - mean anything material like air." The Pali term used in the Aggañña Suttam is "antalikkhacaraa". Subcommentary comments on the term in Section 119, Paathikavaggo, iighanikaayo as follows: "antalikkhe aakaase carantiiti antalikkhacaraa". The term "aakaaso" does not mean air, I am afraid. Aakaaso means sky or space. When looking at the itemising of the Ten Kasi.nas in Visuddhimaggo, we find "Vaayo Kasi.na" (the Wind or Air kasi.na) and 'Aakaaso Kasi.na" (the Space Kasi.na) being separately listed. So the Pali term "antalikkhacaraa" is better translated as "moving or going in the sky or space". Those beings are space-goers or space- travellers. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > > Digha Nikaya, Aganna sutta: "Now there comes a time, Vasettha, > when > > after a long period of time this world contracts [and is > eventually > > destroyed]. When the world contracts beings are for the most part > > born in the realm of Radiance There they exist made of mind, > feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly > beautiful; > > thus they remain for a long, long time. > > [ In this realm there is no mattter they are arupa sattas ] > > Just wondering, the air these beings move through, is it not > material? I can forgive the ancients for not considering air to be > material, but we know otherwise, don't we? > > +++++++ Hi herman, Without looking at the pali I assume this must be a misunderstanding by the translator. Whatever the pali word is it can't - at least in this context - mean anything material like air. robk 37178 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 9:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi Howard My instincts nudge at me that if I am going to dicuss this with you, it will be the breathing sutta and satipatthana issue all over again, where one side of our people here avocate calming and concentration through breathing while the dinosaurs here will insist that breathing mediation is not for beginners :). A never ending discussion and still everyone stood on their own ground. Nonetheless as I am one of those dinosaurs, I still feel if panna is arise during concentration, the moments are calm, clear with comprehension :) and there is no need to go into breathing meditation to attain. Still I would say (as usual of Ken O characteristics), why waste the present moments. It is a difficult process to see each sense as anatta and seeing them leading to calm and clarity. To me, this is a process always advocate by satipatthana, it meant to be a living practise and not waiting moments to arise in the sitting positon. It is difficult to realise that practise is always in the everyday life be it shopping etc. To me, there is no need to sit and enhance our clarity or clamless because only when present moment arise with panna in our everyday chore, there is salvation and this kind of calmess is unshakeable, this kind of calmness is what I think call equanmity :). Cheers Ken O 37179 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 9:11am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Herman, Joop and all, > Some more on science. > RobertK: But I think we do not need to worry about this, the sasana is in a slow decline, I think it will be gradually diluted and mixed with other ideas (I hope this comment explains why I am not keen on your idea Joop: "I prefer a future-directed one in which new knowledge and old knowledge (=the Tipitaka) are combined"). Joop: I don't understand: if you don't worry because the sasana declines whatever we do, why are you not keen on being future- directed? To ask it in another way: do you think mixing old and new ideas accelerates the decline of sasana or delays this process? I think it delays. >> Joop :"Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him the relation between science and buddhism."" > RobertK: Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an interest in Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think these are great for those scientists but it would be very much a one- way street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard to insight into mind. …My favourite quote is the definition of consciousness in the International Dictionary of Psychology: "Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it" (cited in Crick, 1994, vii) Joop: You changed the subject, I didn't know we discussed especially about insight into mind In your first message on this topic (#37164) you only quoted natural scientists. Metta Joop 37180 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 9:33am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > > RobertK: But I think we do not need to worry about this, the sasana > is in a slow decline, I think it will be gradually diluted and mixed > with other ideas (I hope this comment explains why I am not keen on > your idea Joop: "I prefer a future-directed one in which new > knowledge and old knowledge (=the Tipitaka) are combined"). > > Joop: I don't understand: if you don't worry because the sasana > declines whatever we do, why are you not keen on being future- > directed? > To ask it in another way: do you think mixing old and new ideas > accelerates the decline of sasana or delays this process? I think it > delays. ========= Dear Joop, It declines whatever we do - but the decline speeds up if wrongviews become strong. I believe the Theravada have well preserved the Dhamma and hence any mixing, with science or whatever, is likely to weaken that rare nectar. ------------- > > >> Joop :"Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' > conferences in which the Dailai Lama > invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him > the relation between science and buddhism."" > > > RobertK: Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an > interest in Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think > these are great for those scientists but it would be very much a one- > way street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard > to insight into mind. …> Joop: You changed the subject, I didn't know we discussed especially > about insight into mind > +++++++++++++ I looked at two books based on those conferences ( a few years back ) and it seemed to me they focused on mind science. But anyway I wanted this series of posts to address science and Buddhism in general. RobertK 37181 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 9:43am Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka Thanks Suan, that's great! robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > Dear Robert K, Herman, Howard, Nina and all > > Robert wrote: > > "Without looking at the pali I assume this must be a misunderstanding > by the translator. Whatever the pali word is it can't - at least in > this context - mean anything material like air." > > The Pali term used in the Aggañña Suttam is "antalikkhacaraa". > Subcommentary comments on the term in Section 119, Paathikavaggo, > iighanikaayo as follows: > > "antalikkhe aakaase carantiiti antalikkhacaraa". > > The term "aakaaso" does not mean air, I am afraid. Aakaaso means sky > or space. > 37182 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 9:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop ---Dear Howard, In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Very well said, Robert. I consider this point to be so important - the > intimate connection between anatta and conditionality - that I snipped the > foregoing out of the context of your post as a whole for purposes of emphasis. > Dependent origination, both in its specific 12-link scheme of dependent > origination of dukkha and in its general form of conditionality lies at the core of > the Buddha's teaching, both within the Theravada and Mahayana traditions as > does anattata/su~n~nata (shunyata) - its other face. ------------------- Yes, Exactly so! ------------------------------ > While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought > that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone > on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > _________ I really prefer to leave Dukkha untranslated. \ Robertk 37183 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hello Phil, There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do this or that in order to reach the goal. Nina. op 02-10-2004 01:13 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Reading this makes me wonder what the difference is between the perfection > of determination, and that of energy, because the description o the > perfection off energy that follows later in the book is almost identical to > the above sentence, if I recall correctly. 37184 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 2:09pm Subject: Rupa Hi All, The part of my "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind The Buddha's Smile" that I was least satisfied with was the section on rupas. I stuck it at the beginning of "What Happens When We Die" and I did not really do justice to the topic. Since I am now covering this material in my weekly class, I used this opportunity to create a separate section on this subject. I have uploaded this new section (only 6 pages) to the files section (there are a number of diagrams). I will leave it there for a couple of weeks. Feedback and comments welcome! Metta, Rob M :-) 37185 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 2:34pm Subject: Re: object of jhana/ Htoo Hi Htoo, You may find this of interest. Perhaps Nina or Suan could give Pali references since you probably don't have this translation. Visuddhimagga III, 117 'As to object': of these forty meditation subjects, ...snip.. This is 'as to object'. ----------------------- Note 32. Na-vattaba-- 'not so classifiable' is an Abhidhamma shorthand term for something that, ...snip...of the three, or two, headings. Larry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Larry, Thank you very much for your kindness. I really appreciate your kind message. I am looking forward to hearing from Suan, actually. 22 of 40 kammatthanas develop patibhaga nimitta as thier object because patibhaga nimitta can serve as the object of appana jhana. Others do not develop patibhaga nimitta. With many thanks, Htoo Naing 37186 From: nori Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi Ken O & Upasaka, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Nori > > why observe the breath only. This is not what I say. > Do you mean the other six senses are > not working while you are awake. :) Also, not what I say. My post 'On how to attend to the breath', was simply a post on the ancient commentary of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, and various opinions people have stated on how it should be interpreted; I was just relaying information. However I have stated in the past that I believe periods of focused, unbroken awareness onto breath, as well as other objects, is good exercise for the mind, awareness, and discernment. ----- Upasaka, I like your post. U: "One way in which breath is special is the following: When attending to breath, as calm increases the breath becomes more subtle and fine. That increased subtlety calls for greater attention in order to maintain clarity, which then leads to still greater calm and concentration. Continuing in this fashion makes the mind quite powerful and a fit instrument." An unskillful disposition can also lead to frustration when trying to discern that subtlety as happens to me many times. This is all part of the exercise and there is much to be learned from it. with metta, nori 37187 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Re: Rupa Hi All, The part of my "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind The Buddha's Smile" that I was least satisfied with was the section on rupas. ..snip.. I have uploaded this new section (only 6 pages) to the files section (there are a number of diagrams). I will leave it there for a couple of weeks. Feedback and comments welcome! Metta, Rob M :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, Rupa section of 'The Theory Behind The Buddha's Smile' is also good. Only few comments. Page 63 ( page 2 of page 6 ) 1. 'When perceive through the body-door, it is a combination of hardness, temperature and pressure. Understandable. But I would not assume as 'combination'. These three have separate characters. They are 1.pathavi-photthabba or sense of hardness degree, 2. tejo-photthabba or sense of heat degree or temperature, and 3. vayo-photthabba or sense of degree of pressure. When these three are combined or are thought in combination, this already leads to panatta or idea as in case of ' aglass of water'. There is 'no glass' and 'no water' at all. But there are rupas and namas. But we are talking basing on pannatti or idea when talking on 'a glass of water'. When we touch it, kayavinnana citta arises and other cittas follow. That arisen kayavinnana citta or body-consciousness is one of three. In the next vithi vara, the object or touch object may be the same or may be one of the other 2. Combination shows we have been in pannatti or idea domain when we think in combination. An example is 'a cold flowing water'. 2. Good point of foot note. A glass of water is silent, so it is not perceived through the ear door. 3. 'Rupa interacts with other rupa..mind interacts with rupa..' The first is domain of science, yes, I agree. But the latter 'mind interacts with rupa' is what we should learn and this will help us understand nama and rupa and this leads to holy life and leads to nibbana. Page 68 ( page 6 of page 6 ) 4. life-faculty Footnote explains it. But in my text, it is said as 'jivita rupa'. For nama dhamma 'life-faculty' it is said as 'jivitindriya'. Overall, I think rupa chaperter is clear. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37188 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:35pm Subject: dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi Howard, and all >>> I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" H: I agree with Rob K that it would be best to leave dukkha untranslated and hope that the term becomes as familiar as kamma, but with the prevalent intolerance towards Pali terms, even on this list, there is no hope of that happening, so it's worthwhile to consider the inevitable translations. I think "trouble" doesn't work. I can't imagine trouble unless it's in the context of self having trouble with something, or someone. There is always a feeling of subject and object. Trouble with in-laws. Trouble tying my shoes. Trouble sleeping. Always subject and an object or activity. But for me dukkha is captured in that gap between what one ideally wants, and what is the reality of things. Yesterday I got angry at someone and scolded him. There is a gap between my ideal self and the reality that anger is anatta and that it comes beyond my control. I suppose I could say "trouble being peaceful", but that wouldn't be dukkha, that would be wrong view of the way things are. Dukkha (or dissatisfaction, or stress, or suffering) captures the essence of that gap. The gap between wanting to be healthy, and the reality of getting old and dying. The gap between wanting to hold on to a wholesome citta, and the reality that a wholesome citta is momentary and rises and falls away beyond our control. Dukkha is that gap. If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about trying to change the situation. It is the situation. There is a Japanese word "kuyashii" that feels like dukkha to me. It's usually translated as vexing, but that doesn't quite do it. Metta, Phil 37189 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop Hi Rob, Joop, Howard, Suan and all, A very useful thread for me. Thank you all. > > However, anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be results and then other conditions coming together to assist the kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the > round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and > conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. It > shatters illusion but it doesn't in any way lead to ethical nihilism because while there are still conditions there must be rebirth and the fruition of results.I would say kamma and rebirth are unavoidable aspects of anatta. > And the incredible thing is someone (the Buddha) could comprehand > the various conditioned and conditioning factors with detail and > precision. Far, far above any ideas Hume ever had. I have no problems with any of the foregoing, except for if there was a suggestion in it that there is an absolutele and immediate causal nexus between the physical death of one being and the coming to be of another. If there is no such nexus proposed, then all the metaphysical and untestable mechanisms which have been put forward by various traditions as to what is passed on and how need not be examined. The kamma-death-rebirth link is very much like the Lamarckian theory of evolution, which has been well and truly debunked. Lamarck put forward that characteristics acquired in a lifetime are passed on to future generations. So if I studied hard my kids would be good students, and if I was a bodybuilder, my offspring would have strong physiques. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It just doesn't happen this way!!!! The traits that are passed on from generation to generation are transmitted during fertilisation resulting from sexual intercourse, which happens when the donors are very much alive. The heritable traits are molecular in nature, and determine the production of particualr kinds of proteins in the new organism. The minutest differences at this basic level make for enormous variations between organisms. The human organism, through its molecular composition, is capable of learning, which is the other mechanism of heredity. Learning is a social/cultural process, and what is learnt depends entirely on what is taught. It is the domain of science to enumerate and explain what is real in the material world. It has been doing this very well ever since having stumbled on the finding that repeatable results follow from first putting forward ideas in such a way that they are testable. Scientific knowledge is based on a pyramid of ideas, each one of which is falsifiable. Science explains the mechanisms of life in a testable, verifiable way, while Buddhism doesn't. Being alive, how then to live? Ethics is not the domain of science, because ethics is goal oriented. Deciding how to achieve a goal is future-oriented activity. What is the goal of one's activity? What is the goal of life? What is the goal of death? Ethical nihilism does not proceed from science. How a being lives their life demonstrates merely what they believe. And as long as they believe they are an independent I, a moral agent that is personally responsible for their own life and death, and everything in between, they will have much trouble :-) Kind Regards Herman 37190 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all Htoo asked: "May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma?"..snip..snip..It is purely a memory-made mere appearance to the attainer of Jhaana concentration." The above Pali passage also carries an unintendended warning to those Sanskritists who want to translate the term "nimittam" as "perceptual image" indiscriminately. Jhaana nimitta has neither color nor shape or look. With regards, Suan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Suan, Thank you very much for your clear answer. I think it should come first before any explanation. That is 'the object of 4th rupa jhana' is panatti. You are right. Panatti does not arise, does not fall away and when it is the object, there is no way to see anicca, dukkha, and anatta. So the 4th jhana itself is just a lokiya samma-samadhi. It is not one of the Noble Eightfold Path. The reason that I raise the question is to highlight that loki jhanas are not samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path. And the other reason is that to help people judge on the statement that 'jhanas are necessary for development of vipassana panna and attainment of arahatta magga nana.' May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37191 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:44pm Subject: Re: Kamma, Htoo. Dear Sarah and Htoo, I understood that dosa-muulacittas cannot arise in the fine material planes.Correct? Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, It is correct. Only 10 of 12 akusala cittas may arise in fine material planes. Dosa-muulacittas cannot arise there. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37192 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Hi Htoo, Can I ask you to explain something? > > Panatti does not arise, does not fall away For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you mean? Kind Regards Herman 37193 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Hi Htoo, Can I ask you to explain something? Panatti does not arise, does not fall away For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you mean? Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Herman, I explained the reason that I raised the question to Suan. But your question now is a bit different. May I confirm first 'Are you asking why I said ''Panatti does not arise, does not fall away''? With Metta, Htoo Naing 37194 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 3:59pm Subject: The world beyond? Hello all The more I read in the Suttanta, the more I am realize how many potentially misleading suttas there are (and/or misleading translations at access to insight) and the more grateful I am for having coming across abhidhamma so that I can appreciate the suttas without taking them the wrong way. An example, AN III.52, Dvejana Sutta: "This world is on fire with aging, illness and death. With the world thus on fire with aging, illness and death, any restrain of body, speech and intellect practiced here will be one's shelter, cave, island and refuge after death in the world beyond." Later we read, "Whoever here is restrained in body speech and awareness, who makes merit while he's alive: that will be for his bliss after death." It is hard not to read eternalism into that, and I'm sure newcomers to Buddhism would read a heavenly reward into this. And this wrong view has become the norm in Japan, where Japanese Buddhists talk of "that world", a kind of Buddhist heaven beyond a river, and believe that ancestors spirits return to earth from "that world" every summer during the Obon holidays. It's a harmless belief, and comforting, but it is not right view, and I'm sure misinterpretations of the Suttanta contributed to it. With my beginner's knowledge of abhidhamma, I know that wholesome cittas that fall away in a kind of momentary death condition the arising - birth, if you will- of more wholesome cittas. That is the reward of restraint of body, speech and intellect. Yes, there is rebirth, but that is not in a "world beyond"in my opinion. Yes, there is "bliss" if one is born in the deva realms. Perhaps this sutta is referring to the deva realms. But without knowing that, one would misunderstand. Also doesn't "any restraint...will be one's shelter.." seem misleading. If I recall correctly, the object of the rebirth citta can come from any one kamma in this life or a past life, but not in a cumulative way, like this suggests. We can have a life full of wholesome kamma, but a single unwholesome kamma from a previous lifetime could be the object of the rebirth citta, technically speaking. Is that right? That having been said, I appreciate the idea of not adding to the fire raging in the world. "When panna sees the benefits of akusala and the disadvantages of akusala, it conditions the arising of kusala cittas." That sentence resounds again and again in daily life for me these days. Metta, Phil 37195 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to developdetermination" Hi Nina Yes, no need to think I shall develop this or that perfection. But I think there is value in recognizing them when they arise in daily life. Not in a controlling way, but just in a momentary appreciation of them that might condition their further development. And to do that, I think we need to understand them in terms of how they are similar and different from each other, and how they support each other. Another example of intellectual understanding conditioning a deeper kind of understanding. Metta, Phil p.s I imagine you're getting ready for your departure to India. I wonder what state of mind prevails at such times. I would be in a frenzy caused by all the things that need to be done combined with anticipation of a great Dhamma talk-fest. Even now I sometimes fantasize that I won the lottery so I could quit my job and hang out in India with you all! > > Hello Phil, > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that perfection. A. > Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of thinking, then there > is an idea of self again who shall try to do this or that in order to reach > the goal. > Nina. > op 02-10-2004 01:13 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > > Reading this makes me wonder what the difference is between the perfection > > of determination, and that of energy, because the description o the > > perfection off energy that follows later in the book is almost identical to > > the above sentence, if I recall correctly. > 37196 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 4:28pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 078 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Manasikara is also one of the 7 universal cetasikas that always arises with each and every citta that arises at each moment. Citta and manasikara cannot be separated. Manasikara is not citta. Citta is to be aware of object. Manasikara or attention is a mental factor that arises along with citta. Its job is not to be aware of the object. Manasikara or attention acts as a steerer. Manasikara cetasika or attention helps the king citta to go to the right direction. Manasikara cetasika also helps other co-existing cetasikas to go to the same direction as he goes. Manasikara is not contact. It is not feeling. It is not volition. It is not perception. It is not fixing at any point and it is not a concentration. It does not support as jivitinriya does. Manasikara cetasika directs the citta to the object. It points to the object. It helps to go in a specific direction. It leads to the object. This should not be confused with vitakka cetasika, which will be explained soon. When it is said that it leads to the object, it means that citta goes to the object in a specific direction as dictated by manasikara cetasika. While citta is going to that direction all accompanying cetasikas have to follow the king citta. So manasikara is like a steerer. There is a word that reveals the usefulness of manasikara. It is 'yoniso manasikara' or 'wise attention'. This means 'proper attention'. Citta always attends an object. This time, it may attend this object and at another time, it may attend another object. When the attention is in proper direction, all mental phenomena that arise due to this wise attention will be fruitful. It is improper attention that leads to unwholesome cittas to arise. Manasikara itself is sincere and honest. It arises and falls away. It is not a kusala or akusala dhamma. But when inappropriate attention is made, akusala cittas arise and manasikaras in these akusala cittas will be akusala cetasikas. We cannot control manasikara cetasika. We also cannot control citta. But when there are conditions they have to arise on their own accord. Even though we cannot control manasikara, we can be aware of manasikara that has arisen. When we stay in wise attention that is when we are conscious to our mind, we will notice that mind sometimes goes to the object of attraction of sensuous pleasure. This is usual for most people. But if well learned and well trained, as soon as mind takes that direction to sensuous object, this should be withdrawn. And then mind should be redirected to another object that may bring up wholesome fruit. When objects are wisely attended, unwholesome mental states will not arise and instead there will arise wholesome mental state. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37197 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 0:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi, Phil - You make good points in the following. The word 'trouble' doesn't work consistently. No single English word does, or so it seems. One reason why I like 'trouble' is that it can serve both as noun and as adjective, which is something it shares with 'dukkha'. But, I agree that if one becomes familiar with all the various senses and nuances of 'dukkha' by seeing it used in a variety of contexts, then perhaps Robert and you are correct that it is best to just stick with that word. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/2/04 6:38:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, and all > > >>>I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the > sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well > as > the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such > things > as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" > > H: I agree with Rob K that it would be best to leave dukkha untranslated > and hope that the term > becomes as familiar as kamma, but with the prevalent intolerance towards > Pali terms, even on this > list, there is no hope of that happening, so it's worthwhile to consider the > inevitable translations. > > > I think "trouble" doesn't work. I can't imagine trouble unless it's in the > context of self having trouble > with something, or someone. There is always a feeling of subject and object. > Trouble with in-laws. Trouble > tying my shoes. Trouble sleeping. Always subject and an object or activity. > But for me dukkha is captured in > that gap between what one ideally wants, and what is the reality of things. > > Yesterday I got angry at someone and scolded him. There is a gap between my > ideal self and the reality that > anger is anatta and that it comes beyond my control. I suppose I could say > "trouble being peaceful", but that > wouldn't be dukkha, that would be wrong view of the way things are. Dukkha > (or dissatisfaction, or stress, or > suffering) captures the essence of that gap. The gap between wanting to be > healthy, and the reality of getting old > and dying. The gap between wanting to hold on to a wholesome citta, and the > reality that a wholesome citta > is momentary and rises and falls away beyond our control. Dukkha is that > gap. If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it > would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the > wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about > trying to change the situation. It is the situation. > > There is a Japanese word "kuyashii" that feels like dukkha to me. It's > usually translated as vexing, but that doesn't quite > do it. > > Metta, > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37198 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 0:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi Howard I think 'trouble' for Dukkha works pretty well. I like the root word 'afflict' as in either 'afflicting' or 'affliction.' I think both terms have the potential flexibility to cover the breadth of Dukkha. TG 37199 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:11pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Can I ask you to explain something? > > Panatti does not arise, does not fall away > > For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you > mean? > > Kind Regards > > Herman > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Dear Herman, > > I explained the reason that I raised the question to Suan. But your > question now is a bit different. > > May I confirm first 'Are you asking why I said ''Panatti does not > arise, does not fall away''? ======= I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. Hope that is clearer Kind Regards Herman > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 37200 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop Hi Howard, I'm probably duplicating in part what has already been said, but I'll share my thoughts anyway. And thanks for asking :-) ======= > While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought > that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone > on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the > sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as > the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things > as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" (and not be perplexed in including > even highly enjoyable dhammas), and also "From craving arises trouble", and > "All that I (the Buddha) teach is trouble, its arising, and its cessation", and > also "Nibbana is the end of trouble". Any opinions on this, folks? > ===== The word dukkha, like the word trouble, has many different meanings, in different contexts. The various states that the words refer to are the realities, the words are just pointers to those states. When communicating, it helps if there is a common understanding of which states a word is refering to. The reality is in the states, not in the words. And when we loose sight of what a word refers to, we can revisit the reality. I can see benefit in adopting a word like trouble when you have so carefully outlined its use, because it lacks the hooks through which the word it replaces becomes adorned with sacredness, as is done so often with the Pali words. Sacred words are an impediment to insight, and that is much trouble :-) Kind Regards Herman 37201 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:37pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. Hope that is clearer Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Herman, Thanks for your clarification. Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that exist. 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not arise, it does not need to fall away. I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old messages. Howard's tree is its extension. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37202 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:45pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 11 ) by Htoo Dear Dhamma Friends, Continue-: Page 51 is fine. Page 52. 1. I like the figure that is presented by Rob M. Only one thing. Utaja rupa or rupa derived from temperature does not arise at the very submoment of patisandhi. That is uppada khana of patisandhi citta. But they start to arise from 'thi khana' of patisandhi citta. Page 53. There are 3 rupa kalapa at patisandhi. They are kayadassaka, bhavadassaka, and vatthudassaka. But I am considering whether nonad should be counted as rupa kalapa that arises at patisandhi. Page 54 is fine. Page 55. The figure beactifully demonstrates death event with abhidhanmma terms. May these criticisms be beneficial. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37203 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Hi Htoo, Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than before. See below. ==== > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that exist. > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not arise, > it does not need to fall away. > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old messages. > Howard's tree is its extension. > ======= The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the time. There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that the tree as thought arises and falls away. So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not fall away? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) Kind Regards Herman 37204 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:20pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hello Herman, (Htoo), all, To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammas)" Shortened Useful Post Link http://tinyurl.com/2c0k metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than > before. See below. > ==== > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is > true. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that > exist. > > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not > arise, > > > it does not need to fall away. > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old > messages. > > Howard's tree is its extension. > > > > ======= > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away > > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? > > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. > > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the > time. > > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that > the tree as thought arises and falls away. > > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not > fall away? > > Sorry if I am too persistent :-) > > Kind Regards > > > Herman 37205 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Christine, If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways. > > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities > (paramattha dhammas)" ======= I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that section would be a waste of my time and energy. It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the discussions have moved elsewhere. I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit, while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as from the threads initiated by others. Kind Regards Herman > > Shortened Useful Post Link > http://tinyurl.com/2c0k > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > wrote: > > > > Hi Htoo, > > > > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than > > before. See below. > > ==== > > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making > that > > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is > > true. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -- > > > > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that > > exist. > > > > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not > > arise, > > > > > it does not need to fall away. > > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old > > messages. > > > Howard's tree is its extension. > > > > > > > ======= > > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall > away > > > > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? > > > > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. > > > > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which > > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or > > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised > > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the > > time. > > > > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that > > the tree as thought arises and falls away. > > > > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not > > fall away? > > > > Sorry if I am too persistent :-) > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > Herman 37206 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 7:13pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hello Herman, Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points which were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting my methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't meant that way. Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of > Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways. > > > > > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having > a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts > > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities > > (paramattha dhammas)" > > ======= > > I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching > and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not > find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very > stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that > section would be a waste of my time and energy. > > It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive > section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the > discussions have moved elsewhere. > > I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or > respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit, > while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as > from the threads initiated by others. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman 37207 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi, TG - In a message dated 10/2/04 7:48:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > I think 'trouble' for Dukkha works pretty well. I like the root word > 'afflict' as in either 'afflicting' or 'affliction.' > > I think both terms have the potential flexibility to cover the breadth of > Dukkha. > > TG > ======================= I agree. They both have much to say for themselves. Still, no single English word that I can think quite does the job perfectly. (In my own mind, however, I'll probably keep the "trouble" usage at the fore.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37208 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi, Christine - In a message dated 10/2/04 10:13:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and > prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very > tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. > > ========================== I haven't written you yet about this ordeal of yours. I'm very sorry for it and for the difficulties of your beloved canine friend. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37209 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hello Howard, all, My daughter and I visited a friend who had her six month old son frolicking naked on a rug - his vibrant energy, his radiant health, his trust, his adoration of his Mum and Dad, and his vital interest in everything that came into the range of his sight, sound, taste, touch - kept conversation to a minimum as he provided the afternoons' entertainment. We all watched him with love and delighted fascination for an hour, it seemed only five minutes. I understand what you mean by 'trouble' and I think to 'one who knows' it is probably an apt word. The difficulty with it will be the same difficulty with dukkha. Because of the veil of delusion, much of the dukkha in the world doesn't have an initial (or any) impact as unwelcome, or to be seen as present or future unhappiness ... loving relationships, happy experiences and valued possessions for starters. None of us would have believed in those moments of watching the babe that Birth, or Attachment, were 'trouble,' 'affliction' or 'dukkha'. Thanks for your thoughts re Rusty. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 10/2/04 7:48:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > TGrand458@a... writes: > > > Hi Howard > > > > I think 'trouble' for Dukkha works pretty well. I like the root word > > 'afflict' as in either 'afflicting' or 'affliction.' > > > > I think both terms have the potential flexibility to cover the breadth of > > Dukkha. > > > > TG > > > ======================= > I agree. They both have much to say for themselves. Still, no single > English word that I can think quite does the job perfectly. (In my own mind, > however, I'll probably keep the "trouble" usage at the fore.) > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37210 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 10:57pm Subject: Re: The world beyond? Hello Phil, all, As far as I can tell, the Buddha taught actual rebirth and made it a basic tenet of his teachings. I don't think he was phrasing things in a way that was trying to fit in with the current understandings of the local population, or meaning moment to moment rebirth, but that he was thinking about the complete individual mindstream and its baggage of unexpended kammic energy and accumulations that continue on after the death of the body and the dissolution of the present personal identity. There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures. These are some of the more important: Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello all > > The more I read in the Suttanta, the more I am realize how many > potentially misleading suttas > there are (and/or misleading translations at access to insight) and the more > grateful I am for having coming across abhidhamma so that I > can appreciate the suttas without taking them the wrong way. > > An example, AN III.52, Dvejana Sutta: > > "This world is on fire with aging, illness and death. With the world thus > on fire with aging, illness and death, any restrain of body, speech > and intellect practiced here will be one's shelter, cave, island and refuge > after death in the world beyond." > > Later we read, "Whoever here is restrained in body speech and awareness, > who makes merit while he's alive: that will be for his bliss after death." > > It is hard not to read eternalism into that, and I'm sure newcomers to > Buddhism would read a heavenly reward into this. And this wrong view has > become the norm in Japan, where Japanese Buddhists talk of "that world", a > kind of Buddhist heaven beyond a river, and believe that ancestors spirits > return to earth from "that world" every summer during the Obon holidays. > It's a harmless belief, and comforting, but it is not right view, and I'm > sure misinterpretations of the Suttanta contributed to it. > > With my beginner's knowledge of abhidhamma, I know that wholesome cittas > that fall away in a kind of momentary death condition the arising - birth, > if you will- > of more wholesome cittas. That is the reward of restraint of body, speech > and intellect. Yes, there is rebirth, but that is not in a "world beyond"in > my opinion. Yes, there is "bliss" if one is born in the deva realms. Perhaps > this sutta is referring to the deva realms. But without knowing that, one > would misunderstand. > > Also doesn't "any restraint...will be one's shelter.." seem misleading. If > I recall correctly, the object of the rebirth citta can come from any one > kamma in this life or a past life, but not in a cumulative way, like this > suggests. We can have a life full of wholesome kamma, but a single > unwholesome kamma from a previous lifetime could be the object of the > rebirth citta, technically speaking. Is that right? > > That having been said, I appreciate the idea of not adding to the fire > raging in the world. "When panna sees the benefits of akusala and the > disadvantages of > akusala, it conditions the arising of kusala cittas." That sentence resounds > again and again in daily life for me these days. > > Metta, > Phil 37211 From: dragonwriter3 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 8:54pm Subject: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi to All I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to ignorant sentient beings? with Metta Simon L 37212 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hello Simon, all, My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of Conditionality. "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dragonwriter3" wrote: > > > Hi to All > > I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise > in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to > ignorant sentient beings? > > with Metta > Simon L 37213 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 2:06am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Christine, Thanks for clarifying. You are quite right, there's no harm in a bit of research before launching into another probing exercise. Just between you, me and the gate post, I doubt I'll ever get this panatti business. My thoughts are with you and with Rusty, I am imagining your tiredness, but I'm sure it will be worse :-). Huge thunderstorm in progress here. Thanks for your kindness, Christine, now and in the past Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Herman, > > Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be > reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research > and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points which > were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different > methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting my > methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't > meant that way. > Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and > prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very > tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 37214 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object of jhana/ Htoo Hi Larry, very useful. I shall print them out and diiscuss with Sarah in the bus. Nina. op 02-10-2004 23:34 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Visuddhimagga III, 117 > 'As to object': of these forty meditation subjects, ...snip.. This > is 'as to object'. > ----------------------- > Note 32. Na-vattaba-- 'not so classifiable' is an Abhidhamma shorthand > term for something that, ...snip...of the three, or two, headings. > 37215 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the arupajhaanas. When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not only right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right concentration of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the context. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > So the 4th jhana itself is just a lokiya samma-?amadhi. It is not one > of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > The reason that I raise the question is to highlight that loki jhanas > are not samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path. > > And the other reason is that to help people judge on the statement > that 'jhanas are necessary for development of vipassana panna and > attainment of arahatta magga nana.' 37216 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hello Phil, Thank you for this reminder. I like to change the situation, and I should remember that here self is at work. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:35 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it > would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the > wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about > trying to change the situation. It is the situation. 37217 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The world beyond? Hello Phil, op 03-10-2004 00:59 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Also doesn't "any restraint...will be one's shelter.." seem misleading. If > I recall correctly, the object of the rebirth citta can come from any one > kamma in this life or a past life, but not in a cumulative way, like this > suggests. We can have a life full of wholesome kamma, but a single > unwholesome kamma from a previous lifetime could be the object of the > rebirth citta, technically speaking. Is that right? N. Yes, right. But: any restraint...will be one's shelter, is an exhortation all the same. As you added, pañña sees the benefit of kusala and that in itself is of great help. Nina. 37218 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to developdetermination" Hello Phil, op 03-10-2004 01:19 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Yes, no need to think I shall develop this or that perfection. But I think > there is value in recognizing them when they arise in daily life. Not in a > controlling way, but just in a momentary appreciation of them that might > condition > their further development. N: I like to consider them, reflect on their value. When there can be a moment of right awareness, this takes care of them all. Take the perfection of truthfulness or sincerity. Awareness now help us not to delude ourselves. There is also determination. Also at the holy places I shall consider this: to continue developing understanding, even if it takes aeons before we reach the goal. To continue, even when the circumstances of life are hard. It needs energy, that is courage, being brave. It needs patience, we do not expect a result soon. I rather reflect in this way then analysing them intellectually. I heard on MP3, perfection, paraami: something that helps you to get to the beyond, to the other shore, nibbaana. Ph: I imagine you're getting ready for your departure to India. I wonder > what state > of mind prevails at such times. N: I have to look after Lodewijk in the first place and see to it that he is in reasonable health to make this journey. We have to be with my father and play music for him. The cittas are not different from usual, lots of lobha, dosa and moha. The packing list, a lot of work. This reminds me of Icaro's packing list, when he had to pack for bootcamp. He posted the whole list of 28 rupas and related these to his packing. What are all those things we pack, only rupa, they do not know anything. We find them so important. Nina. 37219 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3) Howard. Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/2/04 9:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... > writes: > > > ... anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely > > and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be > > results and then other conditions coming together to assist the > > kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the > > round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and > > conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - > > it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. > ========================== > Very well said, Robert. I consider this point to be so important - the > intimate connection between anatta and conditionality A: I agree, well said Robert! I sent it on to one of my friends who has not long returned from a visit to where the Dalai Lama lives. She has been involved in some sort of study of lamas' brains during meditation!!!!!! While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought > that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone > on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the > sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as > the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things > as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" (and not be perplexed in including > even highly enjoyable dhammas), and also "From craving arises trouble", and > "All that I (the Buddha) teach is trouble, its arising, and its cessation", and > also "Nibbana is the end of trouble". Any opinions on this, folks? > A: Unsatisfactory is the word I think is a good translation for Dukkha. Unsatisfactory, in my dictionary, states 'not satisfying needs or requirements; inadequate. Whereas 'trouble' has 3-4 different meanings, Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37220 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The world beyond? Hi Christine > There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist > scriptures. These are some of the more important: Mahakammavibhanga > Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); > Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta > (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8) Thanks for this. I'm grateful to be able to tap into your knowledge of the Suttanta so often. When I said I valued the idea of momentary rebirth, it wasn't to deny rebirth in the more conventional sense. My problem is with that "the world beyond" and that's beause of what I see here in Japan. Do you know people have expensive memorial cermonies for deceased relatives on the 1st, 3rd, 7th and other years? They have to fork out huge sums to the priests (monk is not the right word here) who chant sutras to continue the further progress of the deceased's spirit in the "world beyond." This has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching, and it's the sort of thing that has given people the idea that Buddhism is for funerals only, and is all about money. I still haven't gotten rid of the need to gripe about that every now and then. I don't think about it as often as I used to. Metta, Phil 37221 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to developdetermination" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom . > N: I have to look after Lodewijk in the first place and see to it that he is > in reasonable health to make this journey. This reminds me of Icaro's packing list, > when he had to pack for bootcamp. He posted the whole list of 28 rupas and > related these to his packing. What are all those things we pack, only rupa, > they do not know anything. We find them so important. +++++++++++++++++++ Dear Nina, Give my regards to Lodewijk and enjoy the pilgrimage. Someone on another list asked me to send your their thanks. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Triplegem/message/6651 robert 37222 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:20am Subject: Perfections - more on determination Hello all Another passage from Nina's "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment", available at Abhidhamma.org. "Khun Sujin reminded us of the meaning of determination: Aditthana parami is the resolution to develop right understanding of the reality which appears. Being resolute means that one is firm on the Path of developing right understanding of the realities which appear, because one realizes that it takes time, that it takes so many, many lives before there can be the highly developed understanding of the reality which appears now. It has to be now, so it is bound to be difficult. The moment of being aware of the present object, any object which appears, without wanting it to be something else, indicates the resolution." (end quote) Ph: All the resolutions I have made in my life! My New Year's resolution process used to begin several days before the end of the year, when I reviewed my journal for the year, deciding where I needed to change and make improvements. How futile those resolutions were, because they were ignorant of the conditioned realities of life. For example, I used to resolve that I would be aware of every door I went through, and of the people I would be meeting beyond the door. Classroom doors, for example. Of course it never happened. Now, as my mindfulness increases naturally, beyond my control thanks to the gradual arising of right understanding, I find myself aware of these doors though no longer intending to be so. I think the reason for this is found in the following paragraph: "We do not see a result of a short moment of mindfulness, it passes and then there are many moments of ignorance. However, one moment of mindfulness now conditions the arising again of right mindfulness later on. In that way the understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupa which appear can become clearer. We always want to do things which bring an immediate, tangible result and we don't have enough confidence in the effectiveness of one short moment of mindfulness of what appears now." Now I am feeling more confident about the effectiveness of these moments of mindfulness. We can't see something and be someone at the same time. A moment of seeing, for example, is a moment of liberation from self and its endless stories that cause so much dukkha. I certainly wouldn't have understood this last year at this time. And that moment of seeing indicates the resolution to be aware of the present object - whether I like it or not. Metta, Phil 37223 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi, Christine (and Simon) - In a message dated 10/3/04 3:07:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > > Hello Simon, all, > > My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only > Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. > > As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. > Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of > Conditionality. > > "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the > welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born > out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and > happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a > Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is > that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) > > metta and peace, > Christine =============================== Well, we do read in both Theravada and Mahayana traditions of people taking a vow to become a Buddha, seriously committing themselves to mastering all ten ( or six, in Mahayana) perfections over aeons in order to present anew the Dhamma to a world bereft of it. Presumably that completely serious and powerful intention followed up by unrelenting, superhuman consistency of effort is what makes the arising of Buddhas possible. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37224 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Simon & Christine, A good question, Simon. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only > Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. > > As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. > Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of > Conditionality. > > "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the > welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born > out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and > happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a > Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is > that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) .... S: Good points and a helpful quote. You may like to read more from the Introduction to the Jataka (i.47) about the 'Birth of the Buddha'. Here's an extract from H. Clarke Warren's translation included in his book 'Budhism'. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits004.htm "When ... they hear the sound of the Buddha-Uproar, the gods of all ten thousand worlds come together into one place, and having ascertained what particular being is to be The Buddha, they approach him, and beseech him to become one. But it is not till after omens have appeared that they beseech him. At that time, therefore, having all come together in one world, with the Catûm-Mahârâjas, and with the Sakka, the Suyâma, the Santusita, the Paranimmita-Vasavatti, and the Mahâ-Brahma of each several world, they approached the Future Buddha in the Tusita heaven, and besought him, saying,-- "Sir, it was not to acquire the glory of a Sakka, or of a Mâra, or of a Brahma, or of a Universal Monarch, that you fulfilled the Ten Perfections; but it was to gain omniscience in order to save the world, that you fulfilled them. Sir, the time and fit season for your Buddhaship has now arrived." But the Great Being, before assenting to their wish, made what is called the five great observations. He observed, namely, the time, the continent, the country, the family, and the mother and her span of life. In the first of these observations he asked himself whether it was the right time or no. Now it is not the right time when the length of men's lives is more than a hundred thousand years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals then forget about birth, old age, and death. And if The Buddhas, who always include in their teachings the Three Characteristics, were to attempt at such a time to discourse concerning transitoriness, misery, and the lack of substantive reality, men would not think it worth while listening to them, nor would they give them credence. Thus there would be no conversions made; and if there were no conversions, the dispensation would not conduce to salvation. This, therefore, is not the right time. Also it is not the right time when men's lives are less than a hundred years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals are then exceedingly corrupt; and an exhortation given to the exceedingly corrupt makes no impression, but, like a mark drawn with a stick on the surface of the water, it immediately disappears. This, therefore, also is not the right time. But when the length of men's lives is between a hundred years and a hundred thousand years, then is it the right time. Now at that time men's lives were a hundred years; accordingly the Great Being observed that it was the right time for his birth. Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking over the four continents with their attendant isles, he reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on the continent." ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 37225 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:40am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner26-Contact /Phassa(l) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** The study of phassa cetasika can remind us that at each moment a different citta arises, dependant on different conditions. When there is seeing phassa cannot contact any other object but visible object. Seeing can experience only visible object; it cannot experience a person in the visible object. When there is hearing, phassa cannot contact any other object but sound. Hearing cannot experience a person in the sound. When there is thinking of a concept there is a different citta with a different phassa which contacts the object citta is thinking of. There cannot be more than one contact at a time. A detailed knowledge of different cittas and their accompanying cetasikas will help us to understand the realities of our daily life as they appear one at a time. It is important to have more understanding of realities such as seeing or hearing. They are cittas arising time and again in daily life. They experience pleasant or unpleasant objects and on account of these objects kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise, but mostly akusala cittas. ***** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37226 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/3/04 5:07:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Just between you, me and the gate post, I doubt I'll ever get this > panatti business. > Huge thunderstorm in > progress here. > ============================= Sights, sounds, odors, feelings, emotions - all quite specific and interconnected, plus potentialities: Should the experiences that underly a story of "going outside" arise, then would arise experiences of wetness, a crescendo of sounds, lightning-sulfur odors, emotions of awe, desire to escape etc. All this and a near-infinity more jointly rendered, so quickly, as "Huge thunderstorm in progress here". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37227 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:52am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Sarah, You have considered it worthwhile to post it. I consider it worthwhile to question it. > > Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking over the four continents with their attendant isles, he reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on the continent." > Which planet are we talking about here? Kind Regards Herman 37228 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 1:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi, Nina and Phil - In a message dated 10/3/04 6:21:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hello Phil, > Thank you for this reminder. I like to change the situation, and I should > remember that here self is at work. > Nina. > > op 03-10-2004 00:35 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > > >If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it > >would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the > >wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about > >trying to change the situation. It is the situation. > ========================= Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No craving, no trouble!! Dukkha is not an absolute, but arises in dependence on causes and conditions. May we be free, once and for all, of those conditions. Nibbana is the end of trouble. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37229 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Howard, you are a poet, and an observant one at that :-) > Sights, sounds, odors, feelings, emotions - all quite specific and > interconnected, plus potentialities: Should the experiences that underly a story > of "going outside" arise, then would arise experiences of wetness, a crescendo > of sounds, lightning-sulfur odors, emotions of awe, desire to escape etc. > All this and a near-infinity more jointly rendered, so quickly, as > "Huge thunderstorm in progress here". > 37230 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:28am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Herman: The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There is no tree at all. So it does not arise and it does not fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Hmm. I am listening to you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If you see vision or sight, it is OK for you. Sight arises and falls away. But there is no tree at all and tree does not arise and does not fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that the tree as thought arises and falls away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As there is no tree at all, tree does not arise and does not fall away at all. Dhammayatana do not comprise panatti. There are three dhamma which serve as dhammaayatana. They are cetasikas, sukhama rupas and nibbana. Thought that arise and fall away are cittas and cetasikas. Cittas and cetasikas are nama dhamma and they are conditioned dhamma. They do arise and fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not fall away? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You are welcome. I have repeated explained above. There is no tree at all. As there is no tree, tree does not arise and tree does not fall away. Tree 'the word' is panatta and the idea in it is also panatta. There is no tree at all. Are these logical? 'Nothing' arises and 'nothing' falls away. 'Nothing' exists. We can all see 'nothing'. We can all hear 'nothing'. We can all smell 'nothing'. We can all taste 'nothing'. We can all touch 'nothing'. As it is not real, there is nothing to do with 'nothing' here. You can now replace 'nothing' with 'panatta' or its example 'tree'. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37231 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the arupajhaanas. When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not only right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right concentration of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the context. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Suttas says 'when the monks stay away from hindrances and arrive at the state with vitakka, v..p..s..e.. and stay in 1st jhana, without vitakka and vicara stay in 2nd jhana, without piti stay in 3rd jhana, and without dukkha, sukha stay in 4th jhana, this is samma-samadhi.' However, anyone who is exactly at magga is not in rupa jhana or arupa jhana. But they are looking at nibbana with lokuttara appana samadhi. This is lokuttara jhana. There were people who attained rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas before arising of The Buddha. Examples are Devimala hermit who foresaw Siddhattha the Prince would become a Sammasambuddha while he would be reborn at arupa brahma bhumi. He had not had lokuttara jhana. His samadhi might be samma-samadhi. But not of Noble Eightfold Path. By the same token, Alara and Udaka were jhana teachers of the Prince Siddhattha. They did not have lokuttara jhana. Their samadhi might well be samma-samadhi. But it would not be samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path. I agree that we have to be very careful about the context. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37232 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Herman, --- Egbert wrote: S:> > Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking > over the four continents with their attendant isles, he > reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; > only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on > the continent." > > > > Which planet are we talking about here? ... S:You may find the diagram I just fished out from Google (buddha, continents) of interest. (I've no idea how accurate it is, but it gives an indication perhaps). I can't tell you more about the continents and I think it may be a distraction, but you're welcome to research and tell me!. Remember India was the centre of the world. Just scroll down a page or two. http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu/Nepal/introbuddh.html If your interest was in where the Bodhisatta was prior to his last life as a human, it was the Tusita heaven (subject to my understanding and all those other qualifications I gave you before;-)). http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits003.htm Here's another brief extract which comes before the one I just gave: Remember the last Jataka was the Vessantara Jataka: ***** "Having thus fulfilled all the perfections, he said, in his existence as Vessantara,-- 269. "This earth, unconscious though she be, And ignorant of joy or grief, E'en she then felt alms' mighty power, And shook and quaked full seven times." And having thus caused the earth to quake by his mighty deeds of merit, at the end of that existence he died, and was reborn in the Tusita heaven. <...> ***** Metta, Sarah p.s You will get this 'pannatti business' - persist with your questioning with Htoo and others. It's on the right track and he's giving good answers. In the end, it's by understanding realities (paramattha dhammas), that pannatti are known as mere pannatti. ========= ====== 37233 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:12am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 079 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed that there are 89 cittas in total when lokuttara cittas of magga cittas arise without any connection with rupa jhanas or arupa jhanas. And there are 121 cittas in total when lokuttara kusala cittas magga cittas arise in the vicinity of rupavacara rupa jhanas or arupavacara arupa jhanas. In the earliest posts, different classifications of cittas have been discussed. These will again be discussed later after completion of discussion on cetasika dhammas. When different cittas have been well understood, dhamma study will become much much more easier than without knowledge of these cittas. Any of us at any time at any moment will be in one of these 89 or 121 cittas. This is not for only us. These cittas are for all beings who are still in their samsara and for those who are still not able to transcend the samsara as they all are bounded very very strongly by tanha or craving. To understand each citta peoperly require the knowledge of cetasikas as each citta is accompanied by many cetasikas. We have discussed 7 of 52 total cetasikas. These 7 cetasikas are called universal mental factors as they always arise with each of these 89 cittas or 121 cittas. In any of all these 89 cittas or 121 cittas, citta is accompanied by many cetasikas and at least a citta is accompanied by 7 cetasikas. Citta and cetasikas, they together constitute nama or nama dhamma. They are frequently referred to as mind or the mind. Actually mind is made up of an army of soldiers cetasikas and the general citta. Or mind is made up of many ministers cetasikas and their king citta. Citta is the king. Citta is the general. Citta is the Field-Marshal. Citta is the leader. When the citta leads all the nama dhammas that is all cetasikas have to follow what the citta does and what the citta orders and they all have to suggest, advise the king citta while he is doing his job of consciousness and his job of awareness to the object. Cetasika is not citta. Cetasika does not need to be aware of the object even though they all are aware of the object that the citta is aware of. The awareness of object or knowing of the object is the function of citta and this is not the function of cetasikas. Cetasikas do have their specific functions. So cetasikas are separate realities even though they cannot be separated from citta when they arise as nama dhamma. So far 7 cetasikas and their functions have been discussed in the previous posts. It is these cetasikas that give different names to citta which originally is only one and a single entity which is just to know the object. After discussion on the permanent ministers or universal cetasikas, we are now going to discuss on another group of cetasikas called flexible ministers of the king citta. These cetasikas are called pakinnaka cetasikas or particular mental factors. They are referred to as flexible [ by me ], because they agree with citta that they arise together with. If these flexible ministers cetasikas arise with kusala they are kusala cetasikas and when cittas are akusala then the cetasikas will be akusala cetasikas. So these cetasikas are called flexible ministers of the king citta. When the king wants to go to The Buddha, they would agree and support the king. When the king wants to go to the festival and drink alcohol they all will happily help the king. So they are flexible ministers. There are still other 39 cetasikas. They are not universal or they are not flexible. Because they will not arise with unspecified citta. They have exact functions and they will only arise with their specific citta. Example is 14 akusala cetasikas will not arise with sobhana cittas and 25 sobhana cetasikas will not arise with akusala cittas. So 39 cetasikas are not universal and they are not flexible. In flexible ministers cetasikas there are altogether 6 cetasikas. Again they are grouped here because they may agree with kusala or akusala or abyakata dhamma. But they do not always arise and they do have their potentials to arise with specified cittas. These flexible ministers cetasikas are 1. vitakka, 2. vicara, 3. piti, 4. viriya, 5. adhimokkha, and 6. chanda. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37234 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:52am Subject: Re: Rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: >> Hi All, > I have uploaded this new section (only 6 pages) to the files section > (there are a number of diagrams). I will leave it there for a couple > of weeks. Dear Rob M, After the comments I had on your first draft in august I will react again on this new chapter (or paragraph?) It's much better than the old one! I will say that not because I'm an expert like Htoo Naing but as a scientific thinking westerner who had to reduce the cognitive dissonance between natural science and the rupa-aspect of nama-rupa (and who wants to reduce because of my love for and faith in the teachings of the Buddha) Of page 63 and 64 I can just say: good Page 65: very good, makes me enthousiastic. For me the drawing of the circle has a soteriological meaning too: result of my (vipassana- insight) meditation is making that circle smaller, till the radius is zero; is that correct? Page 66: I have big problems in understanding your explanation - "The commentary uses this delineation to explain why eye-, ear-, nose- and tong-sensitivity …" I don't see any explanation in the metaphore of the hammer and the cotton-ball and I don't understand body-sensitivity works on another way as eye-, ear, nose- and tongue- sensitivity. And I don't see what is the role of the derivation of the derived rupa from the great essentials in this explanation - A smaller problem is the use of the word 'things' in the second half of this page: it is a not-elegant (a silly) word; I don't know a better one: 'compound entities' is perhaps too formal. - "Body-sensitivity": you don't mention that is a later invention of a commentary, not used in the Dhamma-sangani. Page 67: Two (minor) problems: - I don't understand the phrase "groups of rupas have the following rupas", all rupas 'exist' in groups, isn't it? - The differences between 'decay', 'impermance' (of a collection of rupas) and ''falling away' of an individual rupa is not clear. The time-scales of these three are different (decades of years, seconds (?) and billionths part of a second) but is that a real fundamental difference; are all three chraracteristics on a ultimate level? Page 68: Two (minor) questions: - 'Temperature' and 'Nutrition' are rupas themselves ànd causes rupa. But isn't that an example of rupa interacting with other rupa of which you say on page 65 that is in the domain of science and not in the domain of the Buddha's focus? - I will not call the last part 'Summary' but 'Conclusion' because a 'Summary' should not contain new statement. Or do you think the introduction of the relation between 'rupa' and 'right understanding' is not new in this paragraph? ============================================ I will use this message to express my surpise when I this week for the first time could read the Dhamma-sangani itself (translation of C.A.F. Rhys Davids) and COULD HARDLY FIND THE FOUR MAHABHUTA in it. One point of our discussion a month ago, about the difference between an ontological and a phenomenological view on the dhamma's (of which Bhikku Bodhi and you say these two views are nearly the same and of which Ven. Nyanaponika and I say they are fundamental different). I think it's funny mrs Rhys Davids doesn't use the term "phenomenology" but "Sensationalism"! (Introductory Essay, page lv) what is not exact the same but is very near ! Book II of the Dhamma-Sangani is about Material Form (rupakandham). After a short Introduction Chapter I is about 'Exposition of [Material] Form under Single Concepts Chapter II: The category of [Material] Form considered by way of dual attributes; in this chapter the derived forms are decribed Chapter III … under Triple Aspects Chapter IV … under Fourfold Aspects … etc. till: Chapter XI … under Elevenfold Aspect In Chapter V - nearly hided - the four not derived forms are mentioned: earth-element, fluid-element, heat-element and air-element. I thought till now these four 'elements' are the fundamental building block of rupa and an exposition should start with it and then derive the other 22 or 23 from them. Nina in her ebook, the Visuddhimagga (very short) and the Abhidhammattha start with the Four; you did not. Why? Metta Joop 37235 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hey Nina, Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do this or that in order to reach the goal. Then what is the impetus? Then what is Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If it is not based on thought, then is it based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' is not eradicated until Arahantship then what is the 'other factor' that manifests this 'perfection' in the beginning stages or the latter stages of development? PEACE E 37236 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: The world beyond? Hey Phil, Ph> Thanks for this. I'm grateful to be able to tap into your knowledge When I said I valued the idea of momentary rebirth, it wasn't to deny rebirth in the more conventional sense. My problem is with that "the world beyond" and that's beause of what I see here in Japan. Do you know people have expensive memorial cermonies for deceased relatives on the 1st, 3rd, 7th and other years? They have to fork out huge sums to the priests (monk is not the right word here) who chant sutras to continue the further progress of the deceased's spirit in the "world beyond." This has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching, and it's the sort of thing that has given people the idea that Buddhism is for funerals only, and is all about money. I still haven't gotten rid of the need to gripe about that every now and then. I don't think about it as often as I used to. All this is your own projections onto the world. There are the teachings, there are funerals, there is money. All this gets mixed up and 'the world' continues to move. I mean, like the Buddha's teachings are your own private means to salvation? Like 'others attainments', why should you care what people are doing or not doing with regards to 'the teachings'? Leave it be and you will be better off for it! PEACE E 37237 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hey Simon L, > > I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise > in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to > ignorant sentient beings? It is kind of like winning the lottery. Once you have an abundance of 'goodness', you naturally wish to share it with all those around you. You know, it is fun to share. PEACE E 37238 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 080 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, 6 particular mental factors or 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 6 flexible ministers cetasikas of the king citta are vitakka, vicara, piti, viriya, adhimokkha, and chanda. Vitakka is a mental factor. It is not consciousness. It is not citta. But it arises with arising citta and falls away with falling citta. It takes the same object that citta takes and it bases the same rupa that citta bases. Vitakka is a flexible minister of the king citta. When the king citta's job is to be conscious to the object or to be aware of the object or to know the object, vitakka's job is not of these. Vitakka does different job from what the king citta does. Vitakka is initial application. This is the best explanation on vitakka cetasika. There are many translated English words for cetasika vitakka. But they all are confusing at least for me. I will point out some translated words how they are confusing. Some translate vitakka as applied thought. This is confusing because the readers may think that cetasika vitakka is a kind of thought. Vitakka is not conventional thought. And vitakka cetasika is not thinking. Thinking is the activity of mind and this is confusing when vitakka is referred to as applied thought. Here 'applied' will have to be explained. Some translate vitakka as applied thinking. Thinking is an activity. It is a conventioanl term for the activity of the mind. When this word 'applied thinking' is used, it is confusing for beginners. Cetasika vitakka is not conventioanl thinking. Thinking is one activity of citta. Some translate vitakka as initial thinking. This is also confusing. If vitakka cetasika is translated as 'initial thinking', there will be many 'initial thinking' when there are many many cittas that arise in billions within a period of an eye-blink. What do we have to do with these initial thinkings in such long long series? Initial thought is also the same and it is also confusing. All these do not carry the meaning of vitakka even though vitakka does exist in initial thinking, initial thought, applied thinking, and applied thought. I have said that initial application is the best translation. What exactly does vitakka do when it arises with a citta? It is an 'initial application'. 'Initial' here is the adjective to modify 'application' so that this can be differentiated from another word 'sustained application' which is for vicara. So vitakka in its simplest meaning is 'application'. As soon as it arises, it applies to an object. It advises the king citta to apply to the object. That is to take the object. Vitakka does not know the object but it does take the object. It does apply the object. It puts itself and its citta and other cetasikas on an object. Vitakka has pushing effect. It is like pushing citta and other cetasikas to the object. There are 3 cetasikas that worth to be considered together. They are cetana, manasikara, and vitakka. They are cetasikas or mental factors. Their functions are not to know the object. To know the object is the function of citta. But these three cetasikas each have their specific functions as have been discussed. Cetana urges the citta and co-arising cetasikas to do their job. He is like a co-ordinator or an organizer. Manasikara just steers the citta and other co-arising cetasikas to a specific object and not to other objects. Vitakka just applies the citta and co-arising cetasikas to the object. Vitakka puts them on the object. Vitakks applies them to the object so that they all are in contact with the object. Vitakka pushes all these mental faculties to the object. There is a boat and three people. The boat is moving forward. At the front is sitting the main rower. At the rear is sitting the steerer. At the middle is sitting the chief who organizes the boat journey. The rower rows the boat and the boat has to move. But he does not know how to steer but he will row as much as he can so that the boat is in the move to anywhere without considering any direction. The steerer just steers the boat. He will direct to the left, to the right and so on through out the journey. But he is not the main rower and his function is just to steer the boat so that the boat goes in a specific direction. The organizer or the co-ordinator is sitting at the middle and he urges the rower to row quickly or slowly and he also urges the steerer to steer the boat to the left or to the right or straight so that the boat is moving in co-ordinated fashion. Here at the front is vitakka. At the rear or at the back is manasikara. At the middle is cetana. Vitakka does not know directions. But he is just to row up and he is just to apply to the object. So because of vitakka, mind 'the conventional mind' is moving from the object of pleassure to displeasure to unwholesome to wholesome to neutral to and many other directions. There are different vitakkas. There are kama vitakka, vihimsa vitakka, byapada vitakka, jhana vitakka, lokuttara vitakka which is samma-sankappa, and many others. These vitakkas are a collection of many vitakkas in a setting of kama or sensuous thinking, byapada or destructive thinking, vihimsa or thinking of torturing other beings in different forms, thinking directed to a specific object of meditation in jhana and mental activity that arrives at nibbana. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37239 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:40am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Hello Jon. J> You suggest that everything can be seen as a matter of J> personal judgment ultimately. Then I must have expressed myself very clumsily. What I wished to suggest was that embracing one interpretation of the Buddha's teaching rather than another is a matter of personal judgment, and that we are in bad faith if we pretend otherwise. J> Well, that's one way of looking at it I suppose, but it J> still leaves the question of why prefer one source over J> another. Are you saying there are good reasons for J> preferring modern writers, or sectarian views, to the J> traditional commentators? Firstly, I would not make a distinction between sectarian views and the views of [those whom you call] the traditional commentators. If one lays aside one's faith bias and views the matter objectively, the commentators of the Mahavihara are sectarian commentators no less than those of any of the other schools generated after the 2nd Council. They differ only in that the Mahavihara branch of the Tambapanniya sect (now called the Theravada) survives as a living tradition, while the others can be known only through texts. Secondly, "modern writers" is too broad. I should prefer to limit it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within their field of expertise, not just anything that they happen to write. With these qualifications in mind I would then answer yes, with respect to certain issues there are good reasons for preferring modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars like the plague. As to which issues one would be better off consulting modern sources for, I dealt with this in summary form in my post to Robert K. on the pros and cons of the Mahavihara commentators. To recap, these would be Buddhist history (i.e. the history of both Buddhist thought and Buddhist institutions), and any subject on which the commentators erred due to the lack of science in their day. J> BTW, no-one is taking the ancient texts as 'absolutely J> authoritative', since that implies uncritical acceptance. 'Uncritical acceptance' is a fair description of what I am witnessing on this list. Here are some samples of it: "When you and I read suttas, Y might seem to be saying X, but if the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries say it is Y, then Y it is." "Forget the opinions of uninstructed worldlings; if something in the Tipitaka is unclear, let's ascertain the opinions of the ancient Theras." "Whenever I find any discrepancy or something which doesn't make sense, it always turns out to be my ignorance that's the problem, not the ancient commentators." "Victor, it is important that you accept the help of the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries. Without them, you (or anyone) will always misinterpret the suttas." "There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts." "Remember the Mattika for this text was laid down by the Buddha who forsaw events and knew when it would be the right time for it and so on, i.e only after various controversies and schisms arose." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37240 From: connieparker Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Simon & Christine (& Sarah), I wonder if, when we say the paccekas can't or don't teach, we mean they don't have all the supreme qualities and capabilities of a sammasambuddha that make him/that role unique/supreme - not all the other conditions are in place for them to establish the sasana. I guess pacceka's another of those troublesome pali words: if we call them Silent, we might think they didn't speak at all; if we call them Solitary, we might forget things like one of the former Pajapati's serving 500 paccekas who hung out together. peace, connie 37241 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: "The same" in Buddhism Hello Herman H> I have been doing some study on the concept of sameness in H> Buddhism and have only found it expressed in a negative form H> ie not other (anna - ananna). Are there any other terms that H> are used for sameness/otherness? What is the Pali term used H> where the question is asked if it is the same being (I think H> it was) that is born as the one that dies? There are several adjectives that mean 'same', but in the sense that you are asking about the common way of indicating sameness is to add 'eva' (often shortened to 'va'). This is an intensifier, like the English word 'very' in "You're the very man I'm looking for!" The word ana~n~na.m ('not another') may also be added to drive the point home. And so the foolish monk Saati says: Tathaaha.m Bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami: yathaa tadevida.m vi~n~naa.ma.m sandhaavati sa.msarati ana~n~na.m "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this very consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirth, not another." (tadevida.m = ta.m + eva + ida.m) _____________________________ And in the Sarvastivadin section of the Milindapa~nhaa: Raajaa aaha: bhante Naagasena, yo uppajjati, so eva so, udaahu a~n~no ti? Thero aaha: na ca so, na ca a~n~no ti. The king said: "Venerable Nagasena, is he who is reborn the same, or is he another?" The elder answered: "He is neither the same, nor another" More literally: "he who arises, [is it] that very he, or another?" "[it is] not he and not another." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37242 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:43am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Sarah. S> I'm only giving comments based on what I've heard, not read. S> I'm also not particularly familiar with the Jatakas and have S> forgotten many I read a long time ago. But, don't you think: S> a) it is stressed when it is the Bodhisatta or 'future S> Buddha' being referred to Just going from memory, I don't think that this fact is stressed, except in a handful of Jatakas where there are statements to the effect that in that particular life the Bodhisatta was devoting himself to developing danaparami, silaparami or whatever. In these cases one would know for sure that he was a Bodhisatta at the time in question. But these are only a minority of Jatakas. I don't recall any Jatakas where the Buddha says: "It was I myself who was the wise cuckoo (or whatever) ... *and I was a Bodhisatta at the time*." S> b) it would be rather obvious at Buddhist Councils and to S> those with far greater familiarity with them if there was a S> glaring inconsistency between say the Harita Jataka and the S> Kunala Jataka? The story of the seduction of Saccatapavi is not in the Jataka verses but in the Atthakatha. I don't share your belief that the Atthakathas translated by the Mahavihara commentators were recited at the Councils. S> c) We have approximately 540 'birth stories' of Bodhisattas S> (some repetition and sometimes more than one 'birth' S> included). If all tales of previous lives within these were S> included, then the number would be much larger.... Right. But I'm not sure what it is you want to conclude from this. S> d) I'm sure the official position is that there is no S> inconsistency and once again our ignorance blinds us to what S> may be a simple explanation;-). Your piety is touching, but I suspect this is more the Sugenius or the Sarah Abbott official position than that of the Mahavihara commentators. No doubt the MaCs would insist that all apparent inconsistencies are merely apparent, but they would not be content to leave matters there. Their usual tendency is to follow the Milindapanha in assuming that all apparent inconsistencies can be *demonstrably* resolved. Their demonstations tend to be absurdly unconvincing, but are demonstrations nonetheless. The exceptions to this, where the commentators merely say "Trust us, we know what we're talking about even if you can't see it" are very few. In fact offhand I can only think of one, from the Vinaya Commentary. In his account of the ninth expiation rule Buddhaghosa acknowledges that the commentary is contradicting the Buddha, but then reassures the reader that the author of the Maha-atthakatha knew very well what the Buddha really meant to say. S> I'd like to get into a discussion on the S> nirutti/discrimination of language issue which you've raised S> several times, but: S> i) I have very little time before going to India and must S> give some priority to some behind-the-scenes tasks. Okay, there's no hurry. In fact it might be better to postpone it until all the relevant texts are available for us to discuss. I have collated the 20 or so commentarial passages dealing with the Magadhan dialect as the "root-language of all living beings" and the "language of sabhaava" and will try to upload them to the files section. Then it will take some time to translate them. S> ii) I'm not sure of the value in it As I see it, the value of such a discussion is this: the subject of the names of dhammas in the Magadhan dialect, the contribution of these names to the forming of a dhamma's sabhava, and the implied necessity of knowing these names in order to develop vipassana, is clearly no trifling matter. If there's any truth to this theory, then it's clearly something that an aspiring vipassanayanika would want to know about. On the other hand, if the theory is a lot of baloney, then that too would be valuable to know. It would be one less papa~nca-generating distraction for us to worry about. S> or whether you really wish to hear any other comments If anyone HAS any comments then I really do wish to hear them. I'm on tenterhooks. But I'm not sure what you mean by "any OTHER comments". So far my queries about Pali-speaking wolf-children and the deification of the dialect of Magadha have elicited no comments at all, unless you count Jon's reply which didn't actually answer the question I put to him. S> iii) my understanding is very limited, so there'd be glaring S> holes and could just sound to you like your parody;-). That's no problem. If we can't give the readers bread, we'll give them circuses. S> Anyway, if you wish, we could start and maybe both learn a S> little in the process, but it's up to you. I have many other S> posts waiting for replies I'd like to give, including more S> on our other threads which I may or may not get round to. S> Thankyou for the feedback on the sutta comments meanwhile;-). You're welcome, and thank you too. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37243 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Ken O. K> To each his own. Even if we will to write till the cow comes K> home, it will not a single difference to say these are K> reliable or not. Anyway most of the texts are written after K> a few centuries - so what is reliable - only one K> understanding and faith from the text we read. Only then we K> can say which reliable and that I leave you to your K> discretion. I always find it a tedious task to explain K> authenticity of text as I am not interest in dhamma as a K> historian or an intellect, I am a practitioner. So am I. Being a practitioner of the teaching is not incompatible with researching how it came down to us and how it became altered in the process of transmission. Indeed, given the Ani Sutta, it seems to me such an investigation would be of great benefit in sifting the gold from the ore. But as you say, each to his own. K> It difficult to accept abdhidhamma because there is little K> faith due to historical reason and not because of our open K> minded to try to understand its value. I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical reason'. Do you mean that the mere elapse of time causes acceptance of the Abhidhamma to decline? Or do you mean historical reasoning, critical historical research? K> My personal opinion, in fact, a lot of sutta cannot be K> translated into english without the help of Abdhidhamma K> because it was Abdhidhamma that explain the term in the K> concise manner not found in any other texts. Horses for the courses. If a translator aims to translate a Sutta according to how that Sutta was understood in 5th century Ceylon, then yes, he must certainly acquaint himself with the Abhidhamma system of the commentators. But if his aim is to translate it according to its likely meaning for the Buddha's audience then the commentarial Abhidhamma is not a reliable tool at all, and translations that treat it as reliable (e.g. those of the Burmese Sasana Pitaka Association) are going to be riddled with anachronisms. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37244 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:47am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. R> To be honest even without reading said article I doubt it R> would change my thinking. You said in another post that R> Buddhaghosa and the other commentators were, with regard to R> grammer, "completely reliable." "I seldom study a Sutta R> without having its commentary at my elbow. The MaCs were R> excellent grammarians and I rarely have reason to doubt the R> way that they unravel the syntax of a complex sentence or R> analyse the case relations in a compound word." It seems R> unlikely that over the past 2600 yeras of the sasana that R> the sangha were so blind as to not be able to tell when the R> Buddha was making a joke. Since Buddhaghosa and his merry men didn't see the joke even when the humour was as blatant as in the Kevadda and Potthapada Suttas, it is unremarkable that they failed to discern the more donnish humour of the Aganna. And once they had made up their minds that the Sutta was a literal account of anthropogenesis, subsequent generations of monks just towed the line. There was no motivation to read the Sutta as a brahmin-bashing work, since the brahmins were not lording it over everyone as they were in India. Having said that, I doubt that the literalist reading of the Aganna actually originates with the commentators. I think it is more likely to date from a time when rival religious groups were staging public debates to obtain royal patronage. All the others -- the Jains, the Ajivikas and the various brahminical schools -- had their own elaborate cosmologies and the Buddhists needed one too, if only to save face. They were up against Jains whose teacher saw the whole universe through his omniscience, and the brahmins whose rishis of yore had received divine revelations telling how the gods make the universe tick. To impress the rajas and get their hands on the lucre, Buddhists had to come up with something more than just a sagacious old man with a bad back who could do a good comic routine when the occasion demanded it. R> I did do a google search in case I could find it on-line and R> found an interview with Richard Gombrich R> http://www.ordinarymind.net/Interviews/interview_jan2003.htm R> Just as aside he says about Dependent origination that "A R> Polish lady called Joanna Jurewicz has finally understood R> it." I wonder if you have read the paper she wrote?. R> According to Theravada it is very deep and hard to R> comprehend. No, I have not read it. From an earlier post: R> One I have problems with is somewhere where either the R> Buddha or a commentary talked about Rahu and the moon eating R> the sun or something during an eclipse. There are two such Suttas. In one Rahu swallows the sun and in the other the moon. At the Buddha's command he then lets them go. Here's the one with the sun: Sutta on the Sun Deity's Plea for Protection On one occasion the Blessed One was living near Savatthi, at Jetavana, in the garden of Anathapindika. Now on that occasion the deva Suriya had been seized by Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras. Thereupon, calling to mind the Blessed One, Suriya on that occasion recited this stanza: Homage to thee, the Buddha, Thou art released in every way. I have fallen into bondage, Be thou a refuge for me. Thereupon the Blessed One addressed a stanza to Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras, on behalf of Suriya thus: "To the Tathagata, the Worthy One Has Suriya gone for refuge. O Rahu, let Suriya go! Buddhas have pity for the world. "While coursing through the sky Do not, O Rahu, swallow the effulgent one, The dispeller of darkness, The disk of radiant light in the gloom. Rahu, release Suriya, my son." Thereupon Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras, released the deva Suriya, and hurried into the presence of Vepacitta, another chieftain of the asuras, and stood beside him trembling with fear and with hair standing on end. Then Vepacitti addressed Rahu in this stanza: "Why O Rahu, did you hasten here? Why did you release Suriya? Why have you come here trembling? Why are you standing terrified?" Rahu: "My head would have split into seven pieces, While living I should have found no ease, If I had not freed Suriya When the Buddha recited that verse." _____________________________ What is presented in this Sutta is a motif common in Indian bhakti texts. It is a rare Indian religious hero who does not at some point in his career rescue the sun, or moon, or both from the jaws of Rahu. With this in mind I would take this Sutta as a poetic composition in this devotional genre by some disciple. Somewhere in the Anguttara Rahu is described as being the foremost in attabhaava. But his attabhaava, immense though it is, is no match for the released state of a Tathagata. That the Sutta came to be included in the Canon could perhaps be explained by its efficacy in lauding the act of going for refuge, in a way that would appeal to those of brahminical sensibility (though probably not to anybody else). And so it may have been admitted on the Uttara principle ("Whatsoever is well-spoken....") at a time when the sangha's conception of 'authorship' was far more fluid than it later became. This is not of course the orthodox view. In Buddhaghosa's commentary to this Sutta, what is described above is taken to be an actual historical event. Rahu, a demon of enormous size (Buddhaghosa thoughtfully gives us his precise measurements) swallows Suriya, just like in the Vedic story where Rahu regularly swallows the sun deity to get at his store of soma-nectar. In the Vedic story Rahu starts out riding through the heavens on a chariot pulled by seven black horses. But then he gets decapitated by Indra. His body dies but his head lives on after the decapitation. From that point on Rahu's head goes hurtling through space snapping at any planet that gets in the way, like one of those spherical Playstation monsters. It is not quite clear in the Comm. if Buddhaghosa thinks that the Sutta deals with the pre- or post-decapitated Rahu. This literal interpretation does seem a little problematic. It is well-known that Rahu was (and still is) the Indian way of talking about solar and lunar eclipses. So if the Sutta is relating an historical event, then either there was a normal eclipse and when it was over the Buddha took credit for it (making him a con artist); or else there are two kinds of eclipses -- one caused by the moon passing in front of the sun, and another kind where the sun really does get swallowed by a demon. Maybe the latter sort of eclipse only happens once every 10,000 years or something. And that's why we've never seen one since. And only Indians get to see them. I guess this might just about save Buddhaghosa's theory. But how one has to stretch to do it! And what a pity no one here wants to do anything similar for the Pali-speaking wolf-children. Not even the bright spark who once wrote: "When you and I read suttas, Y might seem to be saying X, but if the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries say it is Y, then Y it is." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ EXECUTIONER: Now though youÕd have said that head was dead (For its owner dead was he), It stood on its neck, with a smile well-bred, And bowed three times to me! It was none of your impudent off-hand nods, But as humble as could be; For it clearly knew The deference due To a man of pedigree! And itÕs oh, I vow, This deathly bow Was a touching sight to see; Though trunkless, yet It couldnÕt forget The deference due to me! CHORUS. This naughty youth, He speaks the truth Whenever he finds it pays: And in this case It all took place Exactly as he says! (Sub-sub-commentary on the Suriya Sutta Gilberata and Sullivana Theras) 37245 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:50am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. R> If you mean the commentaries though that even past Buddhas R> used pali language - that they believed it was a base R> language -I think you are right. I think it must be that way R> and the suttas support this belief: R> R> The Digha nikaya says R> R> "ninety-one aeons ago the Lord, the Arahant, the fully R> enlightened Buddha Vipassi arose in the world. Thirty-one R> aeons ago, the Lord Buddha Sikhi arose; in the same R> thirty-first aeon before this Lord Buddha Vessabhu arose. R> And in this present fortunate aeon the Lord Buddhas R> Kakusandha, Konagamana, and Kassapa arose in the world. And, R> monks, in this present fortunate aeon I too have now arisen R> in the world as a fully enlightened Buddha. ..In the time of R> the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty- thousand R> years;"" We see that these past Buddhas - even 91 aeons ago- R> had Pali names What a silly argument. Robert, have you been taking lessons from Nagasena? The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and Ivan Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and "Ivan the Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were Englishmen, or English speakers, or that their real names were English. And if you feel tempted to reply.... "Oh, but it's not the same. Pyotr Veliki and Ivan Grozniy are the original titles of the Tsars, and their English forms were invented later. But the Pali names of past Buddhas in the Digha Nikaya were not invented later. They ARE their original forms. They are the actual names by which these Buddhas were known in their own lifetime." ... if you are tempted to reply in this vein, I suggest you first search Google for the 'circular fallacy'. For your conclusion would then be no more than a restatement of your premise. In the Digha Nikaya we do not see that the past Buddhas HAD Pali names. The Digha Nikaya refers to past Buddhas by Pali names because the Digha Nikaya is a Pali text. In Pali texts everyone gets a Pali name. If disciples of the Buddha belong to, say, the Ka"syapa-gotra or the Katyaayana-gotra (two of the brahmin clans), then the Pali texts will rename them Kassapa and Kaccaayana. Even people whose given names are not in the Indo-European language-group will be referred to by Pali names. Tamils, for example, have Dravidian names like Sarmily Neduncheziyan and Gajea Thalaivar, which don't fit into the Pali phonetic or morphological system. So in a text like the Mahavamsa either the meanings of their names will be translated into Pali, or else some phonetic approximation will be devised. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37246 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:53am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. dig>> On the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, the dig>> Pali Milindapanha is a composite text. It consists of an dig>> older portion (parts II & III, and a small section of part dig>> I) and a later one (parts IV to VII and the legendary dig>> material in part I). The older portion can probably be dig>> trusted as an accurate account of how the Dhamma was dig>> understood by the 1st century Sarvastivadins of Kashmir. R> I don't know much about the sarvasativadins, are they still R> popular? Their Abhidharma is still popular in Mahayana countries, especially in the curricula of Tibetan monasteries. In India and Central Asia they were probably the most influential Buddhist school of all. Though perhaps not as numerically large as the personalist schools like the Sammitiyas, their influence on Buddhist thought was enormous and in one way or another they affected virtually every Buddhist school. I would guess about 90% of Indian Buddhist history is simply the history of the Sarvastivada -- how its teachings were attacked, defended, consolidated, and modified; how it generated off-shoots; which texts it borrowed and which it lent to other schools etc. etc. R> Do the tikas on the Milindapanha record how a sarvastivadin R> text become part of Theravada? No, of course not. It's just modern scholars who say such things, so you're safe. ;-) R> I am very pleased you honor Abhidhamma. I had a recent R> converation with a scholar from a western university who R> says the Abhidhamma wasn't even recited at the first R> council! As there is no reliable evidence that it was recited at the First Council the scholar's comment is unsurprising. My own respect for the Abhidhamma Pitaka has nothing to do with the Atthasalini's fairy tale about its origin, and everything to do with the fact that it has proven an aid to aloofness, contentment, calm and detachment. If anyone had tried to get me interested in the Abhidhamma by rehearsing Buddhaghosa's silly arguments proving that it was taught by the Buddha, I would probably have just used its seven books as a draught-excluder. I guess I'm just not a saddhacarita. dig>> The MaCs' contribution to the sciences clearly bears the dig>> stamp of its time and appears to be the product of dig>> speculation rather than observation, or else is just the dig>> reporting of received opinion and prejudice. Whether this dig>> has any serious consequences for what they have to say on dig>> the Dhamma is an interesting question. It seems to me that dig>> it does at least throw their conception of paramattha dig>> dhammas into a parlous state. Every paramattha dhamma, it is dig>> claimed, has a sabhava. And that sabhava is partly dig>> constituted by the dhamma's NAME. Not just any old name that dig>> people might care to give it, but its name in the dialect of dig>> Magadha, which is its true and absolute name. R> The name is only a useful designation - The Abhidhammattha R> Vibhavani calls realities (such as rupa and nama) vijjamana R> pannatti to distinguish between non real concepts such as R> human and dog (called avijjamana pannattis) But the words in R> both cases are designated pannatti -concept. As I said in my post to Sarah, I should prefer to delay a full discussion until the relevant texts are available. If I can upload the file I have made, you might take a look at passage 10 from the Vibhanga-mulatika, which, unless I am misunderstanding it, seems to indicate that (unlike the name of a concept) a dhamma is properly designated only when designated in the 'language of individual essence' (sabhaava-nirutti). The file is entitled mulabhasa.txt Could you also tell me the chapter number of your Abhidhammatthavibhavini reference? The only occurrence of vijjamaanapa~n~natti I have been able to find so far is dealing with questions of grammar, not Abhidhamma. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37247 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 10:04am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Connie, Paccekabuddhas do speak. They are not silent. They do not found up any sasana. This is the chief difference between Sammasambuddhas and Paccekabuddhas. Savakas maintain the sasana that is taught by a Sammasambuddha. Paccekabuddhas are not the disciples of Sammasambuddhas. So they do not need to maintain the sasana. But they penetrate themselves all dhammas like Sammasambuddhas without any teacher showing them up. At a time, in an era, in a sasana, there always is only one and a single Sammasambuddha. But Paccekabuddhas can be many. They can arise in the presence of Sammasambuddha. But they do not need any information from the Sammasambuddha to attain their Paccekabuddhaship. Paccekabuddhas can also arise when there is no sasana at all. When there is a Sammasambuddha, there is only one and a single sasana. This sasana is founded by The Sammasambuddha. By the same token, when there is no Sammasambuddhas, then there is no sasana at all even though there may be many Paccekabuddhas in the absence of Sammasambuddha. Once a lady was in a filed of sugar-cane. There was a Paccekabuddha flying in the sky. She asked to accept her offering of sugar-cane which were very sweet. The Paccekabuddha came down and accepted her offering and then the Paccekabuddha said, [ Paccekabuddhas do speak ] ''Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' Paccekkabuddhas are not silent. If this word is used readers may think in the other way. This might have a bad kamma and this may lead to rebirth with deaf and damb. Please do not stick to that word. Pacceka means 'individually' rather than 'solitary'. One of 6 Dhamma attributes is paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'ti. Here all those ariyas each realize nibbana individually. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: Hi Simon & Christine (& Sarah), I wonder if, when we say the paccekas can't or don't teach, we mean they don't have all the supreme qualities and capabilities of a sammasambuddha that make him/that role unique/supreme - not all the other conditions are in place for them to establish the sasana. I guess pacceka's another of those troublesome pali words: if we call them Silent, we might think they didn't speak at all; if we call them Solitary, we might forget things like one of the former Pajapati's serving 500 paccekas who hung out together. peace, connie 37248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing and thinking. Hello Phil This is very helpful. We understand now that the Abhidhamma helps us in giving details about different processes, and about the object of seeing, visible object, different from a concept or story. The Abhidhamma supports satipatthana and satipatthana again is a condition for equanimity in difficult situations. On account of what I see there is a lot of worry, long periods of thinking with worry. We know this in theory, but tend to forget it in the situation of daily life. Thank you, Nina. op 03-10-2004 13:20 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Now I am feeling more confident about the effectiveness of these moments > of mindfulness. We can't see something and be someone at the same time. A > moment of > seeing, for example, is a moment of liberation from self and its endless > stories that cause so much dukkha. 37249 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:23pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 12 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 56 is fine. Page 57 1. In the middle bullet, Rob M mentions about 'a doctor stethoscope'. It is not clear what that nimitta refers to. To goodness or badness. 2. Figure in the Page 57 is very good to demonstrate marana asanna javana and patisandhi citta and next life bhavanga cittas, including the first mano dvara vithi of lobha mula akusala citta javana. Page 58. 3. It is good to give some similes to different kamma Exercise is equated with upatthambhaka kamma. Smoking is equated with upapiilaka kamma. Accident is equated with upaghataka kamma. Page 59 and Page 60 are flawless in my view. May these criticisms be beneficial. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37250 From: connieparker Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Htoo, Thank you very much. I'd never thought about the paccekabuddhas not being part of the sasana. Please tell me what the paccekabuddha said to the woman in the field: ''Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' I guess it is something to do with all his aspirations having succeeded like the full moon on the 15th or a bright, shining jewel. Is that anywhere near close? peace, connie 37251 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Fear of death (Was Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble") Hello Howard, Nina, and all > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intrinsically trouble? > They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root > cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No craving, > no trouble!! Ph: I got "The Fear" last night, if you know what I mean. Mortal fear as I lay in bed. I turned on the lights and read Dhamma as though it were a pacifier. Dukkha as "fear" might be suitabe a lot of time. Even with the pleasant dhammas, because there is the underlying fear that the pleasant times won't last. I have so much craving, and therefore so much dukkha. So much fear and sadness related to disease, aging, dying. It is usually related to Naomi, my wife, who doesn't have refuge in Dhamma. Dhamma really does liberate us from a lot of fear. But I was reminded last night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying my fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old and dying - or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing. BTW, there is a tendency, still, to assume that I will get old before I die, and that because some of you are several decades older than me, that I will be grieving you rather than the other way around. I was reminded that this is not the case last week when a friend from work, in his late 20s, was found dead in a shallow river in Tokyo after a night of drinking. He drowned in 10 centimetres of water. I had a similar accident about 8 years ago, when I crashed my bicycle into a roadside canal (drunk), was knocked out and lay face down in the river but happened to land on a clump of earth and weeds that had formed an island in the river. Otherwise I would have died, a week after my wedding. It's a good thing I don't drink anymore, though I know well enough that I may again, due to conditions. Anyways, the point is that death can come at anytime. One of the Yahoo groups has file photos of the decomposing corpse of a monk to assist in cemetery contemplations. I have been to another web site (not Buddhist) where there are all kinds of gruesome photos of people killed in accidents, murders, suicide etc. Even the beheadings of the hostages in Iraq. Why did I go there? Why did I not feel distressed by what I saw? It is the nature of people to get old, get sick, die, naturally, or in accidents, or by the cruel hands of others. I've only been to that site twice, and I may or may not look at it again, but really it's not a bad reminder of a certain reality of human life. (All middle way, of course - wouldn't want to become devoted to cemetery contemplations.I also read -and write- lovely stories with happy endings.) I wonder if that sounds peculiar? The cittas of the people who run the site and post the pictures are unwholesome, but I didn't feel looking at the pictures was an unwholesome thing to do. It was related to better understanding the first Noble Truth, perhaps. Metta, Phil 37252 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Finding suttas ----- Original Message ----- From: "connieparker" To: "dsg" Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:23 AM Subject: [dsg] Finding suttas > > Kind of a p.s. here, Phil - > Should've said the Anguttara are relatively easy depending on which system > is used! Who'd think that A IV 58-59 and AN VII 48 are the same thing? > Have fun looking things up anyway! Hi Connie. See, I don't know about the above. Could you explain if you have a moment? Thanks in advance! Metta, Phil 37253 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 1:42pm Subject: Re: Fear of death (Was Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble") Hi, Phil (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/3/04 8:16:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hello Howard, Nina, and all > > > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intrinsically > trouble? > >They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the > root > >cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > >little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > craving, > >no trouble!! > > Ph: I got "The Fear" last night, if you know what I mean. Mortal fear as I > lay > in bed. I turned on the lights and read Dhamma as though it were a pacifier. > Dukkha as "fear" might be suitabe a lot of time. Even with the pleasant > dhammas, > because there is the underlying fear that the pleasant times won't last. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, fear is a form of aversion, adversion is a from of craving (for things to be otherwise), and craving is the root cause of dukkha. ---------------------------------------- > I have so much craving, and therefore so much dukkha. > --------------------------------------- Howard: We all do, Phil. It's good you can see it. -------------------------------------- So much fear and> > sadness related to > disease, aging, dying. It is usually related to Naomi, my wife, > who doesn't have refuge in Dhamma. > Dhamma really does liberate us from a lot of fear. But I was reminded > last > night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying > my > fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of > seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old > and dying - > or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: And developing the habit of letting be and letting go - after seeing - is good. ----------------------------------------------- > > BTW, there is a tendency, still, to assume that I will get old before I > die, and that > because some of you are several decades older than me, that I will be > grieving you > rather than the other way around. I was reminded that this is not the case > last week > when a friend from work, in his late 20s, was found dead in a shallow river > in Tokyo > after a night of drinking. He drowned in 10 centimetres of water. I had a > similar accident > about 8 years ago, when I crashed my bicycle into a roadside canal (drunk), > was knocked > out and lay face down in the river but happened to land on a clump of earth > and weeds that had formed > an island in the river. Otherwise I would have died, a week after my > wedding. -------------------------------------------- Howard: As the Buddha said, death is a certainty, and the time of death is unknown. ------------------------------------------- > It's a good thing I don't drink anymore, though I know well enough that I > may again, due to > conditions. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps. But the decision and intention not to is one of those conditions. I think that training precept is very useful. ---------------------------------------- Anyways, the point is that death can come at anytime.> > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep. ----------------------------------------- > One of the Yahoo groups has file photos of the decomposing corpse of a > monk to assist in > cemetery contemplations. I have been to another web site (not Buddhist) > where there are all kinds of gruesome > photos of people killed in accidents, murders, suicide etc. Even the > beheadings of the hostages in Iraq. > Why did I go there? Why did I not feel distressed by what I saw? > It is the nature of people to get old, get sick, die, naturally, or in > accidents, or by the cruel > hands of others. I've only been to that site twice, and I may or may not > look at it again, but > really it's not a bad reminder of a certain reality of human life. (All > middle way, of course - wouldn't > want to become devoted to cemetery contemplations.I also read -and write- > lovely stories with happy endings.) > I wonder if that sounds peculiar? The cittas of the people who run the > site and post the pictures are unwholesome, but > I didn't feel looking at the pictures was an unwholesome thing to do. It > was related to better understanding the first Noble > Truth, perhaps. > > Metta, > Phil > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37254 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hi Eric > > Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > this or that in order to reach the goal. > > > Then what is the impetus? Then what is > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If > it is not based on thought, then is it > based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' > is not eradicated until Arahantship then > what is the 'other factor' that manifests > this 'perfection' in the beginning stages > or the latter stages of development? Ph: Mind if I take a shot at answering this as well? Good practice for me. As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self involved in this. For example, I can aspire not to use rough speech, but we all know how futile it is to intend to speak gently. The words are out before you know it. But as panna is cultivated, and strengthens, and one becomes more mindful, we find ourselves speaking more mindfully whether we intended to or not. It is panna that is the impetus here, not our overt (is that the right word?) intention. We learn more and more about the cost of rough speech, the way it hurts us more than it hurts the other person. And that learning arises in panna. Now, as I've said to you before, I do think there is some value in overt(?) intentional activities, early on. For example, I would keep a diary, and keep track of "regrettable incidents" as I called them. And intend to do something about it. And maybe that fairly crude intention helped clear the ground that now seems to be planted with a subtler and more lasting and reliable tendency to wholesomeness. It just seems that more moments of these countless moments of intention (there is intention with every citta) are happening in the light of a beginner's right understanding of realities, of anatta. It's all very liberating. There is no need to steer intention in a wholesome direction, and even if I did conditions would knock the steering wheel loose again to swing around every which way. Instead, there is riding along mindfully and being aware of moments when right understanding/panna steers me in the right direction. And those moments condition more moments of right intention. I know that sounds like AA or something - turn the steering wheel over to JeeeZus! But it does apply in Dhamma as well. Turn the steering wheel over to panna. Metta, Phil p.s Thanks also for your feedback in the "world beyond" thread. I do pay too much attention to others' practices - but that's another area panna is helping. I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and thinking about it far less often. 37255 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 6:20pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - listening to Dhamma is the most valuable thing in life Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits3.html In the following exchange with K Sujin, "W" is Ms. Wandhana. S. : Do you know what is most valuable in your life? W. : I believe that for us Buddhists seeing or hearing the Dhamma of the Exalted One is the most valuable thing in life. Everybody surely desires to see the Buddha or hear the voice of the Buddha who speaks with a heart full of compassion. The Buddhas appearance and the sound of his voice were admired by countless Buddhists who had great confidence in him and gave him the highest honour. But we, at the present time, can acquire very little merit, because we have no opportunity to see the Buddha, to visit him, or to hear the exposition of the Dhamma directly from the Buddha himself. S. : We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sixes, Ch III, 10, Above all ) about six things which are valuable above all, namely: the seeing above all, the hearing above all, the gain above all, the training above all, the service above all and the ever minding above all [43. W. : These six things which are valuable above all must also concern the listening to the Dhamma. Therefore we will deal again presently with these six excellent things. 37256 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 6:34pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Connie, > > Paccekabuddhas do speak. They are not silent. They do not found up > any sasana. This is the chief difference between Sammasambuddhas and > Paccekabuddhas. > > Savakas maintain the sasana that is taught by a Sammasambuddha. > > Paccekabuddhas are not the disciples of Sammasambuddhas. So they do > not need to maintain the sasana. But they penetrate themselves all > dhammas like Sammasambuddhas without any teacher showing them up. > > At a time, in an era, in a sasana, there always is only one and a > single Sammasambuddha. > > But Paccekabuddhas can be many. They can arise in the presence of > Sammasambuddha. But they do not need any information from the > Sammasambuddha to attain their Paccekabuddhaship. > ++++++++++ Dear Htoo, Yes very good. Pacceka buddhas speak but they cannot give the detailed teaching that a sammasambuddha can. Their parami arre immense. RobertK p.s Htoo, I don't think Paccekabuddhas exist in the presence of a sammasambuddha. Robertk 37257 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:00pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Robert. > > R> If you mean the commentaries though that even past Buddhas > R> used pali language - that they believed it was a base > R> language -I think you are right. I think it must be that way > R> and the suttas support this belief: > R> > R> The Digha nikaya says > R> > R> "ninety-one aeons ago the Lord, the Arahant, the fully > R> enlightened Buddha Vipassi arose in the world. Thirty-one > R> aeons ago, the Lord Buddha Sikhi arose; in the same > R> thirty-first aeon before this Lord Buddha Vessabhu arose. > R> And in this present fortunate aeon the Lord Buddhas > R> Kakusandha, Konagamana, and Kassapa arose in the world. And, > R> monks, in this present fortunate aeon I too have now arisen > R> in the world as a fully enlightened Buddha. ..In the time of > R> the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty- thousand > R> years;"" We see that these past Buddhas - even 91 aeons ago- > R> had Pali names > > What a silly argument. Robert, have you been taking lessons from > Nagasena? > > The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and Ivan > Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and "Ivan the > Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were Englishmen, or > English speakers, or that their real names were English. > Dear Dighanaka, This is possible - but in the example above I see Ivan is still called Ivan (and I don't think Ivan was originally an English name). Also I am not sure what you suggest is the case in general. Why do we call Tojo (the Japanese prime-minister in WW II Tojo (his name in nihongo. What do think historians will call Saddam Hussein in the future? RobertK 37258 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 8:18pm Subject: poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hello all A cold rainy day, 2nd in a row. More rain to come for the next few days. For some reason the gas isn't working and I can't take a nice hot shower to warm up. Thoughts of death and disease arise quite often. My two most hectic days at work are coming up and it makes me feel tired just to think about it. En bref, feeling blue. And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you said that.) Metta can't be controlled, but experience tells me that this will be the case. And it makes me wonder about the Christian expression "poverty of spirits" (which if I recall is used in praise of humility and selflessness) and whether it doesn't have an equivalent in Dhamma. On days like this I am filled with far less self-confidence, less self-interest, in my own projects and plans. That aspect of self is weakened, diluted, and there is nothing to hinder the arising of metta. There is a truer and deeper connection to others when I'm feeling blue. Irritation is more likely to come when I'm feeling bright and energetic and other people don't live up to self's expectations of the way people should be. But on lousy feeling days we're all in the same boat and metta arises easily. Of course, not to say that I always have to feel lousy for metta to arise easily! Just an observation. Metta, Phil 37259 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/3/04 11:22:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days > like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection > to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you > said that.) > =========================== No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37260 From: dragonwriter3 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi to All, A kind-hearted thankyou to everyone for the replies. They helped ease the mind a bit :) The question had been bugging me for a while. It's amazing to reflect that despite of samsara, mental afflictions and negative kamma Buddhas do arise and teach the Dhamma. Kinda like the Mud and Lotus thingy. With Metta Simon L. 37261 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. dig>> The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and dig>> Ivan Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and dig>> "Ivan the Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were dig>> Englishmen, or English speakers, or that their real names dig>> were English. R> This is possible - but in the example above I see Ivan is R> still called Ivan (and I don't think Ivan was originally an R> English name). I believe it comes from the Greek Ioannas. But I guess it might go further back to some Hebrew name (I'm thinking of John the Baptist, for example). Historically there was little consistency in how European countries referred to each others' kings. If a continental king was called Hans or Jean the English would change it to the English form John. But Ivan -- the Slavic form of John -- was allowed to remain Ivan. R> Also I am not sure what you suggest is the case in general. R> Why do we call Tojo (the Japanese prime-minister in WW II R> Tojo (his name in nihongo. Firstly because there is no reason not to: the pronunciation of Tojo should pose no problems for an English speaker (unlike 'Piotr', which does not conform to the regular English phonetic system). Secondly because of a change in international diplomatic etiquette in the late 19th century. As nations began to deal with each other on somewhat more equal terms than formerly, there was no one dominant power with a mandate to give foreigners any name it wanted. This change in diplomatic policy then spread into other areas, such as commerce, and finally into general usage. R> What do think historians will call Saddam Hussein in the R> future? There is no way of knowing. It will depend on which (if any) is the dominant culture, which is the dominant language, and whether the speakers of that dominant language prefer to import foreign names unaltered, phonetically alter them, or translate their meanings. In English all three of these have been done in the past with Semitic names: Abdul Wahhab -- imported without change Ali al-Husayn Ibn Sina -- latinized to Avicenna Moses ben Maimon -- hispanicized to Maimonides Abu l-Walid Muhammad bin Ahmad Ibn Rushd -- hispanicized (and shortened!) to Averroes Yeshu'a bar-Yoseph -- anglicized and translated to Jesus, son of Joseph Now I'm no prophet, but since you asked, I would expect that for the next half century he will be called "Saddam Hussein", pronounced with an American accent. A hundred years from now I expect he will be "Saddam Hussein" pronounced with a Chinese accent. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37262 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:30am Subject: Science/truth (4) Dighanaka Dear Dighanaka, I reply to your post about why you think we should look to academics, rather than the Theravada tradition, to find the truth about aspects of what the Buddha taught. Dighanaka "I should prefer to limit it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within their field of expertise, >>..... there are good reasons for preferring modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars like the plague.** ========== Your position is accepted in academic circles but it has its own problems. Consider your comments about the Aganna sutta: "Richard Gombrich has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody , Buddhaghosa, unfortunately, saw neither the joke nor the allegory of the Aganna Sutta, took the whole thing literally, and left the Theravada tradition saddled with a creation story so laughable it makes the creationism of Christian fundamentalists seem like sound science."" Certainly an Oxford don like Richard Gombrich has impeccable academic credentials with numerous peer-reviewed publications in his field of pali studies. Nevertheless, there are other academics, well-versed in pali, and published in peer-reviewed journals who reach different conclusions from the esteemed professor. Dr. Rupert Gethin wrote an article in the prestigious 'History of Religion' journal (Vol.36, No.3,1997), http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha190.htm ""According to Gombrich the first half of the discourse introduces the problem of the relative status of brahmanas and suddas; this question is then dealt with in a tongue-in-cheek satirical manner by the Aganna myth. Gombrich regards the overall form of the Agganna- sutta as we have it as attributable to the Buddha himself and thus original. But for Gombrich the text is "primarily satirical and parodistic in intent," although in time the jokes were lost on its readers and the myth came to be misunderstood by Buddhist tradition "as being a more or less straight-faced account of how the universe, and in particular society, originated." ...Gombrich's arguments for the essential unity of the Agganna text as we have it are extremely persuasive, yet I would DISAGREE with the implication that we should regard the mythic portions of the Agganna-sutta as solely satirical. It....seems to me UNLIKELY that, for the original compiler (s) of and listeners to the discourse, the mythic portion of the sutta could have been intended to be understood or actually understood in its entirety as a joke at the expense of the poor old brahanas. . The question I would therefore ask is, Do we have any particular historical reasons for supposing that it is unlikely that the Buddha should have recounted a more or less straight-faced cosmogonic myth? My answer is that we do not. Indeed, I want to ARGUE THE OPPOSITE: what we can know of the cultural milieu in which the Buddha operated and in which the first Buddhist texts were composed suggests that someone such as the Buddha might very well have presented the kind of myth contained in the Agganna-sutta as something more than merely a piece of satire. Far from being out of key with what we can understand of early Buddhist thought from the rest of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Agganna-sutta in fact harmonize extremely well with it. I would go further and say that something along the lines of what is contained in the Agganna myth is actually REQUIRED by the logic of what is generally accepted as Nikaya Buddhism."""endquote from Gethin Note that Dr. Gethin is no strong believer in the sutta (in fact, he considers it a myth); he is not labouring under the weight of piety towards the Theravada like some members of Dsg. Yet, despite Gombrich showing 'beyond any reasonable doubt'(according to you) that the sutta is a parody Gethin reaches an opposite conclusion. Who is right? Well, another leading academic, Steve Collins, has said he agrees with Gombrich, so I guess the 'Aganna sutta is a hilarious joke' theory is now winning the academic battle.. Then again there is the thesis put forward by Schneider and Meisig that the Aganna sutta had some input from the Buddha but that later monks added on the bulk of the cosmological pieces; so is that the actual truth? Or will another scholar weigh in and support Gethin, or will a completely different theory emerge oneday? You also wrote ""And it is only from the commentators that we get the idea that the Buddha's Dhamma has to do with paramattha dhammas and citta-khanas. These terms are not found in the Tipitaka -- not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The shadow of doubt cast by the commentators' judgments on women should reasonably be taken to cover what they say about other things"" I work from an opposite perspective to you. I believe that paramattha dhammas and citta-khanas gradually (very, very incrementally) become evident, and that, unlike Buddhist history, we can see that these are really true. It is in fact because the teaching of paramttha dhammas(which are taught in the suttas, where they are classfied as khandhas, ayatanas or dhatus and nibbana) is so real and true that generally I am accepting of other sections of the suttas and commentaries which cannot be proven . RobertK 37263 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:18am Subject: Some fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur/sugenius reflections for D.(1) 1) Dear Dighanakha, I'll give a few comments to several of your posts here - pls feel free to break them up into different threads. I'm afraid I don't have time to pull out texts before going away, not even the ones I had out before. "All Women" & Jatakas ================= As I've said, I read this to be talking about women in general, certainly not to ariyans and to be understood in the light of what we read from other Tipitaka texts too. 'Opportunity', 'secrecy' and 'suitable wooer'. You're most welcome to give me the pali and a little more translation of the words in the context of the Jataka and Milinda Qu with the ref. As I've said, I found the latter convincing and helpful as obviously did K.Milinda! Again, the anusaya are very 'deep' so I don't call it 'cheating' as you do but understanding how we're not really being tested at this moment. Sometimes you seem to be saying you accept the Jataka verses and other times, as with the Kunala verses, you say the opposite. I'm also not sure if you accept the verses *and* stories were recited at least at the Vesali Council or not, though it doesn't matter. Dialect of Magadha (i.e. Pali) =============== This is going to be a long thread and I'm happy to hang in for the long haul;-). by any other comments, I was referring to any other than your own which of course are interesting, like all your comments. Passing comments only for now - I know you'll let me know what you disagree with as colourfully as usual;-): We speak the language we're brought up in. Realities are represented in words and the meaning is understood by these words. We live at this time, not the Buddha's time and so we cannot know/understand many strange occurrences we read about and I don't consider them of any great importance. Rob and Jon have mentioned some. We read about strange and talking animals, about the Bodhisatta walking and talking on birth, great ages lived to and so much more. Now, we cannot imagine arahants with patisambhidas or what it's like for someone to hear a few brief words and fully understand the teachings. it depends on previous accumulations whether someone like Sariputta will hear and understand so very deeply. Even amongst those who had the patisambhida knowledges, such knowledge wasn't equal. The 'individual essence language' for many of us here is English. So when we hear the word 'feeling', because we've studied and considered and developed a little understanding, it has some meaning immediately. In addition, because we're both familiar with the word 'vedana', it also can condition some immediate intellectual right understanding at least , perhaps a little more than 'feeling' might. For someone else, the Thai or another language will be more likely to condition understanding. In other words, there's nothing special about Pali for those who haven't studied it and for these peope it is not an *essence* language at all or necessary for any development along the path. The texts and commentaries were written by and for those for whom Pali was an individual essence language, for those who spoke and read it. This does *not* mean that a sotapanna or other ariyans have to speak or learn it. In brief, without nirutti patisambhida (discriminative knowledge of language), we cannot really understand the deep meanings of words whether in English or Pali. When we hear 'fealing' or 'vedanaa', we only understand the meaning very superficially. But for those who really had this discriminative knowledge, the word would have immediately conditioned understanding. This is why the Buddha could teach Sariputta the Abhidhamma in brief and the latter could share it in detail with others like ourselves. The same for Kaccayana or the other great disciples who acted as commentators, elaborating on the teachings, even during the Buddha's life. So it always comes back to the understanding, not to the language as I see it. Only panna 'discriminates' and directly knows realities as they are. You mentioned that the 'Name' was of significance and that this must be in Magadha which is its 'true and absolute name'. I think this is a wrong understanding of the meaning. Who was taking a snipe at 'literalist' interpretations?;-). Another section was quoted recently on DSG from Qus of K.Milinda - 'The Problem of Inference' in Bk2. It starts off with the qu about 'How can you know that the Buddha ever lived?' We are shown that just as we know old kings lived by the evidence we can see today -- the crown, the slippers, the sword and so on, so by the teachings left behind, we can infer the Buddha lived. In the same way about Buddhaghosa's commentaries, by testing out and proving more and more of what is written to be correct, one infers that those aspects not fully comprehended are likely to be right and that yes, it's likely each time to be my 'ignorance that is blinding'. < to be contd> 37264 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:21am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Htoo, Yes very good. Pacceka buddhas speak but they cannot give the detailed teaching that a sammasambuddha can. Their parami arre immense. RobertK p.s Htoo, I don't think Paccekabuddhas exist in the presence of a sammasambuddha. Robertk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Robert K, Thanks for your p.s. I would check it. With respect, Htoo Naing P.S: I was considering they can be on the same earth, in the same era. 37265 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:22am Subject: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd cont (2) Dighanakha Sutta ============== We cannot talk about wrong views without grasping. By their nature, wrong views always arise with lobha (attachment), just as right views always arise with panna. In the Brahmajala sutta we read about how the holders of all the 62 wrong views experience feelings, craving, clinging and so on. All are trapped in the net. It is the very nature of wrong view to think it's right and to condition clinging. An annihilationist may not cling much to life -- for example, someone about to commit suicide believes in a self, but believes it will be destroyed at death and that any painful feelings will cease by the act -- but it is a kind of dispassion conditioned by wrong view and clinging to that view. So Dighanakha in the sutta was pleased to hear the Buddha describe the view as being close to non-attachment, but then the Buddha 'adds the qualification', i.e then he rubbishes it. It reminds me of our DSG posters like Andrew T or Phil who kindly find some areas to be polite and then prepare for the 'kill'. Whether it is an annihilationist view (as depicted by the commentary) or an eel-wriggling view as Bodhi suggests, it is not commended and is based on a wrong view of self and lack of understanding of the elements to be known directly as you agreed. You also agreed with me that 'one employs the speech currently used in the world without adhering to it'. So an understanding of paramatha dhammas or elements doesn't reclude the use of conventional terms. Whether 'paramatha' is or is not used in the suttas, there are definitely other terms which depict the distinction between worldly and non-worldly or conventional and non-conventional use and understanding, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that Dighanakha was not told to chase after "*language-based* physical and pyschical atoms called 'paramatha dhammas", but then I've never suggested that this;-). As Htoo has pointed out, it's a mere convenience to distinguish absolute from conventional dhammas. That's all. Yes, I also agree fully that 'vedanaa' was referred to because it happened to be the language shared by the Buddha and Dighanakha. As I said, I think your other comment about the meaning of the commentators on the 'sabhava of feeling' missed the mark. Like you said, it was the 'essence' language for those like the Buddha and Dighanakha. Clearly, with your familiarity with Pali, it would also have greater significance for you than for me or most others here, as well. The same applies to your other comment in this thread: **** S: ...paramattha dhammas or impermanent elements without self or core. D:'without self or core', but with a real and eternal name in the dialect of Magadha? ***** S: If you look through the entire archives you'll never find a post where I've even hinted at anything like this. The only purpose, as far as I'm concerned, in studying Pali is to understand realities. There's no point in just remembering sounds and meanings in Pali which will be forgotten at the end of this life. Obviously, if someone has good understanding of the teachings, it's very useful, but if not, people will just follow the wrong views they have already. Similar comments would apply to learning the details of the Abhidhamma or even Suttanta. Having said that, I'm delighted to have your Pali expertise and great familiarity of the texts to help us out here and as I've said, I appreciate your comments and very careful reflections.* "We know better than Buddhaghosa" =========================== You mentioned this in regard to science which you're discussing in another thread with Rob. Simply put, this is not the kind of knowledge that leads us along the path, whether it is conceptually right or wrong. In psychology too, the emphasis is very much on what can be tested and proved scientifically and yet the entire premise for such testing is on the basis of what can be proved to be inherited via genes vs what can be proved in this life to have been learnt. Anything prior to conception doesn't count because it cannot be tested. Jatakas and Lies ============ I only looked at a few Jatakas, but in each it was clear that it was the Bodhisatta. In the Kunala Jataka, when the Buddha says it was he that was Kunala, I read this to mean, it was he that was Kunala, the Bodhisatta. Again, we have to read this in the context of the other tales. My comment about the number of Jataka Tales (about 540) refers to comments I've seen about the number of lives of the Bodhisatta discussed, but I can't give a reference (?Intro to Jatakas). I see no reason to go out of our way to read an inconsistency of magnitude when Buddhaghosa and other great commentators and Theras did not. I can't say if my reading here is correct, but I'm confident that there is an answer which conforms with the other Jatakas and texts and this one seems likely for now. On the question of lies, you mention that you don't accept parts of the Atthasalini, commentary to the Vinaya and so on with regard to their reporting of the First Council. This opens up another whole can of worms we'll have to look into sometime. What I find generally amongst those other scholars and historians you look to for historical facts, is that they all are happy to select and quote from these same commentaries and accept as fact those parts which suit their cases or understanding. We're obviously talking about a major Mahavihara conspiracy, fully accepted by the followers too, if these texts are full of lies. ***** It's funny D, when I first went to Bodh Gaya exactly 30 years ago, almost to the month, it was the fact that nothing at all had to be believed or taken on faith that was so very appealing to me in the Dhamma. I'd always challenged and questioned any views and here, anything of value could be tested and checked and proved and this was so different from my studies of other religions, politics and science too. Of course, it was only a matter of time before I'd also start questioning the 'check and prove' meditation practices being taught under the guise of the Dhamma. Now here I am in middle-age, along with other highly-esteemed-by-me friends who question what they read and hear more keenly and persistently than any others I know, put in a fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur pigeon-hole;-). I appreciate these discussions, but I may not be able to respond further until I return from India. Please continue to encourage others to participate and perhaps I'll return with reinforced vigour;-). Metta, Sarah *(in the file you've added, would you kindly give simple references for the texts, so that it's easy to look up English translations for those we have. Also, pls put a 'z' at the front of the name as you'll see others have done for non-mod files. Thx). ====== 37266 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Connie: Dear Htoo, Please tell me what the paccekabuddha said to the woman in the field: ''Icchitam patthitam..snip..purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. ..snip..purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' I guess it is something to do with all his aspirations having succeeded like the full moon on the 15th or a bright, shining jewel. Is that anywhere near close? peace, connie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Connie, I know you are like a Pali scholar. In a list you always discuss Pali words. I saw you were good at Pali. Your interpretation above is right. 'Like a moon in its fullest day, like a bright, shining ruby, be fulfiled all your wishes.' With Metta, Htoo Naing 37267 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:55am Subject: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear All, As there have been a few references to Nagarjuna recently, I'd like to repost an earlier message which I wrote after reading the paper Larry gave the link for below. I hope it may be of some assistance. ***** L:> Here is a link for several Nagarjunian views. Read the first two > sections at least: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/madhyamaka.html <..> ..... S: I think the following points should be appreciated by those reading the Tipitaka (including Abhidhamma) and ancient Pali commentaries, especially if they are familiar with Nagarjuna and his writings: 1. In the Theravada commentaries and Abhidhamma, sabhava does not refer to self or 'independent or autonomous being'.* It refers to a particular or differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. Read in context, this is apparent. Howard gave these quotes from the Visuddhimagga on su~n~nattaa and anattaa: H:> (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned voidness in the six modes in this way , he discerns it again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no core, is coreless, without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of permanence, or (ii) core of lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or (iv)core of self, or as far as concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) what is lasting,or (vii) what is eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to change. Just as a reed has no core, is coreless, without core; just as a castor-oil plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, a palibhaddaka tree, a lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain trunk, a conjuring trick, has no core is coreless, without core, so too materiality etc.' (2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dharana) for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are impermanent in the sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful in the sense of [causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ... (Howard's caps). ***** 2. There is a clear distinction between concepts (pannatti) and realities (paramattha dhammas). In the Tipitaka, paramattha dhammas which can be directly known and which have characteristics are clearly differentiated from pannatti (concepts). Indeed this is the 'essence' of the Teachings,without which a path would not be possible.* ***** 3. The Buddha's teachings are not about transforming 'unskilful mental events into skilful mental events'. Many Theravada teachers say this, but it is contradictory to what we read in the Tipitaka. Either attachment arises or it doesn't. Attachment doesn't change to detachment.For example: MN18 (~Na.namoli/Bodhi transl)**: " Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness arises.....contact...feeling......perceives. What one perceives,that one thinks about. What one thinks about,that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past,future,and present forms cognizable through the eye." <...> "'Bhikkhus, as to the source through which perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man: if nothing is found there to delight in, welcome, and hold to, this is the end of the underlying tendency to lust,of the underlying tendency to aversion,... to views.....to doubt.......to conceit....to desire of being..... to ignorance.....' " ***** 4. An understanding of conditions is very important. Only realities (paramattha dhammas) are dependent on other factors. MN 18: "Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness arises............contact....feeling. What one feels, that one percieves.....' If we talk about trees and rocks now, they are concepts. However, the rupas which make up the tree or rocks depend on temperature and not the mind to rise and fall and so exist momentarily. This is regardless of whether the rupas are directly experienced at any given time. Concepts do not arise and fall. In suttas, such as SN 22.95, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, when the imagery of foam, bubbles, mirages, a plantain trunk and illusions are used, it is referring to the nature of realities, to the khandhas as empty of self, insubstantial and fleeting. These are usually grasped at and taken for being substantial and lasting. The imagery is not referring to concepts in the mind. ***** 5. Conditioned dhammas or realities do originate. 'Dependently originating entities' are not a ' mental creation'. Concepts, on the other hand, are not conditioned and there is no suggestion of them originating or being referred to in suttas on Dependent Origination. That which is conceived does not exist and does not originate. MN 18: " 'When there is the eye, a form,and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact........feeling...perception....thinking. When there is the manifestation of thinking, it is possible to point out the manifestation of being beset by perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation." The eye, form,consciousness, contact, feeling,perception and thinking do not have 'merely conceptual existence.' The objects of thinking -- the proliferations -- have 'merely conceptual existence', but are not dependently orginating. ***** 6. The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) are cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. Nibbana is the only reality which does not depend on causes. It can also be said to have sabhava or its particular features. But it is also anatta with no 'true being' or self of any kind relating to it.* Udaana Comy, 392 (Masefield transl): " 'Wherein there is neither earth....nor both sun and moon', whereby there is elucidated the fact that that which is the unconditioned element, which has as its own nature (sabhava) that which is the antithesis of all conditioned things,such as earth and so forth....." Furthermore, it should be stressed that nibbana, "the ultra-profound, extremely hard to see, abstruse and subtle.....", is not samsara or insight in any aspect. It is the unconditioned dhamma directly realised by supramundane consciousness accompanied by the supramundane mental factors including samma ditthi (right understanding). By contrast, the conventional nature of things can only ever be the object of thinking, not of insight. ***** 7. As we know, in the Theravada teachings, bhavanga cittas (life continuum consciousness) arise and fall between sense and mind door processes. These are not a substratum and there is no substratum.* ***** 8. Finally and most importantly, if realties were really inaccessible to sati and panna, the Buddha would not have taught the Satipatthana sutta, the Madhupindika sutta and the rest. Realities have characteristics which can be directly known 'as they are'. This is the path which leads to the eradication of defilements and the realisation of nibbana. Conventions, it is true, cannot be known and merely hide true elements or paramattha dhammas when there is ignorance of the latter or concepts are taken for realities. Furthermore, when panna knows a reality, such as seeing consciousness, visible object or feeling, there is no 'negotiation between the known entity and the knower'. There is no 'knower' other than panna. The reason that it seems that 'the apprehension of these things is always from a particular vantage point' is because no distinction is made between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (conventional and ultimate truths). Without this knowledge, panna will not develop and ideas of emptiness will be thinking about concepts. Indeed this is the very reason the teachings are inspiring and a path is possible. MN18; "'Bhikkhus,as to the source through which perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man: if nothing is found there to delight in, welcome, and hold to, this is the end of the underlying tendency to lust,of the underlying tendency to aversion,... to views.....to doubt.......to conceit....to desire of being..... to ignorance.....' " Udana comy 395 : " 'Monks, if there were not' that unconditioned element having as its own nature that which is unborn and so on, 'there could not be made known', there could not be discovered,there could not be witnessed, 'here', in this world, 'the escape', allayment without remainder, 'for that which is conditioned' reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature (sabhava) being born and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle..." Comments very welcome! Metta, Sarah *see: sabhava, concepts and realities, concepts, bhavanga, nibbana, sunnatta, anatta etc under this link for more references: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts **Also see posts by RobM on this sutta: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22375.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m21612.html =================================================== 37268 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:13am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** Through the Abhidhamma we acquire a more precise knowledge of realities, but the knowledge should not stay at the level of theory. When we study the Abhidhamma we can be reminded to be aware of whatever reality appears at the present moment, and in this way the study will lead us to realize fully the aim of the Buddha's teachings: right understanding of realities. ..... Questions i How can we prove that there is contact? ii Through how many doors is there phassa? iii Is phassa nåma or rúpa? iv What is the difference between eye-contact and the eye-door? v Are 'mano-samphassa' (mind-contact) and the mind-door different from each other? vi Why is there not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open? vii What kind of object does phassa contact when there is bhavanga-citta? viii When a loud noise hurts our ears, through which doorway is it felt? What kind of object is experienced at that moment? Can other realities apart from sound be experienced through the ear-sense? ix Why is it useful to know that phassa contacts only one object? x Is a concept an object that phassa can contact? xi Why must there be phassa with every citta? ***** [Contact (Phassa) Finished:-)] Metta, Sarah ====== 37269 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:41am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 081 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 6 flexible ministers cetasikas or 6 particular mental factors, we have discussed about vitakka in the previous post. Vicara is a cetasika. Vicara is translated as sustained thought, sustained thinking, persistent thinking, persistent thought, persisting thought and so on. Characterwise, it is not a simple thought. I would prefer vicara to call as sustained application. Vitakka is initial application. And vicara is sustained application. These 2 cetasikas almost always arise together and vanish together with the only exception of 2nd jhana out of 5 jhanas. In the 2nd jhana, there is no vitakka but there is vicara. While vitakka pushes citta and its accompanying cetasikas to an object, vicara cetasika pulls them toward the object. Vicara is a cetasika and this flexible minister advises the king citta to review on the object. He advises the king citta to wander around the object. He advises the king and other associated ministers cetasikas to stay in the object and to sustain the object so that they all can view the object. Vitakka and vicara almost always work together. There are similes regarding the work of vitakka and vicara. I will put my own similes after the known similes. When a bell is tolled, it rings. Here, initial hit causing ringing is referred to as vitakka and continuing ringing or sustained ringing is referred to as vicara. When a resting bird flies up, it initially flaps and when in the sky it just glides or continues to fly away. The initial flapping is referred to as vitakka and continued or sustained flapping which is much more subtle than initial flapping is referred to as vicara. When a bee dives down to a flower, this act is referred to as vitakka and its continuing wandering around above the flower is referred to as vicara. Initial dive is forceful and a bit rough. But its sustained action wandering around above the folwer is subtle. I would add further similes here. When a boat is row, the initial rowing is like vitakka. It is hard, rough, forceful. When the boat is in move and further rowing with oar is not as had as the initial one. This sustained rowing or continuing rowing can be assumed as vicara. When a ball is put on a table, this reaching to the table is like vitakka. The ball has to be pushed on to the table. When it is on the table, it sustained its touch with the table not to depart from it but it wanders over the table and contines to touch with the surface of the table ( object or arammana ). When these two cetasikas that is vitakka and vicara arise together in a citta and taking the same object that the citta takes, vittaka is pushing citta and all other cetasikas including vicara toward the object. On the otherhand, vicara cetasika pulls the citta and all other cetasikas toward the object. This means vicara maintains the meeting of all nama dhamma at the same object. This maintainence is called sustained action. So sustained thought, sustained thinking, sustained application all have some overlapping meaning. But application here means vicara applies citta and other cetasikas to the object in a sustained manner. This is why I am saying that vicara pulls toward the object. Screw in the wall sustains the material that it holeds. This sustension makes continuing meeting of the material and the wall. Vicara works like this. While vitakka puts the mind on an object, vicara sustains the mind' stay on that object. This is the character of vicara. It has the power of reviewing. At a time there have been many many cittas happened. If these cittas have vitakka, there will also be vicara. Vicara in these cittas altogether may be referred to as mental review. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37270 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:12am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Dear Sarah and Nina, Thanks Sarah for your message of Nina's questions. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions i How can we prove that there is contact? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: We know there is contact because consciousness knows the object because of contact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ii Through how many doors is there phassa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: 6 doors. 1. cakkhusamphassa at eye door 2. sotasamphassa at ear door 3. ghanasamphassa at nose door 4. jivhasamphassa at tongue door 5. kayasamphassa at body door 6. manosamphassa at mind door Eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. Simple English is good. But I think some essential Pali words should be maintained even when teachings are talked in translated languages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iii Is phassa nåma or rúpa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Clearly, phassa or contact is nama. It is a cetasika. it does not have any of rupa character even though contact is sometimes compared with physical matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iv What is the difference between eye-contact and the eye-door? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Eye-contact or cakkhusamphassa is a nama dhamma and it is a cetasika. Eye-door on the other hand is a rupa and it is a pasada rupa called cakkuppasada. As it is the main portal of the message of the object, this rupa cakkhuppasada is referred to as door by The Buddha. So it is called cakkhu dvara or eye-door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- v Are `mano-samphassa' (mind-contact) and the mind-door different from each other? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Manosamphassa is a cetasika. Mind-door or manodvara is a citta. Both are nama dhamma. But they are different as one is a citta and another is a cetasika. Just before manodvaravajjana citta is bhavanguppaccheda citta and this bhavanga citta is referred to as mind door. A life starts with patisandhi citta and ends with cuti citta. In between are bhavanga citta. But whenever there have to arise vithi vithi cittas, that block of bhavanga citta is made a hole so that vithi cittas can take positions. That hole is door or dvara where vithi cittas enter the life. That hole or door or dvara is the last bhavanga citta just before manodvaracvajjana citta which is a citta of manodvara vithi cittas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vi Why is there not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Even though eyes are open, eye-consciousness or cakkhuvinnana cittas do not arise all the time. So there is not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open. When eyes are open, sotavinnana citta or ear-consciousness may arise at ear or other cittas arise at mind door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vii What kind of object does phassa contact when there is bhavanga-citta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is the past object. That is the object of marana asanna javana cittas of the immediate past life just before cuti citta in that life ( may be bhavanga citta follows then cuti citta follows ). That object may be panca arammana or dhammarammana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- viii When a loud noise hurts our ears, through which doorway is it felt? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Kayadvara. Kayappasada. Bleeding from ear because of noice of explosion causes feeling at ear. If it is just a noice, ears just hear. Sotapasada works so that sotavinnana citta arises and feeling upekkha vedana or indifferent feeling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What kind of object is experienced at that moment? Can other realities apart from sound be experienced through the ear-sense? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sound or saddarammana. No saddarammana is the only sense that is experienced through the ear-sense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ix Why is it useful to know that phassa contacts only one object? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because citta takes only one object. Citta cannot take 2 objects at the same moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- x Is a concept an object that phassa can contact? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I believe so. Concept or panatti can serve as an object. When the citta takes that object, phassa has to arise even though (concept) it is not a reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- xi Why must there be phassa with every citta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because without phassa, citta cannot meet the object. Phassa is introducer. It introduces citta with the object, other cetasikas with the object. Without phassa, this function will not be there and even citta cannot arise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** [Contact (Phassa) Finished:-)] Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thank you. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37271 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Hi, Sarah and Dighanakha - In a message dated 10/4/04 5:23:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > On the question of lies, you mention that you don’t accept parts of the > Atthasalini, commentary to the Vinaya and so on with regard to their > reporting of the First Council. This opens up another whole can of worms > we’ll have to look into sometime. What I find generally amongst those > other scholars and historians you look to for historical facts, is that > they all are happy to select and quote from these same commentaries and > accept as fact those parts which suit their cases or understanding. We’re > obviously talking about a major Mahavihara conspiracy, fully accepted by > the followers too, if these texts are full of lies. > =========================== Why must it be a choice between conspiratorial lying on the one hand, and perfect correctness of position on the other? Analogically, were the positions adopted by modern science on "the ether" and on "gravitational pull" (instead of accelerational force in curved spacetime) conspiratorial lies? Those older positions, it seems rather clear, were at the least incomplete and inadequate predictive descriptions/models. Ultimately, they were erroneous - as may also be the current models. But they were not conspiratorial lies either. Why could not those positions be a matter of "taking their best shot" at the time? As regards the commentaries, the original producers of them, while possibly arahants, were not Buddhas, and there is no reason to impute omniscience to them. For that matter, the attributing of omniscience to the Buddha is neither an essential aspect of the Dhamma nor an essential belief for a practitioner of the Dhamma. Perhaps it is so that a Buddha can know all conventional truths by means of a mere turn of the mind. But is it not also reasonable, especially from an Abhidhammic position, to understand the omniscience of a Buddha as his ability to know perfectly the tripartite nature of "the all", to be able to see, directly and perfectly, that all elements of all the aggregates are impermanent, flawed (dukkha), and not-self (i.e., impersonal, dependent/coreless, uncontrollable, and insubstantial)? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37272 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:05am Subject: Re: Finding suttas Good morning, Phil, The best I can do by way of explaining sutta reference numbers is send you to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/abbrev.html . I guess you've noticed that the names change depending on the translator, too, but if you find one you're looking for on ATI, John does list the PTS reference in brackets in case that's useful. Thanks for the laugh, too: "I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and thinking about it far less often." I keep forgetting that I'm still officially a member (and have said I will be until they kick me out/excommunicate me). peace, connie 37273 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:08am Subject: Causality & Impermanance - transcript of TV program According to the Dharma, there is no first (primordial) cause that explains the nature and origin of existence, or the genesis of beings who inhabit this universe (as is held to be true in the Judaic-Christian-Islamic traditions). Instead, in Buddhism the integrated laws of causality and impermanence explain ontology without recourse to a creator deity . First, we will explore causality and then we will move onto impermanence. The Buddha¡¦s teaching on the law of causality (i.e., the law of cause and effect) is rooted in our everyday life experience of objects, events and time. The sole purpose of the teachings on the law of causality is to diminish grasping, and thereby help us become completely un-entangled from suffering. The Dharma of causality is an entirely pragmatic concern, and, unlike western explanations of causality, is not rooted in a metaphysical context ¡V in an a priori underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity ¡V an imaginary transcendental substrata outside the natural context of everyday experience and therefore divorced from any conceivable application that eliminates suffering. We typically think of causes and effects as distinctly different things ¡V as if they can be organized cleanly into their own mutually exclusive groups and categories ¡V the causes go in this box and the effects go into the other box. However, it is important to recognize that causes and effects do not exist independently of each other. Clearly, there are relationships between causes and effects. The question is in what way do they relate? Causes depend upon their effects in order to be causes, and effects likewise depend on their causes in order to be effects. Another way of expressing this is to state that where there is a cause there must be an effect, and where there is an effect, there must be a cause. It would be meaningless to conceive of cause and effect in any other way. The way in which causes and effects relate is best described as a reciprocal dependence. This is just the quality of way they are. This way that cause and effect just are is known by the Buddhist term ¡§suchness¡¨ (tathata in Sanskrit). As regards the reciprocal dependence between causes and effects, there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating causes and effects. The correlation of cause and effect is non-dual ¡V the apparent cause and effect duality is merely projected by the observer of the phenomena and is not intrinsic to the observed phenomena. Cause and effect are simply one phenomena viewed from two perspectives: one person¡¦s effect is another person¡¦s cause and one person¡¦s cause is another person¡¦s effect. It follows, therefore, that cause and effect are not mutually exclusive (in either an absolute or a conventional respect). Now that we have covered the ideas of cause and effect, let us move onto objects and events. The existence of an object or event is not due to a single cause, nor are they causeless. All phenomena (dhamma in Pali & dharma in Sanskrit) come into existence, and function, through innumerable reciprocal causes, conditions and their enduring effects. It is shortsighted to think in terms of a specific object or event arising in dependence upon a multiplicity of causes, conditions and effects. Instead, it is more accurate to imagine a network of innumerable objects and events relying upon innumerable causes, conditions and effects, and producing innumerable effects ¡V a network permeated by mutually reciprocal dependencies. Before going any further, let us tackle the term innumerable. The use of the term ¡§innumerable¡¨ in Buddhist discourses and commentaries points out the fact that we lack the necessary empirical means to be mindful of, and to establish clear comprehension of, all relevant facts. In this specific case, the fact is the collection of all the causes, conditions and effects an object or event is dependent upon, and the reciprocal manner of their relationships. Moreover, use of the term innumerable in this context directs us to: ƒæ Start with whatever causes one can discover that contribute to the object or event that has arisen in the present moment, and ƒæ Reflect upon our intentions so that the effects of our actions are not thoughtless, insensitive, shortsighted, reckless, or impulsive. According to the law of causality, these innumerable causes and effects are beginningless. To understand what Buddhism means by the term ¡§beginningless¡¨, we need to explore the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ and our three ideas of time, i.e., past, present, and future. For the idea of a present moment ¡V a ¡§now¡¨ - to be meaningful there must exist two other ideas of time, i.e., past and future. How could the idea of ¡§now¡¨ mean anything whatsoever if the other two ideas of time did not exist or, worse still, are not valid ideas? Each of the three ideas of time (past, present, future) required both of the other two ideas of time in order to be valid and meaningful. Each ¡§now¡¨ must have a ¡§past¡¨ and a ¡§future.¡¨ In addition, for a ¡§past¡¨ to exist, each ¡§now¡¨ must be an end of a ¡§past.¡¨ Agreed? Now let us dig into the idea of ¡§beginning.¡¨ For a beginning to occur it must do so in a present moment - a ¡§now¡¨ must exist within which the beginning occurs ¡V there must be a now that is the beginning. However, how could a now ever conceivably be a beginning when every now is the end of a past? In order for our three ideas of time to be valid, every beginning must originate from a preceding moment ¡V every beginning must have a beginning itself. Therefore, either the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless, or our three ideas of time are invalid and meaningless! Buddhism takes the position that our ideas of time are valid and meaningful, and the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless. Hence, the use of the terms ¡§beginningless¡¨ and ¡§beginninglessness¡¨ in Buddhist discourses and commentaries to indicate that the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless. Just as all causes and all effects exist in dependence upon one another, likewise all phenomena are mutually dependent as well. How could it be otherwise (given the fact that all phenomena come into existence through a correlation of causes and their effects, and the causes and their effects themselves are mutually dependent)? Therefore, no phenomena exist as an independent isolate. Just as there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating cause and effect, phenomena is likewise devoid of an underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity. How could it be otherwise (given the fact that all phenomena come into existence through a correlation of causes and their effects, and there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating causes and effects)? Therefore, each phenomenon is devoid of an intrinsic nature. According to the Dharma, there are three types of phenomena: mental phenomena, physical phenomena, and time. Mental phenomena (citta in Pali) and physical phenomena (rupa in Pali) are distinctly different types of phenomena, as is time. Physical phenomena consist of such aspects as shape, color, sound, odor, taste, and tangibility ¡V physical phenomena have both spatial and temporal extensions. Mental phenomena are devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste, and tangibility and cannot be measured in any physical terms (i.e., mental phenomena is formless), yet mental phenomena exists ¡V mental phenomena has temporal extensions - and mental phenomena manifests certain abilities as well. Mental phenomena is distinctly different from physical phenomena in that mental phenomena has the capacity to experience some thing ¡V mental phenomena has the ability to know of (it cognizes) some object or event. To the contrary, physical phenomena are not able to experience, to feel or sense, anything. However, mental phenomena and physical phenomena depend upon each other. Mental phenomena need physical phenomena in order to occur and physical phenomena need mental phenomena in order to occur. In that both mental and physical phenomena condition each other, they are both conditioned by time as well. Time is devoid of those aspects of physical phenomena as well as those aspects of mental phenomena, and so belongs in a separate category. In time, as conditioned phenomena, mental and physical phenomena arise because of causes, are present in a given moment due to conditions, they persist for a limited duration, produce effects, changing continuously and inevitably cease due to impermanence Now let us consider this network of causality through time. The potential of innumerable causes, conditions and effects, originating in the past, directly affects the genesis of phenomena arising in the present moment. Through the causal potency of arisen phenomena, the future genesis of phenomena is affected and conditioned as they arise into future moments. In this manner, all phenomena are conditional ¡V the causes they depend upon, and the effects they produce, condition all phenomena and their functioning ¡V those in the past, those in the present and those that will happen in the future. When we explore existence and begin to appreciate its immensely interesting state of affairs, we can be quickly overwhelmed. In response to this feeling, we tend to re-act by grasping onto the idea that there is a fixed order to existence. However, it cannot be proven that phenomena exist in a fixed order. A fixed order to existence would require a strict determinism and would necessitate that phenomena is static and permanent. While there is a ¡§semblance of order¡¨ to existing phenomena, existence is most certainly not constrained to a fixed order. For if, there were a fixed order to existence, then it would be impossible for phenomena to change, and realization of enlightened existence would be an impossible goal as well. Nor can it be proven that phenomena are governed by chaotic indeterminism in that both the law of karma and the law of dependent origination ensure conformity and continuity. So far, we have shown how all phenomena are mutually dependent and are devoid of an underlying nature; now let us take up the law of impermanence. We know from our everyday life experience that things come into existence and then later cease to exist. We naively think that it is only through the effects of some other object or event that a given object ceases to exist. The law of impermanence states that this is not the only case. We prefer to imagine that an object or event comes into existence, remains in an unchanging state for a period of time, and then ceases to exist. According to the law of impermanence, things are changing continuously, moment by moment - this change is an on-going process. It is because phenomena are impermanent that they continually, moment by moment, undergo a process of change. The mere fact that an object comes into existence makes it possible for that object to cease (or the object¡¦s mere existence makes it necessary that the object cease). Every object is going through the process of cessation moment by moment. According to the integrated laws of causality and impermanence, the nature and origin of existence, and the genesis of beings that inhabit this universe, can be summed up in this single line: ƒæ All phenomena arise dependent upon causes and conditions, manifest effects, and cease due to impermanence. 37274 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hey Phil, Thanks for the reply. Releasing the tiller. Yes, I get it. But this does not jive with much of the suttas in regards to wholesome or unwholesome development. I see the angle Nina has come in on and I quite agree on it with regards to the latter stages of development but in regards to the 'perfections', chanda is very much at the forefront. PEACE E Nothing new below. > > > > Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > > this or that in order to reach the goal. > > > > > > Then what is the impetus? Then what is > > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If > > it is not based on thought, then is it > > based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' > > is not eradicated until Arahantship then > > what is the 'other factor' that manifests > > this 'perfection' in the beginning stages > > or the latter stages of development? > > Ph: Mind if I take a shot at answering this as well? Good practice > for me. > As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of > wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) > and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is > intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions > more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self > involved in this. > > For example, I can aspire not to use rough speech, but we all > know how futile it is to intend to speak gently. The words are out > before you know it. But as panna is cultivated, and strengthens, > and one becomes more mindful, we find ourselves speaking more > mindfully whether we intended to or not. It is panna that is the > impetus here, not our overt (is that the right word?) intention. > We learn more and more about > the cost of rough speech, the way it hurts us more than it hurts the > other person. And that learning arises in panna. > Now, as I've said to you before, I do think there is some value in > overt(?) > intentional activities, early on. For example, I would keep a diary, and > keep > track of "regrettable incidents" as I called them. And intend to do > something about it. And maybe that fairly crude intention helped clear > the ground that now seems to be planted with a subtler > and more lasting and reliable tendency to wholesomeness. > It just seems that more moments of these countless moments of intention > (there is intention with every citta) are happening in > the light of a beginner's right understanding of realities, of anatta. It's > all > very liberating. There is no need to steer intention in a wholesome > direction, > and even if I did conditions would knock the steering wheel loose again to > swing around every which way. Instead, there is riding along mindfully and > being aware of moments when right understanding/panna steers me in the > right direction. And those moments condition more moments of right > intention. > > I know that sounds like AA or something - turn the steering wheel over to > JeeeZus! But it does apply in Dhamma as well. Turn the steering wheel over > to > panna. > > Metta, > Phil > p.s Thanks also for your feedback in the "world beyond" thread. I do pay > too much attention to others' practices - but that's another area panna is > helping. > I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and > thinking about > it far less often. 37275 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 8:26am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear All, > As there have been a few references to Nagarjuna recently, I'd like to repost an earlier message which I wrote after reading the paper Larry gave the link for below. I hope it may be of some assistance. > ***** Thanks Sarah for introducing this thread. The importancy of the relation Abhidhamma -Nagurjuna is in how far the Message of the Buddha changed in the texts the centuries after his Parinibbana and that of the theory of the two realities. For that reason it's relevant to look at the work of the (Sri Lankan born) buddhology scholar David Kalupahana. He not only translated the Madhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna, het also wrote many books about early buddhism. One of his statements, with arguments, is that Nagarjuna was not a Mahayanist. His book 'A history of buddhist philosophy; continuities and discontinuities' (UHP, 1992) has chapters about Abhidhamma (XIV) and Nagarjuna (XVI) that has to do with the theme Sarah proposed in this DSG. I quote parts of it. Because Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga is used so many times in this DSG, I will quote some relevant parts of Kalupahana's ChapterXXI about him too. "The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or reductionist perspectives. No one reading the excessive long debate in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). Abononing the search for such ultimate realities, it becomes possible to explain the content of the Abhidhamma in terms of the two principle teachings of the Buddha, namely, non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) If the intention of the discourses in analyzing the human personality into five aggregates was merely to indicate the absence of a metaphysical agent (anatta) and not the irreducible elements called 'ultimate realities', there seems to be no justification for the various psychological and physical items listed in the canonical Abhidhamma texts (…) to be considered ultimate realities. …. The different lists in the two major Abhidhamma traditions, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha, would indicate that they do not contain ultimate realities. The compilers of the Abhidhamma texts simply picked what they thought were the significant elements; hence the difference between the two traditions. What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) … "Chapters III to XV of the Karika are intented to establish the non- substantiality of elements (dharma) but not, as is generally believed, to eliminate the conception of elements altogether. … Categories discussed are as follows: 1 Faculties (indriya) 2 Aggregates (skandha) 3 Elements (dhatu) … 13 Self-nature (svabhava) … Nagarjuna's concluding statement after analyzing 'elements' (dhatu) should serve as a corrective not only to the rather trancendentalist interpretation offered by Candrakirti but also to that of the substantialist, whose conception of objectivity calls for an annihilation of the human perspective: 'Those who are of little intelligence, who perceive the existence as well as the non-existence of existents, do not perceive the appeasement of the object, the auspicious'. What Nagarjuna is recommending is the appeasement of the conception of the object, neither its elevation to an ultimate reality nor its annihilation. It is not the elimination of any and every conception of it. Here he was faithfully following the footsteps of the Buddha. This, after performing a careful and delicate surgery in relation to all thirteen categories, Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 163/164) … "There seems no doubt that the Vusuddhimagga and the commentaries are a testimony to the abilities of a great harmonizer who blended old and new ideas without arousing suspicion in the minds of those who were scrutinizing his work. One prominent example shows how Buddhaghosa achieved his goal. In the commentary on the Dhammasangani, Buddhaghosa makes a very important remark regarding the theory of moments …The theory … was found neither in the discourses nor in the commentaries preserved at the Mahavihara …Yet this momentary telepathic insight apperas as a extremely important theory in his Visuddhimagga. Furthermore, Buddhaghosa utilized the theory of moments rather profusely in this and other works, especially in his explanation of the functioning of the mind and of the experience of material phenomena." (page 207/208). I hope this is useful in our discussions Metta Joop 37276 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - thanks Dear Robert K, Thank you for the encouragement and good wishes, Nina. op 03-10-2004 13:01 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Give my regards to Lodewijk and enjoy the pilgrimage. > Someone on another list asked me to send your their thanks. 37277 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard and Phil, op 03-10-2004 14:07 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ========================= > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? > They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root > cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > craving, > no trouble!! N: Howard, I read the sutta you refer to. It makes us see the benefit of developing vipassana so that we shall eventually reach the end of craving. But I cannot tell myself not to cling to Lodewijk, that would be unrealistic and insincere. What really helps is seeing one's own wrong view for a moment: our confusion as to seeing visible object and thinking sad stories on account of what we see. Seeing one's wrong view, that is a moment of right understanding. Some rare and brief moments of beginning to understand what seeing is, as different from thinking, that gives me confidence in satipatthana as the only way leading out from dukkha. Wrong view of self has to go first, and only after that other defilements can be eradicated. You and others use the expression let go, or relinguish. This implies detachment? But only pañña can detach, that is its function. By understanding phenomena as impersonal elements there can be detachment from the idea of self. A long process. What is Cha'n and choiceless awareness? But perhaps this subject is more suitable after your retreat in Nov. which I hope will be fruitful to you. Phil, I was impressed by your story, it is so amazing how kamma works. It was not yet your time to go. You were almost drowning. And now, eight years later, you are helping others, me included, not to get drwoned in the ocean of concepts. This happens to all of us from time to time, and then it is good to have Dhamma friends who can help us and remind us of the truth. Phil wrote:< But I was reminded last night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying my fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old and dying or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing.> Yes, dhammas of daily life bring us back to reality, away from phantasies. We may be thinking and thinking about death, but that is only thinking. This will not change anything. Kh Sujin said that dying is only one moment, why should we fear? NIna. 37278 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hi Eric, op 03-10-2004 17:49 schreef ericlonline op ericlonline@y...: Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > this or that in order to reach the goal. E: Then what is the impetus? Then what is > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? N: As Phil explained: < As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self involved in this.> N: What I said above was merely a reminder that the idea of self makes us think wrongly about the development of the perfections. The impetus: we read about them, consider them. As Phil stresses, it is understanding that sees the benefit of kusala. When kusala citta with pañña arises, it is accompanied by right energy, wholesome energy. We see the benefit of the development of the eightfold Path, but there are not many conditions for right mindfulness and right understanding. This is because of our defilements. We are sick, and we need medicine and vitamins to keep us going on this long, long journey. We need all the perfections of dana, sila, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, metta, and equanimity. The goal is to weaken defilements. When we have generosity, dana is not always a perfection. It is not if we wish for some personal gain, such as a happy rebirth. We need truthfulness and sincerity: our goal should be having less defilements. All the perfections are connected with each other. We need energy when giving, we need equanimity, when the receiver does not respond kindly. It is all very daily. We read in B.B.'s translation of the perfections (Co. Cariyapitaka): Thus pañña sees the benefit and the need for all the perfections, and sati does not waste the opportunities to develop them as the occasion arises. Nina. 37279 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/4/04 1:35:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard and Phil, > op 03-10-2004 14:07 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >========================= > >Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > >But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? > >They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the > root > >cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > >little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > >craving, > >no trouble!! > N: Howard, I read the sutta you refer to. It makes us see the benefit of > developing vipassana so that we shall eventually reach the end of craving. > But I cannot tell myself not to cling to Lodewijk, that would be unrealistic > and insincere. What really helps is seeing one's own wrong view for a > moment: our confusion as to seeing visible object and thinking sad stories > on account of what we see. Seeing one's wrong view, that is a moment of > right understanding. Some rare and brief moments of beginning to understand > > what seeing is, as different from thinking, that gives me confidence in > satipatthana as the only way leading out from dukkha. > Wrong view of self has to go first, and only after that other defilements > can be eradicated. > You and others use the expression let go, or relinguish. This implies > detachment? But only pañña can detach, that is its function. By > understanding phenomena as impersonal elements there can be detachment from > the idea of self. A long process. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. --------------------------------------------------- > What is Cha'n and choiceless awareness? But perhaps this subject is more > suitable after your retreat in Nov. which I hope will be fruitful to you. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps these can be discussed another time. BTW, the November retreat is off. The time was rescheduled, and I can no longer make it. (I'm not all that disappointed. I'm fairly regularly getting two one-hour meditation sessions each day, which is not bad. At some point I hope to go to a retreat at the wat that I visited previously to attend an ordination, but until then, I'll just continue on my own.) ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37280 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:07pm Subject: Re: "The same" in Buddhism Hi Dighanakha, Thank you very much for this information. The Gilbert and Sullivan stuff was hilarious :-) Nothing additional below. Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Herman > > H> I have been doing some study on the concept of sameness in > H> Buddhism and have only found it expressed in a negative form > H> ie not other (anna - ananna). Are there any other terms that > H> are used for sameness/otherness? What is the Pali term used > H> where the question is asked if it is the same being (I think > H> it was) that is born as the one that dies? > > There are several adjectives that mean 'same', but in the sense > that you are asking about the common way of indicating sameness > is to add 'eva' (often shortened to 'va'). This is an > intensifier, like the English word 'very' in "You're the very man > I'm looking for!" > > The word ana~n~na.m ('not another') may also be added to drive > the point home. > > And so the foolish monk Saati says: > > Tathaaha.m Bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami: yathaa > tadevida.m vi~n~naa.ma.m sandhaavati sa.msarati ana~n~na.m > > "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this > very consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of > rebirth, not another." > > (tadevida.m = ta.m + eva + ida.m) > > _____________________________ > > And in the Sarvastivadin section of the Milindapa~nhaa: > > Raajaa aaha: bhante Naagasena, yo uppajjati, so eva so, udaahu > a~n~no ti? > Thero aaha: na ca so, na ca a~n~no ti. > > The king said: "Venerable Nagasena, is he who is reborn the same, > or is he another?" > The elder answered: "He is neither the same, nor another" > > More literally: > > "he who arises, [is it] that very he, or another?" > "[it is] not he and not another." > > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker > _____________________________ > The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this > persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is > close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to > non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. > (Dighanakha Sutta) 37281 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi Howard, and all > No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that > karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is > not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are > not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, > whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. OK, thanks for the clarification. I hesitate (probably too much) to think in terms of "called for" because it makes it sound as though metta and karuna are remedies we pull out of the bag. They arise beyond our control in a conditioned way, I think. And that seems to be my experience these days. The way I feel about the brahma-viharas (these days - my understanding is nascent) is that it all starts with the arising of equanimity, which is conditioned by whatever degree of understanding of the four noble truths we're able to maintain. Therefore, metta always inevitably arises with karuna for me, because of that sense of being in the same boat. I think that's good - otherwise there is such an easy tendency to imagine self feeling friendliness for the other. An understanding of dukkha based on the first and second noble truths and of anatta - even intellectually- dissolves the illusionary border between self and others, and we're all in the same boat. Or it could be that the boat dissolves too and we're all together in a sea of metta and karuna! That's just my over-intellectual take on it. I'll know differently someday. Metta, Phil p.s I say that, but I find myself wanting to generate metta for some people I am having trouble with at work. But I won't do it. The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult person, after the respected ones, neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just doesn't feel right to me these days. I would feel it was an exercise based in wrong view if I did it today, because it would clearly be a strategy for me to feel better about these problems, to feel cozier in life. I don't think we should expect Dhamma to give us instant relief like a painkiller. On the other hand, in Nina's "removing distracting thoughts" thread there was support in the sutta and commentary for using Metta as the means of removing hatred for living beings. I'll keep thinking about it for long years to come (hopefully!) Off the topic here, sorry. Just something I happened to be thinking about. > > And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days > > like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection > > to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. > > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you > > said that.) > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > 37282 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Best wishes for your pilgrimage Hello all I'd like to wish all our friends who are off to India a wonderful time. I look forward to hearing more about your Dhamma talks when you get back. As it happens, your departure coincides with a need for me to concentrate on some stories I need to try to sell this winter or next spring, so I'll be signing off for a month or so as well. I have several binders full of messages that I've received so I'll be continuing my bhavana through rereading those. I'll finish posting passages from "Deeds of Merit" before signing off, since I'm near the end. I guess "Perfections" will fall by the wayside. You know where to find it! (abhidhamma.org) Wishing everyone a very pleasant autumn or spring, wherever you are. Metta, Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 37283 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:59pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? [snip] ''Icchitam patthitam..snip..purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. ..snip..purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' [snip] 'Like a moon in its fullest day, like a bright, shining ruby, be fulfiled all your wishes.' [snip] - ;) ===== Thank you for the encouragement, Htoo. I'm fairly handy with a dictionary and guessing some words from what I think the context is, but really poor on grammar and didn't know whether the paccekabuddha was saying he had succeeded or 'wishing' the woman her own success. peace, connie 37284 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 11:41am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma [Suravira] Sarah, to explore the points you have raised, I have a few thoughts to share. > 1. In the Theravada commentaries and Abhidhamma, sabhava does not refer to > self or `independent or autonomous being'.* It refers to a particular or > differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. [Suravira] Of the two kinds of mental phenomena (nama)- consciousness (vinnana)& mental factors (cetasika) - it is consciousness that experiences, or knows of, that cognizes, an object - hence the critical importance of valid cognition within Buddhism. In addition, consciousness always experiences an object - there is not consciousness without an object. It is consciousness that innately misapprehends mental and physical (rupa) phenomena as existing intrinscially, as independent isolates - that is it misapprehends a differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. Given that multiple mental factors always arise together with consciousness, there are only seven mental factors (universals) that always arise with each instance of mental consciousness. Those universals are sensation/feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), intention (cetana), contact (phasso), one-pointedness (ekaggata), mental life faculty (jivit-indriya) and attention (manasikara). As regards these universals, perception is a process of comparision that labels or identifies (the) perceived (six) sense objects. While it is consciousness that cognizes, or experiences the sense object, it is perception that re-cognizes the object. Whether revealed in the coherent grouping of classes of objects, in analogies, metaphors, or similies, objects are brought together through the function of perception to determine how similar or dissimilar they are. The discriminatory function of perception is to mark the object as "same as" or "as like" some other object. It is through the function of perception that we see an object as being the same as or alike some other object. It is perceptions that enables us to savor the sweet mystery of life. When consciousness is defiled (kilesa) by selfish desire (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha), the discriminatory function of perception is impaired, and as a consequence, the differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality are misapprehended. One of the ways that mental and physical phenomena are misapprehended is as having independent or autonomous being. For example, consider the five aggregates and revolutionary manner in which the Buddha came to understand them. What did the Buddha eventually come to know about the five aggregates? He realized that the five (5) aggregates casually support each other and thereby are the generative cause of an image of a single whole that arises naturally in our minds. This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or maintain the path of the bodhisattva. It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. The Buddha was able to see this image because his perception was not corrupted by kilesa. > 2. There is a clear distinction between concepts (pannatti) and realities > (paramattha dhammas). In the Tipitaka, paramattha dhammas which can be > directly known and which have characteristics are clearly differentiated > from pannatti (concepts). Indeed this is the `essence' of the > Teachings,without which a path would not be possible.* > ***** [Suravira] I am not certain if I understand what you mean when you express the view that "paramattha dhammas which can be directly known and which have characteristics (that) are clearly differentiated from pannatti (concepts)." Let me work towards an understanding by revealing the following points: A sense object is not experienced directly - the sense object is conditioned by the physical limitations of our five sense organs and by our mind. We merely experience an impression of the object, never the object itself - these objects are synthesized by our sense organs and by our minds. This is not to assert that life is an illusion - only that life is like an illusion. Within every moment of the experience of life, there is a discrepency between the way objects and events appear and the way they actually exist (unconditioned by our perception). Let me repeat the previous points that there is not consciousness without an object, and perception is concommitant with every moment of consciousness. > 4. An understanding of conditions is very important. Only realities > (paramattha dhammas) are dependent on other factors. MN 18: > [Suravira] At the risk of demonstrating that I did not understand this point, let me express the view that all mental (and physical) phenomena have reciprocal dependence with innumerable causes and effects. As this is just the way all phenomena exist (tathata), right views and false views (realities and non-realities) are both dependent of other causes and effects. Right views do not arise when ignorance (avija) is concommitant with the arising moment of consciousness. > "Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness > arises............contact....feeling. What one feels, that one > percieves.....' > > If we talk about trees and rocks now, they are concepts. However, the > rupas which make up the tree or rocks depend on temperature and not the > mind to rise and fall and so exist momentarily. This is regardless of [Suravira] Mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena, just as physcial phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. All perceptions of rupa are re-cognized and by so doing are functionally equivalent to symbolic representations. > whether the rupas are directly experienced at any given time. Concepts do > not arise and fall. [Suravira] Due to impermanence, all mental phenomena (concepts and all symbolic representations are included under this umbrella) arise and fall. > In suttas, such as SN 22.95, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, when the imagery of > foam, bubbles, mirages, a plantain trunk and illusions are used, it is > referring to the nature of realities, to the khandhas as empty of self, > insubstantial and fleeting. These are usually grasped at and taken for > being substantial and lasting. The imagery is not referring to concepts in > the mind. > ***** [Suravira] In that they are expressed in language, these images are not exempt form being symbolic representations, and are therefore concepts. Once again mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena and physical phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. As regards mirages, are these mental phenomena not strickly imaginary objects? > 5. Conditioned dhammas or realities do originate. `Dependently originating > entities' are not a ' mental creation'. > [Suravira] The cognition and re-cognition of conditioned dhammas is predicated upon symbolic representations and the processing of symbolic representations. Therefore, the contact and perception of dependently originating objects & events, of which we are conscious, are the generative cause of symbolic representations. > Concepts, on the other hand, are not conditioned [Suravira] Concepts are conditioned by language, and by all manner of symbolic representation, and in turn, by the mindfulness and clear comprehension of those concepts. > and there is no > suggestion of them originating or being referred to in suttas on Dependent > Origination. That which is conceived does not exist and does not > originate. [Suravira] That which is conceived is an object that is a mental phenomena. Concepts do exist as mental phenomena. However, mental phenomena does not exist in the same manner as physical phenomena. Mental phenomena is formless, yet mental phenomena exists - it is devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste and tangibility, but it has temporal extensions. And mental phenomena manifests certain abilities as well, e.g., mental factors, defilements, faculties, etc. > By contrast, the conventional nature of things can only ever be the object > of thinking, not of insight. > ***** [Suravira] Yet insight arises when seeing through the illusory like charactertics of the conventional nature of things. > 7. As we know, in the Theravada teachings, bhavanga cittas (life continuum > consciousness) arise and fall between sense and mind door processes. These > are not a substratum and there is no substratum.* > ***** [Suravira] This is the same point that Nagarjuna makes. > 8. Finally and most importantly, if realties were really inaccessible to > sati and panna, the Buddha would not have taught the Satipatthana sutta, > the Madhupindika sutta and the rest. Realities have characteristics which > can be directly known `as they are'. This is the path which leads to the > eradication of defilements and the realisation of nibbana. {Suravira] Nagarjuna does not asert that "suchness", or just as they are, is not capable of being cognized. > > Conventions, it is true, cannot be known and merely hide true elements or > paramattha dhammas when there is ignorance of the latter or concepts are > taken for realities. Furthermore, when panna knows a reality, such as > seeing consciousness, visible object or feeling, there is no `negotiation > between the known entity and the knower'. There is no `knower' other than > panna. The reason that it seems that `the apprehension of these things is > always from a particular vantage point' is because no distinction is made > between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (conventional and ultimate > truths). Without this knowledge, panna will not develop and ideas of > emptiness will be thinking about concepts. Indeed this is the very reason > the teachings are inspiring and a path is possible. > [Suravira] Well, to delve into this paragraph, I need clarification from you as to what the meaning of the phrase "cannot be known" is. 37285 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/4/04 6:34:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > I hesitate (probably too much) to think in terms of "called for" because > it makes > it sound as though metta and karuna are remedies we pull out of the bag. > ======================= I also balked at using that terminology when I was writing it, but it captures an aspect of what I wanted to say (at a cost). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37286 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:28pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > > R> The name is only a useful designation - The Abhidhammattha > R> Vibhavani calls realities (such as rupa and nama) vijjamana > R> pannatti to distinguish between non real concepts such as > R> human and dog (called avijjamana pannattis) But the words in > R> both cases are designated pannatti -concept. > > As I said in my post to Sarah, I should prefer to delay a full > discussion until the relevant texts are available. If I can > upload the file I have made, you might take a look at passage 10 > from the Vibhanga-mulatika, which, unless I am misunderstanding > it, seems to indicate that (unlike the name of a concept) a > dhamma is properly designated only when designated in the > 'language of individual essence' (sabhaava-nirutti). > > The file is entitled mulabhasa.txt ========== Dear Dighanaka, I look forward to reading it. ===== > > Could you also tell me the chapter number of your > Abhidhammatthavibhavini reference? The only occurrence of > vijjamaanapa~n~natti I have been able to find so far is dealing > with questions of grammar, not Abhidhamma. >======================= It is in book 8. Here is a summary/explanation of the section by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: The commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha,5 the Abhidhammattha Vibhavani, (Book 8), gives an explanation of paramattha dhammas (fundamental or ultimate realities), sammutti dhammas (conventional realities) and pannatti dhammas (concepts). This subject pertains to daily life, it is deep in meaning and it should be correctly understood. Names can be given because there is the reality of sound. Sounds form up names, in Pali: nama. This word nama does not refer to nama-dhamma, the reality that experiences. A name "bends towards," conveys the meanings of things. "Namati" in Pali means: to bend, incline towards. According to the subcommentary there are two kinds of names: a name which is suitable to convey a meaning, and a name which is used because of preference. About what do we speak in daily life? Why do we speak? We speak in order that someone else will understand the subject we refer to. Thus, sadda-rupa (sound) functions then as name, nama, it bends towards, conveys the meaning of the different subjects we want to make known. The fact that someone else understands the meaning of what we say and the subjects we speak about depends on the words we use to convey the meaning, it depends on the language we choose to express ourselves. The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani deals with several other aspects concerning different kinds of names. It distinguishes between four kinds of names. There are names which are generally agreed upon (samanna nama), such as sky, rain, wind, or rice. There are names denoting a special quality (guna nama), such as "Arahatta Sammasambuddho." Someone who does not have the special qualities of a Buddha cannot have this name. Then there are names denoting activity (kiriya nama) and names that are given according to ones liking. The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11). 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10. 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or foreign. 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non- existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and for what is not real. 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye- consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the cakkhu-pasada- rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which experiences. 6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities. http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm RobertK 37287 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - going to see the Buddha Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html I think today's rather long passage is timely for those about to go to on a pilgrimage! :) W. : We dealt with the meritorious action of listening to the Dhamma which is included in mental development. We also spoke about the six kinds of things most valuable above all, the first of which is the seeing that is most valuable above all. What is the meaning of seeing which is more valuable than all other kinds of seeing? S. : In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sixes, Ch III, 10, Above all) the Buddha explained to the monks about the seeing above all: ... Herein, monks, some go to see the treasures: the elephant, the horse, the gem; to see divers things; to see some recluse or godly man, wrong in view, treading the wrong path. And is that the seeing [44, monks? No, I say it is not; it is indeed a mean kind of seeing, common, vulgar, unariyan, not well-found, leading not to world-weariness, dispassion, ending, calm, knowledge, awakening, nibbaana. But some, endued with faith and piety, sure in trust, go to see the Tathaagata or the Tathaagatas disciple. That, monks, is the seeing above all seeing for purging man, overcoming grief and woe, clearing away ill and pain, winning truth, and realizing nibbaana; I mean, going to see the Tathaagatha or his disciple, endued with faith and piety, sure in trust. This, monks, is called the seeing above all. Herein is the seeing above all.... W. : At the present time there are quite a number of Buddhists who would wish to see the Buddha, who would wish to visit him in order to hear the Dhamma directly from him. However, there is no longer an opportunity to do so, because he passed finally away more than two thousand and five hundred years ago. S.: The Buddha left us the Dhamma as the teacher who represents him. What would you do in order to be able to see the Buddha? W.: We should listen to the Dhamma and study it. But I still doubt whether by listening to the Dhamma and studying it I would really see the Buddha. S. : We cannot see him in his bodily appearance, since his body has been cremated. At the present time we can only see the different relics of the Buddha which are still left. However, the Buddha himself explained that if we wish to see him we should see the Dhamma. The Buddha explained this to Vakkali who continuously followed the Buddha everywhere. We read in the Kindred Sayings (III, Khandhaa-vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch 4, 87, Vakkali) that the Buddha said to Vakkali: Hush, Vakkali! What is there in seeing this vile body of mine? He who sees the Dhamma, Vakkali, he sees me; he who sees me, Vakkali, sees the Dhamma. Verily, seeing the Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; seeing me, one sees the Dhamma. 37288 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi Phil, I am a bit curious about a point you made. p.s I say that, but I find myself wanting to generate metta for some > people I am having trouble with at work. But I won't do it. > The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult> person, after the respected ones, > neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just > doesn't feel right to me these days. I would feel it was an exercise based in wrong view if I did it today, because it would clearly> be a strategy for me to feel better about these problems, to feel cozier in > life. I don't think we should expect Dhamma to give > us instant relief like a painkiller. What I don't understand is why it is OK to intentionally designate particular people or situations as sources of trouble, but it is not OK to see through that with some intentional metta? Kind Regards Herman 37289 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:56pm Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > Hi > I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions > amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition > would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though > I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a > claim. > Again I would say that there are many traditions with many > doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the > extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines > may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to > be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology > is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, > long time ago. > >=============== Dear Herman, I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and more profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. I have much appreciated our dicussion on these matters . Robertk 37290 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Hi Howard and Phil: When there is karuna cetasika, the citta is kusala citta and there is always alobha and adosa as well. Metta is adosa cetasika, but it is directed towards beings. Metta is different from karuna, they are aroused at different moments. Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering. But when you, for example, attend to the sick they arise closely one after the other. Nina. op 04-10-2004 06:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you >> said that.) >> > =========================== > No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that > karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is > not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are > not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, > whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. 37291 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 11:03pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Robert K, ------------------------ RK: > just to point out that cuti-citta takes the object from a previous life. It is the same type of citta and object as patisandhi and bhavanga cittas of this life. What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is during the process around the time of cuti-citta. Technical stuff, but helps us to see how automatic and unamenable to self control it is. -------------------------- Thanks, Robert, I finally looked up that textbook, and I think I have the gist of it. (By the way, I agree with you about the "technical stuff": as you have said before, learning lists of Abhidhamma terminology helps us to see the anattaness of it all.) ------------------------- RK: > So cuti-citta is coming - but it is going to be no different from the bhavanga we experience every day. > -------------- Agreed, although that's not quite the way I put it to Herman: "the cuti-citta is different from every other citta in the current lifetime." :-) But it is different in one important way, isn't it? In this lifetime, all the bhavanga-cittas have had the same object. But when the cuti-bhavanga-citta arises, it will take a different object. By doing so, it will set the trend for all the cittas that follow it, and that may be a radically different trend. (It may cause them to arise in a totally different realm of existence.) Ken H 37292 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 0:33am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== Part I: The Universals Chapter 2 Feeling (vedanå) ***** Feeling, in Påli vedanå, is another cetasika among the seven 'universals'. Feeling accompanies every citta, there is no moment without feeling. We may think that we all know what feeling is and we believe that it is easy to recognize pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling. However, do we really know the characteristic of feeling when it appears or do we merely think of a concept of feeling? Throughout our life we have seen ourselves as a 'whole' of mind and body; also when we consider our feelings we think of this 'whole' which we take for 'self'. When someone asks us: 'How do you feel?' and we answer, for example, 'I am happy', we do not know the characteristic of happy feeling, which is a mental phenomenon, a nåma; we cling to the 'whole' of mind and body. Thus we only know concepts, not realities. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37293 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Hi Htoo (& Suan) Your answers were excellent! A distinction for sure;-). One brief comment is that I think that in the end, the only proof can be at moments of satipatthana when awareness is aware of that particular characteristic or reality, however slight or blurry in the beginning, otherwise it's just intellectual right understanding. Let me say here that I think the series you're running now on the cetasikas as part of your Dhamma Thread is really excellent. The ones on the universals and now on the particulars are really spot-on. As you and Suan have said, vitakka is very mis-understood and I think both your recent posts on this cetasika are very clear and helpful. (Suan, so nice to see your contributions again). I hope you'll both help with any abhidhamma questions and details when Nina, ourselves and others are away. (Actually, Jon will be checking in daily and will try to post when he can, when we come across internet facilities). You mentioned in one post to me about some adverse responses to your use of Pali or abhidhamma terminology and some allergies. Don't worry here, the worst that'll happen is you may get called 'hard-core' or a 'core member' or some other compliment;-) On our other discussion (Dear Htoo), I think everything was agreed. I just have a queery still about the nature of cetasikas accompanying jhana cittas and lokuttara cittas being the same apart from 'powerwise'. As you say, the function is the same, but I'm not sure that we can say the difference in say the panna is just one of power. It's a different kind of panna too, I think. I agree with all your responses on the objects of the arupa jhana cittas - you put it very well with the foot-prints for the 2nd. I like your examples very much, such as your rowing boat in the cetasikas too when showing the difference between vitakka, manasikara and cetana. ( I just winced a little in the manasikara section when you used 'stay in wise attention','this should be withdrawn' and the mind 'should be redirected'. Anyway, you know me;-)). Really, the recent chapters on the cetasikas are very good indeed and also the repetitions, clarifications and general comments about cittas and cetasikas like 37233. On the discussion about phala samapatti (pleasant abiding as you head it), just because 'they have attained lokuttara appana' doesn't mean that they can attain phala samapatti without jhanas. The Vism makes this clear I think as quoted in the extracts. But I know little about it. RobM's notes. You mentioned metta is not a cetasika,but I understand it is one kind of adosa cetasika. Also you mentioned tatramajjhattata is confused with upekkha. It is the same cetasika I believe, but upekkha also has several other meanings which have to be read in context. For example, upekkha as a brahma vihara is not the equivalent of upekkha that is detached and arises with all sobhana cittas or when used for neutral feeling. you also mentioned hadaya vatthu is not an ayatana, but surely it's included with all subtle rupas in dhammayatana? Perhaps you just meant it's treated differently from the other sense bases in ayatana terms. Htoo, we'll be following yours and everyone else's posts even while we're away, but you may be relieved to hear that I won't be able to give any further comments til we return. Please keep up your good work and help to everyone. I'd be especially glad if you (or anyone else) can help with any recent posts addressed to me;-). Metta, Sarah ======= 37294 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Flip-flopping Hi Matt & KenH, Having helped to throw a few comments back into the air, I'd really like KenH to help pick them up and for the two to help with any other threads at the same time;-). After all, I'm sure you're both included in D's 'bright spark' comments.... Just a couple of brief points here before I bow out and speak to you again on return. (I'm just trying to finish a few threads but will continue posting extracts from Cetasikas til I leave at the end of next week): --- matt roke wrote: M:> The object of a citta is dhamma; it is a reality which is either rupa or > > nama. ... S: or a concept when one thinks. Of course, if you mean the object of satipatthana, then it's only a nama or a rupa. Object condition - nama, rupa or concept. .... > And a concept is not dhamma; it is not a reality, neither rupa nor nama. > Therefore to say that an object of citta is a concept is the same as > saying > that a reality is a non-reality and that citta experiences nothing. .... S: A concept is not a (paramattha) dhamma as you say. When it is object, it's just that - a concept or a non-reality that is object....a shadow.... If there is thinking of a purple elephant or visible object now, thinking is real, the concepts are mere concepts, but they are still the objects of thinking. .... > > Ken wrote: "When there is pannatti, the presently arisen citta (together > > with > its cetasikas) is creating a concept and is experiencing its own > creation. > M:> It would seem that this is inferring that the citta and its cetasikas > experience > two objects; the one they originally arose to experience and the one > they > created. .... S: No - different moments. r-o-s-e.....Many different moments of thinking about different concepts with the help of sanna marking at each moment. One object at a time and in between, of course, the experiencing of realities too through the sense doors and then the mind door as you explain so well. .... M:> So what I meant when I wrote to Ken was that a citta experiences a > reality > but > not a concept and that something is known (there is concept) because of > the > conditioned process of citta (where citta experiences a reality). ... S: I think this is an important point to clarify. Please continue. Let me pass it back to KenH as I've hijacked the thread enough already. ***** Some earlier great quotes of yours I like a lot(#35789, #35539, #36974): M: "Hardness is a reality which citta experiences. When the citta experiences hardness, it is not *out there*, it is just hardness." ***** M: "Why did the Buddha say *be an island unto yourself *? Because there is nothing else but what is arising and falling away right now at the sense doors. I only exist when you think about me and then it's not me, it's just the reality of thinking." ***** M: "In the world of concepts, a tree is real and unicorns are unreal. In Dhamma, hardness is real and tree and unicorns are unreal. I think fine lines and gray areas belong to concept not reality." ***** M: "Sometimes, as you know too well, there are no words that adequately explain certain dhamma concepts, we just have to do the best with what we have. Personally I would rather just call it visible object and not try to explain its characteristic with words like *absence of light*. When there are conditions for visual-object to be experienced by citta through the eye-door then that is what appears. " ***** Metta, Sarah ====== 37295 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ------------------------ > RK: > just to point out that cuti-citta takes the object from a > previous life. It is the same type of citta and object as patisandhi > and bhavanga cittas of this life. > What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is > during the process around the time of cuti-citta. Technical stuff, > but helps us to see how automatic and unamenable to self control it > is. > -------------------------- > > > :-) But it is different in one important way, isn't it? In this > lifetime, all the bhavanga-cittas have had the same object. But when > the cuti-bhavanga-citta arises, it will take a different object. By > doing so, it will set the trend for all the cittas that follow it, > and that may be a radically different trend. (It may cause them to > arise in a totally different realm of existence.) > > ========= Dear Ken, We don't seem to be understanding this the same way. The cuti-citta which will occur in this life, sooner or later, takes exactly the same object as all the bhavanga cittas occuring now in this life, the same as this lifes patisandhi citta. But next life's patisandhi citta will have a different object. (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it will take a different object. By doing so..?) ]robertk 37296 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sunrises and Sunsets - Input 2 Dear J & Phil, Many thanks, Phil, for all your kind and supportive comments to J, all beautifully said. You really are a good friend to us all here. I wouldn't put it as J. mentioned that 'DSG is dedicated to developing an understanding of the Abhidhamma'. I'd put it.....--well I've had a big part in putting it-- just as it appears on the home page;-). On the 'many paths to enlightenment'/ 'wide' path, I know this sounds very appealing. Of course, as we read in the Satipatthana Sutta, there is only one path, one eightfold path or one path of satipatthana. But of course, we all have our own ways when it comes to what activities we engage in. Whatever these activities, though, there's no getting away from the development of understanding and so on. Like both of you, I also let go 'where things make my brain hurt' and find it easy to go off for a swim or walk instead. We don't get to see much in the way of sunrises and sunsets in the centre of Hong Kong however. J, there's no chance of your creating any 'problem or distraction'. Constructive discussion and exchange of views and experiences is helpful for us all, I believe. I think some recent exchanges clearly show we're not concerned about hearing contrary views here at all;-). You say you are more interested 'in what people are experiencing rather than what they are understanding' and I'd be glad sometime (no hurry) for any elaboration on this. "Be a lamp unto yourselves" is so deep. I just re-quoted a comment from Matt on this too. Again I'd be glad to hear more of your comments and also on 'What rises, pases away'. Simple, as you say, yet very profound. Anyway, I'll just look forward to any more of your contributions and fine writing in your own time. ***** Phil, thanks for your good wishes for our trip. I have more thoughts about students, leaking air-conditioners and DSG right now, but I will be giving the trip more attention next week. I'm sure we all have various apprehensions -- mine are mostly concerned with my recurring health issues, esp. on or after trips (asthamatic attacks triggered by cold viruses,esp on planes and buses) -- and all the usual kilesa as Nina said. Nori's comments about 'apprehension of pain' etc are helpful in this regard for me. The reality is just the present thinking, that's all. No India, no asthma, no plane....just thinking and then gone. Last time I was in Bodh Gaya (25 yrs ago, with K.Sujin,Nina, Phra Dhammadharo and a small group), there was no airport anywhere near, no hotels, no internet cafes and I can't really imagine what it will be like now. It was still just a very small sleepy village and we stayed in the Thai temple. When I was there the first time, I lived in a Tibetan tent just near the Bodhi tree for months, living on one rupee a day. I don't even know if there are still tents and can hardly imagine arriving with our group of over 100 in large buses and staying in a nearby hotel. Azita and I travel light but know that whether there or here, in a bus or on foot, with a backpack or case, the world is just the present visible object or hardness or thinking or other reality appearing. I'll try to send a brief word or two from B.Gaya if I can. I do wish to pick up on a few of your other fine posts in brief, maybe an 'Abhi-dilemma in Daily Life post'...so pls don't disappear too quickly. Thx so much for the Deeds of merit posts. I had thought some of the extracts from Perfections would be useful for everyone while we're away, but understand your other pressing commitments. Maybe just if you need inspiration only! Thx again. Metta, Sarah ======== 37297 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Hi Htoo (& Suan) Your answers were excellent! A distinction for sure;-). One brief comment is that I think that in the end, the only proof can be at moments of satipatthana when awareness is ..snip.. Please keep up your good work and help to everyone. I'd be especially glad if you (or anyone else) can help with any recent posts addressed to me;-). Metta, Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, Regarding hadaya vatthu, I just compared with other 5 pasada rupas. 1. cakkhu pasada works as cakkhayatana 2. sota pasada works as sotaayatana 3. ghana pasada works as ghanaayatana 4. jivha pasada works as jivhaayatana 5. kaya pasada works as kayaayatana But hadaya is not like that. Yes you are right. It is dhammaayatana. External sense base like sound ( saddaayatana ) is perceived through internal sense base like ear ( sotaayatana ). When all 5 sense bases are all internal sense base, hadaya is not. Hadaya becomes external sense base dhammaayatana. With Metta, htoo Naing 37298 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Howard and Phil: > When there is karuna cetasika, the citta is kusala citta and there is always > alobha and adosa as well. Metta is adosa cetasika, but it is directed > towards beings. Metta is different from karuna, they are aroused at > different moments. Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering. Hallo Nina You said (to Howard and Phil): "Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering" I agree with that but I don't understand the "psychological mechanism" behind it for the same reasons I didn't understand two month agree in my questions on "social psychology". And for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a cause. - There is a "being suffering"; - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps hear him/her too; - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with karuna when I was young) - Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that person is suffering - And then Karuna arises. How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and rupa's ? I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology describe the same reality? With metta Joop 37299 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 4:17am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 082 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Piti is a cetasika. Joy, rapture, pleasure etc are used to describe piti. This cetasika does not arise with each and every citta that arises at each moment. So piti is not a universal mental factor or a permanent minister cetasika of the king citta. However, piti does not choose bwtween kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, and abyakata dhamma. He can accompany with any of these kinds of dhamma. He can be good one and equally he can be a bad one. This is why piti is referred ( by me ) to as a 'flexible minister' of the king citta. When the co-arising citta the king does a good job that is kusala dhamma then cetasika piti also follows the king and he agrees with the king citta. When the king wants to drink alcohol he would bring some alcohol and gives it to the king citta and he would also drink it. So this shows flexibility. But the most important thing is that there is no permanent store of 'piti-s'. Piti as a cetasika last only one single cittakkhana or one moment when citta exists. When it arises with kamavacara mahakusala citta like when we are doing a great offering to The Sangha like offering of a wide place together with monastry and feeding to thousands of people, piti serves as a good cetasika. Equally when we do something cravingly, like watching movies which might attract and casue likeness or eating unattentively happily or having sex happily or drinking alcohol happily, piti in these states then serves as a bad cetasika and it may be referred to as akusala cetasika. As it can equally be kusala cetasika and equally be akusala cetasika, piti can be referred to as flexible minister cetasika of the king citta. So piti is also referred to as annasamana cetasika. Anna means 'dealing' and 'samana' means 'agree'. So pitit will agree with any kind of citta whether citta is kusala or akusala. But it is not a universal mental factor. So it is referred to as pakinnaka cetasika or particular cetasika. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37300 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Robert K, ----------------------- RK: > We don't seem to be understanding this the same way. The cuti- citta which will occur in this life, sooner or later, takes exactly the same object as all the bhavanga cittas occuring now in this life, the same as this lifes patisandhi citta. But next life's patisandhi citta will have a different object. ------------------------ I misread your previous explanation: "What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is during the process around the time of cuti-citta." Sarah wrote the same thing recently and I misread that too - thinking it referred to the immediately following cuti citta. ------------------------ RK: > (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it will take a different object. By doing so..?) > -------------------------- Alas, no, but I think I've got it now. And it does make sense. (But then, I thought that about the other, completely different, version). :-) Thanks for your patience. Ken H 37301 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:57am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - In a message dated 10/5/04 3:34:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > Part I: The Universals > > Chapter 2 > > Feeling (vedanÃ¥) > ***** > Feeling, in PÃ¥li vedanÃ¥, is another cetasika among the seven > ‘universals’. Feeling accompanies every citta, there is no moment > without feeling. > > We may think that we all know what feeling is and we believe > that it is easy to recognize pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling. > However, do we really know the characteristic of feeling when it > appears or do we merely think of a concept of feeling? Throughout > our life we have seen ourselves as a ‘whole’ of mind and body; > also when we consider our feelings we think of this ‘whole’ which > we take for ‘self’. When someone asks us: ‘How do you feel?’ and > we answer, for example, ‘I am happy’, we do not know the > characteristic of happy feeling, which is a mental phenomenon, a > nÃ¥ma; we cling to the ‘whole’ of mind and body. Thus we only > know concepts, not realities. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============================ It is said that vedana is always present. What, effectively, is the difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and (what would be) absence of vedana? What exactly is detectably present when there is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? Vedana is not bodily sensation - for that is rupa. So it would not be a correct answer to say that neutral vedana is a type of neither pleasant nor unpleasant bodily sensation. The point is: On the occasion of bodily sensation that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, what does it mean to say there is vedana? Why could one not just as well truly say that there is bodily sensation lacking affective feel? There must be an experiential basis for distinguishing lack of feeling from neutral feeling in order for neutral feeling to be accepted as an experiential reality. (BTW, S.N.Goenka seems to treat vedana as bodily sensations - pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral, distinguishing them from rupas. That would solve this "problem", but it replaces it by the problem of a non-traditional understanding of the meaning of 'vedana'.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37302 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hey Phil P> The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult person, after the respected ones, neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just doesn't feel right to me these days. I hear you. Theravada metta practice is well...lacking. OK, I said it! But check out this book. _Training the Mind : And Cultivating Loving-Kindness_ by Chogyam Trungpa. He not only explains tonglen real well but other metta practices. He uses the H word a few times but dont let that offend your Theravada sensabilities. PEACE E 37303 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hi Dighankha Its been a while time I have discussed Abdhidhamma issues with people > So am I. Being a practitioner of the teaching is not incompatible > with researching how it came down to us and how it became altered > in the process of transmission. Indeed, given the Ani Sutta, it > seems to me such an investigation would be of great benefit in > sifting the gold from the ore. But as you say, each to his own. k: Researching is always good. To some extent, researching into historical authencity sometimes make it difficult to have a good understanding of what really matters. The problem with history is always being rewritten many many times. What is the gold and ore in your own opinion? I am not the "reseacher type" but I always glad to discuss whether an statement or a belief in a sutta true to the understanding vs Abdhidhamma commentarian texts. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical reason'. Do you mean > that the mere elapse of time causes acceptance of the Abhidhamma > to decline? Or do you mean historical reasoning, critical > historical research? k: Abdhidhamma sadly to say, always meet with its authencity problem. If I am not wrong, when I read the sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, he also doubt it is from Buddha at times. > Horses for the courses. If a translator aims to translate a Sutta > according to how that Sutta was understood in 5th century Ceylon, > then yes, he must certainly acquaint himself with the Abhidhamma > system of the commentators. But if his aim is to translate it > according to its likely meaning for the Buddha's audience then > the commentarial Abhidhamma is not a reliable tool at all, and > translations that treat it as reliable (e.g. those of the Burmese > Sasana Pitaka Association) are going to be riddled with > anachronisms. k: If one aim to translate base on one understanding of the sutta, then definitely some of exact meanings will be lost. What level of understanding are we comparing to? It is easy to translate words in a passage but it is extremely difficult to put across the meaning. Even suttas translated in accesstoinsight by Thanissaro Bhikkhus have lots of problem. He translated based on what he thought is correct meaning of the sutta. If everyone do this and thought they are correct, then sutta meanings in the original Pali will eventually be lost. And to me that is how it is going to be lost in the next 2,500 years as we like to base what we think it is correct (researcher bias). When you say that commentarian Abhdhamma is not reliable then I would like to invite you to tell me the passage from any sutta and the Abdhidhamma commentarial text. You have to give me the English version as I am not in anyway study Pali in detail. Then I would give you the my personal comments what it mean by the Abdhidhamma commentarial text basing on what you give me. Is that good enough for you as I will base on your translation of the commentary. Ken O 37304 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Joop > many times in this DSG, I will quote some relevant parts of > Kalupahana's ChapterXXI about him too. > > "The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies > precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or > reductionist perspectives. No one reading the excessive long debate > in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that > the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). Abononing the search for such ultimate realities, it becomes possible to explain the content of the Abhidhamma in terms of the two principle teachings of the Buddha, namely, non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) > If the intention of the discourses in analyzing the human > personality into five aggregates was merely to indicate the absence of a metaphysical agent (anatta) and not the irreducible elements called 'ultimate realities', there seems to be no justification for the various psychological and physical items listed in the canonical Abhidhamma texts (…) to be considered ultimate realities. …. The different lists in the two major Abhidhamma traditions, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha, would indicate that they do not contain ultimate realities. The compilers of the Abhidhamma texts simply picked what they thought were the significant elements; hence the difference between the two traditions. K: Kalupahana does not see it in the correct angle. when Abhidhamma talk about the five aggregates it is meant as paramatha dhamma. In the same way when sutta talk about the four great elements, it is not about heat as a concept but heat as element in the paramatha dhammas. When it is view in this way, there is no difference in the traditions. The difference arise because his understanding cannot compare to those who spoken at that time. He is basing on his own understanding to draw up this conclusion. > What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical > and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an > aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, > i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a > moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the > behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) k: Could you explain again the above text as I dont really get what is the author trying to drive at. > 13 Self-nature (svabhava) > … > Nagarjuna's concluding statement after analyzing 'elements' (dhatu) > should serve as a corrective not only to the rather > trancendentalist interpretation offered by Candrakirti but also to that of the substantialist, whose conception of objectivity calls for an annihilation of the human perspective: 'Those who are of little intelligence, who perceive the existence as well as the > non-existence of existents, do not perceive the appeasement of the object, the auspicious'. What Nagarjuna is recommending is the appeasement of the conception of the object, neither its elevation to an ultimate reality nor its annihilation. It is not the elimination of any and every conceptionof it. Here he was faithfully following the footsteps of the Buddha. This, after performing a careful and delicate surgery in relation to all thirteen categories, Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 163/164) k: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not about substantiality. Ken O 37305 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi, Ken (and Joop) - In a message dated 10/5/04 12:10:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this > word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as > Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - > that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. > If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we > have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does > not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience > bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of > feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it > own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an > annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana > Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not > about substantiality. > > ======================== The term sabhava in Theravada only means "characteristic", not "own-being". But the Saravastivadins and some other early schools seem to have accepted the literal meaning of "own being". This is apparently what is reacted to in the Patisambidhamagga (sp?) and, later, by Nararjuna. Also, Ken, the term 'insubstantial' does not mean "nonexistent". It only means coreless, lacking in own-being, dependent, and not self-existent. The meaning of 'substance' is that of an underlying, self-existent core/identity. But the manner of existence of dhammas as explained by the Buddha is that of dependent existence, and not self-existence. It is a subtle, middle-way, relational mode of existence which is neither substantial self-existence nor nihilistic nonexistence. What is nonexistent can neither arise nor cease. And whatever is self-existent can neither arise nor cease. Reality is neither of these. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37306 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 10:31am Subject: Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Text Vis 105: III. i. D. The 'supramundane resultant' is of four kinds (66)-(69) because it is [respectively] the fruitions of the consciousnesses associated with the four paths (18)-(21). It occurs in two ways, that is to say, as [fruition in] the cognitive series of the path and as fruition attainment (see Ch. XXII). So resultant consciousness in all four planes is of thirty-six kinds. ******* Intro: As we have seen, there are four planes (bhumi) of citta: cittas of the sense-sphere (kaamaavaraa cittas), of the fine-material sphere (ruupa-jhaana), of the immaterial sphere (aruupa-jhaana) and supramundane or lokuttara cittas. The magga-cittas, lokuttara kusala cittas, arise when enlightenment is attained. As we have seen in XIV, 88, there are four stages of enlightenment: the stage of the streamwinner, of the once-returner, of the non-returner and of the arahat. At each of these stages defilements are successively eradicated. The Vis. deals here with supramundane vipaakacittas, the phala-cittas (fruition-consciousness), which are the results of the magga-cittas (path-consciousness). ========= Text Vis: The 'supramundane resultant' is of four kinds (66)-(69) because it is [respectively] the fruitions of the consciousnesses associated with the four paths (18)-(21) It occurs in two ways, that is to say, as [fruition in] the cognitive series of the path and as fruition attainment (see Ch. XXII). =========================== N: The Tiika mentions that during the process when enlightenment occurs, there are two or three moments of phalacitta. However, when there is fruition attainment, phalasamaapatti, it occurs uninterruptedly, and thus there are two ways (positions or .thaana) of its occurring. At the moment of enlightenment, magga-citta arises, and then it is followed in the same process by phalacittas, fruition consciousness. The magga-citta conditions the vipaakacitta, fruition consciousness by way of anantara-paccaya and other conditions. There is no delay, it is akaliko. Vis. VII, 31: Kamma that is worldly, lokiya, produces its result later on, but the kusala kamma that is magga-citta, is the only kamma that produces vipaaka in the same process. Also someone who is a sukkhavipassaka, with dry insight, experiences nibbaana with samaadhi of the degree of attainment concentration. The reason is that the object is nibbaana. Those who have cultivated jhaana, can attain enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by the jhanafactors of the different stages of jhaana. They can, after the process during which enlightenment occurred, experience nibbaana again with phalacittas in the course of life. That is the meaning of the two ways or positions of occurring of the fruition-consciousness. =============== Text Vis: So resultant consciousness in all four planes is of thirty-six kinds. =================================== N: The Tiika mentions that there are twentythree vipaakacittas of the sense-sphere (kaamaavaraa cittas). These are: eight sahetuka kusala vipaakacittas, eight ahetuka kusala vipaakacittas and seven akusala vipaakacittas (which are always ahetuka). There are five ruupaavacaara vipaakacittas (of the fine-material sphere), four aruupaavacaara vipaakacittas (of the immaterial sphere), and four lokuttara vipaakacittas. Thus, there are thirty-six kinds in all. The Tiika states that this is according to a method which is neither too short nor too detailed. N: When we include lokuttara jhaanacittas, lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhana-factors, the classification is more detailed. The Tiika explains that there is no lokuttara kiriyacitta because the vipaaka is sure to occur without interval (anantaravipaaka). It refers to a text in the Minor Readings, VI, The Jewel Discourse: This text speaks about samaadhi, concentration, and this is the ariyan right concentration which is lokuttara. The M. III, no 117, The Great Forty, states: The Tiika deals with the question why there is no lokuttara kiriyacitta. The questioner states that superior kusala of the ariyan who is a trainer, a non-arahat, produces fruit, whereas the superior kusala of the arahat, the non-trainer, is without fruit (nipphala), therefore why could there not be a lokuttara kiriyacitta? If the lokuttara magga-citta would arise again there could be a lokuttara kiriyacitta for the arahat. But since it arises only once this is not the case. N: Kusala kamma that is not lokuttara is a link in the cycle of birth and death. In the Expositor (II, p. 290) this kind of kamma that accumulates is compared to the building up a wall. The lokuttara magga-citta pulls down and demolishes this wall. Its result is completely different from the result of kamma of the other three planes of citta, it is not a link in the cycle of birth and death, it could not produce vipaaka in the form of rebirth-consciousness nor by way of a pleasant experience through one of the senses. The magga-citta can arise when the right conditions have been cultivated so that enlightenment can be attained. As we have seen in the Tiika Vis. 88, the six purifications, visuddhis, have to be reached which include all the stages of insight, before there can be the seventh purification, purification by knowledge and vision that is associated with the magga-citta, path-consciousness. The magga-citta is accompanied by all eight path-factors, including right action, right speech and right livelihood. The magga-citta eradicates the bases of wrong action, speech and livelihood in accordance with the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. The magga-citta produces, immediately after it has fallen away, the phala-citta, fruition-consciousness. The phala-citta is also accompanied by all eight path-factors, but at that moment the defilements that were to be eradicated by the magga-citta have been eradicated. **** Nina. 37307 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Sukin, Sorry for the extreme delay. > > H > Are you unaware, even with hindsight, that your daily life is full > > of activity in which you are creating and maintaining your self- belief > > with vigour and determination? And this is preferable to any sort of > > activity, regardless of how highly praised by the Buddha, because a > self > > might be hiding in it? > > > > I really have to laugh, Sukin. You are a funny fellow :-) > > > Sukin: So? There is plenty idea of self all day and very little sati of any > level. There is the illusion of control precisely because there is no > satipatthana. Often this involves an identification of `self' as a concept > engaging in `activities' (concepts) in time (more concept) and no > awareness of not only paramattha dhammas, but even ignoring other > possible interpretations of `self doing something'. But do I prefer this? > But you are right; lobha does lead the way all day, against one's better > judgement. So is there control? > ========== If there is awareness of the possibility of doing X (jhana, vipassana, metta) and then one does not do it in a context of thinking that it could be a trap in which an "I" is lurking, this is as much the exercising of control as if one were to go ahead and do it unaware of the hidden "I". Except that in the first case, there is the added conceit that the self has outsmarted itself. It often sounds to me that those who reject intentional meditation see as being desirable the seemingly unprompted moments of insight that come out of the blue. This is seen as a moment of no control. It can also be seen as moments with complete ignorance of what led up to them. That a moment of mindfullness can be preceded by ages of mindlessness is a fact of nature, but not one in which the beggar should take delight. One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. Kind Regards Herman 37308 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Hi Nina, I'm a little confused by the chart. It seems to say both the magga citta and the phala citta are javana. Is it two javana series in a row or two lokuttara mind-door processes in a row? Is mind-door adverting not counted as lokuttara? What about registration (tadaaramma.na)? Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations? Larry 37309 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 04-10-2004 20:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Hi, Nina (and Phil) - > I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to > relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing > cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, > including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating > calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times at which > we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind > has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the > intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each > instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. N: Today I had a good Dhamma talk with Lodewijk about your points. We visited a museum and had lunch in a restaurant. He said: we should train the mind in what? In understanding. Not training in suppressing tanha, then we shall not see anatta, the incontrollability of phenomena. He likes to stress the latent tendencies. Without clear understanding of the meaning and the impact of the latent tendencies truthfulness is not possible, he said. Understanding the latent tendencies helps us not to delude ourselves. Thus, we should go to the root of the defilements that arise. The latent tendencies conditions the arising of akusala cittas, and these will always find a desirable object that is a condition for pleasant feeling. He realized in the museum that the impact of visible object on the eye is followed by a rapid succession of feelings. We discussed that we should not only know clinging. If we do not study seeing and hearing we shall not understand conditions for the arising of clinging. We do not know about all the many moments of clinging with indifferent feeling arising in a day after seeing, hearing, and the other sense-cognitions. Or thinking with indifferent feeling: this is mostly akusala. What about conceit? We find ourselves important but this is usually unnoticed. You say, I find that the Abhidhamma helps me to understand that there are countless arisings of tanha, and not only tanha, but all kinds of akusala. As soon as we even think of beginning there were already countless moments of clinging. I want to see, to hear. I want to be able to move around, not like my father being in a wheelchair. I want to be able to talk, to think, to write. I want to live, I cling to life. For me it is unnatural to try to relinquish clinging, but what is unnatural for one person maybe natural for another person. I cannot tell. I want to understand, not to let go. Understanding does the work of detachment, very gradually. Nina. 37310 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ŒCetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard, op 05-10-2004 15:57 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > It is said that vedana is always present. What, effectively, is the > difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and > (what would be) absence of vedana? What exactly is detectably present when > there > is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? N: It is not easy to know indifferent feeling. Only through awareness can we know it more precisely. When? Only after we have realized the first stage of insight: knowing the difference between nama and rupa. We begin to study seeing when it appears. It is accompanied by indifferent feeling. When feeling is neither happy nor unhappy, it is indifferent. This is the way to begin to study it. There is no absence of feeling, there is always feeling, but we are ignorant. In the suttas we find texts about indifferent feeling and ignorance. Bodily pleasant feeling and bodily painful feeling are also feelings. See Vis. studies. It is also difficult to know happy feeling and unhappy feeling, we confuse these with rupas, with bodily phenomena. We take nama and rupa as a whole. We do not know the characteristic of feeling cetasika, which is nama, different from rupa. Nina. 37311 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 11:24pm Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard, --------------------- H: > It is said that vedana is always present > ---------------------- Just to state the obvious: Conditioned existence means the co- arising of each of the five khandhas. If there is no vedana, there is no conditioned existence. ----------------------- H: > What, effectively, is the difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and (what would be) absence of vedana? ----------------------- There is no way of imagining 'what would be the absence of vedana.' In conventional thinking we sometimes say, "I have no feelings one way or the other," but what we really mean is, "My feelings are neutral." The fact that we are able to comment on the state of our feelings confirms they are there to be known. Otherwise, we would find ourselves saying, "I don't know what my feelings are, they aren't here!" ---------------------- H: > What exactly is detectably present when there is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? > ---------------------- Whenever neutral feeling becomes the object of consciousness, I suppose there is an experience of neutral feeling as distinct from pleasant or unpleasant feeling. I don't think the absence of a dhamma is ever directly detected. It is only by detecting the opposite of a particular dhamma that we can say that dhamma is absent. So for example, when neutral feeling is experienced we can conclude, "pleasant feeling is absent," or, "unpleasant feeling is absent." --------------- H: > Vedana is not bodily sensation - for that is rupa. So it would not be a correct answer to say that neutral vedana is a type of neither pleasant nor unpleasant bodily sensation. > ---------------- Actually, that's not a good example, is it? You will recall that sense objects, of all five kinds, are either pleasant (those experienced as the result of kusala kamma) or unpleasant (those experienced as the result of akusala kamma). Regardless of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of its object, sense-door consciousness is always accompanied by neutral feeling except in the case of body-door consciousness. When there is body-door- consciousness of a pleasant / unpleasant tactile object, there is always pleasant / painful feeling. When there is mind-door consciousness of a tactile object (or of any sense object), there can be any one of the three mental feelings (depending on our accumulated tendencies). ----------------------- H: > The point is: On the occasion of bodily sensation that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, what does it mean to say there is vedana? > ----------------------- For the above reasons, I think the question needs to be rephrased, but my answer would be; "It means vedana has arisen to perform its functions." -------------------- H: > Why could one not just as well truly say that there is bodily sensation lacking affective feel? There must be an experiential basis for distinguishing lack of feeling from neutral feeling in order for neutral feeling to be accepted as an experiential reality. -------------------- I think dhammas arise, perform their functions and cease regardless of whether or not we accept them. :-) -------------------- H: > (BTW, S.N.Goenka seems to treat vedana as bodily sensations - pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral, distinguishing them from rupas. That would solve this "problem", but it replaces it by the problem of a non-traditional understanding of the meaning of 'vedana'.) ------------ As I recall, Goenka students detect tingling sensations sweeping up and down the entire body as they breathe in and out. (Or is it out and in?) I don't recall how those sensations were to be understood. Naturally, I would say they were concepts, which distinguishes them, not only from rupas, but also from vedana (namas). Ken H 37312 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Dear Htoo, Sorry for the delay. > Sukin: > > However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to > think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be > observed. > Htoo: > > I understand. But some develop on their own accord. -S> You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an important condition isn't it? The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta sanna. Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is knowing only concepts. My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti level, about conditionality and anatta. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > I understand that there are some people who believe that one must > start with the above kind of practice, and that later on one then > comes to `observe' paramattha dhammas. I think this is wrong. The > correct practice must in my opinion, start with correct intellectual > understanding. Do you agree with this? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I largely agree. But may I ask you a question? Did Bodhisatta > Siddhattha have correct understanding before arising of magga cittas? -S> How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and these would be the best ones then. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> One reason I stress these two words is because many people tend > to link the development of `concentration' with the development of > panna. I think there is no basis for such a connection. > Htoo: > > I think you are referring to magga panna. But all rupavacara rupa > jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas do have panna as their > accompanying cetasika. -S> Yes, but the `understanding' is different. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> I think these individuals would least need to `sit in order to > practice' and instead would `practice no matter what they did'. But > as I expressed above, I think `sitting' was their normal and natural > activity. > Htoo: I agree. I meant activity. Yes it is activity. Their sitting is > activity. Should other people not do these activities while they are > trying to understand The Buddha's Dhamma? -S> Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world but have wrong pariyatti understanding? Htoo, I understand your stress on practice. One must see the big difference between intellectual understanding and satipatthana, only the latter truly qualifies as `practice'. `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. So it is always good to be reminded about the more important thing, which is `patipatti'. But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) Good talking to you Htoo. Metta, Sukin. 37313 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Herman, > Sorry for the extreme delay. -S> And I'm being unusually quick in responding. ;-) ------------------------------------- > > Sukin: So? There is plenty idea of self all day and very little sati of any > > level. There is the illusion of control precisely because there is no > > satipatthana. Often this involves an identification of `self' as a concept > > engaging in `activities' (concepts) in time (more concept) and no > > awareness of not only paramattha dhammas, but even ignoring other > > possible interpretations of `self doing something'. But do I prefer this? > > But you are right; lobha does lead the way all day, against one's better > > judgement. So is there control? > > > ========== > Herman: If there is awareness of the possibility of doing X (jhana, > vipassana, metta) and then one does not do it in a context of > thinking that it could be a trap in which an "I" is lurking, this is > as much the exercising of control as if one were to go ahead and do > it unaware of the hidden "I". Except that in the first case, there > is the added conceit that the self has outsmarted itself. -S> What if this is not just from the standpoint of `theory'? What if there is the realization that such ideas about `jhana, vipassana, metta' are conditioned in part by craving? And this I-lobha might generate more I- ditthi. What if instead there is a level of satipatthana which generate a degree of detachment and not any idea about wanting more `sati' or `metta'? But of course what you say above is also a possibility and it would be as you point out, the same thing. Anyway I think, `conceit' is not so big a problem as `wrong view' with regard to the idea of `control'. ----------------------------------------------- > Herman: It often sounds to me that those who reject intentional meditation > see as being desirable the seemingly unprompted moments of insight > that come out of the blue. -S> `Desire' can arise, but surely this is `undesirable'. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > Herman: This is seen as a moment of no control. > It can also be seen as moments with complete ignorance of what led > up to them. -S> It usually is, I think. Just to have a moment of satipatthana is already a great event, to understand the conditions which lead to it, requires I think very great panna. But we do get caught in speculations about what lead to what, but I think it wise to refrain from this. ------------------------------------------------- > Herman: That a moment of mindfullness can be preceded by ages of > mindlessness is a fact of nature, but not one in which the beggar > should take delight. -S> No memory of past dhammas no matter how sublime is worth clinging to. But when compared kusala is surely more valuable than akusala, and between kusala with panna and without, the former is. And whenever if there is a realization that much of the time only the non- or less- valuable dhamma constantly arises, then shouldn't the rare occurrence of satipatthana be a cause for some joy? But you are saying that this being not enough, we should `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! ------------------------------------- > Herman: One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to > nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types > of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. -S> "Seeds", other types or the particular type we wish for, what can understand which is which? Is that which is labeled now as `mindfulness' in fact, the opposite of it? When panna arises to know a reality, what is the wish to nurture it? Is there any self-view in terms of having arrived at this point and going somewhere? Time to go. Metta, Sukin. 37314 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 1:44am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner29-Feeling/Vedana (b) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Is there feeling now? We think that we can recognize pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling, but are we not mixing up feeling with bodily phenomena? Feeling is nåma, quite different from rúpa. So long as we do not distinguish nåma from rúpa we cannot know the characteristic of feeling as it is. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that 'vedanå' is not the same as what we mean by feeling in conventional language. Feeling is nåma, it experiences something. Feeling never arises alone; it accompanies citta and other cetasikas and it is conditioned by them. Thus, feeling is a conditioned nåma. Citta does not feel, it cognizes the object and vedanå feels. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37315 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:16am Subject: Re: Self control for crude defilements? (was Re: [dsg] most moving Buddha quote9 Hi Phil, Last babble from me to you before we take our breaks even though you've stressed there's no need for further comments;-). Nothng new either, but I've had a few posts I've been meaning to add a comment or two on, so here goes: --- plnao wrote: <...> >Take encouragement from this self-image, though it is a > self-image, > and wrong view. It could be effective dealing with a crude - just about > as > crude > as they come - defilement like pornography. There are suttas that use > self-images in this > way to encourage monks. .... S: Just to put it clearly, there's nothing wrong in using 'self-images', sitting quietly on your cushion with your coffee and reflecting, going to AA if one is an alcoholic or following any other steps appropriate. 'Each has his own way', like we read in the sutta on 'Removing Distracting Thoughts'. BUT, and I mean it as a big BUT... But, whilst following any of these activities or steps, they can of course be followed with right or wrong view. It just depends on the purpose, the intention and the understanding at any time. Whether you use or don't use a 'self-image' will depend entirely on conditions which are not of any self's making. If there is an idea that one is in control in anything other than a conventional sense or that by following certain steps, defilements will necessarily be reduced, it shows a lack of understanding of the intricate nature and complexity of conditions, including kamma and vipaka. If one therefore thinks, well it's hopeless, it's conditioned, there's no point in going to AA and so on, that would also be quite wrong. So we can 'deal' with the crude defilements as we find fit, BUT develop understanding while taking or not taking action. "Metta as the means of removing hatred for living beings",as you mentioned, but by understanding its value when it arises, not trying to have it for oneself or wishing for more. When it comes to Abby-dilemmas, it's the same,as you suggested to Christine when you aptly requoted everyone's (well, not Dighanakha's) favourite message from Matt. We're so used to being lost in our dilemmas, we forget about present realities and forget that whether we take action a) or b), it will be by conditions at the present moment. So often we may decide on one course or worry so much about whether xyz will happen, not realizing that there will always be so many unknown factors affecting our intentions, our courses of action and results at various times. The only island for refuge is the Dhamma and development of satipatthana at the present moment, no matter how we think or act as you and everyone else here knows. Anyway, there's nothing new for you here and nothing you don't appreciate as was very clear in your excellent comments on 'determination' (#37222). Thank you for that. Your conclusion on New Year's resolutions was just the same as K.Sujin's comments to a friend who raised the same subject once. You've mentioned 'wholesome doubt' a few times with regard to the Kalama sutta I think. Sometime back we checked the Pali and various translations. I think it was clear that the intended meaning was 'you may well doubt' or something like that. No wholesome doubt. Of course, this is the doubt about realities, about the truths as taught by the Buddha that is being referred to rather than everyday doubts about the weather, what to wear and how to earn more money;-). You also referred to impatience 'knowing how gradual panna is.' There can be impatience of course, but I think that when panna itself grows there's simply less and less interest or concern about 'how much', 'when', 'how quickly' and so on. There is more and more confidence that nothing other than the understanding of the present reality really matters at all. Even akusala (unwholesome) states are known more for what they are - conditioned dhammas, that's all. K.Sujin always says 'I don't mind at all' with regard to (her) unwholesome states. Ah, we might say, but they're not so gross. Still, any dhammas have to be seen with detachment, otherwise there's just more clinging to self again. Detachment goes along with the understanding which really sees the danger of these states for what they are, not the minding. I liked a quote you gave from 'Deeds of Merit' when K.Sujin said: "If the citta has a high degree of coarseness there will be behaviour and speech which is not polite, not gentle, without thoughtfulness and kindness". ***** A couple of other minor points- I've appreciated all the extracts you've posted from 'Deeds of Merit'. In one of the extracts you posted, there was a discussion on 'bhaavanaa' and the common use of the word in Thai. It was a good example of how it is the understanding rather than the 'right' term that is important. There are lots of examples like that. Olfactory sense or sense of smell - I was reading about a nobel prize for research in this field. One of my brothers has had no or very little sense of smell since an accident a few years ago. From the point of view of understanding dhammas, whether one has a keen or dull sense of smell or eyesight or any other sense, makes no difference at all in terms of bhaavanaa or the development of understanding of realities. We can compare and analyse sense experiences for ever and never come closer to the truth, but you weren't suggesting this either. Lastly on 'jhanifying' - better to understand a little about the meaning of calm or samatha that accompanies all wholesome cittas and a little more about samatha development naturally in daily life first (again no special action with an idea of self). otherwise we'll always have a wrong understanding of what jhanas are, rather than just understanding accumulations now. We don't know what'll be conditioned next or whether there will be any developed vipassana or samatha in future, but without any understanding of any bhaavanaa now, there won't be any further conditions for more in future. Also, on the Perfections, I think I rather agree with Andrew L in that we can't say 'they're all needed, fully and completely'. This was only so for the Buddha. But, as you stress so well, we can't underestimate the value of considering, reflecting and developing these qualities along with insight. Phil, the babble was of course longer than intended - I had a pile of your posts I'd wished to pick up on before. I know I speak for many people here when I say how much we've appreciated your enthusiasm for the Dhamma and lovely, natural posts. I'll look forward to chatting again when we both resurface;-). Metta, Sarah p.s.Best wishes with the story books - pls give us a link sometime too. I hope you have a way to access those India recordings sometime (if you don't have tapes already). We may still be able to make our last Bkk recordings accessible before we leave, but again no promises. Jon will be flat out with drafting and meetings til we go. ====== 37316 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Continue-: Sukin: Dear Htoo, Sorry for the delay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That's fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to > > think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be > > observed. > > Htoo: > > I understand. But some develop on their own accord. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Life is short these days. It is the best if all pariyatti are learnt and properly understood. But those who attained some achievement may or may not have learnt all pariyatti. I usually use the story of Culapanthaka. He learnt nothing but did practise exactly as The Buddha asked him to do and he attained arahatta magga in a single morning. Pariyatti are good. It is good if you understand all and if you finish with all pariyatti. But wihtout patipatti, life will not be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of the practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an important condition isn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta sanna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Atta sanna will be cleared when it is seen. Noting the postures etc are just a method. Mahasatipatthana says to note body postures in iriyapatha pabba. When really practised, then the practitioner will see that there is no posture at all and what he will see is that there are just rupa such as vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- photthabba. If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is knowing only concepts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas and cetasikas. A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be destroyed. Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and they cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti level, about conditionality and anatta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But as I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > I understand that there are some people who believe that one must > > start with the above kind of practice, and that later on one then > > comes to `observe' paramattha dhammas. I think this is wrong. The > > correct practice must in my opinion, start with correct intellectual > > understanding. Do you agree with this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I largely agree. But may I ask you a question? Did Bodhisatta > Siddhattha have correct understanding before arising of magga cittas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and these would be the best ones then. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before arising of magga cittas. I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding before arising of nay magga nana' ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> One reason I stress these two words is because many people > tend to link the development of `concentration' with the development of panna. I think there is no basis for such a connection. > Htoo: > I think you are referring to magga panna. But all rupavacara rupa > jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas do have panna as their > accompanying cetasika. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Yes, but the `understanding' is different. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sure. But no concentration, no magga nana. Samadhisambojjhanga is a requirement when magga nana is going to arise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: >> S> I think these individuals would least need to `sit in order to > > practice' and instead would `practice no matter what they did'. But > > as I expressed above, I think `sitting' was their normal and natural > > activity. > Htoo: I agree. I meant activity. Yes it is activity. Their sitting is activity. Should other people not do these activities while they are trying to understand The Buddha's Dhamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world but have wrong pariyatti understanding? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they practise for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta heard that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha Gotama had to practise for 6 years. If already understand, there is no need to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Htoo, I understand your stress on practice. One must see the big difference between intellectual understanding and satipatthana, only the latter truly qualifies as `practice'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes, exactly. Some do not. They even do not accept that they are just in theory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the essence of instruction I am going to say. 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. That is why I stress to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: So it is always good to be reminded about the more important thing, which is `patipatti'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here I definitely see that you already accepted that pariyatti is more important. Actually all are important as all pitakas are important. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) Good talking to you Htoo. Metta, Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a car, please do not control it :-). With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37317 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:53am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 083 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Piti is a separate entity standing on its own character. I have heard that someone confused with mudita with piti. Actually mudita is another cetasika. The reason for confusion is that mudita co-arises with piti. There are 121 cittas. As piti is not a universal mental factor, it does not arise with each of 121 cittas. They choose the right citta and if citta is not the right one for it, piti does not arise. There are 4 lobha mula citta which do not have piti as their accompaniment. They are upekkha sahagatam lobha mula cittas. All dosa cittas do not have piti. No one is happy when they are angry. So 2 dosa mula cittas do not have piti as thier mental factor. 2 moha mula cittas also do not have piti. All 10 panca vinnana cittas do not have piti. 2 sampaticchana cittas do not have piti. 2 upekkha santirana do not have piti. 2 ahetuka kiriya cittas pancadvaraavajjana citta and manodvaravajjana citta do not have piti. 12 of 24 kamavacara kama sobhana citta do not have piti. They are 4 upekkha kamavacara mahakusala cittas, 4 mahavipaka cittas, and 4 mahakiriya cittas. So 36 kamavacara cittas do not have piti. There are 27 mahaggata cittas and 40 lokuttara cittas left. 3 of 4th rupa jhana cittas, 3 of 5th rupa jhana and all 12 arupa jhanas do not have piti as piti is excluded by the practice. So 18 mahaggata cittas do not have piti. 36 + 18 = 54 loki cittas do not have piti. 8 of 4th jhana lokuttara cittas and 8 of 5th jhana lokuttara cittas do not have piti. So 54 + 8 + 8 = 70 cittas do not have piti. Piti arises in 121- 70 = 51 cittas. 4 lobha cittas, 1 somanassa santirana, 1 hasituppada, 12 kama sobhana cittas, 11 1st jhana, 11 2nd jhana, and 11 3rd jhana cittas do have piti. 4+ 1 + 1 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 11 = 51 cittas. So we need to differentiate between these kinds of citta when piti arises. 1. Lobha cittas 2. Ahetuka cittas ( one is vipaka and one is kiriya ) So we do not need to worry on these 2 cittas. 3. kama sobhana cittas ( 4 is vipaka cittas and 4 is kiriya cittas ) So again we do not need to worry on 8 cittas. 4. 1st jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas We do not need to worry on 8 lokuttara cittas. But 3 mahaggata has 1 rupakusala citta. It needs to be understood to differentiate from lobha cittas. 5. 2nd jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas. 1 rupakusala citta needs attention as discussed. 6. 3rd jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas. 1 rupakusala citta needs attention. So there are 4 lobha cittas, 4 mahakusala cittas, 1 1st jhana rupakusala citta, 1 2nd jhana rupakusala citta, 1 3rd jhana rupakusala citta. Jhana cittas are in appana samadhi and this cannot be confused if the practitioner is wise enough. So 4 lobha cittas and 4 kama mahakusala cittas left. Cetasikas that accompany akusala cittas and cetasikas that accompany kusala cittas differ. So the study of cetasikas become crucial. That is why I am now discussing on cetasikas in some detail. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37318 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 4:58am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Hello KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > .....snip..... > RK: > (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it > will take a different object. By doing so..?) > > -------------------------- > > Alas, no, but I think I've got it now. And it does make sense. (But > then, I thought that about the other, completely different, > version). :-) > Thanks for your patience. > > Ken H A: I've just managed to get this one clear in my head also. The javanna cittas that arise just before cuti-citta have something as object [who knows what] and that same something will also be object of the next patisandhi citta. So the bhavanga cittas and the cuti- citta of that life will take that same object. I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post when I return. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37319 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: Hallo Ken Ken : Kalupahana does not see it in the correct angle. when Abhidhamma talk about the five aggregates it is meant as paramatha dhamma. In the same way when sutta talk about the four great elements, it is not about heat as a concept but heat as element in the paramatha dhammas. When it is view in this way, there is no difference in the traditions. The difference arise because his understanding cannot compare to those who spoken at that time. He is basing on his own understanding to draw up this conclusion. Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which the theory of dependent origination belongs. I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the first time. ============================================== Kalupahana: Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) Ken : Could you explain again the above text as I dont r Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. This is an example of Kalupahan's general statement that the content of the texts ascribed to the Buddha's changed from realism to kinds of transcendentalism: much in Mahayana but even (less) in Theravada. And his statement that Nagarjuna has tried to undo that development (without result is his time but to our great pleasure now) . ============================================== Kalupahana: Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 164) Ken: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not about substantiality. Joop: Howard has answered your question about svabhava. Kalupahana simply translated it with 'substance', but is theme was 'substantialism' (nearly the same as 'essentialism') as a branch of Buddhism which is a deviation from the early Buddhism (of the Sutta's) Metta Joop 37320 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:15am Subject: Deeds of Merit - studying the Vinaya Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag.co.uk Today we consider the benefits of studying the Vinaya. (The Suttanta and Abhidhamma will follow in days to come.) W is Ms. Wanadhana, S is K Sujin. W. : You just said that generally speaking each of the three parts of the teachings are the condition for people who study them for seeing the excellent qualities of the Buddha. Is it correct to say that in each of these three parts of the Tipi~naka we can see the three qualities of the Buddha which are his purity, his compassion and his wisdom? S. : That is true. For example, we see in the Vinaya the purity of the Buddha who laid down in all details the rules of training in moral conduct by which unwholesomeness through body and speech can be eliminated. However, in the Vinaya we do not only see his purity, but also his wisdom by which he realized at the time of his enlightenment the causes leading to the appropriate results with regard to the rules of training contained in the Vinaya. He realized to what extent each training rule of siila was a powerful condition for the monk to be firmly established in the teachings and in the life of purity. Layfollowers are absorbed in the sense objects of visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object which tie them to the household life and prevent them from becoming a monk. Whereas for the monk, his siila is a powerful bond which is a condition for him not to leave the monkhood and turn to the laymans life, the life of sense pleasures. W. : Can people who study the Vinaya also see the compassion of the Buddha? I think that it is difficult to see this. I heard people say that the Buddha made life difficult for the monks by the different rules which are very detailed. Some monks find it difficult to apply these rules. How can we see the Buddhas compassion in the Vinaya? S. : Each rule of the Vinaya the Buddha laid down is for the sake of the living together of the members of the community of monks in harmony and happiness. In the Vinaya there are also minor rules; there are mitigations which means that there are allowances in the application of rules, that there are exceptions so that certain cases are not offenses. This shows the great compassion of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly knew that people who still have defilements would usually in their behaviour be led by those defilements. If such actions would not be greatly in conflict with their status of monkhood there were rules laid down by him which would serve to correct their behaviour. In his compassion the Buddha knew that someone who had left the household life to become a monk had not undertaken an easy task. 37321 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:22am Subject: Re: Self control for crude defilements? (was Re: [dsg] most moving Buddha quote9 Hi Sarah > Last babble from me to you before we take our breaks even though you've > stressed there's no need for further comments;-). Nothng new either, but > I've had a few posts I've been meaning to add a comment or two on, so here > goes: Your effusiveness rivals my own. Indeed, we have a lot in common! Thanks for your comments and kind words. I'll be printing it out and reading it along with all the posts I've gathered. I really do believe that reading and rereading these posts is a form of bhavana, and that the reading conditions understanding. Well, no kidding! Metta, Phil 37322 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina (and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 10/6/04 12:19:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > op 04-10-2004 20:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >Hi, Nina (and Phil) - > >I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to > >relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing > >cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever > arises, > >including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of > cultivating > >calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times > at > which > >we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the > mind > >has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the > >intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each > >instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. > N: Today I had a good Dhamma talk with Lodewijk about your points. We > visited a museum and had lunch in a restaurant. He said: we should train the > mind in what? In understanding. Not training in suppressing tanha, then we > shall not see anatta, the incontrollability of phenomena. He likes to stress > the latent tendencies. Without clear understanding of the meaning and the > impact of the latent tendencies truthfulness is not possible, he said. > Understanding the latent tendencies helps us not to delude ourselves. Thus, > we should go to the root of the defilements that arise. The latent > tendencies conditions the arising of akusala cittas, and these will always > find a desirable object that is a condition for pleasant feeling. He > realized in the museum that the impact of visible object on the eye is > followed by a rapid succession of feelings. We discussed that we should not > only know clinging. If we do not study seeing and hearing we shall not > understand conditions for the arising of clinging. We do not know about all > the many moments of clinging with indifferent feeling arising in a day after > seeing, hearing, and the other sense-cognitions. Or thinking with > indifferent feeling: this is mostly akusala. What about conceit? We find > ourselves important but this is usually unnoticed. > You say, arising of tanha..> I find that the Abhidhamma helps me to understand that > there are countless arisings of tanha, and not only tanha, but all kinds of > akusala. As soon as we even think of beginning there were already countless > moments of clinging. I want to see, to hear. I want to be able to move > around, not like my father being in a wheelchair. I want to be able to talk, > to think, to write. I want to live, I cling to life. For me it is unnatural > to try to relinquish clinging, but what is unnatural for one person maybe > natural for another person. I cannot tell. I want to understand, not to let > go. Understanding does the work of detachment, very gradually. > Nina. > =========================== I don't disagree with the foregoing except as to a subtle implication of the task being too hard to do. It is so that there are countless moments of craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be aware of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. It is best to be clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed pa~n~nq is key. The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such moments. Guarding the senses [please see the quoted material at the end of this post], repeatedly urged by the Buddha, is exactly what I am referring to when I say "There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go." A practice of vigilance, carefully monitoring the sense doors, is both possible and important as I see it. With metta, Howard > "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not > yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, > upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful > qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful > qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, > non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37323 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/04 2:25:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Just to state the obvious: Conditioned existence means the co- > arising of each of the five khandhas. If there is no vedana, there > is no conditioned existence. > ========================= While such consistent simultaneity of arising may be asserted in Abhidhamma, I'm not aware of that being the case in the suttas. (As to the rest of your reply, I thank you for it - it is a clear exposition of what would be the Abhidhammic analysis of this matter.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37324 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Howard I appreciate your explanations. Please allow me to express some of my own thoughts on this. I think the word used not-substantial is not a good interpretation of anatta. It brings a connatation of what is exist and not exist. I am not an English teacher like James (hope he does not read the email ;-) ). So to me when the words is used, reader will not have a good sense what is anatta about. That is why the whole article by the writer will mispresent the necessary meaning of Sabhava giving it an interpretation of own being. If an writer put his own understanding to an important term, then to me the whole article already show his limitation and his understanding of what is the term original used for. Everyone has their own interpretation, but we should be faithful to the way it is presented. I am not saying I am good at dhamma, nevertheless I am willing to put fruitful discussion to dispell misunderstanding to terms. Putting Abdhidhamma aside, I believe we should always used sutta as a good comparision for the word Anatta. Not-self to me is the nearest to the word Anatta. Lets not try to reinvent the wheel because of the danger it brings to a reader who could not discriminate what is the original intent of the word being used and let us not let reader to second guess its meaning. I myself has wrestled with the word emptiness for almost seven years until I read anatta as not self. So I believe let us uphold the true meaning for the sake of future generations. Cheers Nonetheles, I used to avoid to discuss materials written by the author, since it keep creeping back to haunt me. So I decide this time once and for all let us have a fruitful dicussion on this. I am most willing to discuss them with Joop anytime since Sarah and gang not around to disturb my discussion with Joop (laughing away). Ken O 37325 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Larry, op 06-10-2004 03:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little confused by the chart. It seems to say both the magga citta > and the phala citta are javana. Is it two javana series in a row or two > lokuttara mind-door processes in a row? N: both the magga citta and the phala citta are javana cittas in one process. Phala-citta immediately succeeds the maggacitta, no delay, akaalika. It is the only vipaakacitta that can perform the function of javana. It is different from all other kinds of vipaakacitta. L: Is mind-door adverting not > counted as lokuttara? N: No. It adverts to one of the three characteristics. That is, it adverts to a reality that appears as impermanent, as dukkha or as anatta. Then it is followed by kusala cittas accompanied by pañña which are not yet lokuttara: preparatory consciousness (parikamma), proximity consciousness (upacaara), conformity (anuloma) and change of lineage (gotrabhuu). The gotrabhuu citta experiences nibbaana, but it is not lokuttara citta, it does not eradicate defilements. This is succeeded by the magga-citta and the phala-citta (two or three moments of phalacitta). See ADL Ch 24. L: What about registration (tadaaramma.na)? N: Never. Retention, tadaaramma.na, can only arise in the case of kaamaavacaara cittas, and in a sensuous plane of existence. Kamma produces this kind of vipaakacitta which hangs on to the sense object that is experienced by kaamaavacaara cittas. We cling so much to sense objects. Nibbaana and the lokuttara cittas are dhammas which are not objects of clinging. L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations? N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain. Nina. 37326 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Hallo Joop, You wrote: < I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame > of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology > describe the same reality?> Very good point you make. touches on the essence. Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, social psychology does not. Abhidhamma leads to detachment from the idea of self. See below. op 05-10-2004 12:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: Snipped... for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a > cause. > - There is a "being suffering"; > - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps > hear him/her too; > - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal > intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have > - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate > propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with > karuna when I was young) Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that person is > suffering - And then Karuna arises. > How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and > rupa's ? N: Cittas go much faster than that. I see it this way: we heard about the brahmavihaaras and it is paññaa that sees the value of them. We consider more and then we begin to realize that what we used to take for kusala was actually akusala. We learn that instead of metta there was the near enemy of attachment. Instead of karuna there was the near enemy of sorrow, which is a form of dosa. How valuable to learn the difference. Otherwise we go on accumulating akusala we take for kusala. When there is right understanding there can be a moment of true metta or true karuna, not what we used to take for metta and karuna. Such moments fall away but they are accumulated and can be a condition for their arising later on. Thus, when we notice someone who needs help (mental or material), it all depends on the conditions for the citta at that moment what will arise: aversion or true compassion. I do not reason or draw conclusions, but when there are conditions for karuna I make a move at once. Let us not forget that karuna is not mine, that it arises depending on conditions. it has no master, it is anatta. I do not have an intellectual approach, I find that this does not work. Cittas are too fast. If we delay, it may be too late to help! Thus here you see the difference with social psychology. I like your question, it is to the point. Nina. 37327 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Nina, "L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations?" "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. Is that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is nibbana the same for all four paths? Larry 37328 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/6/04 6:38:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Nina, > > "L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations?" > > "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and > nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This > process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can > even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in > the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." > > L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for > a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation > of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. Is > that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is > nibbana the same for all four paths? > > Larry > > ========================== Here's how I think about it, without implying that my perspective is at all authoritative: Nibbana is the absence of the three poisons. In a sense, nibbana is always here. It is always present in the same way that chalk dust covering a chalk board is not a part of the board, and that even before erasing the board, the dust is absent from the board, and the board is free of the dust. That absence and that freedom is a kind of chalk-board nibbana. Under the proper conditions, one can see below the dust, glimpsing the absence of the dust from the board, and blowing away some of the dusty covering. Likewise, one can, under the proper conditions, get to see nibbana, the essential absence of the dust of defilements from the mindstream, their non-inherent and merely adventitious occurrence, and doing so blows away some of that dust. Whether the realization is the first, second, third, or fourth, it is the same nibbana that is realized. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37329 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 5:43pm Subject: Scientist Herman Hi Herman I'm back and would like to weigh into the very interesting science thread. As you know, I am a bit of a science buff, have studied science at uni level and love the work of the late Stephen Jay Gould. I believe the scientific method has a crucial place in our culture and needs to be distinguished from pseudo-science like Creationism. However, I think you put the case for science far too high. In post #37189, you wrote: "Science explains the mechanisms of life in a testable, verifiable way, while Buddhism doesn't". Herman, if only what you say about science were actually correct, things would be a whole lot easier and I would be a whole lot happier. The fact is that the appearance of the scientific method has not dispeled all mystery in the universe. Why? Because some (many) things are not testable in the scientific way. Can we say that something that is not (currently) testable in this way is necessarily false? No. All we can say is that we presently have no way of testing it scientifically. In a previous post, I pointed out that designating something as a "scientific fact" in a great many cases actually involves making a value judgement that reasonable people could disagree about. So when people tell me that "science proves" that their view is correct, I keep my salt shaker handy. Over and above all this is the occurence of shonky science. Have you read Gould's award-winning "The Mismeasure of Man"? In it, he tells of the white American scientist who "proved" that black Americans aren't as intelligent as white Americans by measuring the volume of skulls. He did this by filling the skulls with lead filings and measuring it. He found that the white skulls had a bigger volume. Gould repeated this scientist's experiment using precisely the same skulls he had used in the museums. What did he find? The scientist had jammed the lead filings into the white skulls as much as he could and only lightly filled the black skulls! In truth, there *was* no significant difference at all! And for many many years, people with pre-set views went around proclaiming "science has proven that blacks aren't as intelligent as whites". Let's be frank. There are many parts of the Dhamma that are not testable in the scientific way (at the moment). In that sense, they are "unscientific". But we can't go further and say that they are necessarily false (even though that may be our belief). You also wrote that "ethics is not the domain of science". Traditionally, of course, both philosopher and physicist were called "scientists" - the former a "practical scientist" and the latter a "theoretical scientist". That's because a philosopher answers practical "what to do" questions and the physicist answers theoretical "how does it happen" questions. That's why Aristotle's "Ethics" is still on the curriculum whilst his "Physics" is now little read. But you mustn't forget meta-ethics: if you believe in Determinism, your ethics are going to be a lot different from one who believes in free will. Whether things work deterministically or not is a "how does it happen" question. Enough rabbiting on. Bye for now. Andrew T 37330 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:12pm Subject: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha I appreciate reading your views very much and note that you are both a scholar and a Dhamma practitioner (post #37243). I have some comments and questions to pose and would appreciate any further comments you may have, if you feel so inclined. First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the place of faith in Dhamma practice? How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] I hasten to add I am not suggesting anyone here is being so described. But I have something to do with academia and IMHO these words are "fair comment" if applied to much academic discourse wherein scholars vie to leave their mark on their discipline by debunking a widely held view. I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? With best wishes Andrew T 37331 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 8:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Howard, I'm trying to get a sense of what the consciousness of nibbana is. Are you saying it is a consciousness of the absence of desire, aversion, and ignorance? You seem to speak of these as a kind of glue. Is nibbana gluelessness, aka anatta? What about dependent arising? Dependence is sticky and the main dependence is root dependence, desire, aversion and bewilderment. This dependence of kamma depends on the glue of a sense of self. I can see how consciousness of nibbana could be a direct and profound consciousness of anatta. But I suspect it might be a little different for each stage of enlightenment. Larry ---------------------- H: "Here's how I think about it, without implying that my perspective is at all authoritative: Nibbana is the absence of the three poisons. In a sense, nibbana is always here. It is always present in the same way that chalk dust covering a chalk board is not a part of the board, and that even before erasing the board, the dust is absent from the board, and the board is free of the dust. That absence and that freedom is a kind of chalk-board nibbana. Under the proper conditions, one can see below the dust, glimpsing the absence of the dust from the board, and blowing away some of the dusty covering. Likewise, one can, under the proper conditions, get to see nibbana, the essential absence of the dust of defilements from the mindstream, their non-inherent and merely adventitious occurrence, and doing so blows away some of that dust. Whether the realization is the first, second, third, or fourth, it is the same nibbana that is realized." 37332 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/6/04 11:23:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm trying to get a sense of what the consciousness of nibbana is. Are > you saying it is a consciousness of the absence of desire, aversion, and > ignorance? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I understand it, nibbana is exactly the absence of desire, aversion, and ignorance. What the consciousness of that would be I can only imagine. It would, I believe, be the supreme instance of wisdom, it would be a direct knowing, and, no doubt it would result in a kind of inexpressible suprise, amazement, and joy. Now, the realization of nibbana, would not just be the consciousness of it, but the consequent uprooting of defilements. And the ultimate realization of nibbana would consist in fully and permanently uprooting defilements, so that the absence that is nibbana would be, as it were, fully actualized. With that actualization, the never-arising of desire and aversion would be perfect peace, and the never-arising of confusion would be perfect wisdom, seeing exactly what is, as it is. --------------------------------------------------- You seem to speak of these as a kind of glue. Is nibbana > > gluelessness, aka anatta? What about dependent arising? Dependence is > sticky and the main dependence is root dependence, desire, aversion and > bewilderment. This dependence of kamma depends on the glue of a sense of > self. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is a good metaphor to speak of desire and aversion (and clinging) as kinds of glue, and the realization of their absence would certainly be an ungluing. But my metaphor was more one of a covering over, an obscuration, of the mind's natural luminosity. That metaphor applies to all three poisons, but most aptly to ignorance. ------------------------------------------------- I can see how consciousness of nibbana could be a direct and> > profound consciousness of anatta. But I suspect it might be a little > different for each stage of enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've read that it is the same at all stages except for the intensity and directness of view, ranging from a glimpse (as through a glass, darkly) up to pristine and perfect awareness (face to face). [In the parentheses here, I borrow some terminology from Chapter 13 of Corinthians, in the Christian "New Testament"] ------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37333 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Dear Azita, Yes, this is also a Q. for Vis. XIV, 111, Larry mentioned to me. Kamma, kamma nimitta and gati nimitta (the future destiny) as object of the last javanacittas and then on to the rebirth-consciousness, bhavanga, cuti of the next life. Nina. op 06-10-2004 13:58 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post > when I return. 37334 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:28pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner30-Feeling/Vedana (c) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Feeling accompanies all cittas of the four jåtis: akusala citta, kusala citta, vipåkacitta and kiriyacitta. Feeling is of the same jåti as the citta it accompanies. The feeling which accompanies, for example, akusala citta is also akusala and entirely different from the feeling which accompanies vipåkacitta. Since there are many different types of citta there is a great variety of feeling. Although there are many kinds of feeling, they have one characteristic in common: they all are the paramattha dhamma, non-self, which feels. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37335 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, --------------------- H: > I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. > --------------------- That's very persuasive logic, and I think it would be accepted in most quarters outside DSG. It comes back to another point you often make: 'By being attentive of concepts, we can train the mind to be attentive of dhammas.' I don't think anyone here is saying we should be inattentive of concepts, and I imagine that a person with right understanding is probably very attentive of them, but he/she would not make a ritual (a formal practice) of it. When I stub my toe and become angry, should I formally practise mindfulness of anger? In that same, short period of time dhammas of all sorts are coming and going - seeing, visible object, hearing, audible object, lobha, moha, and so on. So why single out anger? I think it is because I see it as MY anger. At that particular time, seeing and visible-object are of no consequence to me: I AM anger (anger is in me, I am in anger). So, unfortunately, any formal mindfulness of anger would be ritual observance of self. That is a gross example, but the same would apply whenever we try to choose one object from the millions of objects that are arising every second, don't you think? Kind regards, Ken H 37336 From: Egbert Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:50pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying, largely, and I think you have accurately outlined where we disagree. I'll cut to the chase :-) ==== S > But you are saying that this being not enough, we should `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! ==== When the awareness arises that there is absorption in any act of any kind whatsoever, for me that is an opportunity to cease/desist/abstain from being absorbed in that act. But the possibility remains with that awareness to persist with the folly. I will have to accept that you live your life without any belief in choices or options, if that is what you are maintaining, but that is very far from how I experience my life. To be totally honest, the only people who I have ever observed to believe that they were without option or choice were on the brink of suicide. Many dhammas arise and fall, for sure, and the idea of catching them comes out of that, as does the idea of a self who has choices and options. Except for the rare saint, and the more common suicidally depressed person, everyone else acts from time to time as though they are an agent with choices. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And so while one is a person in the world of agents, one can choose to accept or reject the teachings of the Buddha to the Romans on the effort of cultivation of right-mindedness. Or one may outsmart themself, and while neither a saint or suicidally depressed, they choose to remind themselves of what they do not know, and presume the insight of anicca, anatta and dukkha while fully engrossed in the circus of life. I have not seen the stats regarding success rates of the dsg approach to sainthood, but I expect they will not rival those of the sutta approach. Conditions and accumulations, no doubt and for sure, but while one acts as agent one would do well to consider what futures one is conditioning and accumulating by ones choices. (Please be assured this is meant impersonally, not directed at speficic ones or theys :-)) ------------------------------------- > > > Herman: One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types > > of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. > > -S> > "Seeds", other types or the particular type we wish for, what can > understand which is which? Is that which is labeled now > as `mindfulness' in fact, the opposite of it? When panna arises to know a > reality, what is the wish to nurture it? Is there any self-view in terms of having arrived at this point and going somewhere? Thanks again Sukin and Kind Regards Herman 37337 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:34am Subject: Giving Hi all, There have recently been a number of posts about giving. The following are just my reflections on these posts. The giving of gifts that are subject to decay and depletion is a two- edged sword. Not hanging on to what is of no value is of great benefit for oneself, but in giving it to another person, it may well trigger the belief in the recipient that the gift is worth having. And so the seeds for attachment and suffering are nurtured. The reality of life is that we all require a small trickle of material goods for our sustenance. But material generousity to people who are not in need is a gift of attachment and suffering. On the other hand, the stores of metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha are boundless, and multiply with their giving. They are not subject to decay, nor depletion. Kind Regards Herman 37338 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:19am Subject: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag.co.uk W. : People who study the Suttanta are able to see not only his compassion but also his purity and his wisdom. As you said, in each of the three parts of the Tipi~naka we would be able to notice these three qualities of the Buddha. S : The compassion of the Buddha is evident in the suttas which he preached so that people would benefit in accordance with their accumulations and abilities. Apart from seeing his compassion we also see the Buddhas purity which was unshakable by words of praise or blame, by gain, respect or homage. We read in the Dialogues of the Buddha (I, no. 1, Brahmajaala Sutta [46) that the Buddha, while he was staying in the pavilion in the Ambala~n~nhika garden, said to the monks: If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken? Certainly not, Lord. If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us. And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exaltation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: For such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us. (end quote) Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. My current feeling is that it is a futile thing to try to sort out other people's false views, especially when they are overly assertive about them, because people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations. It seems to me there is distraction and restlessness and affirmation of self involved in disputing views, but perhaps it is a wholesome duty. " if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation (to hear the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha praised) you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves" This is an example of how difficult the Dhamma is to grasp, how subtle, how contrary to the ways of the world. It reminds me of a teaching of someone (K Sujin?) that it is a disservice to people to give them reason to feel attached to you. Metta, Phil 37339 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Joop & All, Many thanks for all your interesting and rather original contributions here. All very well-considered and you've obviously read a lot and widely. --- jwromeijn wrote: > For that reason it's relevant to look at the work of the (Sri Lankan > born) buddhology scholar David Kalupahana. >....No one reading the excessive long debate > in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that the > Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). .... As KenO said, we had some long and interesting discussions with Michael before on sabhava, paramattha dhammas and the Kathavatthu. Some of us concluded, like Ken O, that Kalupahana misunderstands vital aspects of the teachings, especially the Abhidhamma. I'll leave you to discuss the topics further with him and others as I'm trying to wind up threads ;-). You may like to look at these messages which show the comment above is clearly erroneous I think: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28613 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30417 You may also like to look at posts saved under 'sabhava' and 'paramattha' in Useful Posts sometime. I'd be glad to have any further discussion with you on these areas on our return, but meanwhile, you've got your homework and others to discuss further with;-) Any of the threads with Michael on these topics would be interesting for you to follow too. They're probably mostly starting at around post 27000 and run til about 30000.* On your other post to me on rupas (37101), I think the problem is that you are comparing them with physics. The translation is not so important, but while one is thinking in scientific terms, one will never directly understand the elements experienced, such as visible object, sound etc. These realities are just apparent today as ever, but it depends on whether any awareness has been developed as to whether they will ever be known. The sound now has gone already....very 'volatile' or impermanent. Why 17 times slower? Just the way it is, but no need to worry about the number. When there is awareness of a rupa, there's no care or concern about the speed - sati is just aware of its characteristic, that's all. Rupas are elemets (dhatus) - 'bearing' their own characteristics, not to be confused with concepts. Phenomena is OK, but not so precise as actualities, realities, (paramattha) dhammas perhaps. Pls keep posting your comments as usual and I'll look forward to discussing any topics further with you next month. (Suravira, I will be writing to you next......sorry for delays). Metta. Sarah ====== *If anyone would like to download the entire archives to read off-line, without ads or yahoo blurb or to be able to scroll through quickly on-line, you can now find them all at this temporary link: http://dhammastudygroup.org/ [It's just going to be a parking place for the archives and we're experimenting with search engines (not very successfully) to make it easier for anyone to find past posts, since we seem to have lost escribe completely as a back-up tool, due to their system breakdown. (Pls ignore the Google site search which isn't working:-/??#@ - anyone can experiment with the others. If any computer wiz-kids wish to design something just for this purpose, pls do, and show Jon or me off-list!).] ================================= 37340 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O > wrote: Hi Joop > Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific > in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the > first time. k: I acknowledge that this is a problem of sutta and abhidhamma. The reason words used in sutta are usually for easy preaching of the dhammas. At this junction, I would say that when Nyanatiloka say that these five aggregates as conventional truth - that does not hold true to my opinion. When Buddha talk about the five aggregates in the sutta, it is always in terms of paramatthas and not in conventional truth. Only when he said I or he, it is in conventional truth. When Kalupahana tries to compare and contrast both traditions, he is looking at his own point of view. If he looks it as from a paramatha dhamma point of view, he will not have come to his conclusion. > Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the > psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not > only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) > which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. If we look at the the first sutta expounded by the Buddha on suffering, Buddha already expressed explicity craving as one of the problem of sufferings with the five aggregates (in short the clinging to the five aggregates as the root cause of suffering). In fact if you read Samyutta Nikaya on the book on aggregates, there are examples of the aggregates with the akusala roots. Ken O 37341 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Larry, op 07-10-2004 00:37 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and > nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This > process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can > even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in > the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." > > L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for > a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation > of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. N: I see, you mean eradication. The magga-citta eradicates the latent tendencies stage by stage. L: Is > that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is > nibbana the same for all four paths? N: Nibbana does not change, it is the uncondiitoned element and it is non-self. But lokuttara paññaa that experiences nibbaana has different degrees, depending on the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. Lokuttara paññaa of the magga-citta of the arahat accomplishes the task of eradicating all latent tendencies. At the moment of fruition of the arahat the task has been accomplished. I do not think it beneficial to speculate much about nibbaana as absence, those are mere words. Most important is following the Path leading to liberation. Nina. 37342 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 06-10-2004 16:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: It is so that there are countless moments of > craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not > going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be > aware > of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. N: Thank you for the reminder, reminders do help. H: It is best to be > clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed > pa~n~na is key. > The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated > and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such > moments. N: It is just the term relinquish, I am not sure of. What do you think about this yourself? Of course I agree with the sutta text. This is the right effort of the eightfold Path, but it is not a Path factor when it is not accompanied by right understanding of the eightfold Path. It cannot be developed in isolation. You remember Jon's many posts about this? (Search in archives right effort.) They are among the factors of enlightenment which should develop together.When there is amoment of right mindfulness and right understanding, the four right efforts are being accomplished. (snip, snip)> I > say "There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the > arising > of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing > of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for > letting it go." A practice of vigilance, carefully monitoring the sense doors, > is > both possible and important as I see it. N: Whatever we are doing or not doing is dhamma, it is conditioned. Kh. Sujin said, dosa is no problem for me. Why? She sees it as just dhamma, a conditioned element. This is not easy at all. We may parrot: O, it is just dhamma, but that is not enough. Pañña can develop that realizes that lobha, dosa, seeing, that they are all dhammas and no self in it. They arise anyway when there are conditions for them, no matter what we do. And even when we do not want certain dhammas, that not wanting is also dhamma. A good subject to discuss in India! I remembered this morning when listening to music that you said, be vigilant. I like music, I cannot prevent lobha, millions of moments, but in between I can remember that there is lobha. That is not enough. Then I am still naming it, thinking about it, instead of realizing its characteristic. Moreover, there are also moments of hearing, and sound appears. But I also know that insight is developed stage by stage, first knowing what is nama, what is rupa. I do not reach for stages of insight when I am not as far yet. Take laughing. That is lobha. Should we prevent this? When you are going to laugh, and you notice the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, do you stop laughing? I bet it is already too late. When writing and you do this: ;-)) , there may be lobha. I say maybe, because I cannot read someone else's thoughts. You enjoy a soft cushion, or a delicious meal, and when you notice lobha, do you let go of it? I think it is better to understand it, to see it as just dhamma, than trying to get rid of it. We are not arahats yet, and we should not reach for levels we are not up to. I cannot live in an unnatural way. I am not a monk, I enjoy music. The Middle Way is leading our daily life as usual, but in between understanding can arise, and in this way it can be accumulated. When there is a moment of right mindfulness, without trying, arising because of its own conditions, then the doorways are guarded. We do not select a specific doorway that should be guarded. When trying to be vigilant there can be another kind of clinging: wanting to have more sati. That is a papañca, proliferation, obstructing the development of pañña. This kind of clinging is very dangerous. Especially when unnoticed. Nina. 37343 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Dear Sukin and Htoo, your dialogue is very good reading and so peaceful. It is bhavana. Nina. op 06-10-2004 09:58 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: >> However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to >> think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be >> observed. 37344 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #1 Dear Htoo, *As my response has turned out to be very long, I am dividing it into two parts. Continuing: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of > pariyatti and when? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Life is short these days. It is the best if all pariyatti are learnt > and properly understood. But those who attained some achievement may > or may not have learnt all pariyatti. I usually use the story of > Culapanthaka. He learnt nothing but did practise exactly as The > Buddha asked him to do and he attained arahatta magga in a single > morning. Pariyatti are good. It is good if you understand all and if > you finish with all pariyatti. But wihtout patipatti, life will not > be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of > the practice. =S> This is how I interpret it. Culapanthaka obviously had very good accumulations. Being able to register and recall what is heard does not necessary relate to wisdom. Conditions are complex and I believe that it is possible for even a tihetuka individual to have moha arising much of the time. My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little. Obviously, the Buddha knew exactly what was the appropriate object of meditation for Culapanthaka, based on his accumulations and present position as an ordained monk. This wouldn't work for me, as I am not even familiar with the visesa lakkhana. Culapanthaka would have experienced satipatthana to a great extent in former lives and not only did he know exactly the particular characteristics of different dhammas, but also had a good idea of the tilakkhana. I on the other hand, can hardly grasp the concept of this. It only makes sense that I need to listen and read dhamma on and on. With so much avijja and craving, what would I find when I seek to practice? The feeling of urgency points to the present moment, and if there is no sati and panna, what can be done? Nothing can accelerate the process of development except when sati and panna does arise. Even if the Buddha were to speak to me, it still depends entirely on my own accumulations and how much panna and sati have been developed in the past. It seems that it is precisely because there is not enough panna, that at this point I can only appreciate the concept of satipatthana and how this is different from pariyatti. I expect that when the panna has been accumulated enough, then there would be no need to be reminded about `practice'. Pariyatti is a dhamma and is anatta and so is patipatti and pativedha. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to > say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by > any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an > important condition isn't it? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there > are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding > dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta > enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their > transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond > the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. =S> One of the things I realized when I joined this group is exactly this that I enjoy `thinking and reasoning' about dhamma. I saw the difference this was from actually being directed to the moment. This tendency is still quite strong, and I know that it is because of the kilesas and lack of firm understanding. However, I believe that this is known better now. And in practical matters the tendency to lobha, dosa, and moha is not quite the same as before, there arises some sati now. This I believe is because before, the study of dhamma was such that it conditioned more `thinking' whereas now, with the help of K. Sujin, Nina and DSG, it has become `pariyatti' knowledge and not `concepts' enjoyed by lobha. There is more often detachment when reading and considering dhamma now. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta > sanna. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Atta sanna will be cleared when it is seen. Noting the postures etc > are just a method. Mahasatipatthana says to note body postures in > iriyapatha pabba. When really practised, then the practitioner will > see that there is no posture at all and what he will see is that > there are just rupa such as vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- > photthabba. > =S> Actually I have no objection with atta sanna, but when it conditions `self- view' instead of being itself a potential object of sati. In the Mahasatipatthana when the reference is made to postures, I believe it is stated that this is meant only as a reminder to direct the mind, a reference point. The postures are as you know, only concept and cannot be the object of satipatthana. I don't believe the Buddha meant us to observe the postures with the idea that in time, we might then come to see that these do not exist. I don't think the `development' of sati and panna follows this route. Beings and selves can be the object of kusala as well as akusala, but when it comes to `own body' with as yet so weak understanding, I think it is more likely to be akusala, as in the practice taught by various meditation teachers. Without firm pariyatti knowledge of vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- photthabba, there is no way that direct knowledge of these will arise as `conditioned and anatta'. I think Htoo, this is where our main difference lies and also it seems to point to a difference in our understanding of the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is > afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? =S> I hope you now understand that the objection is not with atta sanna, but with `wrong view'. ------------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: > > Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be > more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is > knowing only concepts. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. > > 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas > and cetasikas. > > A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more > mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be > destroyed. =S> Even wrong view is a single cetasika, but can condition the wrong practice, and lobha always ready to arise as many `single cetasikas' can make matters worse. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. > Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and they > cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. =S> And only panna can know this when there is sati to assist it. ------------------------------------------------------ Htoo: > But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If > these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? =S> Of course sati can be bread, why else are we studying dhamma. But perhaps we differ in our understanding as to how any sati is developed. I believe that it is via pariyatti and patipatti, both of which refer to corresponding levels of sati and panna and both are anatta. I am not saying that you do not value pariyatti; in fact I believe that presently on the web, you are doing more than anyone in this regard. I also believe that you see a connection between pariyatti and patipatti in an important way. However it seems to me that you suggest a kind of `deliberate doing' to accelerate the process and I think only when panna arises can anything positive happen. :-/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and > mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. > And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti > level, about conditionality and anatta. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have > already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no > predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading > to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But as > I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also > possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. =S> Are you saying that there is no difference in the levels of panna? Regarding `wanting', you are right that there is only this presently arising reality and it does not make sense to project anything into the future. However people do, and often even when they do not think about it. One's attitude towards the present moment may reflect what one thinks about the past and the future. Of course there is `development', and dhammas accumulate results and tendencies whether or not we know it. How much we understand about the conditioned nature of dhamma in the present moment will determine what is indeed being accumulated. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to > know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with > only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the > past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is > needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your > question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his > case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice > he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and > these would be the best ones then. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did > have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So > regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before > arising of magga cittas. > > I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no > one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. > > But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please > explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding > before arising of nay magga nana' ? =S> :-P I wasn't sure about using anusaya, whether it was appropriate, and I did not want to use accumulations. Anyway what I meant was that the panna along with other parami the Bodhisatta accumulated was so great that it was itself the condition for Right View to arise. So in a way, it is almost as if Right View was already present waiting for some other condition to bear fruit in enlightenment. But I know this is just `thinking'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Cont. in #2) 37345 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #2 Dear Htoo, (Cont. from #1) > Sukin: > > Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the > influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other > activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world > but have wrong pariyatti understanding? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised > dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. > Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they practise > for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta heard > that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha > Gotama had to practise for 6 years. > > If already understand, there is no need to practise. =S> But the Bodhisatta was "ripe"!! We need correct pariyatti otherwise we *will* go wrong. No chance of correcting anything. Dhamma practice is not like learning to ride a bicycle. In this you can ride even if you break a toe for instance. In matters of mind and wanting to have more of one state than another, with so much accumulated lobha, there is always the danger of being deceived by apparent results. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are > potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the essence > of instruction I am going to say. > > 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the > practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be > done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. > > I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma > that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred > to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was > said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. > > He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who > was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' > and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. > > This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, > intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ > theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. > > That is why I stress to practise. =S> I appreciate your good intentions. But can anyone "throw away" anything? The idea of throwing itself will breed its own set of papanca, and if one starts out believing that thoughts should be thrown, what are the chances of detecting any resultant papanca? Thinking, like any other dhamma can and must be known, otherwise we remain ignorant of them and react to them with `atta'. The example you bring above is only a rare example in the Tipitaka. What about others who did not have to do anything other than hearing the correct dhamma. In the case of Pothila Thera, he might even have had the accumulation to `teach' and not be thinking about his own development. Surely he did not make the mistake of misunderstanding his book knowledge for direct experience did he? And do you think he threw out his knowledge of the Teachings or even considered it an obstacle?! Anyway whatever the reason and conditions were, they are too complex to know exactly what went on in his mind. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though > one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I > think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being > bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we > *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a > car, please do not control it :-). =S> :-) Yes. But no need to ask me to control. Sanna, vitakka, vicara and the rest will perform their functions, and in my case there will be all the necessary akusala attempting to preserve the `self'. Yet I doubt that my driving would be any safer than say an anagami driving the same car. ;-) Another long post. :-/ Metta, Sukin. 37346 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are > therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as > opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which > the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the ================= Dear Joop, Could you give the full reference to the quote by Nyantiloka, I have the dictionary and could look at the whole passage. Robertk 37347 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 2:34:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --------------------- > H: >I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot > simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting > go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of > carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of > reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several > ways, the ability to relinquish increases. > > --------------------- > > That's very persuasive logic, and I think it would be accepted in > most quarters outside DSG. It comes back to another point you often > make: 'By being attentive of concepts, we can train the mind to be > attentive of dhammas.' > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's not just a matter of logic, but of experience. Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think anyone here is saying we should be inattentive of > concepts, and I imagine that a person with right understanding is > probably very attentive of them, but he/she would not make a ritual > (a formal practice) of it. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > When I stub my toe and become angry, should I formally practise > mindfulness of anger? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You should be mindful of whatever you can that is present. If anger, then anger. Certainly pain. Whatever. The more calm you have cultivated, the more clarity will likely be there as well. When a body of water with bottom-mud stirred up is permitted to settle, the water clears. ----------------------------------------------------- In that same, short period of time dhammas of > > all sorts are coming and going â€" seeing, visible object, hearing, > audible object, lobha, moha, and so on. So why single out anger? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: At a time of upset, can you choose? Probably not very effectively. Just look, with whatever degree of objectivity, impersonality, and equanimity possible. ------------------------------------------------------ I > > think it is because I see it as MY anger. At that particular time, > seeing and visible-object are of no consequence to me: I AM anger > (anger is in me, I am in anger). So, unfortunately, any formal > mindfulness of anger would be ritual observance of self. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't engage is reason seeking. Just observe what is observable. -------------------------------------------------- > > That is a gross example, but the same would apply whenever we try to > choose one object from the millions of objects that are arising > every second, don't you think? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the mind. The Buddha DID teach this. His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, clear, and capable. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37348 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina - The gist of what you are addressing in the following is, I believe, a matter of what I mean by 'relinquishing'. What I do *not* mean is suppressing or pushing away. What I *do* mean is observing and relaxing around the experience, avoiding clinging and tension, and permitting the phenomenon to cease (and not soon recur), as will be the case unless we obsessively cling to it. This is not always possible. But the better cultivated in calm and clarity the mind is, the more often it will be possible. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/7/04 5:59:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > op 06-10-2004 16:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > It is so that there are countless moments of > >craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not > >going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be > >aware > >of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. > N: Thank you for the reminder, reminders do help. > > H: It is best to be > >clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed > >pa~n~na is key. > >The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated > >and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such > >moments. > N: It is just the term relinquish, I am not sure of. What do you think about > this yourself? > When trying to be vigilant there can be another kind of clinging: wanting > to > have more sati. That is a papañca, proliferation, obstructing the > development of pañña. This kind of clinging is very dangerous. Especially > when unnoticed. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. ----------------------------------------- > Nina. > ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37349 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > op 27-09-2004 18:15 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > > > AL: So there has to be another way to > >>> acquire this right view. I won't say I know how to do it, but the > >>> same goes for view of mother and father, possibly that of there > > being > >>> this world and the next world. It seems there should be some > > kind of > >>> direct understanding or vision of things as they are. > N: I came across a text about father and mother. > M.III, no 117, The Great Forty. This is about different kinds of right view. > Right understanding of kamma and vipaaka. is (benefit from serving) mother and father... > > At least we know now the meaning of this sentence. I have to be off, > Nina. Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to continue this thread? I would ask what your take on my statements about seeing the noble truths in this very lifetime and realizing unbinding in this very lifetime, or in under 10 more, as we accumulate the paramis, and even my stance that the paramis are not necessary for enlightenment. I would also ask your take on someone (ie me) who feels that, beings being related to their merit, and the human state having been obtained, he is obligated to set himself on a spiritual path and that includes making merit and abstaining from idle chatter and worldly ways but just walking a straight path to the ending of suffering, as one of very few beings who has the ability to do it. The relevance of this is that there is less of the 'daily life' side of Abhidharma, but Abdhidharma knowledge could still be very useful. My kind regards, Andrew Levin 37350 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:43am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard There is no way to say there is a difference when vedana is absent and when it is a neutral The assertation of vedana as an universal cetasikas from what I know now, is from the Abdhidhamma. I could only provide logical assumptions why vedana is an universal cetasikas. From the dependent origination, from the six senses, there are contacts and feelings thereafter, in order for craving to arise for the next birth or the mass of suffering, feelings become an important link. In that sense feelings condition craving or attachment, craving only arise with pleasure and neutral while aversion only arise with unpleasant feeling, while neutral feelings there arise with ignorance. (Ignorance rise with neutral feelings is state somewhere in the sutta just do not now where is it right now.) In that sense, all the three roots, there must be feelings. In this assumption, I would say that that is why there is always feeling in all cittas. When we think we have no feelings, because the neutral feeling is very weak, undetectable, there is why ignorance is not easy to detect but strong in underlying currents. As I say months ago, looking a simple tree, thousands of ignorance cittas would have arise through the eye door. Ken O 37351 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 9:44:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > There is no way to say there is a difference when vedana is absent > and when it is a neutral The assertation of vedana as an universal > cetasikas from what I know now, is from the Abdhidhamma. > > I could only provide logical assumptions why vedana is an universal > cetasikas. From the dependent origination, from the six senses, > there are contacts and feelings thereafter, in order for craving to > arise for the next birth or the mass of suffering, feelings become > an important link. In that sense feelings condition craving or > attachment, craving only arise with pleasure and neutral while > aversion only arise with unpleasant feeling, while neutral feelings > there arise with ignorance. (Ignorance rise with neutral feelings > is state somewhere in the sutta just do not now where is it right > now.) In that sense, all the three roots, there must be feelings. > In this assumption, I would say that that is why there is always > feeling in all cittas. When we think we have no feelings, because > the neutral feeling is very weak, undetectable, there is why > ignorance is not easy to detect but strong in underlying currents. > As I say months ago, looking a simple tree, thousands of ignorance > cittas would have arise through the eye door. > > Ken O > > ======================== I think it is probably true that neutral feeling is not the same as absence of feeling. Your point about dependent origination is well made. Probably my inability to experientially distinguish between neutral feeling and absence of feeling is that absence of feeling never occurs! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37352 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 7:15am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard I just got some material from message 24937 <> I hope this help to clarify maybe why feeling is an universal cetasikas Ken O 37353 37354 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:37am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] â€ËÅ"Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 10:18:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > About the inseparability of the groups it is said: > > ''Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of > mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and > it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their > difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one > perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43).>> > > I hope this help to clarify maybe why feeling is an universal > cetasikas > ======================== I have come to agree that vedana is a universal. However, the foregoing doesn't clarify it, because included among these "inseparable" phenomena are the mental formations, and these include cetasikas that are not universals; so I think this point is not so well made. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37355 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 8:47am Subject: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop and all How are you? Ken O wrote: "One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours." The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O > wrote: Hi Joop > Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific > in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the > first time. k: I acknowledge that this is a problem of sutta and abhidhamma. The reason words used in sutta are usually for easy preaching of the dhammas. At this junction, I would say that when Nyanatiloka say that these five aggregates as conventional truth - that does not hold true to my opinion. When Buddha talk about the five aggregates in the sutta, it is always in terms of paramatthas and not in conventional truth. Only when he said I or he, it is in conventional truth. When Kalupahana tries to compare and contrast both traditions, he is looking at his own point of view. If he looks it as from a paramatha dhamma point of view, he will not have come to his conclusion. > Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the > psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not > only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) > which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. If we look at the the first sutta expounded by the Buddha on suffering, Buddha already expressed explicity craving as one of the problem of sufferings with the five aggregates (in short the clinging to the five aggregates as the root cause of suffering). In fact if you read Samyutta Nikaya on the book on aggregates, there are examples of the aggregates with the akusala roots. Ken O 37356 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:41pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #1 Dear Htoo, Sukin: > You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Life is short these days. ..snip..Panthaka..snip..But wihtout patipatti, life will not be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of the practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: This is how I interpret it. Culapanthaka obviously had very good accumulations. Being able to register and recall what is heard does not necessary relate to wisdom. Conditions are complex and I believe that it is possible for even a tihetuka individual to have moha arising much of the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. But this will also depend whether he meets The Buddha teachings or not. You would say 'understanding' . I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your sharing. Memory recall is a matter of kamma (in Buddhism). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Obviously, the Buddha knew exactly what was the appropriate object of meditation for Culapanthaka, based on his accumulations and present position as an ordained monk. This wouldn't work for me, as I am not even familiar with the visesa lakkhana. Culapanthaka would have experienced satipatthana to a great extent in former lives and not only did he know exactly the particular characteristics of different dhammas, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly. Culapanthaka did have in his past lives. The Buddha saw these and that is why The Buddha gave him a cloth to rub with the earth. In the same jataka, The Buddha preached that Culapanthaka-to-be was once a peasant. He was ploughing in the peddy fields. It was hot and he was sweating. To take a rest, he approached a tree and stayed under the tree. Then he wiped out his sweat with a white cloth. He noticed that the white cloth changed into dirty one. He had got anicca sanna. The Buddha saw this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: but also had a good idea of the tilakkhana. I on the other hand, can hardly grasp the concept of this. It only makes sense that I need to listen and read dhamma on and on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This depend. One of a member in Yahoo Groups once mentioned a sentence that when he was looking at a painting he heard an old friend's calling him. He said he was shocked because he was on the painting and then next he was on the sound. The first mind died and another mind arose which was totally different to him. He was not boasting. But he reasoned out that if the first mind on the painting was cuti and second on the sound was patisandhi, he was already dead. Anyway, this is a good sanna. That is sanna of change or anicca sanna. Again this sanna may well arise with panna. Because notice of the change means notice of anicca however short it is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: With so much avijja and craving, what would I find when I seek to practice? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand what you meant. But at least you see avijja and craving or tanha. Try to see them repeatedly. You will notice some improvement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: The feeling of urgency points to the present moment, and if there is no sati and panna, what can be done? Nothing can accelerate the process of development except when sati and panna does arise. Even if the Buddha were to speak to me, it still depends entirely on my own accumulations and how much panna and sati have been developed in the past. It seems that it is precisely because there is not enough panna, that at this point I can only appreciate the concept of satipatthana and how this is different from pariyatti. I expect that when the panna has been accumulated enough, then there would be no need to be reminded about `practice'. Pariyatti is a dhamma and is anatta and so is patipatti and pativedha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here 'accumulated' may bring the idea of self. There are drops of panna flow down from the roof into an atta bucket. That atta bucket accumulates drops of panna and when the atta bucket is full, arahatta magga arises. This is not the case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> One of the things I realized when I joined this group is exactly this that I enjoy `thinking and reasoning' about dhamma. I saw the difference this was from actually being directed to the moment. This tendency is still quite strong, and I know that it is because of the kilesas and lack of firm understanding. However, I believe that this is known better now. And in practical matters the tendency to lobha, dosa, and moha is not quite the same as before, there arises some sati now. This I believe is because before, the study of dhamma was such that it conditioned more `thinking' whereas now, with the help of K. Sujin, Nina and DSG, it has become `pariyatti' knowledge and not `concepts' enjoyed by lobha. There is more often detachment when reading and considering dhamma now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand. But some did respond badly while on dhamma discussion. To the worst, discussion on brahmavihara was the topic. Even there were ideas of killing people. I was shocked. This shows strong atta and atta-sanna and ditthi. While discussing on anatta, if such matter happens, what is the main culprit behind? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> Actually I have no objection with atta sanna, but when it conditions `self-view' instead of being itself a potential object of sati. In the Mahasatipatthana when the reference is made to postures, I believe it is stated that this is meant only as a reminder to direct the mind, a reference point. The postures are as you know, only concept and cannot be the object of satipatthana. I don't believe the Buddha meant us to observe the postures with the idea that in time, we might then come to see that these do not exist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. So I said this is method. Mahasatipatthana is method. It is a sutta and it was preached in conventioanl terms. Concentrate on postures. Everyone understands this. If concentrate on that and if there is enough panna, panna will see just realities. Not the idea of posture. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't think the `development' of sati and panna follows this route. Beings and selves can be the object of kusala as well as akusala, but when it comes to `own body' with as yet so weak understanding, I think it is more likely to be akusala, as in the practice taught by various meditation teachers. Without firm pariyatti knowledge of vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi photthabba, there is no way that direct knowledge of these will arise as `conditioned and anatta'. I think Htoo, this is where our main difference lies and also it seems to point to a difference in our understanding of the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: These points are good points. I think they go hand in hand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> I hope you now understand that the objection is not with atta sanna, but with `wrong view'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Wrong view only clears at magga. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas and cetasikas. > A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be destroyed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Even wrong view is a single cetasika, but can condition the wrong practice, and lobha always ready to arise as many `single cetasikas' can make matters worse. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sati is a single cetasika. Its presence makes absence of ditthi or wrong view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. > Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and > they > cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> And only panna can know this when there is sati to assist it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Whenever there is panna, there always is sati. But when there is sati, panna may or may not be there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: >But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If >these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Of course sati can be bread, why else are we studying dhamma. But perhaps we differ in our understanding as to how any sati is developed. I believe that it is via pariyatti and patipatti, both of which refer to corresponding levels of sati and panna and both are anatta. I am not saying that you do not value pariyatti; in fact I believe that presently on the web, you are doing more than anyone in this regard. I also believe that you see a connection between pariyatti and patipatti in an important way. However it seems to me that you suggest a kind of `deliberate doing' to accelerate the process and I think only when panna arises can anything positive happen. :-/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I see. I understand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have > already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no > predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading > to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But > as I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also > possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Are you saying that there is no difference in the levels of panna? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I was thinking the atta buckets. Mr A.'s bucket is half-full, Mr.B's bucket is quater-full, Mr Z.'s bucket is empty. Mr X's bucket is full. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Regarding `wanting', you are right that there is only this presently arising reality and it does not make sense to project anything into the future. However people do, and often even when they do not think about it. One's attitude towards the present moment may reflect what one thinks about the past and the future. Of course there is `development', and dhammas accumulate results and tendencies whether or not we know it. How much we understand about the conditioned nature of dhamma in the present moment will determine what is indeed being accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Very good Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: > Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did > have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So > regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before > arising of magga cittas. > I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no > one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. > But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please > explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding > before arising of nay magga nana' ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> :-P I wasn't sure about using anusaya, whether it was appropriate, and I did not want to use accumulations. Anyway what I meant was that the panna along with other parami the Bodhisatta accumulated was so great that it was itself the condition for Right View to arise. So in a way, it is almost as if Right View was already present waiting for some other condition to bear fruit in enlightenment. But I know this is just `thinking'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Cont. in #2) Htoo: Good discussion, Sukin. I will catch #2 With Metta, Htoo Naing 37357 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:52pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #2 Sukin: Dear Htoo, (Cont. from #1) > > Sukin: > > > > Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the > > influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other > > activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world > > but have wrong pariyatti understanding? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised > > dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. > > Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they > practise > > for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta > heard > > that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha > > Gotama had to practise for 6 years. > > > > If already understand, there is no need to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> But the Bodhisatta was "ripe"!! We need correct pariyatti otherwise we *will* go wrong. No chance of correcting anything. Dhamma practice is not like learning to ride a bicycle. In this you can ride even if you break a toe for instance. In matters of mind and wanting to have more of one state than another, with so much accumulated lobha, there is always the danger of being deceived by apparent results. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Sukin: > > > > `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are > > potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the >essence > > of instruction I am going to say. > > > > 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the > > practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be > > done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. > > > > I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma > > that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred > > to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was > > said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. > > > > He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who > > was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' > > and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. > > > > This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, > > intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ > > theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. > > > > That is why I stress to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> I appreciate your good intentions. But can anyone "throw away" anything? The idea of throwing itself will breed its own set of papanca, and if one starts out believing that thoughts should be thrown, what are the chances of detecting any resultant papanca? Thinking, like any other dhamma can and must be known, otherwise we remain ignorant of them and react to them with `atta'. The example you bring above is only a rare example in the Tipitaka. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: At least your respond is neutral. Once I was attacked because of using rare event in The Buddha's time. :-). I smiled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: What about others who did not have to do anything other than hearing the correct dhamma. In the case of Pothila Thera, he might even have had the accumulation to `teach' and not be thinking about his own development. Surely he did not make the mistake of misunderstanding his book knowledge for direct experience did he? And do you think he threw out his knowledge of the Teachings or even considered it an obstacle?! Anyway whatever the reason and conditions were, they are too complex to know exactly what went on in his mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: True. Sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a car, please do not control it :-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> :-) Yes. But no need to ask me to control. Sanna, vitakka, vicara and the rest will perform their functions, and in my case there will be all the necessary akusala attempting to preserve the `self'. Yet I doubt that my driving would be any safer than say an anagami driving the same car. ;-) Another long post. :-/ Metta, Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think Anagami would drive a car. I think in Vinaya, bhikkhus should not run. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37358 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to > continue this thread? .... S: She didn't mean that at all - she was just telling you that she was having to finish up threads for now as she won't have any internet access for a month in India in her case. I know she'll be happy to hear any of your questions or comments on her return in November (I think after the 8th). Meanwhile, I'll print out any messages, like this one, addressed to her, to give here when I see her in a week or so. Perhaps in the meantime you can address your qus to others here. There are many kindly and wise folks around;-). I'll also try to add a few more comments sometime before I go too. Appreciating all your recent correspondence with Nina, Phil and others. Keep well. We'll be following any of your discussions even when we're travelling! Metta, Sarah ====== 37359 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - studying Suttanta and Abhidhamma Hello all A final passage, for the time being, from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag (I will leave consideration of the final deed of merit, teaching the Dhamma, until a later date.) Talk to you again in a month or so. Wishing you all an insightful autumn or spring, wherever you are. Metta, Phil S. : If one studies the suttas one will be deeply impressed by the beauty of the teaching of the Dhamma which is perfect as to the meaning and the words which explain the meaning, and also with regard to the similes which are very clear. The teaching of the Dhamma which is impressive and clear is the condition for those who study it for having confidence and being delighted with the Dhamma. The Dhamma conditions purity and calm of citta, and also the subduing of akusala. There can be samaadhi, concentration and calm, when someone is deeply impressed by the flavour of the Dhamma or when he recollects the excellent qualities of the Buddha. W. : Which qualities of the Buddha can be seen by the study of the Abhidhamma? S. : People who study the Abhidhamma can realize the wisdom of the Buddha, because he taught the Dhamma he had penetrated in all details at the time of his enlightenment. He classified the whole wide world into two components, namely, naama, mental phenomena, and ruupa, physical phenomena. In this way there isn't anything left which could be taken for self. W. : What is the meaning of the Abhidhamma being the object of pa~n~naa? S. : The Abhidhamma is the object of pa~n~naa because people who study it can have right understanding of the different realities as they are. The study of the Abhidhamma is the study of the ultimate realities the Buddha penetrated at the time of his enlightenment and which he taught in detail. 37360 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Re: Scientist Herman Hi Andrew, > I'm back and would like to weigh into the very interesting science > thread. Glad to see you back, and I hope you are well and truly over your illness. As you know, I am a bit of a science buff, have studied > science at uni level and love the work of the late Stephen Jay > Gould. I believe the scientific method has a crucial place in our > culture and needs to be distinguished from pseudo-science like > Creationism. I agree. However, I think you put the case for science far too > high. In post #37189, you wrote: "Science explains the mechanisms of life in a testable, verifiable way, while Buddhism doesn't". Herman, if only what you say about science were actually correct, things would be a whole lot easier and I would be a whole lot happier. The fact is that the appearance of the scientific method has not dispeled all mystery in the universe. Why? Because some (many) things are not testable in the scientific way. Can we say that something that is not (currently) testable in this way is necessarily false? No. > All we can say is that we presently have no way of testing it > scientifically. You are right, I did overstate my case. The skill in science is to frame hypotheses in such a way that they can be tested. And this is where I see a dissonance between the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas, and the later scholastic works. I see the early teachings as being here and now solutions to here and now suffering. Those teachings are testable. The scholastics, on the other hand, have turned nibbana into a transcendental proposition that leaves the masses with nothing but faith to cling to. And faith resists testing. I snipped your section about shonky science. I agree with you. > > Let's be frank. There are many parts of the Dhamma that are not > testable in the scientific way (at the moment). In that sense, they are "unscientific". But we can't go further and say that they are necessarily false (even though that may be our belief). I think that if there is resistance to framing any part of the Dhamma in such a way so as to make it testable, then we may be dealing with a psychological need to keep certain matters transcendental, not a desire to discover what is true or real. The science of rebirth is a case in point. We have seen some recent discussions on the mechanisms of linking consciousnesses where issues are resolved by reverting to what is said in the texts. This is so of necessity, because there is no testable reality in the whole theory. If in asking for the method whereby anything can be known about bhavanga or cuti or patisandhi citta one is advised to have faith, the conclusion that we are dealing with strictly dogma is not unscientific, is it? > > You also wrote that "ethics is not the domain of science". > Traditionally, of course, both philosopher and physicist were > called "scientists" - the former a "practical scientist" and the > latter a "theoretical scientist". That's because a philosopher > answers practical "what to do" questions and the physicist answers > theoretical "how does it happen" questions. That's why > Aristotle's "Ethics" is still on the curriculum whilst his "Physics" is now little read. But you mustn't forget meta- ethics: if you believe in Determinism, your ethics are going to be a lot different from one who believes in free will. Whether things work deterministically or not is a "how does it happen" question. Yes, I agree with you. It is important to realise that one is adopting a viewpoint. I think as a scientifically minded person, one would feel uncomfortable with adopting any set of beliefs on a faith only basis. Joop used a very useful term the other day, cognitive dissonance. If there is a cognitive dissonance between what is believed and what is experienced, that can be a stimulus to modify the belief. But it can also be a stimulus to pour more concrete on the faith and blind it even more. If an ethicist puts forward a system on how to achieve happiness, and suffering persists, then there is room to challenge the validity of the system, or one can question the application of the method. Blame the user, so to speak. The transcendentalising trend of the scholastics in relation to the teachings of the Buddha places the end of suffering squarely in the future, and places the doctrine on a very high pedestal, accessible only by faith. This is contrary to the practical teachings of the Buddha, who was both a scientist and an ethicist. I think I have overshot the runway again. Dang! :-) > > Enough rabbiting on. Bye for now. > Andrew T Kind Regards Herman 37361 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Hi Azita, Thanks for your commiserations. I think I fit Sukin's description of himself: "My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little." :-) All the best to you and your fellow travellers to India. Have a great trip. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hello KenH, > > > A: I've just managed to get this one clear in my head also. The > javanna cittas that arise just before cuti-citta have something as > object [who knows what] and that same something will also be object > of the next patisandhi citta. So the bhavanga cittas and the cuti- > citta of that life will take that same object. > I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post > when I return. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 37362 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Hi Phil (if you are still with us), Thanks for your great work in keeping these threads going: I look forward to your return. ----------------------------- Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. --------------------------------- I find it interesting, too. In DSG discussions, some of us are seen to be speaking in dispraise of the Dhamma when we advocate study-and- understanding and criticise formal practice. Others are seen to be speaking in dispraise of the Dhamma when they advocate formal practice and criticise study and understanding. ---------------------------------- Ph: > My current feeling is that it is a futile thing to try to sort out other people's false views, especially when they are overly assertive about them, because people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations. > --------------------------------- The statement, "people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations," is, IMO, an indication of right understanding. And the statement applies to all of us. So perhaps we should not discriminate when it comes to who we should talk to and who we should not - we are all in the same boat. We are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. -------------------- Ph: > It seems to me there is distraction and restlessness and affirmation of self involved in disputing views, but perhaps it is a wholesome duty. -------------------- The way of `disputing views' referred to by the Buddha is entirely wholesome, but the way it is practised by worldlings is at times wholesome and, at other times, unwholesome. ------------------------- Ph: > " if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation (to hear the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha praised) you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves" This is an example of how difficult the Dhamma is to grasp, how subtle, how contrary to the ways of the world. > ----------------------------------- Very good! "Contrary to the ways of the world" - I like that. ---------------------------------- Ph: > It reminds me of a teaching of someone (K Sujin?) that it is a disservice to people to give them reason to feel attached to you. --------------------------------- Imagine being able to help people by discouraging their attachment. It's out of my league; I'll take all the attachment I can get. Although I have, at times, feigned indifference to puppy-dogs to stop them following me across the road. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37363 From: antony272b2 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 5:32pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Dear Ken, Phil and all, I have read conflicting thoughts on whether to speak in dispraise of the unworthy. Ledi Sayadaw taught: "Those who realise the value of a human existence in this Buddha's dispensation should not consider the faults and defects of others. No attention should be paid to the affairs, shameless behaviour, ignoble conduct, or bad character of others. One must regard only one?s own rare opportunities and high status in the Buddha?s dispensation. Amid turmoil, one must maintain poise and serenity at all times. Abuse, condemnation, criticism, slander, and accusation, will bring unwholesome kamma for oneself. Realising the urgency of one?s own one task, must be steadfast and equanimous, ignoring the mistakes and faults of others so that one?s mind remains undefiled." (from "Cultivating a Skillful attitude" by Ledi Sayadaw) http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Library/Ledi/Dhamma/Skilful/skilful.html Elizabeth J. Harris wrote: The Buddha was once faced with the remark that the most worthy person is the one who speaks neither in dispraise of the unworthy nor in praise of the praiseworthy. The Buddha disagreed with this. He replied that, because of his ability to discriminate, the person who speaks in dispraise of the unworthy and in praise of worthy is best.'(12) The Buddha rejects the self-distancing which refuses to take sides or to speak out against what should be condemned. He criticizes the desire to keep the truth inviolate and unspoken through a wish not to become involved with society. Viveka and viråga therefore do not imply the kind of withdrawal which is unconcerned with what is good or bad for human welfare. (from "Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism" by Elizabeth J. Harris, Bodhi Leaves BL 141, Buddhist Publication Society, PO Box 61, Kandy, Sri Lanka) http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/H/Harris/detachmentHarris .html For more Theravada Writings by Women go to: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/ and click on Women at the top of the screen. metta / Antony. > ----------------------------- > Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel > what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who > speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. > --------------------------------- 37364 From: Andrew Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:37pm Subject: Re: Scientist Herman Hi Herman Thanks for your response. I see where you are coming from and largely agree. We both agree that it is very important for scientists to act scientifically. When it comes to Dhamma practice, however, I think it is acceptable to act unscientifically (without pretending to act scientifically). This, for me, is where faith steps in - I am not going to say that the existence of devas is a scientific fact because, from my perspective, it isn't. However, acknowledging this, I can remain open to the possibility of their existence. The Atthalasalini says that faith is like something that purifies water, it lets the muddiness settle so that you can see beyond. This is not science and nor is it intended to be, IMHO. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > The skill in science is to frame hypotheses in such a way that they > can be tested. And this is where I see a dissonance between the > teachings of the Buddha in the suttas, and the later scholastic > works. I see the early teachings as being here and now solutions to > here and now suffering. Those teachings are testable. Andrew: In our present condition, I don't think it *is* always possible to frame hypotheses in a scientifically testable way. Where it is possible, I have no problem with it being done. Again, the history of science has many cases of the testing process later being found to be invalid due to factors that were unknown at the time of testing. So how do you ever know that test results are absolutely watertight? Answer: you don't. You make a value judgment that you will accept that the results are correct until such time as further proof indicates to the contrary. Can you see how that process is starting to sound like my definition of faith? > The scholastics, on the other hand, have turned nibbana into a > transcendental proposition that leaves the masses with nothing but > faith to cling to. And faith resists testing. Andrew: I don't accept that faith *necessarily* resists testing. I agree that, for some people, things end up being that way - and there's probably something unwholesome about it: attachment maybe? In my definition, faith doesn't pretend to be science. It just allows the mud of doubt to settle to the bottom of the lotus pond so that you can look at things beyond your nose. Don't deny that the mud exists, of course, but just let it settle and see how the picture looks when it does. > I think that if there is resistance to framing any part of the > Dhamma in such a way so as to make it testable, then we may be > dealing with a psychological need to keep certain matters > transcendental, not a desire to discover what is true or real. Andrew: I take your point but again with the proviso that we will never know absolutely that the results of scientifically testing the Dhamma will stand forever. Are you familiar with string theory and M theory and F theory. One scientist is arguing that there are 2 time dimensions in our universe. Science is an unfolding process and we simply don't know how it will unfold in the future. It would be sad to grow averse to the Buddha's counsel purely because of doubts based on the current state of scientific knowledge. > The science of rebirth is a case in point. We have seen some recent > discussions on the mechanisms of linking consciousnesses where > issues are resolved by reverting to what is said in the texts. This > is so of necessity, because there is no testable reality in the > whole theory. If in asking for the method whereby anything can be > known about bhavanga or cuti or patisandhi citta one is advised to > have faith, the conclusion that we are dealing with strictly dogma > is not unscientific, is it? Andrew: I think "dogma" here is perjorative. Faith doesn't have to be dogma. It doesn't have to be "pulling the wool over your eyes". When you have faith, you have mindfulness too. > I think as a scientifically minded person, one would feel > uncomfortable with adopting any set of beliefs on a faith only > basis. Andrew: I think your use of the word "adopt" is instructive here. You seem to think that faith entails taking on beliefs in a dogmatic way. That to me is a non sequitur. Taking my momentary view, I think that, when faith is present, there is an absence of cynicism and doubt - and that absence allows one form of testing of beliefs. At other times, beliefs are tested against doubt. I think we all have moments of faith and doubt. Is that doubt wholesome? Only when it is panna by which I mean when it sees something as it really is (not as it seems or as we have to take it based on current science). Joop used a very useful term the other day, cognitive > dissonance. If there is a cognitive dissonance between what is > believed and what is experienced, that can be a stimulus to modify > the belief. But it can also be a stimulus to pour more concrete on > the faith and blind it even more. Andrew: True, but Joop has to acknowledge that science may unfold in such a way as to show that his cognitive dissonance was really cognitive harmony. Remember when the atom was the smallest unit in the universe? > If an ethicist puts forward a system on how to achieve happiness, > and suffering persists, then there is room to challenge the validity > of the system, or one can question the application of the method. > Blame the user, so to speak. The transcendentalising trend of the > scholastics in relation to the teachings of the Buddha places the > end of suffering squarely in the future, and places the doctrine on > a very high pedestal, accessible only by faith. > > This is contrary to the practical teachings of the Buddha, who was > both a scientist and an ethicist. Andrew: Bhikkhu Bodhi, I note, feels that the Buddha was quite happy to be ontological when the need arose. Is it your claim that the Buddha ONLY gave practical teachings? If so, I will dig out Bhikkhu Bodhi's sutta references and put them up for discussion. Must fly. Best wishes Andrew T 37365 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 8:23pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Dear Antony, Thanks for giving us this juxtaposition of quotes about the speaking of dispraise about the unworthy. I think in the end it comes down to whether the speech is akusala or kusala - and finally to what citta is conditioning the speech at what moment. In the nettippakarana atthakatha they have a clasification of 38 vangcaka dhammas . And these are what Gayan (past member of dsg) translated as "cheating dhammas". Two of these are relevant here: These are saccavadita patirupataya pisunavacata vangceti. saccavadita - speaking the truth. pisunavacata- slandering In this case one criticises someone - but thinks that because it is the truth that it must be kusala. But the citta doing the action is rooted in akasula. The other is apisunavadita patirupataya anatthakamata vangceti. It is not wrong to speak about the evil qualities of a wrongdoer if one is helping to warn others. In fact it is a good thing. If one remains silent on such an occasion thinking "I will not slander" or "I will not argue" then this can be a subtle type of ignorance that just doesn't care about what happens to others. AS Gayan said " The point here is to check whether what's operating is genuine apisunavacata (not slandering) or a cheating akusala. ( and to be aware of the kusala as kusala , and the akusala as akusala ) RobertK dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Dear Ken, Phil and all, > > I have read conflicting thoughts on whether to speak in dispraise of > the unworthy. > > Ledi Sayadaw taught: > > "Those who realise the value of a human existence in this Buddha's > dispensation should not consider the faults and defects of others. No > attention should be paid to the affairs, shameless behaviour, ignoble > conduct, or bad character of others. One must regard only one?s own > rare opportunities and high status in the Buddha?s dispensation. Amid > turmoil, one must maintain poise and serenity at all times. Abuse, > condemnation, criticism, slander, and accusation, will bring > unwholesome kamma for oneself. > > 37366 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L, This is a misunderstanding, I do not wish to discontinue this thread. I am leaving for India next Monday, so, on Saturday I am closing off my Email. I shall be back Nov. 11. Then we can speak about the perfections and the realisation of the noble Truths. A. Sujin says that we cannot neglect any one of the perfections, so, I take this to heart. Most important for daily life. And Abhidhamma is not for academic purposes, it is for practice, practice in daily life. Otherwise it is not very beneficial. For the realisation of the noble Truths, the right cause has to be developed. We have to begin at the beginning, the first stage of insight. I do not think of the end result, since I have accumulated ignorance for aeons. It will not help to long for a result, that is clinging. Remind me of this thread. I printed it out and will discuss it with Sarah in the bus in India. But I have work to do with the Visuddhimagga. In one week, as soon as I am back, I intend to add a little to all the missing paras of the Vis. that Larry will keep on posting meanwhile. (I am already making notes, looking up Pali). That means, my first week I have to do household chores and this work. I also have to put order to my notes and tapes about India and see what I can share. All the best, Nina. op 07-10-2004 15:16 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to > continue this thread? 37367 From: Andrew Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 10:40pm Subject: Scientist Herman/Faith Hi Herman I was just looking in the SN notes for Bhikkhu Bodhi's ontology references (no luck - must be the MN - I'll try to find the time to search it). In any event, I came across one note that interested me. It is Bhikkhu Bodhi's note #2 to Chapter 1 of the Samyutta Nikaya. The relevant text is about the deva who asked the Buddha "how did you cross the flood?". The Buddha gave a very short reply: "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." Note #2 reads: "... Spk [one of the Pali commentaries]: The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. Realizing that the deva would not be able to penetrate the teaching unless he first changed his attitude, the Buddha intended to perplex him and thereby curb his pride. At that point, humbled, the deva would ask for clarification?and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." My take on Buddhist faith is that it's function is to usher in an attitude conducive to bhavana. If we get hung up on "oh this stuff is not very scientific", then that's where we stay. Of course the stuff isn't scientific and we should be open about that! Still doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong, though! Science can't and won't give an absolute guarantee. I have a Catholic background and I well remember the concept of Christian faith - at every mass, we would all recite in unison "We believe in the Father etc etc". And in medieval times, if you refused to speak those words, you were endangering your life! That was dogmatic faith. Buddhist faith (or "confidence" or "trustful confidence") is something very different. If I'm wrong on the above, it wouldn't be the first time. (-: Best wishes Andrew T 37368 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 1:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" > wrote: > Dear Joop, > Could you give the full reference to the quote by Nyantiloka, I have > the dictionary and could look at the whole passage. > Robertk Hallo Robertk The Buddhist Dictionary in on the Internet: www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm After I did send my message, I realised my quote was not complete. Now I have the problem how to combine what Nyanatiloka writes in the entry "Paramattha" and what he writes in the entry "Khanda" My quote came from "Khandha", but from "Paramattha" one can read something else. The question is if the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada has the same meaning as in Mahayana. As far as I understand this is not the case, in Theravada it has more the meaning of: "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological language"; like in physics we can use conventional lanhuage but better describe phenomena in mathematical language. But perhaps I'm wrong. Metta Joop paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti- satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha- desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths. khandha: the 5 'groups (of existence)' or 'groups of clinging' (upádánakkhandha); alternative renderings: aggregates, categories of clinging's objects. These are the 5 aspects in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appear to the ignorant man as his ego, or personality, to wit: (1) the corporeality group (rúpa-kkhandha), (2) the feeling group (vedaná-kkhandha), (3) the perception group (saññá-kkhandha), (4) the mental-formation group (sankhára-kkhandha), (5) the consciousness-group (viññána-kkhandha). "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" (S. XXII, 48). - Another division is that into the 2 groups: mind (2-5) and corporeality (1) (náma-rúpa), whilst in Dhamma Sanganí, the first book of the Abhidhamma, all the phenomena are treated by way of 3 groups: consciousness (5), mental factors (2-4), corporeality (1), in Páli citta, cetasika, rúpa. Cf. Guide I. What is called individual existence is in reality nothing but a mere process of those mental and physical phenomena, a process that since time immemorial has been going on, and that also after death will still continue for unthinkably long periods of time. These 5 groups, however, neither singly nor collectively constitute any self- dependent real ego-entity, or personality (attá), nor is there to be found any such entity apart from them. Hence the belief in such an ego-entity or personality, as real in the ultimate sense, proves a mere illusion. "When all constituent parts are there, The designation 'cart' is used; Just so, where the five groups exist, Of 'living being' do we speak." (S. V. 10). The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on. Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and - mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities. In S. XXII, 56, there is the following short definition of these 5 groups: "What, o monks, is the corporeality-group? The 4 primary elements (mahá-bhúta or dhátu) and corporeality depending thereon, this is called the corporeality-group. "What, o monks, is the feeling-group? There are 6 classes of feeling: due to visual impression, to sound impression, to odour impression, to taste impression, to bodily impression, and to mind impression.... "What, o monks, is the perception-group? There are 6 classes of perception: perception of visual objects, of sounds, of odours, of tastes, of bodily impressions, and of mental impressions.... "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations? There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects.... "What, o monks, is the consciousness-group? There are 6 classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose- consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind- consciousness." About the inseparability of the groups it is said: ''Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43). Further: "Impossible is it for anyone to explain the passing out of one existence and the entering into a new existence, or the growth, increase and development of consciousness independent of corporeality, feeling, perception and mental formations" (S. XII, 53) For the inseparability and mutual conditionality of the 4 mental groups s. paccaya (6, 7). Regarding the impersonality (anattá) and emptiness (suññatá) of the 5 groups, it is said in S. XXII, 49: "Whatever there is of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, this one should understand according to reality and true wisdom: 'This does not belong to me, this am I not, this is not my Ego.' " Further in S. XXII, 95: "Suppose that a man who is not blind were to behold the many bubbles on the Ganges as they are driving along; and he should watch them and carefully examine them. After carefully examining them, however, they will appear to him empty, unreal and unsubstantial. In exactly the same way does the monk behold all the corporeal phenomena ... feelings ... perceptions ... mental formations ... states of consciousness, whether they be of the past, present or future ... far or near. And he watches them and examines them carefully; and after carefully examining them, they appear to him empty, unreal and unsubstantial." The 5 groups are compared, respectively, to a lump of froth, a bubble, a mirage, a coreless plantain stem, and a conjuring trick (S. XXII, 95). See the Khandha Samyutta (S. XXII); Vis.M. XIV. 37369 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: About having strong opinions (Was: The five aggregates As Being Morally --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. Hallo Suan Lu Zaw, Ken and all After I stopped being a christian (as a adolescent) and started thinking "(perhaps) I'm a buddhist" I long time called myself an agnost. In fact I still am an agnostic buddhist as Stephen Batchelor describes it in his 'Buddism without beliefs'. This in introduction to a reaction on Suan Lu Zaw's statement "So the five aggregates are morally charged" I'm glad you accepted my metaphorical use of the propertie 'being charged' from physics: An electron is charged with (an unit of) electricity, nobody can divide electron and charge, in fact they are the same. The question is: can nobody divide an aggregate and morality? I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too? My personal opinion is: only a human being can have morality; but still I think citta and cetasika can be kusala or akusala because that's not the same as positive or negative moral intention. More important than our opinions is the question is if in the Sutta's, in early buddhism, "the five aggregates are morally charged". Kalupahana says: no. I quote him again: " What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) If you can mention Sutta's in which an aggregate or an element of an aggregate in "charged", then you're welcome and I'm convinced. Metta Joop 37370 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 11:15pm Subject: 7 Steps + blank sorry ... ;-) BlankFriends: The seven Steps to Enlightenment: 1: Perfection of Morality. 2: Guarding the Senses. 3: Moderation in Eating. 4: Wakefulness at Night. 5: Continuous Clear Comprehension. 6: Suppression of the Hindrances. 7: Mental Absorption into Jhana 1-4. Source: MN 107 (iii 3-7) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn107.html PS: Blank sorry for the BLANK erroneously inserted in some posts by the yahoo HTML-to-Text converter... !!! May it not have induced much undue inconvenience ;-) Allowance of attachments & thereby HTML mode is hereby recommended to all group owners & members. True type ASCII text mode is somewhat archaic today IMHO. HTML enables smooth graphics & visual communication. Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37371 From: siddu_drdl Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 4:19am Subject: I am looking for samyukta nikaya Please let me know where from I can down load Samyukta nikaya from web if available in English translation PLEASE HELP ME OUT WITH METTA SIDDU 37372 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Dear Nina Thanks for your answer, it was very helpful: I understand it and agree with it. I think talking about 'karuna' is being active in one of the most important themes in Buddhism. I have one problem with your explanation. When you state: "Thus, when we notice someone who needs help", I feel a kind of jumping. What is 'noticing'? What faculty in us does noticing? In my opinion it is the result of a property we have as human beings (potential or factual): the ability to recognize suffering in human beings, a kind of intuition. But I think that not a Abhidhamma way of reasoning? Maybe you already stopped answering mails: I hope you have a good time in India and come back in health to the Netherlands in november. Dus: het allerbeste en Veel metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hallo Joop, > You wrote: > < I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame > > of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology > > describe the same reality?> > Very good point you make. touches on the essence. > Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, social psychology does not. > Abhidhamma leads to detachment from the idea of self. See below. > op 05-10-2004 12:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > Snipped... for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a > > cause. > > - There is a "being suffering"; > > - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps > > hear him/her too; > > - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal > > intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have > > - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate > > propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with > > karuna when I was young) Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that > person is > > suffering - And then Karuna arises. > > How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and > > rupa's ? > N: Cittas go much faster than that. I see it this way: we heard about the > brahmavihaaras and it is paññaa that sees the value of them. We consider > more and then we begin to realize that what we used to take for kusala was > actually akusala. We learn that instead of metta there was the near enemy of > attachment. Instead of karuna there was the near enemy of sorrow, which is a > form of dosa. How valuable to learn the difference. Otherwise we go on > accumulating akusala we take for kusala. When there is right understanding > there can be a moment of true metta or true karuna, not what we used to take > for metta and karuna. Such moments fall away but they are accumulated and > can be a condition for their arising later on. > Thus, when we notice someone who needs help (mental or material), it all > depends on the conditions for the citta at that moment what will arise: > aversion or true compassion. I do not reason or draw conclusions, but when > there are conditions for karuna I make a move at once. Let us not forget > that karuna is not mine, that it arises depending on conditions. it has no > master, it is anatta. I do not have an intellectual approach, I find that > this does not work. Cittas are too fast. If we delay, it may be too late to > help! > Thus here you see the difference with social psychology. > I like your question, it is to the point. > Nina. 37373 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 7:32am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: ( From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Joop, Ken, Nina, Robert K, Andrew T and all Joop wrote: "I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too?" I wrote: "The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates." Rupa is pure abyaakata dhamma, meaning it cannot be described in terms of kusala and akusala (moral terms). That leaves us with the four mental aggregates. The feeling aggregate (vedanakkhandhaa) is a mental associate that participates in any bad, or good, or amoral consciousnesses. The memory aggregate (saññakkhandhaa)is also a mental associate that can do aiding and abetting any good, or bad, or amoral consciousnesses. As I wrote yesterday, The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates come with moral elements. What exactly is your problem, Joop? :-) The five aggregates are not only the subjects of the Suttam Pi.taka, but also those of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Kalupahana is only a speculative academic who wrote his personal opinions like other academics before or after him or like his contemporaries did and do. So, if Kalupana's personal opinions satisfy your liking, please stay with them by all means. Even though you reacted to my post with the title "About Having Strong Opinions", I have no personal opinions of my own on the Five Aggregates, let alone the strong ones. I merely repeated what I learnt from Pali texts. I am not here to convince you or argue with you or pressure you to accept the wisdom of the Pali texts. As I do not know if you are a Pali scholar, I won't be providing any Pali passages on the issue. But, if you would like to do so, please check Vibhanga, the Second Book Of Abhidhamma, the very first chapter of which starts discussing the Five Aggregates in details. Vibhanga and its commentary are both available in English translations from Pali Text Society. Good luck! With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" > wrote: The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. Hallo Suan Lu Zaw, Ken and all After I stopped being a christian (as a adolescent) and started thinking "(perhaps) I'm a buddhist" I long time called myself an agnost. In fact I still am an agnostic buddhist as Stephen Batchelor describes it in his 'Buddism without beliefs'. This in introduction to a reaction on Suan Lu Zaw's statement "So the five aggregates are morally charged" I'm glad you accepted my metaphorical use of the propertie 'being charged' from physics: An electron is charged with (an unit of) electricity, nobody can divide electron and charge, in fact they are the same. The question is: can nobody divide an aggregate and morality? I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too? My personal opinion is: only a human being can have morality; but still I think citta and cetasika can be kusala or akusala because that's not the same as positive or negative moral intention. More important than our opinions is the question is if in the Sutta's, in early buddhism, "the five aggregates are morally charged". Kalupahana says: no. I quote him again: " What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) If you can mention Sutta's in which an aggregate or an element of an aggregate in "charged", then you're welcome and I'm convinced. Metta Joop 37374 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:11am Subject: Re: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Hello Sarah. S> Dighanakha Sutta S> ============== S> We cannot talk about wrong views without grasping. By their S> nature, wrong views always arise with lobha (attachment), S> just as right views always arise with panna. In the S> Brahmajala sutta we read about how the holders of all the 62 S> wrong views experience feelings, craving, clinging and so S> on. All are trapped in the net. It is the very nature of S> wrong view to think it's right and to condition clinging. An S> annihilationist may not cling much to life -- for example, S> someone about to commit suicide believes in a self, but S> believes it will be destroyed at death and that any painful S> feelings will cease by the act -- but it is a kind of S> dispassion conditioned by wrong view and clinging to that S> view. S> S> So Dighanakha in the sutta was pleased to hear the Buddha S> describe the view as being close to non-attachment, but then S> the Buddha 'adds the qualification', i.e then he rubbishes S> it. Qualifying is not rubbishing. Qualifying is modifying by adding some conditional clause. If I say "Sugenius ostriches are an easily domesticated species," and then qualify it with "...as long as you give them enough sand to bury their heads in," the qualification does not undermine the original assertion. Likewise when the Buddha tells Dighanakha that his view is close to non-attachment, he does not rubbish the view by adding the warning that the view will lead to conflict *if* obstinately adhered to. What the Buddha's qualification DOES rubbish is the commentator's claim that Dighanakha is an annihilationist. If that were true, we should not expect the Buddha to give Dighanakha's view even qualified approval. Now if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is not possible to hold the view that Dighanakha holds without obstinately adhering to it. But this is because you have uncritically swallowed the commentator's claim that Dighanakha is an annihilationist, in spite of everything in the Sutta that militates against such an interpretation, e.g. the fact that the Buddha DOES state the view to be "close to non-attachment," -- "The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping." -- in the Suttas ucchedavada is NEVER described in this way. S> You also agreed with me that 'one employs the speech S> currently used in the world without adhering to it'. So an S> understanding of paramatha dhammas or elements doesn't S> reclude the use of conventional terms. Whether 'paramatha' S> is or is not used in the suttas, there are definitely other S> terms which depict the distinction between worldly and S> non-worldly or conventional and non-conventional use and S> understanding, wouldn't you agree? No. I would say that what can be described in terms of selves and persons is also describable in impersonal terms. The latter manner of description is closer to dispassion and so to be preferred. But both descriptions are matters of convention. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37375 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: Some fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur/sugenius reflections for D.(1) Hello Sarah. As the subject title of this thread is addressed to me, let me note that I have not myself referred to any Sugenius as having blind faith, or as being a dinosaur or a parrot (not even the self-confessed parrot Ken Howard). In fact, 'parrots' as a designation for Sugeniuses had never even occurred to me until you mentioned it. Ostriches certainly, but not parrots. Still, if you feel more comfortable being viewed as parrots, I shall be happy to comply. S> "All Women" & Jatakas S> ================= S> As I've said, I read this to be talking about women in S> general, certainly not to ariyans and to be understood in S> the light of what we read from other Tipitaka texts too. S> 'Opportunity', 'secrecy' and 'suitable wooer'. You're most S> welcome to give me the pali and a little more translation of S> the words in the context of the Jataka and Milinda Qu with S> the ref. The verse as it appears in the Amaraa Dialogue reads: sace labhetha kha.na.m vaa raho vaa nimantaka.m vaapi labhetha taadisa.m sabbaapi itthii kareyyu.m nu paapa.m, a~n~na.m alatthaa pii.thasappinaa saddhi.m This is a pretty literal translation of it: "If they would get a [spare] moment, or privacy, Or would merely get a man of some sort who invites [them], All women would then do evil, [If] not having obtained another, then with a cripple." But in all the editions of the Pali Ku.naala Jaataka that I have consulted, the word "man of some sort who invites" (nimantaka.m taadisa.m -- or 'suitable wooer' as Horner translates it) appears as nivaataka.m taadisa.m, which could mean "an opportunity of some sort" or "hiding place of some sort." Buddhaghosa glosses the words thus: 'kha.na.m vaa raho vaa' ti paapakara.natthaaya okaasa.m vaa pa.ticchanna.t.thaana.m vaa "[Spare] moment or privacy" -- an opportunity/occasion for doing evil or a concealed place. 'nivaatake' ti rahomantanake paribhedake. "A hiding place" -- a concealed place that is sufficient for conversation and is set apart. 'alatthaa' ti aladdhaa "Not having obtained" -- not having obtained (the author means that alattha is just an alternative spelling of aladdha). ayameva vaa paa.tho, a~n~na.m sampannapurisa.m alabhitvaa pii.thasappinaapi tato pa.tikkuulatarenaapi paapa.m kareyyu.m "The meaning is that [women], failing to obtain an able-bodied man, would do evil even with a cripple (or possibly 'palsied man'), or someone even more loathesome." Moving on now to the passage in the Mahaa-Ummagga Jaataka (No. 546), describing Amaraa's restraint. [Prince Mahosadha, the Bodhisatta, but disguised as a tailor, is performing a series of sadistic tests on Amaraa to see if she is docile (or stupid) enough to be his wife. Amaraa is performing well. He comes to the last test:] "When the Great Being came, he had brought with him a thousand rupees and a dress in his betel-nut-bag. Now he took out this dress and placed it in [Amaraa's] hands, saying, "Madam, bathe with your companions and put on this dress and come to me." She did so. The sage gave her parents all the money he had brought or earned, and comforted them, and took her back to the town with him. Then to test her he made her sit down in the gatekeeper's house, and telling the gatekeeper's wife of his plans, went to his own house. Then he sent for some of his men, and said, "I have left a woman in such and such a house; take a thousand pieces of money with you and test her." He gave them the money and sent them away. They did as they were bid. She refused, saying, "That is not worth the dust on my master's feet." The men came back and told the result. He sent them again, and a third time; and the fourth time he ordered them to drag her away by force. They did so, and when she saw the Great Being in all his glory she did not know him, but smiled and wept at the same time as she looked at him. He asked her why she did this. She replied, "Master, I smiled when I beheld your magnificence, and thought that this magnificence was not given you without cause, but for some good deed in a former life: see the fruit of goodness! I thought, and smiled. But I wept to think that now you would violate the property which another watched and tended, and would go to hell: in pity for that I wept." After this test he knew her chastity, and sent her back to the same place. Putting on his tailor's disguise, he went back to her and there spent the night." In this story Amaraa clearly is in a situation where she had the opportunity, the place and someone to have sex with, and yet refrained, thus contradicting what is predicated of women in the Ku.naala verse. And as I mentioned in my last post on this subject, Naagasena commits the fallacy of equivocation in his attempt to harmonize the two stories. When appraising Amaraa he allows the terms 'opportunity', 'privacy' etc. to mean things that they did not mean in the Ku.naala. S> As I've said, I found the latter convincing and S> helpful as obviously did K.Milinda! Since the Amaraa Dialogue is from the late part of the Milindapa~nhaa, its "Naagasena" and its "Milinda" are merely fictional characters. It is therefore no surprise that the author has Pseudo-Milinda agreeing with even the dumbest arguments from Pseudo-Naagasena. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37376 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:18am Subject: Translations of texts on Magadhan (1) Hello All. I am going to start posting translations of the passages that I uploaded to the files section. I will begin with those which are already available in English translation. This is passage 12 in the file. It is from the Visuddhimagga, and the following translation is by ~Naa.namoli (Path of Purification XIV 25). _____________________________ 'Tatradhammaniruttaabhilaape ~naa.nan' ti tasmi.m atthe ca dhamme ca yaa sabhaavanirutti abyabhicaarii vohaaro. Knowledge about enunciation of language dealing with meaning and law: there is the language that is individual essence, the usage that has no exceptions, and deals with that meaning and that law. Tadabhilaape tassa bhaasane udiira.ne ta.m bhaasita.m lapita.m udiirita.m sutvaava aya.m sabhaavanirutti, aya.m na sabhaavaniruttiiti eva.m tassaa dhammaniruttisa~n~nitaaya sabhaavaniruttiyaa maagadhikaaya sabbasattaana.m muulabhaasaaya pabhedagata.m ~naa.na.m 'niruttipa.tisambhidaa' . Any knowledge falling within the category concerned with the enunciation of that, with the speaking, with the utterance of that, concerned with the root speech of all beings, the Magadhan language that is individual essence, in other words, the language of law (dhamma), [any knowledge that] as soon as it hears it spoken, pronounced, uttered, knows, 'This is the individual-essence language; this is not the individual-essence language' -- [such knowledge] is discrimination of language. Niruttipa.tisambhidaappatto hi phasso vedanaati evamaadivacana.m sutvaava aya.m sabhaavaniruttiiti jaanaati. Phassaa vedanoti evamaadika.m pana aya.m na sabhaavaniruttiiti. One who has reached the discrimination of language knows, on hearing the words 'phasso, vedanaa', etc., that that is the individual-essence language, and on hearing 'phassaa, vedano', etc. he knows that that is not the individual-essence language (XIV 25) Translator's note: The idea behind the term 'individual-essence language' (sabh‡vanirutti), that is to say, that there is a real name for each thing that is part of that thing's individual essence, is dealt with at DhsA 391-92. Magadhan as the 'root speech of all beings' and the 'individual-essence language' is dealt with in greater detail at VbhA 387. 'Phasso' and 'vedan‡' as respectively masc. and fem. nom. sing. have the correct terminations. 'Phass‡' and 'vedano' are wrong. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) _____________________________ from the Visuddhimagga musical sub-commentary by Gilberata and Sullivana Theras: Dr. Ferdinand de Saussure meets Dr. Buddhaghosa DE SAUSSURE: I have the perfect model for historical comparison, For analysing languages when data is as rare as in... BUDDHAGHOSA: ...the case of pre-Sanskritic? Or perhaps it's post-Atlantean? Well *mine* is a project whose scope is more gargantuan. DE SAUSSURE: I know all the mythologic functions Dumezilian, And I can trace our species back to ancestors reptilian; BUDDHAGHOSA: But I shall seek a broader view, for by my ideology Your details are just residue left over from typology. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: His details are just residue left over from typology, His details are just residue left over from typology, His details are just residue left over from typo-polo-gy. BUDDHAGHOSA: For all your forms of pedantry I offer up this medicine: The weighty methodology of old you'll have to jettison. To link the tongues of everyone from Maagadhans to Saracens, You'll need another model for historical comparisons. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: To link the tongues of everyone from Maagadhans to Saracens, He'll need another model for historical comparisons. BUDDHAGHOSA: You philologists and linguists sitting in your ivory edifice Must take the blame for having let the Hindus get ahead of us, For if you are so quick to pale when some small detail menaces, How do you ever hope to reach linguistic monogenesis? DSG PARROTS CHORUS: If de Saussure is so quick to pale when some small detail menaces, How does he ever hope to reach linguistic monogenesis? DE SAUSSURE: Through my analysis of Lycian and Lydian and Luwian, I've reconstructed 'water' terms ante- and post-diluvian! BUDDHAGHOSA: Well I just use the handbooks that the forms are predigested in And waste no time on learning any language they're attested in! DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested in, He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested in, He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested-tested in. BUDDHAGHOSA: So many forms share elements (and meanings, if you think a bit); Phonetic counter-evidence I set aside or shrink to fit. Indeed I am quite certain (although scholars seem to vary some) *Mine* is the perfect model for historical comparison. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He really is quite certain (although scholars seem to vary some) *His* is the perfect model for historical comparison. DE SAUSSURE: You Buddhist commentators are so megalocomparative, Indulging your propensity for hyperbolic narrative, BUDDHAGHOSA: As unrelenting advocates of Pali exaltation, Why should we waste a moment on each petty permutation? DSG PARROTS CHORUS: Why should we waste a moment on each petty permutation? DE SAUSSURE: Right in the nitty-gritty is where you'll find me wandering, Assembling the details you dogmatists are squandering; BUDDHAGHOSA: I'm keen to bag the languages they always thought akin to none By stepping round the finer points and joining them all into one. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into one, He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into one, He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into into one. DE SAUSSURE: Including Basque and Burushaski? And what about Sumerian? Or scratchings unidentified on tablets antiquarian? BUDDHAGHOSA: I let *no* language go astray -- 'twould just be too embarrassin' And mar my perfect model for historical comparison. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He lets *no* language go astray -- 'twould just be too embarrassin' And mar his perfect model for historical comparison. (to the tune of "Model of a Modern Major-General") 37377 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 9:18am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 084 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Vitakka, vicara and piti have been discussed in the previous posts. There are still other three particular mental factors or pakinnaka cetasikas. They are flexible ministers of the king citta. Remaining three flexible ministers are viriya, abdimokkha, and chanda. Viriya is a cetasika. It is not a citta. But it support the citta that arises together with it. Viriya is effort. Its has a power of non-withdrawal. If viriya is walking, it will continue to walk with effort. Viriya is like energy. It is steadfastness. In the presence of strong viriya, everything can be accomplished. Viriya appears in bodhipakkhiya dhamma as samappadana. All four samappadana dhammas are all viriya. If someone is continuously in mahasatipatthana, this continuation on satipatthana stops arising of new akusala kamma in connection with already existing akusala kamma. As long as in satipatthana that is knowing of realities, no new akusala will arise because satipatthana is not an akusala and as it is a strong bhavana, this bhavana kusala kamma stop arising of new unarisen kamma. When stay in satipatthana steadfastly, this will support arising of new kusala as it is kusala bhavana. More importantly, already existing kusala may become exponential. Even though mahasatipatthana is sati as cetasika, mahasatipatthana practice comprise all kusala cetasikas as it is a strong bhavana kusala citta. When the practitioners are in walking meditation, viriya maintain that position and by the same token, when in sitting, this posture is also maintained and supported by viriya. This steadfastness and effort or viriya also appears as iddhipada or the base for accomplishment of everything. It is viriyiddhipada. When viriya is there standing very strongly, all other sobhana cetasika have to follow viriya. Viriya also appears as adhipati dhamma. There are viriya bala, viriyindriya, viriyasambojjhanga, and samma- vayama as one of the 8 parts of Noble Eightfold Path. Viriya is one of important dhammas. If conditions are right, viriya may bring one to become a Sammasambuddha. It is said that to become a Sammasambuddha is like climbing over very high razorous mountains and then swimming across firy oceans. But viriya helps passing all these obstacles. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37378 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 07-10-2004 14:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even > lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But > the > experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" > carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will > find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. It is unpredictable when there is sati sampajañña and when there is not, but it is essential to learn the difference between such moments. We can learn from all our experiences. An example: when in the kitchen and grabbing a cup or glass, we usually do this thoughtlessly, but we should not mind. We can learn the difference between moments without sati and with sati. If we mind, it shows our clinging. Sati can arise unforeseeably, and be aware of hardness, dosa, lobha, or seeing. The anattaness of sati should be understood, this is foremost. It is a good thing that sati is unpredictable, otherwise we take it for self or for controllable. If we think of preparing by trying to have a clear, calm mind, we should be truthful and find out whether we are clinging to sati. Moreover, when trying to prepare for sati we delay, we obstruct its arising. Sometimes there can be awareness of sound, just sound, also when playing music, even when talking to someone else. When sati is very daily there are less conditions for clinging to it. A person may be nervous when there are so many things to do before a journey. But there are nama and rupa, and a beginning of understanding, and there may be awareness of them, even though this is still imperfect. All kinds of realities should be known, kusala, akusala, pleasant, unpleasant. Nina. 37379 From: Dan D. Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 10:21am Subject: More on "Conventional right view" [Sarah] Dear Sarah, It's great to hear from you! It's fine for you to support the notion of 'conceptual right view', but isn't it necessary to stray from the Dhamma to do so? We've looked at two very prominent discussions of 'right view' in the suttas (viz. the Great Forty (MN 117) and the Sammaditthi sutta (MN 9). In both suttas, what may look like "conceptual right view" to some on first glance turn out to really be mundane right view, which is a direct view of reality rather than some correct conceptual formulation. My take on it is that there is a clear distinction between ditthi (views, opinions, conceptual formulations) and sammaditthi (viewing rightly, direct understanding) in the suttas. The term 'conceptual right view' is a great tool for justifying a clinging to ditti as somehow "right". How so? People have a strong tendency to like their predilections and attachments and habits. When people study Dhamma, they naturally do it under the influence of their predilections, habits, and attachments. People who delight in intellectualizing and forming theories may tend to use Dhamma study as a vehicle for intellectualizing and forming theories. Because we -- yes, I count myself among those who like intellectualizing -- like cogitation and believe so strongly in its value, it somehow feels "right". We may even be tempted to call the theories we come up with "right view." Of course, I think you'd agree that sammaditthi doesn't mean 'correct theory', so, then, how can we reconcile our perception of a theory as "right" with the recognition that it really is not sammaditthi? Coin a new term! 'Conceptual right view'-- a wonderful term which neatly makes the distinction between the sammaditthi that the Buddha taught and the theories that we so love, yet it also retains that element of "right" that makes us feel more comfortable with our attachments to intellectualizing and less apt to challenge them. 'Conceptual right view' is a tidy solution, but does it have any support in Theravada? I've run across 'mundane right view' in the suttas, but we are in agreement that this refers to direct understanding of mundane realities rather than to a proper conceptual framework for thinking about reality. There may still be some support for 'conceptual right view' in the texts, but I can't find it -- perhaps because it just isn't there, or perhaps because my knowledge of the texts is too weak to find it. Intellectualizer: "So what's wrong with the idea of 'conceptual right view'?" Dan: "You must mean what's wrong with it other than that: i. it confuses 'sammaditthi' with 'ditthi', and ii. it reinforces our attachment to intellectualizing rather than challenges that attachment?" I see two obvious dangers. One is that one who mouths the right syllables is regarded as "right" or "inside the dispensation", while those who mouth the wrong syllables is regarded as "wrong" or "outside the dispensation." If inside/outside the dispensation is to be determined according to whether one has "conceptual right view" or not, the notion of "conceptual right view" becomes a vehicle for bigotry in addition to serving as a damper to development of sammaditthi. For example, I know many Christians who know nothing about the syllables or conceptual formulations of the Buddha but have a much more refined and developed sammaditthi than many Buddhists who can spin wonderful conceptual yarns about their "views" but have precious little direct understanding. It is the real understanding that counts; not the intellectualizing or tossing around of concepts. Wouldn't you agree? You wrote: "Pausing here, I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view above..." Where the heck did you come up with that? Would you agree that with the statement: "'Conventional right effort' is a pre-cursor for 'right effort', so we should sit on our butts in a corner, eyes closed, etc. to develop understanding"? I don't think you would, because you would rightly see silabbataparamasa as inherently wrapped up in the very notion of 'conventional right effort'. Likewise, ditthi is inherently wrapped up in the very notion of 'conceptual right view'. Another way to put it: taking 'conventional right effort' as a form of 'right effort' is silabbataparamasa; and taking 'conceptual right view' as a form of 'right view' is ditthi. Let's eradicate both. Metta, Dan 37380 From: Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/8/04 1:07:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > op 07-10-2004 14:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even > >lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But > >the > >experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car > traffic" > >carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we > will > >find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". > N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe > that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have > understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through > the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas > and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. It is unpredictable > when there is sati sampajañña and when there is not, but it is essential to > learn the difference between such moments. We can learn from all our > experiences. > An example: when in the kitchen and grabbing a cup or glass, we usually do > this thoughtlessly, but we should not mind. We can learn the difference > between moments without sati and with sati. If we mind, it shows our > clinging. Sati can arise unforeseeably, and be aware of hardness, dosa, > lobha, or seeing. > The anattaness of sati should be understood, this is foremost. It is a good > thing that sati is unpredictable, otherwise we take it for self or for > controllable. If we think of preparing by trying to have a clear, calm mind, > we should be truthful and find out whether we are clinging to sati. > Moreover, when trying to prepare for sati we delay, we obstruct its arising. > Sometimes there can be awareness of sound, just sound, also when playing > music, even when talking to someone else. When sati is very daily there are > less conditions for clinging to it. A person may be nervous when there are > so many things to do before a journey. But there are nama and rupa, and a > beginning of understanding, and there may be awareness of them, even though > this is still imperfect. All kinds of realities should be known, kusala, > akusala, pleasant, unpleasant. > Nina. > > > ============================ Preparing in the moment, as you describe above, I agree is of little benefit and may in fact be quite harmful. The preparation I believe that Buddha taught was a background preparation, by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground calm and the kusala *habit* of being attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37381 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Dear Joop, Thank you for your good wishes. See below. op 08-10-2004 15:59 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > I have one problem with your explanation. When you state: "Thus, when > we notice someone who needs help", I feel a kind of jumping. What > is 'noticing'? What faculty in us does noticing? In my opinion it is > the result of a property we have as human beings (potential or > factual): the ability to recognize suffering in human beings, a kind > of intuition. But I think that not a Abhidhamma way of reasoning? N: I think we see and then recognize with sañña: he needs some help. We do not need to think much, as you say, intuition. Anything daily is Abhidhamma, it is about the way cittas and cetasikas travel. Nina. 37382 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 4:03pm Subject: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi guys, I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here that would lead to entirely different courses of action and expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very lifetime, Yours sincerely, Andrew C. Levin 37383 From: Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 10/8/04 7:06:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andrewlevin@e... writes: > > Hi guys, > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, > > Yours sincerely, > Andrew C. Levin > ========================== I may be in error, but I get the impression that you are generalizing with regard to the views of the members of this list. Just so you know, I believe the following: 1) Becoming an ariyan, even attaining complete enlightenment and liberation, is possible within this very lifetime, and if that is not "in the cards" as determined by kamma and other conditions, there is still no reason at all why proper practice on one's part, volitional action, shouldn't result in significant progress here and now, 2) perfections are to be intentionally cultivated, and they do not develop by chance, and 3) meditation lies at the core of the practice taught by the Buddha and is indispensable. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37384 From: Suravira Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop, Suan Lu Zaw & et al Suan Lu Zaw wrote > > So the five aggregates are morally charged. > Joop wrote > > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, > as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. Ken wrote > k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates > then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. [Suravira] Here is some food for thought: The five aggregates model serves a very practical purpose - to facilitate the analysis of suffering (to work with such questions as: what is suffering? how is it caused? and, what can be done to end the causes of suffering?) When we first encounter this model, it is important to avoid common misunderstandings of the five aggregates. Please realize that: - An aggregate is not a substantial entity - instead it is merely an imaginary object (a mental phenomena); - An aggregate is merely a label for a category of experience within which is a grouped multiplicity (or amalgam) of ever-changing phenomena; - The "five aggregates" is nothing other than an abstract model, in other words a schema - a complex imagined object; - The "five aggregates" is not a non-corporeal realm that mysteriously contains a permanent essence, or soul; - The "five aggregates" is not the ultimate basis of being in space-time, and - The "five aggregates" do not define what a person is. The five (5) aggregates are: - Form (rupa-kkhandha); - Sensation/Feeling (vedana-kkhandha); - Consciousness (vinnana-kkhandha); - Perception (sanna-kkhandha), and - Karmic Formation (sankhara-kkhandha): which is predominantly, and for all practical purposes, a critical matter of intention (cetana). The phrase, "the five aggregates of attachment", embodies a schema of categories that the Buddha uses to model, as well as analyze, our intimate experience of life as senscient beings in space-time. When you study the Khandhasamyutta sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya, you will encounter at a number of places where the Buddha reveals the profound importance of the aggregates, for example: "So long as I did not directly know as they really are the five aggregates subject to clinging, I did not claim to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world. But when I directly knew all this as it really is, then I claimed to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world." What did the Buddha eventually come to know about the five aggregates? He realized that the five (5) aggregates casually support each other and thereby are the generative cause of an image of a single whole that arises naturally in our minds. This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or maintain the path of the bodhisattva. It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. In addition, the Buddha understood that our clinging to and grasping at this image is the cause of all mental suffering in our lives. To our good fortune, the Buddha was able to see the way to end this mental suffering and manifest the compassion and joy of enlightened existence for the benefit of all living beings. This image is not morally charged. Nor is its generative cause, i.e., the five aggregates, morally charged. We practice dana (generosity, charity & almsgiving) and sila (virtue, morality and ethics) for many (perhaps innumerable) reasons. The least reason among these being right understanding of karma and its effects. All active processes of the mind (excluding the mental factors of sensation/feeling and perception) are termed mental fabrications. Intention is the fundamental basis underlying all mental fabrications. As such, intention organizes and coordinates all other mental factors, as well as directing our physical organism. Intention's primary activity is to take the potential for the experience of our physical organism (rupa), sensation/feeling, consciousness, and perception , originating from past actions, and turn that potential into the actual experience of those things in the present moment. Whenever an intentional action ceases, the intentional action imprints (or infuses) a potency, a predisposition, within the layer of latent tendency consciousness, and the life-continuum function of the consciousness carries this potency through to the time of its fruition. Karma is both the intentional action as well as the infused potency that conditions the functioning of the life- continuum within consciousness - this conditioning of the functioning of the life-continuum is the primary effect of karma. Clearly, intention strongly leads and informs our future moments. Thus, intention is an integral part of our individual experience of being in time-space - past, present and future. This is a critically important point fact, for this means that there is an element of individual intention in all human suffering. Therefore, there is both an aspect of personal responsibility within all of our experiences of suffering, as well as the opportunity of choice that leads to liberation from suffering and the joy and compassion of enlightened existence. This opens to us the possibility that suffering can be ended by changing our intentions, or abandoning them entirely, which is precisely the point of the Buddha's teachings on karma and its effects - our lives are subject to revision. 37385 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 11:36pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner31-Feeling/Vedana (d) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** All feelings have the function of experiencing the taste, the flavour of an object (Atthasåliní, I, Part IV, Chapter I, 109). The Atthasåliní uses a simile in order to illustrate that feeling experiences the taste of an object and that citta and the other cetasikas which arise together with feeling experience the taste only partially. A cook who has prepared a meal for the king merely tests the food and then offers it to the king who enjoys the taste of it: ** -…and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, even so the mere testing of the food by the cook is like the partial enjoyment of the object by the remaining dhammas (the citta and the other cetasikas), and as the cook tests a portion of the food, so the remaining dhammas enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure, so feeling, being lord, expert and master, enjoys the taste of the object, and therefore it is said that enjoyment or experience is its function.- ** Thus, all feelings have in common that they experience the 'taste' of an object. Citta and the other accompanying cetasikas also experience the object, but feeling experiences it in its own characteristic way. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37386 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, You were saying: ---------------------------------- > Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. > ---------------------------------- I wonder if this is an example of a point raised in Phil's thread. No offence is meant by either of us, but we do accuse each other of speaking in `dispraise of the Buddha.' You accuse me of saying the Buddha played a trick. I accuse you saying the Buddha taught an ordinary, unremarkable, conventional practice. I don't think anyone here has ever said the Buddha played tricks: we all agree he genuinely taught guarding the senses. However, some of us believe guarding the senses means satipatthana, while others believe it means concentrating on concepts (breath, posture, sounds of traffic, physical and mental activities). ------------------- H: > My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". ------------------- I will engage `auto-parrot' (cut and paste from Nina's reply): > N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. > Reverting to manual parroting; I would say that `guarding the senses' is not an activity that we engage in: it is a conditioned phenomenon. If the Dhamma has been heard, studied, and wisely reflected upon (`Listening [to traffic] with a calm clear mind' was not one of the preconditions taught by the Buddha.), then panna (satipatthana) may be conditioned to arise and guard the senses, here and now. If those conditions have not been put in place, then the present moment will be something other than guarding of the senses. In either case, the Dhamma teaches us to know the present moment, not to change it. -------------------------------------------------------- H: > Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. > ---------------------------------------------------------- I don't follow. You set out to describe an alternative to `attending to concepts' but what you wrote seems to be another description of `attending to concepts.' I will snip the next part of the discussion, in which I suggested that any attempt at mindfulness necessarily involves self (my sati, my object of sati): (Sati arises purely by conditions and the intention to control sati is not one of those conditions.) ---------------------------- H: > The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the mind. The Buddha DID teach this. ---------------------------- You are referring to a practice of sustained concentration (other than jhana) that is taught somewhere in the Pali Canon. In all of DSG's discussions on this point, has anyone ever directly quoted such a teaching? --------------------- H: > His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, clear, and capable. > ---------------------- I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I would adamantly deny that the term, Middle Way, means a moderate form of the two extremes. When the Buddha said "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood," (see Andrew T's post) he did not mean he proceeded 'slowly,' without 'too much' halting and straining. He meant the Middle Way is a profoundly unworldly way, travelled by conditioned dhammas, not by concepts [of self]. I will put "Read Anupada Sutta" on my `To do' list. Kind regards, Ken H 37387 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Suravira" wrote: > Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop, Suan Lu Zaw & et al Here is some food for thought: > The five aggregates model serves a very practical purpose - to > facilitate the analysis of suffering (to work with such questions > as: what is suffering? how is it caused? and, what can be done to > end the causes of suffering?) When we first encounter this model, (...(snip) Dear Suravira and all Thanks for your reaction, with information and wisdom I will take some days to think about it before getting (perhaps) an opinion about it. In the meantime I have another (combined) question to you (and other DSG-members) This thread started with the topic of the relation Nagarjuna - Abhidhamma. One of the central themes in that relation is the 'theory of the two truths'; sometimes it's called 'the two realities' and I suppose that means the same. Now my question is: 1 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the same as they appear in the Abhidhamma ? 2 Is this the same way as they appear in the texts of Buddhaghosa ? 3 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the same as they appear in the Madhyamakakarika ? 4 Is this the same way as they appear in Mahayana texts ? I think the answer to question 1, 2 and 4 is: no. Kalupahana states (as I understand him well) the answer to question 3 is yes, but most disagree with him 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used the analogy: the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? Metta Joop 37388 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, Dear Andrew That you didn't know that, surprised me a little bit You must know that there are more buddhist traditions and Theravada is one of them. What you state is, I think, more or less a Mahayana opinion. So it's very good you partiocipate on a (mainly) Theravada Forum Metta Joop 37389 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > Hallo Robertk > > The Buddhist Dictionary in on the Internet: > www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > After I did send my message, I realised my quote was not complete. > Now I have the problem how to combine what Nyanatiloka writes in the > entry "Paramattha" and what he writes in the entry "Khanda" > My quote came from "Khandha", but from "Paramattha" one can read > something else. > The question is if the distinction between the "two truths" in > Theravada has the same meaning as in Mahayana. As far as I understand > this is not the case, in Theravada it has more the meaning > of: "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional lanhuage but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. > But perhaps I'm wrong. > > Metta > Joop Dear Joop, Thanks for the section from the dictionary. I still couldn't see this part: ""In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are > therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as > opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which > the theory of dependent origination belongs"" ============= I don't understand what you mean by "philosophical-soteriological language" that the buddha used? Robertk 37390 From: dighanakha Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:53am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hello Robert. > Thanks for the section from the dictionary. I still couldn't see > this part: ""In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox > Mahathera) The quote is not from the dictionary but from chapter III of U Kyaw Min's _Introducing Buddhist Abhidhamma_ http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_iii.htm Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37391 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew Fair enough! The abhidhamma approach is certainly not for everyone. There are many right traditions within Dhamma - everyone can find the one that suits his or her accumulations. It's been a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. Your ambition energizes me. I hope you'll stick around. As Howard said, there are various points of view here and Nina is not the only person who can help you with any questions you have, or give you supportive feedback. It'd be hard to find an online sangha as solid as this one. Metta, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Levin" To: Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 8:03 AM Subject: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) > > > Hi guys, > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, > > Yours sincerely, > Andrew C. Levin 37392 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Dear KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > Thanks for your commiserations. I think I fit Sukin's description of > himself: > "My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very > often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted > and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, > I recall very little." > A: oh dear, this could easily be a description of me. Sometimes after a whole day of dhamma, I may try to recall, that very evening, what was said and......blank!!! I have found that listening to the few tapes I have of various discussions over the past 3 years or so, have been most helpful. You know Ken, I can listen again and again and still find something I did not hear or at least don't remember hearing, before. > :-) > All the best to you and your fellow travellers to India. Have a > great trip. > > Ken H A: thanx, I'm looking forward to visiting the Holy Places, have never been to India before, at least not this lifetime and I don't remember any others!!!!! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37393 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner31-Feeling/Vedana (d) Dear Sarah and others, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] > ***** > All feelings have the function of experiencing the taste, the flavour > of an object (Atthasåliní, I, Part IV, Chapter I, 109). The Atthasåliní > uses a simile in order to illustrate that feeling experiences the > taste of an object and that citta and the other cetasikas which > arise together with feeling experience the taste only partially. A > cook who has prepared a meal for the king merely tests the food > and then offers it to the king who enjoys the taste of it: > ** > -…and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, > even so the mere testing of the food by the cook is like the partial > enjoyment of the object by the remaining dhammas (the citta and the other > cetasikas), and as the cook tests a portion of the food, so the remaining > dhammas enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert > and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure, so feeling, being > lord, expert and master, enjoys the taste of the object, and therefore it > is said that enjoyment or experience is its function.- > ** > Thus, all feelings have in common that they experience the `taste' > of an object. Citta and the other accompanying cetasikas also > experience the object, but feeling experiences it in its own > characteristic way. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah A: It's hard for me to think of feeling in this way. We all seem to place so much importance on 'feeling'. For example, as I write this, there is a big, fat mozzie trying to suck all my blood and it is causing some very unpleasant bodily, and mental, feelings. She gets fatter ea time I catch a glimpse of her and I sustain more itchy bites. The tropics do have a down side!!!! This unpleasant sensation is obviously many, many moments of different kinds of feeling arising and falling away, but I seem to only focus on the unpleasant ones - maybe that's why feeling is a khandha all on its own. Patience, courage and good cheer. Azita. Ps. I'll take this opportunity to remind you to bring CMA with you to Bkk next week. Will you be staying at the same place, might try and catch up on Fri next. Safe trip, see you soon. Az. 37394 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 4:51am Subject: Games People Play Hi all, Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. Games are clearly differentiated from procedures, rituals, and pastimes by two chief characteristics: (1) their ulterior quality and (2) the pay-off. Procedures may be succesful, rituals effective, and pastimes profitable, but all of them are by definition candid; they may involve contest, but not conflict, and the ending may be sensational, but it is not dramatic. Every game, on the other hand, is basically dishonest, and the outcome has a dramatic, as distinct from merely exciting, quality." Berne goes on to describe, amongst others, the game of "Wooden Leg". The basic premise of the game is "What do you expect from someone subject to these conditions, could I possibly refrain from doing XYZ; or be expected to ABC" to which the anticipated reply from the jury is "No, because of those conditions we could hardly have expectations from you". I think there is room at dsg to recognise the following games. 'Only namas and rupas', 'accumulations' and 'defilements'. The Buddha teaches, to those who want that, the end of suffering and the way to the end of suffering. No more and no less. For those not interested, there is no need to apologise for the desire for an eternal self. But there is no room to pretend that the Buddha preaches the necessity or promotes the benefits of your wandering on. For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of yourself?" Kind Regards Herman 37395 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew L and Howard, op 09-10-2004 01:03 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. N: Andrew, I appreciate it that you say this straight. I find the thread worth while because it touches on what is essential. A: The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. N: I think it not beneficial to have expectations about realizing the noble truths. This distracts us from cultivating the rigtht conditions at this very moment. What are we doing now, sitting at the computer? Discussing Dhamma and this is bhavana, the perfection of pañña is being developed. More understanding. But many conditions of the past were necessary to bring us to this moment. We would not be interested in the Dhamma now if we had not listened in past lives. We associate with Dhamma friends, good friendship is an important condition. We consider what we hear and apply the Dhamma in our life. Seeing how many conditions are necessary for one moment of kusala citta helps us to see that they are all anatta. I appreciate your interest in the Abhidhamma and questions are always welcome. The Abhidhamma helps us to see our countless moments of akusala, the vast amount of ignorance, the conditions for all the cittas that arise. We learn about the latent tendencies of lobha, dosa, moha, and so on, which quite suddenly condition the arising of akusala citta. It surely must take a long time before defilements are eradicated. This is not distressing, because each moment of a little more understanding in itself is beneficial. It makes confidence in the Dhamma grow. We should be grateful to the Buddha for each moment of understanding. The past lives of each one of us were so different, and since we do not know past lives how could we predict the future, predict when we shall attain enlightenment? One life is gone like a flash, I can assure you. I realize this more and more, becoming older. You said, that I consider No, no passivity. I agree that the perfections should be cultivated all the time. I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and mindfulness. We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before we realize it, it is *my understanding*. Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, I have confidence in renunciation. When we are determined to develop understanding of nama and rupa now, the perfection of determination is accumulated. There are also the other perfections such as courage and perseverance, a form of energy, patience (the highest ascetism!), sila (guarding the sense-doors), etc. When there are opportunities for dana and metta, let us cultivate these. We can give material help, but also spiritual help. A: I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. N: Very good, but we do not need to think especially of the third foundation of mindfulness, the Buddha taught all four, and this includes mindfulness of whatever nama or rupa appears now. We should not think of this first, than that, because it entirely depends on conditions what reality presents itself now. I have to take leave now. When I am back we can continue this thread. When I quote from the India discussions, I should attach some words like Htoo's: remarks and criticism always welcome. I feel it is good to consider all these subjects, it is also bhavana for myself. Take care. Nina. 37396 Fro?: Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/9/04 3:29:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You were saying: > ---------------------------------- > >Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha > didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. > > ---------------------------------- > > I wonder if this is an example of a point raised in Phil's thread. > No offence is meant by either of us, but we do accuse each other of > speaking in `dispraise of the Buddha.' You accuse me of saying the > Buddha played a trick. I accuse you saying the Buddha taught an > ordinary, unremarkable, conventional practice. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: My intention was to make a point. It was not personal. ----------------------------------------------- > > I don't think anyone here has ever said the Buddha played tricks: we > all agree he genuinely taught guarding the senses. However, some of > us believe guarding the senses means satipatthana, while others > believe it means concentrating on concepts (breath, posture, sounds > of traffic, physical and mental activities). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Evidently you have missed my point. I do not recommend "listening" to traffic sounds, but seeing through what we call "traffic sounds" to the actual phenomena that are there. -------------------------------------------- > > ------------------- > H: >My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or > even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a > conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there > nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and > especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will > find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, > not "traffic". > ------------------- > > I will engage `auto-parrot' (cut and paste from Nina's reply): > >N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but > I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is > important to have understanding of the different objects as they > present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have > some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of > different processes of cittas. > > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I also think we need to prepare. And preparation is multifaceted. ----------------------------------------- > > Reverting to manual parroting; I would say that `guarding the > senses' is not an activity that we engage in: it is a conditioned > phenomenon. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ho, hum. That's not what I read in the suttas. You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting for conditions to arise. The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I think we should just agree that we disagree on this ------------------------------------------- If the Dhamma has been heard, studied, and wisely > > reflected upon (`Listening [to traffic] with a calm clear mind' was > not one of the preconditions taught by the Buddha.), then panna > (satipatthana) may be conditioned to arise and guard the senses, > here and now. If those conditions have not been put in place, then > the present moment will be something other than guarding of the > senses. In either case, the Dhamma teaches us to know the present > moment, not to change it. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > H: >Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is > not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects > of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct > experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of > whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary > attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to > all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati > Suttas. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't follow. You set out to describe an alternative to `attending > to concepts' but what you wrote seems to be another description > of `attending to concepts.' > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught meditation on the breath! --------------------------------------------- > > I will snip the next part of the discussion, in which I suggested > that any attempt at mindfulness necessarily involves self (my sati, > my object of sati): (Sati arises purely by conditions and the > intention to control sati is not one of those conditions.) > > ---------------------------- > H: >The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the > field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein > lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This > partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed > focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the > mind. The Buddha DID teach this. > ---------------------------- > > You are referring to a practice of sustained concentration (other > than jhana) that is taught somewhere in the Pali Canon. In all of > DSG's discussions on this point, has anyone ever directly quoted > such a teaching? > > --------------------- > H: >His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a > middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed > absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and > unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of > dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of > the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's > middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, > clear, and capable. > > ---------------------- > > I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I would adamantly > deny that the term, Middle Way, means a moderate form of the two > extremes. When the Buddha said "By not halting, friend, and by not > straining I crossed the flood," (see Andrew T's post) he did not > mean he proceeded 'slowly,' without 'too much' halting and > straining. He meant the Middle Way is a profoundly unworldly way, > travelled by conditioned dhammas, not by concepts [of self]. > > I will put "Read Anupada Sutta" on my `To do' list. > > Kind regards, > ========================== With metta, Howard P.S. I find that I am tiring of disputation, views, and opinions. Not just on this list, with folks at one end of the positional spectrum, but also with other folks on other lists who also hold fixed, restricted views of other sorts. I intend to be cutting way back on these "viewpoint discussions" and devoting much more of my time to reading the suttas and meditating. /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37397 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Joops > 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used > the analogy: > the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that > of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think > this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? k: Yup it is something like that :). That is why I love Abdhidhamma, clear and concise, the scientific approach to Buddhism in my believe :). Ken O 37398 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" > wrote: > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues > here > > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and > mental > > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more > I > > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and > when > > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush > with > > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > > lifetime, > > > Dear Andrew > > That you didn't know that, surprised me a little bit > You must know that there are more buddhist traditions and Theravada > is one of them. > What you state is, I think, more or less a Mahayana opinion. > So it's very good you partiocipate on a (mainly) Theravada Forum > > Metta > > Joop Joop, What I believe to be possible is based on my own experience, certainly to some degree fueled by my hopes and fears too, but not lacking in backing from Theravada texts I have read. I have not to this date developed a very thorough understanding of the Dharma, (maybe I am not the only one), but my position remains that enlightenment within this dispensation is entirely possible, and, more than likely our best shot at it altogether. If I didn't think it possible, I might or might not force myself to believe it were, but I do think stages of enlightenment can be atained in a matter of lifetimes (or even one), and my experience, texts I have read, and people I have talked to all tell me it really is, so, on I will go. As far as Mahayana, I would think that they would be seeking to attain Buddhahood which is really a long-term goal not to be acheived in this dispensation, so it is somewhat odd that you would say that. Yours in mischief, A.L. 37399 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:28am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] â€ËÅ"Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana... Hi Howard Your point is correct that the point is not so well made, in fact it can bring a lot of confusion. In certain mental formations, they arise exclusively, for eg we cannot have ignorance arise together with wisdom. And again, here I say, the invaluable material from Abdhidhamma, it brings a clearer picture of what arise with what in cittas and all the other mental factors. And again, that is why the need to read the commentary, to have a clearer picture of what it is meant in the sutta. Here I go again promoting Abdhidhamma and commentary again :). Cheers Ken O 37400 From: Dan D. Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:36am Subject: Re: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Dear Sarah and Dighanakha, Interesting discussion about an important sutta (MN 74)... Sammaditthi cannot be described as "close to" non-attachment. If there is attachment, the view is simply ditthi and not sammaditthi at all. At the beginning of the sutta, Dighanakha is plagued by ditthi. Buddha teaches him about sammaditthi and "how there comes to be the abandoning of these views [viz., Dighanakha's view and it's opposite]." At the end of the sutta, Dighanakha is able to abandon ditthi and "the spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose." Wonderful story! A sharp distinction is made between the opinions and conceptual formulations that we hold so dear (ditthi) and the direct vision of Dhamma (sammaditthi). When the distinction is clearly understood by Mr. Ditthi (also known as Dighanakha), he becomes a sotapanna. May we all experience a similar abandoning of ditthi! Dan 37401 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > Hi Andrew > > Fair enough! The abhidhamma approach is certainly not for everyone. > There are > many right traditions within Dhamma - everyone can find the one that suits > his or her accumulations. > > It's been a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. Your ambition energizes > me. > I hope you'll stick around. As Howard said, there are various points of > view here > and Nina is not the only person who can help you with any questions > you have, or give you supportive feedback. It'd be hard to find an online > sangha as solid as this one. > > > Metta, > Phil Phil, As it is right now my understanding of the Dharma is weak, but going on what I read, hear from friends, see, and experience, I do believe that enlightenment in the short-term is possible. So I'm going with that for now. I came to this group for knowledge of Abhidharma which one of my books says is necessary for contemplation of mind in mind, but I recognize it may be of use in developing just that understanding of the Dharma that I lack. However if this is not possible I may just proceed on my own without that understanding, going on books, developing the paramis, trying the four foundations of mindfulness, and still holding out to see the noble truths in this lifetime -- after all, who knows?, a human rebirth may not come again for a long time. Yours truly, Andrew Levin 37402 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 9:22am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There left another two cetasikas in the group of pakinnaka cetasikas or flexible ministers. They are adhimokkha and chanda. Adhimokkha is an important cetasika. It makes decision. It decides on the object. Adhimokkha advises the king citta to decide on the object. Without adhimokkha citta cannot decide anything. This case can be tested in the case of vicikiccha sampayutta citta which is a moha mula citta. In this citta, there is no adhimokkha cetasika at all. Because of the absence of adhimokkha cetasika or decision, vicikiccha citta never can decide anything. That is why vicikiccha citta cannot decide on the object and it is said to be indecisiveness. Those people who do not have saddha or faith or confidence in The Buddha and His Dhamma, they do have doubt in The Buddha's Dhamma. This doubt is what we call vicikiccha. Whenever they have to deal with The Buddha's Dhamma, they do not have a power that can decide on the things. This does happen when someone has doubt in The Buddha's teaching. In moha mula cittas, there are two cittas. One is this citta vicikiccha and another is uddhacca citta. Here adhimokkha becomes very important. In which way? Vicikiccha citta is an akusala citta and it can give rise apaya patisandhi and this means rebirth in lower realms such as hell realm, animial realm, peta or hungry ghost realm and asura or demon realm. In case of uddhacca citta, there is adhimokkha as an accompanying cetasika. This citta is moha mula citta and it is a spreading mind. But this moha mula citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi as in case of vicikiccha citta which does not have adhimokkha. This is evident that all sotapanna are not reborn in apaya bhumis. They all still have uddhacca both in anusaya form and priyutthana form and they sometimes do have in vitikkhama form. But lower ariyas such as sotapanna, sakadagams, and anagams do have uddhacca. They are never reborn in apaya bhumi. This means that uddhacca citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi. This means uddhacca citta does not give rise to patisandhi effect. But it does give rise to pavatti results or the results in the course of life. This is implication of adhimokkha cetasika. As there is still adimokkha, it does not give rise to patisandhi effect. Vicikiccha on the other hand does give rise to apaya patisandhi. This is because it does not have adhimokkha and in the absence of adhimokkha, citta is weak and this again leads to arising of kamma that may give rise to apaya patisandhi. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37403 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:23am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 13 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 61 1. 'many cattle' I am not a good grammarian. I am not sure whether there are words like 'few cattle', 'many cattle'. What I am sure is that there is no 'a cattle'. 2. 'cattle and shed gate' simile This is very good simile and it helps understanding of 4 different kamma in terms of seniority. Garuka kamma, asanna kamma, acinna kamma, and katatta kamma looks like what Rob M demonstrates in his 'cattle and shed gate' simile. Page 62. 3. Table here in the page 62 is good. Page 63. 4. The table of 'punna kiriya' is nicely presented. Rob summarises as three topic namely dana, siila and bhavana. This is also good. Page 64. 5. Things to be Done when Someone is Critically ill. I think this is side track although it is a good message to know. 6. Kuan Yin I did not read anything about Kuan Yin. Rob M, please explain about Kuan Yin. Is it a figure who is female and who is also bodhisatta? With respect, Htoo Naing 37404 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 1:49pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 13 ) by Htoo Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > I am not a good grammarian. I am not sure whether there are words > like 'few cattle', 'many cattle'. What I am sure is that there is > no 'a cattle'. ===== Your grammar is correct; there is no "a cattle". :-) ===== > Page 64. > > 5. Things to be Done when Someone is Critically ill. > > I think this is side track although it is a good message to know. > > 6. Kuan Yin > > I did not read anything about Kuan Yin. Rob M, please explain about > Kuan Yin. Is it a figure who is female and who is also bodhisatta? > ===== Others have made simlar comments regarding the "Things to be Done..." section and I have deleted it (though it is good to know, it does not really belong in this book). Kuan Yin is an extremely important figure in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism; she is the Bodhisatta representing compassion; perhaps you know the Indian version Avalokitesvara. It appears as though the Bodhisatta underwent a gender change when moving from India to China :-) Some new age "research" books even identify this Bodhisatta as a possible referece to Jesus, who they claim visited India after faking his death by crucifixion. Oops, I am getting off topic again... :-) Htoo, I really appreciate your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 37405 From: Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/9/04 9:18:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the > more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and > mindfulness. We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of > future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive > for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing > as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of > benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to > future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before > we realize it, it is *my understanding*. > Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: > by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground > calm and the kusala *habit* of being > attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At > the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". > > > N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The > best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being > accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of > my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background > calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see > it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, > not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of > renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your > own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, > I have confidence in renunciation. ============================= Nina, we use different terminology fairly often, and we disagree with each other from time to time on some matters, though not on the importance of mindfulness and vigilance, but what most pleases me about you is your kindness, particularly in how you converse with me. And what pleases me the most in our interactions is the fact that you understand me; you make the effort to go beyond formulational differences and minor disagreements, and you almost always succeed in "getting" what it is that I mean. I greatly appreciate this! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37406 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 2:08am Subject: Fearless not Wanting ... Friends: Stilled !!! Not Wanting Pleasure.. Not Fearing any Pain.. Not Wanting any Gain.. Not Fearing any Loss.. Not Wanting only Praise.. Not Fearing much Blame.. Not Wanting Name & Fame.. Not Fearing Anonymity.. Not Wanting to be Rich.. Not Fearing simple Poverty.. Not Wanting to be Young.. Not Fearing Ageing nor Death.. Not Wanting to be Beautiful.. Not Fearing own Ugliness.. Not Wanting to be Successful.. Not Fearing full Failure.. Not Wanting to be Recognized.. Not Fearing to be Ignored.. Not Wanting any Sight.. Not Wanting any Sound.. Not Wanting any Smell.. Not Wanting any Savour.. Not Wanting any Touch.. Not Wanting any State.. Not Fearing any State.. Not Wanting any Possession.. Not Fearing Loosing all.. Not Wanting any Form.. Not Fearing Formlessness.. Not Wanting any Body.. Not Fearing Bloodlessness.. Not Wanting it to be different, than it is... Not Fearing it is different, than it appears.. Not Wanting it to become anything else.. Not Fearing it becomes something else.. Not Wanting anything at all..! Not Fearing anything at all..! Not Wanting any Life nor Death..!! Not Fearing any Life nor Death..!! Not Wanting to be..!!! Not Fearing not to be..!!! Freed of any Urge.. Purged of any Clinging.. Released from all Craving.. Damped is all Drifting.. Relinquished is all Attraction.. Relaxed is all Opposition.. Calmed is all latent Tendency.. In only this: There is a Peace not of this world.. There is an Ease not of this world.. There is Ceasing of this burning Fever.. Stilled in Bliss ... Nibbana !!! Yeah ... ;-) Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37407 From: Suravira Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:10pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Joop wrote: > Dear Suravira and all > > In the meantime I have another (combined) question to you (and other > DSG-members) > > Now my question is: > 1 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the > same as they appear in the Abhidhamma ? > 2 Is this the same way as they appear in the texts of Buddhaghosa ? > 3 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the > same as they appear in the Madhyamakakarika ? > 4 Is this the same way as they appear in Mahayana texts ? > I think the answer to question 1, 2 and 4 is: no. > Kalupahana states (as I understand him well) the answer to question 3 > is yes, but most disagree with him > [Suravira] The manner in which the "two truths" are expressed differs across these schools. Yet it only appears this way "on the outside". This difference is primarily a matter of their respective rhetoric. Each school's presentation of the true truths differs due (primarily) to the demands placed on them to respond to detractions for other opposing religious groups. Those detractions (and the responces) framed the rhetoric. It is my position that "on the inside" the respective rhetoric stemming from each of these Buddhist shools frames the Dharma in a mode that is cogent and valid (overall). This assertion is not made to suggest that sectarian conflicts within Buddhism did not occur throughout its history, or that they are not present to this day, as regards the two truths teachings. Clear comprehension of the two truths (as with all aspects of Dharma) is rooted in meditation. While analytic contemplation of the two truth is beneficial, this technique does not provide insight that liberates us from selfish desire, unreal fear, anger, hatred, delusion and (spiritual) ignorance. Ignorance in this context does not mean a lack of education, or information. Ignorance means being unaware of the nature of reality. When we directly realize the nature of reality, we will be liberated from ignorance, delusional states of mind will be abandoned, we will let go of selfish desire and hatred, and realize the joy and compassion of enlightened existence for the benefit of all senscient beings In my limited investigation of these differences (in the teachings of the two truths), it appears that the Theravadan literature rigourously applies the laws of cause and effect and impermance to the image (whose generative cause is modeled as the five aggregates) of our conventional self. It presents this image as being like an illusion - like an illsion in as much as we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. It further appears to me that the Mahayana & Vajrayana literature continues to rigourouly apply the laws of cause and effect and impermance to the image (whose generative cause is mental phenomena) beyond our conventional self and applies it (in various manners) to all matters of being in space-time. In a simplistic way of expressing it, the Mahayana & Vajrayana lineages merely expond at greater length on the paths of mindfulness of mental states (which works with consciousness as its object) and mindfulness of mental objects (which works with the mental factor/aggregate of perception and the aggregate of karmic formation). Yes their respective rhetoric is different, but merely because a difference exist, there does not exist a need to establish one as right and the other as wrong. To gain an understanding of each of these three schools' teachings regarding the two truths, one must engage (at great length) in the practices of mindfulness of mental states and mindfulness of mental objects. Moreover, it is imperative that one diligently engage the practices of the jhanas. This enables one to "move from the outside into the inside" deftly. I suspect that the respective sectarian disputes relating to teachings of the two truths is nothing more than a matter of disparities in the mastery of mindfulness of mental states and of mental objects that existed between the disputants. As the Dharma is taking root within western cultures, we must be wary of transplanting sectarian disputes germinated in asian cultures. > 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used the > analogy: > the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that > of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think this > is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? > [Suravira] Conventional language, just as with all symbolic expressions, is constrained by philosophical-soterological constructs. Fundamentally, there is no discernable difference between the two "styles" beyond the respective vocabulary they adopt and advocate for. With metta, Suravira 37408 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. > > "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions > progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it > is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially > plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a > series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. [snip] > For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a > neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" > the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of > yourself?" Hi Herman and all We have a number of Berne's books here and find them very interesting. For those of you who want to explore the unscientific nature of modern western psychiatry/psychology, I recommend Thomas S Szasz's books, "The Myth of Mental Illness", "The Manufacture of Madness" and "Ideology and Insanity". Good reads and a sure cure for the folly of putting western science up on an unrealistic pedestal. Best wishes Andrew T 37409 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:32am Subject: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly afternoon discussion. We are beginning to go through "The Road to Liberation" Paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination) by Ron Wijewantha http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha239.htm We all decided that we knew the Basics, so started reading aloud Chapter Two. Interestingly, Klaas said this is the booklet he photocopied for his University of the Third Age classes. I found some of the simple straightforward explanations of benefit - particularly that on the four elements. There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. Candle, Stream, and Baby to Adult similes didn't seem to help either. Maybe we should have read Chapter 1. :-) I don't know how the rest of chapter two went because I had to leave at 4.00 p.m. to get home to my invalid dog - or so I thought he was. When I arrived home, I found him eating the next door neightbours (very dead) prize rooster. How could a drugged out dog with back legs that aren't working properly, catch a fighting breed rooster? Perhaps the dogs next door caught it and Good Boy Rusty found it after the deed was done? Auggh! How is he ever going to get a desirable human rebirth with this sort of behaviour, I asked him? He was suitably abashed, after a stern talk, a smack on the muzzle and confiscation and surreptitious disposal of the chook. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37410 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Htoo. Dear Htoo, Thank you. This is exactly what I read in the Tiika. You followed your Burmese text. At first sight it may seem complicated, but we have to study it and try to understand the way of explanation. There is abandoning by seeing, dassana, and abandoning by cultivation, bhavana. In the case of the sotapanna, there is abandoning by seeing, he sees nibbana for the first time. Uddhacca is not abandoned by seeing, but by bhaavana at the stage of the arahat. More info see T.A. p. 189, Co to Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Nina. op 09-10-2004 18:22 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > In case of uddhacca citta, there is adhimokkha as an accompanying > cetasika. This citta is moha mula citta and it is a spreading mind. > But this moha mula citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi as in > case of vicikiccha citta which does not have adhimokkha. > > This is evident that all sotapanna are not reborn in apaya bhumis. > They all still have uddhacca both in anusaya form and priyutthana > form and they sometimes do have in vitikkhama form. > > But lower ariyas such as sotapanna, sakadagams, and anagams do have > uddhacca. They are never reborn in apaya bhumi. This means that > uddhacca citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi. > > This means uddhacca citta does not give rise to patisandhi effect. > But it does give rise to pavatti results or the results in the course > of life. This is implication of adhimokkha cetasika. As there is > still adimokkha, it does not give rise to patisandhi effect. 37411 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates Hi Ken O, Shall we say instead of scientific: a practical approach to the Dhamma? Abhidhamma points to the practice, knowing one's cittas now. If it does not, the study would be fruitless. I am sure you agree with this one. Nina. op 09-10-2004 17:14 schreef Ken O op ashkenn2k@y...: > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think >> this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? > > k: Yup it is something like that :). That is why I love Abdhidhamma, > clear and concise, the scientific approach to Buddhism in my believe > :). 37412 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: More on "Conventional right view" [Sarah] Hi Dan, This is an interesting conversation you are having with Sarah; it's a pity she can't continue it for the moment. I think I follow your thinking, but perhaps my question will reveal that one way or the other. :-) You weren't impressed by Sarah's argument: ---------- S: > I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma, which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view > ---------- KH: I don't think Sarah meant view in the sense of dytthi. As you have explained, ditthi is a paramattha dhamma, which, I gather, is described as speculative understanding contrary to right understanding. But concepts are not ditthi, and I think there can be a concept of kamma. If such a concept were to be experienced with kusala citta, what name could we give that citta? Conceptual right view? I think that would be a good name. That way, pariyatti (right intellectual understanding) could be described, in absolute terms, as any kusala citta that experienced a concept of Dhamma. Such cittas could be classifyied, consistently with the suttas, in three ways; namely, cittas that experience a concept of 1, Dhamma that is being listened to, 2, Dhamma that is being discussed, and 3, Dhamma that is being wisely considered. Is that totally wide of the mark? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > It's great to hear from you! > > It's fine for you to support the notion of 'conceptual right view', > but isn't it necessary to stray from the Dhamma to do so? 37413 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates Hi Nina How could I disagree with you :). The strength in Abhidhamma, is its concise and clear nature to dhamma. It helps to develop understanding to the sutta. Develop confidence of the dhamma and rejoice to the compassion of Buddha. When I read the Abhidhamma or sutta, sometimes I felt Buddha indeed a very compassionate one, without him, I would not have discover a way out of samasara even though I know the journey going to be very very long. If I am born at that time, I most willing to carry him on my shoulder whenever he needs to travel. Indeed none is more honourable than the Buddha and the gods really shown great respect to this Great Sage from the day he is conceived till he PariNibbana. Nonetheless, Abhidhamma is not for everyone. But I think a study even a meagre material out of it, bring a lot of benefit to the readers. I seldom find individuals here that do not benefit from Abhidhamma. I feel individual practise depends a lot on one accumulations. Some people prefer mediation like Howard, RobM and Htoo while some prefer metta like Phil, all practises are up to their individual understanding and accumulations. But I believe, they all benefit from Abhidhamma especially from you, Nina, your effort to clarify technical materials which is beyond me. Do you know when is the date for Bangkok visit in Jan. I may like to go there next year most probably with my family too, for a holiday as now we have lots of budget flights here in Singapore to Bangkok :). Cheers and enjoy your dhamma in India. Maybe next time in India if they have budget flight :). Ken O 37414 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for your reply. A comment below. > > > > Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. > > > > "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions > > progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively > it > > is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, > superficially > > plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a > > series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. > [snip] > > For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a > > neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" > > the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of > > yourself?" > > Hi Herman and all > > We have a number of Berne's books here and find them very > interesting. For those of you who want to explore the unscientific > nature of modern western psychiatry/psychology, I recommend Thomas S > Szasz's books, "The Myth of Mental Illness", "The Manufacture of > Madness" and "Ideology and Insanity". Good reads and a sure cure for > the folly of putting western science up on an unrealistic pedestal. My post was not intended as an advertisement for Berne or science, though I can understand it having been read that way. The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a dishonest game. If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the future that cannot happen now? If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the game. Bye for now Herman 37415 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:57am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), Hello Christine, I thought you'd be on a plane by now. ---------------------- C: > Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly afternoon discussion. There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is concerned, ------------------ You needed me there - to explain the cuti-citta. :-) ----------------- C: > which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. ------------------ In paramattha terms, the wholesome form of seeking enlightenment would be a moment of kusala consciousness, would it not? That means it would be accompanied by either joy or equanimity. Virtue is its own reward. ------------------- <. . .> C: I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. -------------------- Bring them to the next Cooran meeting - nama and rupa is all they'll get! Glad to hear about good old Rusty: he'll out-live us all. Have a good trip. Ken H 37416 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Butchers, Carpenters and Anapanasati Sutta Hi, Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon and everyone, > > Thanks for your post. Your post has led me to consider more. This is the > result. Just when you thought the thread was over and done with :-) Not at all. Always glad to get a reply ;-)). Apologies for the delay on my side. > H > I am curious as to how particular designations, like sage, sotapanna > etc are to be read and understood. > > In the SuttaNipata we have: > > 650: By birth a brahmin is not born, by birth a non-brahmin is not born, > By actions a brahmin is born, by actions a non-brahmin is born.. > > 651. By actions a farmer is born, by actions a craftsman is born, > By actions a merchant is born, by actions a workman is born.. > > 652. By actions a robber is born, by actions a soldier too, > By actions an adviser is born, by actions a king too. > > 653. Thus the wise see action as it really is, > Seeing it dependently arising become clever in the results of actions. > > I read this as saying that however you are designated is not yours for > life, like a job in the public service. A carpenter is a carpenter > because he carpents, and when the man would butcher he is not a > carpenter but a butcher. Yes, that's how I would read it too. > A sotapanna is not so for the duration, but > only while he is sotapanning. Here, however, I understand differently. The sotapanna has completely eradicated any kilesas that could give rise to actions unbefitting of an sotapanna, and so he never reverts to the acts of a mere worldling. This is the difference between mere suppression of defilements (as at high levels of concentration) and final eradication of defilements (as occurs at each of the 4 stages of enlightenment, resulting from the development of insight). > A sage is anyone who acts sagacious, and > when he reverts to foolishness he is a fool. Yes, a sage is anyone in whom panna of a certain level is arising. > I read you as saying that once a sage always a sage, like in the public > service. Can a sage act foolishly? Can a fool act wisely? I would say > that by actions a sage is a sage, and by actions a fool is a fool. None > of this public service, job for a lifetime, stuff :-) As you say, it is by his/her actions (i.e., mental state of developed panna) that a sage is a sage. > One who listens to > and follows the Buddha's instructions is wise by virtue of those > actions, and one who credits his vaporous accumulations, or the lack > thereof, for their action contrary to the best advice receives the > temporary status and rewards accorded to those actions. Actually, it cannot be said that one who does X must be wise while one who does Y is not, since this seems to suggest that relative wisdom/lack of wisdom can be deduced by reference to the external deed. As discussed above, the wisdom or otherwise of an action lies in the level of panna that accompanies the action. Cheers Jon 37417 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:19am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner32-Feeling/Vedana (e) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Feelings are manifold and they can be classified in different ways. When they are classified as three feelings, they are: -pleasant feeling (sukha) -unpleasant feeling (dukkha) -indifferent (or neutral) feeling (adukkhamasukha: neither painful nor pleasant) There is no moment without feeling. When there is not pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling, there is indifferent feeling. It is difficult to know what indifferent feeling is. So long as we cannot distinguish nåma from rúpa we cannot know precisely the charac-teristic of feeling and thus we cannot know indifferent feeling either. When mental feelings and bodily feelings are taken into account, feelings can be classified as fivefold: -pleasant bodily feeling (sukha) -painful bodily feeling (dukkha) -happy feeling (somanassa) -unhappy feeling (domanassa) -indifferent feeling (upekkhå). ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37418 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:24am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hiya KenH,(Andrew,Steve, Sukin at end) all, Thank you - you've cheered me up! Wish you had been there - though there wasn't another abhidhammika in sight, and, you know, too much talk of 'Cheetahs' may have been a condition for Klaas to evict you. :-) Jill and I fly out of Brisbane Thursday lunch-time going south first via Sydney - meeting Azita that night in Bkk. Shakti is staying at the same hotel as well. Only two days there but hoping to see some friends who aren't going on the trip (waving to Sukin :-)) - then the flight to Bodhgaya on Saturday. Another Cooran meeting before Christmas? ... early December, maybe? Can Andrew, Steve and you talk among yourselves about it? metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > > > Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), > > > Hello Christine, > > I thought you'd be on a plane by now. > > ---------------------- > C: > Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly > afternoon discussion. > There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt > more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly > stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is > concerned, > ------------------ > > You needed me there - to explain the cuti-citta. :-) > > ----------------- > C: > which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the > point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the > identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. > ------------------ > > In paramattha terms, the wholesome form of seeking enlightenment > would be a moment of kusala consciousness, would it not? That means > it would be accompanied by either joy or equanimity. Virtue is its > own reward. > > ------------------- > <. . .> > C: I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one > life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't > answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. > -------------------- > > Bring them to the next Cooran meeting - nama and rupa is all > they'll get! > > Glad to hear about good old Rusty: he'll out-live us all. > > Have a good trip. > > Ken H 37419 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] I am looking for samyukta nikaya Dear Siddu, Welcome to DSG! Please let us know more about your interest in the Teachings and esp. Samyutta Nikaya. ... siddu_drdl wrote: Please let me know where from I can down load Samyukta nikaya from web if available in English translation PLEASE HELP ME OUT .... Try this link for the Theravada Samyutta suttas: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html Metta, Sarah ===== 37420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard I haven't had much time to post this past week or so because of work and the planned trip to India. I hope you don't mind this late reply. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > ... is it not correct to > > say that the > > citta experiences the object of citta? > > > ========================= Howard: No, that formulation is not one that I accept as useful. When there is the experience of hardness, what I believe is the case is that hardness is present. The hardness is rupa and its (experiential) presence is vi~n~nana [in the harmless, non-self sense]. I find speaking of a citta experiencing an object as putting forward two self-existing entities in which the first is an agent that cognizes the second, and this makes "the citta" into an actor - a homunculus, a little person". That's how I see it, and it has no appeal to me. But that's me. Obviously you see it differently. That's fine. With metta, Howard Jon: You would prefer to avoid the use of "object" and "experience" altogether when describing a moment of sense-door experience, since you find that to speak of 'citta experiencing an object' because that suggests that citta is a "little person". However, your preferred description of saying that hardness (rupa) is present and its presence is vinnana/citta still does not address the original issue (almost lost again!) of the nature of the relationship between the body consciousness and hardness at the moment that both those dhammas are present. To illustrate, if we call the body consciousness 'Dhamma A' and the hardness 'Dhamma B', your statement that 'Dh A is the presence of Dh B' does not seem to offer any description on the relationship between Dh A and Dh B. As we have discussed before both dhammas are in fact present (arisen) at that moment and are in some respects mutually dependent. If the expression 'Dh A experiences Dh B' is problematic, would you find it acceptable to say that 'Dh B is present to Dh A'? I'm going to miss our ongoing discussion. On the other hand, it's probably about time we dropped this thread and picked up another one (not meaning to discourage a reply from you to this post, of course ;-)). Cheers Jon 37421 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi, Ken O Nice to see you around again. --- Ken O wrote: > > Hi Howard > > My instincts nudge at me that if I am going to dicuss this with you, > it will be the breathing sutta and satipatthana issue all over again, > where one side of our people here avocate calming and concentration > through breathing while the dinosaurs here will insist that breathing > mediation is not for beginners :). Just butting in here to clarify that as far as this dinosaur is concerned, breath can be object of wholesome calm (samatha) for anyone, including 'beginners', given the right understanding. Moments of anapanasati are not limited to the 'experienced' (if they were, no-one could ever become experienced!!). However, some of the teachings in which anapanasati is referred to are, it seems to me, addressed to monks who have already developed anapanasati to a considerable degree, and we should be caareful about reading these as being a general endorsement of anapanasati for all and sundry in the context of the development of insight. As you commented, a never-ending discussion ... Glad to see you joining in on various threads again ;-)) Jon 37422 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. A> First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: A> "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and A> plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my A> ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the A> place of faith in Dhamma practice? SN is the abbreviation of the PTS romanized Pali text of the Samyutta Nikaaya. If this is what you mean then the correct reference is SN I 172-3. If you mean Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation then you should use some other abbreviation and then cite the volume and page number. The verse is also found in the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta of the Suttanipaata (Sn 76-82). In answering your question I shall refer to the latter text in K.R. Norman's translation. To say that something is a seed, or that something is like a seed, is to say that it has the potential to bear fruit. What fruit? In the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta the answer is given in verse 80: evamesaa kasii ka.t.thaa saa hoti amatapphalaa eta.m kasi.m kasitvaana sabbadukkhaa pamuccati Thus this ploughing is ploughed. It has the deathless as its fruit. Having ploughed this ploughing, One is freed from all dukkha. This gives us the positive implication of the seed trope: faith is a necessary condition for the realization of the deathless (i.e. nibbaana). But the trope has a negative implication too: a seed by itself counts for nothing. By itself a seed represents no more than a potential. Whether that potential will be realised depends not on the seed itself but upon whether it meets with conditions that will allow for its germination, growth and fruition. In the verse you cited the supporting conditions needed by faith are austerity, understanding, shame etc. But there is a further condition given in verse 78: if the seed is to grow, something is needed to clear away any other vegetation that might choke the young plant: sacca.m karomi niddaana.m "I make truth my weeding hook." The type of faith that the Buddha is advocating does not eschew truth; on the contrary, it *requires* it. The Buddha does not advise us to be ostriches. Faith alone doesn't count for much. Faith in the wrong things is worse than faith in nothing. The Bodhisatta had faith in what he was doing when he was practising the extreme austerities. Had he not lost that faith and resumed eating he would have starved to death and at best might have gone down in history as a minor saint of Jainism. He also had faith when practising with Alara Kalama (MN 26); had he not lost it he might have enjoyed a few decades renown as Alara's assistant, but there would have been no Buddhasasana. Fortunately the Bodhisatta made truth his weeding hook. When Alara and Udaka told him that he had attained the highest possible states, his faith was not such as would make him accept his teachers' words merely because they were his teachers. He investigated the states he had attained and found them wanting. For the place of faith in the Buddha's teaching, *when* that faith takes the right object, I would cite paragraphs 23 & 27 of the Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "And how does there come to be gradual training, gradual practice, gradual progress? Here, one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; having gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, there arises in him the desire-to-act. When the desire-to-act has arisen in him, he applies his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the highest truth and sees it by penetrating with wisdom." "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, the Teacher's Dispensation is nourishing and refreshing. "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning." A> How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by A> RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be A> faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these A> words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to A> understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a A> corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] Are you referring to the different views on the Aganna Sutta? If so, I don't expect such discussions to have any effect -- positive or negative -- on anybody's faith in the Buddha's teaching. It may help some people to have a better understanding of what that teaching is likely to have been. But only those who have made truth their weeding hook. A> I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but A> much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as A> "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and A> sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be A> experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. The phrase that you have highlighted has nothing to do with the methods of textual scholarship employed by buddhologists, philologists, historians etc. 'Atakkavacara' would be better rendered "not within the sphere of groundless speculation". For example, when a philologist compares the Pali and Chinese versions of the Milindapanha, and the twenty or so Sanskrit fragments of this text, and examines Greek sources about the life of Menandros and archaeological inscriptions relating to his conquests and rule in India, he is not doing 'takka'. His collating and sifting of evidence is reasoned investigation (vimamsa). When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out. A> So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all A> of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? I am not aware of any other reliable means. If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their own sect or monastery). Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37423 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Andrew L and Howard, > op 09-10-2004 01:03 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. > N: Andrew, I appreciate it that you say this straight. I find the thread > worth while because it touches on what is essential. > A: The most > > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > N: I think it not beneficial to have expectations about realizing the noble > truths. Nina, perhaps, but if I tell you I've already had a brush with them in this very lifetime, that can act as grounds for me to believe that it's not impossible to realize unbinding within the dispensation of Gotama Buddha, right? And considering how rare the human state is, and how rare it is to encounter the Dharma, that can change the whole game plan, can't it? > This distracts us from cultivating the rigtht conditions at this > very moment. What are we doing now, sitting at the computer? Discussing > Dhamma and this is bhavana, the perfection of pañña is being developed. More > understanding. Pffft! SO little understanding of my side. Knowledge and practise. This is theory. > But many conditions of the past were necessary to bring us to > this moment. We would not be interested in the Dhamma now if we had not > listened in past lives. We associate with Dhamma friends, good friendship is > an important condition. We consider what we hear and apply the Dhamma in our > life. Seeing how many conditions are necessary for one moment of kusala > citta helps us to see that they are all anatta. Your talk about conditions brings me to another point. I'm still skeptical that, (even) if the texts say it, discussion of the dhamma with others and pondering over it is a necessary condition for the arising of sati. Perhaps they /are/ conditions for it, but I have developed and cultivated sati without any of these in the whole of my practise. In the beginning, one simply goes to be mindful. One can cultivate sati through sitting meditation. No doubt somtimes it is hard and the right conditions, even unexpectedly, can bring us a wealth, as you said, of sati, but why would the Buddha prescribe the four foundations of mindfulness if it were not possible to be consistently mindful? We can walk through time developing and awaiting more and more mindfulness until we reach the eradication of clinging, and enlightenment. > I appreciate your interest in the Abhidhamma and questions are always > welcome. The Abhidhamma helps us to see our countless moments of akusala, > the vast amount of ignorance, the conditions for all the cittas that arise. > We learn about the latent tendencies of lobha, dosa, moha, and so on, which > quite suddenly condition the arising of akusala citta. > It surely must take a long time before defilements are eradicated. This is > not distressing, because each moment of a little more understanding in > itself is beneficial. Agreed. Perhaps we think the defilements can be eradicted in a totally different amount of time though. "this is the only way, monks, the one way for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow, lamentation, pain, and despair..." > It makes confidence in the Dhamma grow. We should be > grateful to the Buddha for each moment of understanding. > The past lives of each one of us were so different, and since we do not know > past lives how could we predict the future, predict when we shall attain > enlightenment? One life is gone like a flash, I can assure you. I realize > this more and more, becoming older. The Buddha did not hand-pick his disciples for who had accumulated the right conditions, and yet the lowest of his dispensation are sometimes said to be stream-enterers. Similarly we can acheive enlightenment by following the teachings. Furthermore, maybe you can take countless future human rebirths for granted, but, all considered, unfortunately, I cannot say I am in the same position. I do, however, consider myself extremely fortunate to be born an able-bodied human with faculties keen enough to realize enlightenment in *this* very lifetime. So, what else can I do? > You said, that I consider less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, whereas I [A] am of the > persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated.> > No, no passivity. I agree that the perfections should be cultivated all the > time. I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the > more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and > mindfulness. Yes! Cultivate, cultivate cultivate! > We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of > future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive > for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing > as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of > benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to > future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before > we realize it, it is *my understanding*. ~ understandingless ~ > Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: > by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground > calm and the kusala *habit* of being > attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At > the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". > > > N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The > best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being > accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of > my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background > calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see > it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, > not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of > renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your > own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, > I have confidence in renunciation. > When we are determined to develop understanding of nama and rupa now, the > perfection of determination is accumulated. There are also the other > perfections such as courage and perseverance, a form of energy, patience > (the highest ascetism!), sila (guarding the sense-doors), etc. When there > are opportunities for dana and metta, let us cultivate these. We can give > material help, but also spiritual help. Determination can go a long way, too, what about being determined to meditate, to bring the other paramis to perfection, to see the noble truths? I like what you say about part of sila being guarding the sense doors, it makes me think that is kind of virtuous in and of itself. Kind of less worldly. (I love the transcendental aspect of Buddhism) > A: I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but > I would > > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. > N: Very good, but we do not need to think especially of the third foundation > of mindfulness, the Buddha taught all four, and this includes mindfulness of > whatever nama or rupa appears now. We should not think of this first, than > that, because it entirely depends on conditions what reality presents itself > now. > I have to take leave now. When I am back we can continue this thread. When I > quote from the India discussions, I should attach some words like Htoo's: > remarks and criticism always welcome. I feel it is good to consider all > these subjects, it is also bhavana for myself. > Take care. > Nina. You too, Nina, you too. peace, A.L. 37424 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Suravira" wrote: > [Suravira] The manner in which the "two truths" are expressed > differs across these schools. Yet it only appears this way "on the > outside". This difference is primarily a matter of their respective > rhetoric. Each school's presentation of the true truths differs due > (primarily) to the demands placed on them to respond to detractions > for other opposing religious groups. Those detractions (and the > responces) framed the rhetoric. > It is my position that "on the inside" the respective rhetoric > stemming from each of these Buddhist shools frames the Dharma in a > mode that is cogent and valid (overall). This assertion is not made > to suggest that sectarian conflicts within Buddhism did not occur > throughout its history, or that they are not present to this day,as > regards the two truths teachings. ...(snip) ... > > With metta, > Suravira Thank so very much Suravira The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to the hospital Till soon and metta Joop 37425 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:07am Subject: Joop - Best wishes Hi Joop, --- jwromeijn wrote: > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > the hospital > > Till soon and metta .... Sorry to hear this. I hope all goes well and it isn't anything too serious. Pls let us know when you're back, even briely. I've greatly enjoyed your contributions and discussions and look forward to more on your return. Metta, Sarah p.s All -sorry about the spacing in my last posts. I'm in the process of changing to a new computer and different non-mac system which I'm finding very difficult to adjust to as Mike will understand in particular! I'm sure it'll provide all the promised improvements once I know how to use it and once all the bugs and non-compatibility problems are sorted out:....hmmm Not much kanti (patience) here when it comes to computer kind of things. =============================================== 37426 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew > > Nina, perhaps, but if I tell you I've already had a brush with them > in > this very lifetime, that can act as grounds for me to believe that it's not impossible to realize unbinding within the dispensation of Gotama Buddha, right? And considering how rare the human state is, and how rare it is to encounter the Dharma, that can change the whole game plan, can't it? k: Yes a human life is very rare indeed and a human life born in while dhamma is still around is rarer still. That makes it a sense of urgency to learn the dhamma and that is good motivation. Everything got two side of the coin, but if our motivation to cultivate set on a certain goal. Will you think this will impede rather than expedite the process of enlightment. Definitely there is a chance to be enlighten this lifetime and that will depend whether your panna is developed to that stage. For this millienium there is people that can developed till non-returner stage. Developing of Buddhism cannot be hurry, Buddha always advocate gradual training. If you believe this lifetime you can achieve it, then go ahead, just be more aware that seeking enlightment can at times impede progress. Ken O 37427 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:59am Subject: Buddhaghosa's Nonsense? : (Was: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanankha, Andrew T, Nina, Robert K, Chris and all How are you? Dighanankha wrote: "When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out." Are you sure about your judgement of Aacariya Buddhaghosa's writings? For you to be able to have made that level of judgement, you must have done a very good thorough reading and research in the Great Commentator's works. If the impression I got about your knowledgeableness and expertise in the works of Aacariya Mahaa Buddhaghosa was correct, I wonder if you could produce the textual passages you regarded as having "full of groundless nonsense". As you seemed to be an academic specializing in textual scholarship, I am quite excited to read the passages you would quote from the works of Aacariya Mahaa Buddhaghosa. Of course, I do not need to remind a modern textual scholar such as you to provide their references as well. Looking forward to your reply. By examining your quoted passages, perhaps I may respond with a critical analysis of your judgemental scholaship. Thanking you in advance. Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: Hello Andrew. A> First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: A> "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and A> plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my A> ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the A> place of faith in Dhamma practice? SN is the abbreviation of the PTS romanized Pali text of the Samyutta Nikaaya. If this is what you mean then the correct reference is SN I 172-3. If you mean Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation then you should use some other abbreviation and then cite the volume and page number. The verse is also found in the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta of the Suttanipaata (Sn 76-82). In answering your question I shall refer to the latter text in K.R. Norman's translation. To say that something is a seed, or that something is like a seed, is to say that it has the potential to bear fruit. What fruit? In the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta the answer is given in verse 80: evamesaa kasii ka.t.thaa saa hoti amatapphalaa eta.m kasi.m kasitvaana sabbadukkhaa pamuccati Thus this ploughing is ploughed. It has the deathless as its fruit. Having ploughed this ploughing, One is freed from all dukkha. This gives us the positive implication of the seed trope: faith is a necessary condition for the realization of the deathless (i.e. nibbaana). But the trope has a negative implication too: a seed by itself counts for nothing. By itself a seed represents no more than a potential. Whether that potential will be realised depends not on the seed itself but upon whether it meets with conditions that will allow for its germination, growth and fruition. In the verse you cited the supporting conditions needed by faith are austerity, understanding, shame etc. But there is a further condition given in verse 78: if the seed is to grow, something is needed to clear away any other vegetation that might choke the young plant: sacca.m karomi niddaana.m "I make truth my weeding hook." The type of faith that the Buddha is advocating does not eschew truth; on the contrary, it *requires* it. The Buddha does not advise us to be ostriches. Faith alone doesn't count for much. Faith in the wrong things is worse than faith in nothing. The Bodhisatta had faith in what he was doing when he was practising the extreme austerities. Had he not lost that faith and resumed eating he would have starved to death and at best might have gone down in history as a minor saint of Jainism. He also had faith when practising with Alara Kalama (MN 26); had he not lost it he might have enjoyed a few decades renown as Alara's assistant, but there would have been no Buddhasasana. Fortunately the Bodhisatta made truth his weeding hook. When Alara and Udaka told him that he had attained the highest possible states, his faith was not such as would make him accept his teachers' words merely because they were his teachers. He investigated the states he had attained and found them wanting. For the place of faith in the Buddha's teaching, *when* that faith takes the right object, I would cite paragraphs 23 & 27 of the Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "And how does there come to be gradual training, gradual practice, gradual progress? Here, one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; having gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, there arises in him the desire-to-act. When the desire-to-act has arisen in him, he applies his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the highest truth and sees it by penetrating with wisdom." "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, the Teacher's Dispensation is nourishing and refreshing. "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning." A> How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by A> RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be A> faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these A> words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to A> understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a A> corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] Are you referring to the different views on the Aganna Sutta? If so, I don't expect such discussions to have any effect -- positive or negative -- on anybody's faith in the Buddha's teaching. It may help some people to have a better understanding of what that teaching is likely to have been. But only those who have made truth their weeding hook. A> I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but A> much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as A> "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and A> sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be A> experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. The phrase that you have highlighted has nothing to do with the methods of textual scholarship employed by buddhologists, philologists, historians etc. 'Atakkavacara' would be better rendered "not within the sphere of groundless speculation". For example, when a philologist compares the Pali and Chinese versions of the Milindapanha, and the twenty or so Sanskrit fragments of this text, and examines Greek sources about the life of Menandros and archaeological inscriptions relating to his conquests and rule in India, he is not doing 'takka'. His collating and sifting of evidence is reasoned investigation (vimamsa). When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out. A> So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all A> of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? I am not aware of any other reliable means. If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their own sect or monastery). Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37428 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/10/04 7:40:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Hi, Howard > > I haven't had much time to post this past week or so because of work and > the planned trip to India. I hope you don't mind this late reply. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >> ... is it not correct to > >>say that the > >>citta experiences the object of citta? > >> > >========================= > > Howard: No, that formulation is not one that I accept as useful. > When there is the experience of hardness, what I believe is the case is > that hardness is present. The hardness is rupa and its (experiential) > presence is vi~n~nana [in the harmless, non-self sense]. I find speaking > of a citta experiencing an object as putting forward two self-existing > entities in which the first is an agent that cognizes the second, and this > makes "the citta" into an actor - a homunculus, a little person". That's > how I see it, and it has no appeal to me. But that's me. Obviously you see > it differently. That's fine. > > With metta, > Howard > > Jon: > You would prefer to avoid the use of "object" and "experience" altogether > when describing a moment of sense-door experience, since you find that to > speak of 'citta experiencing an object' because that suggests that citta > is a "little person". > > However, your preferred description of saying that hardness (rupa) is > present and its presence is vinnana/citta still does not address the > original issue (almost lost again!) of the nature of the relationship > between the body consciousness and hardness at the moment that both those > dhammas are present. > > To illustrate, if we call the body consciousness 'Dhamma A' and the > hardness 'Dhamma B', your statement that 'Dh A is the presence of Dh B' > does not seem to offer any description on the relationship between Dh A > and Dh B. As we have discussed before both dhammas are in fact present > (arisen) at that moment and are in some respects mutually dependent. > > If the expression 'Dh A experiences Dh B' is problematic, would you find > it acceptable to say that 'Dh B is present to Dh A'? > > I'm going to miss our ongoing discussion. On the other hand, it's > probably about time we dropped this thread and picked up another one (not > meaning to discourage a reply from you to this post, of course ;-)). > > Cheers > Jon > > ======================== First of all - have a wonderful trip!! Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the relation between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they are distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called "the experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the second being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being two separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think that the reification of subject or object is error. What may help you in understanding my viewpoint on this and other matters, is that I consider *all* arisings and cessations to be in the realm of experience. Please recall my radical phenomenalist perspective. There is nothing whatsoever that I can ever knowingly speak of that is other than experiential. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37429 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi, Jon (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/10/04 8:19:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Just butting in here to clarify that as far as this dinosaur is concerned, > breath can be object of wholesome calm (samatha) for anyone, including > 'beginners', given the right understanding. Moments of anapanasati are > not limited to the 'experienced' (if they were, no-one could ever become > experienced!!). > ========================= Here, here! So very well said!!! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37430 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:18am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello Christine. C >There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which C >I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg C >honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this C >topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce C >wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it C >was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream C >of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this C >silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was C >no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of C >generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are C >experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... C >seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just C >don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to C >the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer C >the question satisfactorily for anyone. You might suggest the group read the Vekhanassa Sutta (MN 80). "Let be the past, Kaccaana, let be the future. Let an intelligent man come to me, one who is guileless, honest and straight. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: 'Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the bond, that is from the bondage of ignorance.' " On the phrase "let be the past ... let be the future,", Dr. Buddhaghosa, for once, has something worthwhile to say: it is improper to talk about past lives if you lack knowledge recalling past lives. It is improper to talk about future lives if you lack the deva eye. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37431 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Htoo. Nina: Dear Htoo, Thank you. This is exactly what I read in the Tiika. You followed your Burmese text. At first sight it may seem complicated, but we have to study it and try to understand the way of explanation. There is abandoning by seeing, dassana, and abandoning by cultivation, bhavana. In the case of the sotapanna, there is abandoning by seeing, he sees nibbana for the first time. Uddhacca is not abandoned by seeing, but by bhaavana at the stage of the arahat. More info see T.A. p. 189, Co to Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Nina. op 09-10-2004 18:22 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Nina, thanks for your reply. Actually one of venerable monks who are my internet friends or teachers helped me with this information. There are questions on abhidhammattha sangaha that I posted at triplegem group. I posted that 'uddhacca' at Pali Group. One venerable monk directly answered to me offline. He did so because as I am a Myanmar (Burmese), he sent me a portion of tiika in Myanmar font and some explanation on uddhacca. But at triplegem Group, I did not hear any answer. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37432 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:10am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed 7 universal mental factors or 7 permanent ministers of the king citta. After that we discussed on vitakka, vicara, piti, viriya, and adhimokkha. There left a cetasika in the 6 particular mental factors or 6 flexible ministers of the king citta. It is chanda. This cetasika chanda is very important mental factor. If there is no chanda, nothing will be accomplished. Today we have been studying and learning Dhamma as there are many Dhamma as The Buddha left. Arising of The Buddha is the result of citta with chanda. If Bodhisatta Sumedho had not had chanda to become a Sammasambuddha, there would have been nothing for us to study and learn as Dhamma. All bhavanas do have chanda as a cetasika. All kusalas do have chanda as a cetasika that accompanies kusala-doing cittas. All rupa jhanas do have chanda, all arupa jhanas do have chanda, all magga cittas do have chanda, all phala cittas do have chanda. When we investigate into the arising of chanda, we would see that chanda always arises with all sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness. This reveals how important chanda is. Bodhisatta Sumedho was already perfected to transcend when he was just about to meet The Buddha Dipankara. He heard that there was a Sammasambuddha. With his perfections and the chance of meeting with a Sammasambuddha, the whole matter of which is very very rare chance for anyone imaginable, Sumedho might have attained arahatta magga nana and might have done parinibbana in that life. But there arose chanda. That chanda led Him to fulfil the perfections that all Bodhisattas have to. Because of that chanda, the result was arising of a Sammasambuddha named 'The Buddha Gotama'. It is unimagineable that when He was ready to transcend, he decided to pass another long long samsara which did not add Him. Buddhists may say that this is because of mahakaruna. This is also true. But behind this truth is that in that karuna, there always is chanda as an accompanying cetasika. This is why I initially said that chanda is very important cetasika. Chanda not only arises in sobhana cittas but also arises in asobhana cittas which have hetus or roots. Cittas which have only one hetu do not have any chanda and all ahetuka cittas do not have chanda as their accompanying cetasika. We have talked many on chanda. But chanda has not been explained. Chanda is a cetasika or mental factor that arises with a citta which has hetus. Hetus are lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, and amoha. Chanda is desire and it is just a wish. It is zeal. Once I read at a web site that The Buddha searched nibbana with desire and that is also lobha. As soon as I saw that message, I realized that that writer did not have a good insight into The Buddha and Buddhism and he did not see any Dhamma. This reveals that he cannot differentiate between chanda and lobha. More in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! The aims of this series are to highlight Dhamma and to explore The Dhamma and to explain on Dhamma and to touch difficult areas in Dhamma. Again, here I use the word 'highlight'. I remember a person criticizing on me that I do not need 'highlight', The Buddha Dhamma is already clear, and he was wondering how I knew Dhamma that I was saying highlight on Dhamma. Whatever be will be, I would steadfastly continue on Dhamma discussion so that readers of the messages are benefited from these discussions. I was even severely criticized that I was delibrately leading people into wrong view and so on. This will depend. Actually the person who said like this does not do anything and what is evident was that there were full of akusala. Chanda is wrongly understood as a kind of lobha. Lobha is quite different from chanda. Chanda does stand as a separate cetasika and it can arise without lobha while lobha always arises along with chanda. This is why people of low penetrativity to Dhamma think that chanda is just a lobha and Buddhists create a word called 'chanda'. The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the coming posts. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37433 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:39pm Subject: Re: Joop - Best wishes Hello Joop, Many of us will be thinking of you with metta during this time. May the treatment/procedures be successful, and may you be back home in comfort very soon. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Joop, > > --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > > the hospital > > > > Till soon and metta > .... 37434 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:43pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 14 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 65 is OK. Page 66. 1. Sakadaagaamii or sakadaagaami? 2. Anaagaamii or anaagaami? [ I am not sure. ] 3. 'Destruction of the worlds' I think there is a typo error. 'When words are destroyed by fire,...' Should be 'When worlds are destroyed by fire,..' Page 67. This table is good. I will leave this and come to it later. I also left some pages in citta portion. I will touch again later. Page 68 is OK. Page 69. The figure of 'Great Hell' is good and well demonstrated. Page 70 is OK. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37435 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:49pm Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello Dighanaka, all, Thank you for the reference. I'm off to work now, so will look up the Majjhima this evening. But whether improper or not, most everyday, run-of-the-mill people are looking for assurance about what happens to 'them' after death. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Christine. > > C >There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which > C >I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg > C >honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this > C >topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce > C >wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it > C >was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream > C >of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this > C >silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was > C >no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of > C >generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are > C >experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... > C >seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just > C >don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to > C >the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer > C >the question satisfactorily for anyone. > > You might suggest the group read the Vekhanassa Sutta (MN 80). > > "Let be the past, Kaccaana, let be the future. Let an intelligent > man come to me, one who is guileless, honest and straight. I > instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by > practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: > 'Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the > bond, that is from the bondage of ignorance.' " > > On the phrase "let be the past ... let be the future,", Dr. > Buddhaghosa, for once, has something worthwhile to say: it is > improper to talk about past lives if you lack knowledge recalling > past lives. It is improper to talk about future lives if you lack > the deva eye. > > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker > _____________________________ > The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this > persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is > close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to > non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. > (Dighanakha Sutta) 37436 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, I appreciate your comments to Nina - about trying to understand each other's points of view. Perhaps you and I should ease off for a while, but the ball is in my court, and I can't leave it there! :-) ------------------- H: > You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting for conditions to arise. ----------------- KH: > Not at all! I am suggesting the idea of doing something in order to achieve enlightenment is not the Middle Way. If there has been proper study and wise consideration, then conditions will be in place for right understanding to inevitably arise. Otherwise, or in the meantime, some other, inferior, state will arise. That's life! (That's the Dhamma!) ---------------- H: > The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I think we should just agree that we disagree on this -------------------- KH: > Who cares whether we agree or not? As Dhamma students, we are here to learn Dhamma. If we just learn those parts we agree with, we will be learning our own Dhamma, not the Buddha's. ---------------------- H: > You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught meditation on the breath! ---------------------- Meditation on breath was practised long before the Buddha arrived. It is not part of the Middle Way. Admittedly, jhana practitioners (particularly those using breath as object) attain higher powers after enlightenment than do bare-vipassana practitioners. (To each his own.) But, at parinibana, all arahants are equal. (Pong!) :-) Ken H 37437 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/10/04 6:06:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I appreciate your comments to Nina â€" about trying to understand each > other's points of view. Perhaps you and I should ease off for a > while, but the ball is in my court, and I can't leave it there! :-) > > ------------------- > H: >You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting > for conditions to arise. > ----------------- > > KH: >Not at all! I am suggesting the idea of doing something in > order to achieve enlightenment is not the Middle Way. > > If there has been proper study and wise consideration, then > conditions will be in place for right understanding to inevitably > arise. Otherwise, or in the meantime, some other, inferior, state > will arise. That's life! (That's the Dhamma!) > -------------------------------------- Howard: And that is an area of basic disagreement between us. -------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > H: >The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually > carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no > useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I > don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the > same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I > think we should just agree that we disagree on this > -------------------- > > KH: >Who cares whether we agree or not? As Dhamma students, we are > here to learn Dhamma. If we just learn those parts we agree with, we > will be learning our own Dhamma, not the Buddha's. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Agreeing or not isn't my point. My point is that we have discussed this matter for a LONG time. I have considered your perspective, quite seriously in fact, and I presume that you have considered mine. We still each maintain the same perspective as at the beginning, and now we are just repeating "old scripts". ;-) I do see an area of correctness in your perspective, as relates to no-self. I see it even more strongly as expressed by Robert K, where I see a bit of Zen flavor involved. I also see in Nina's writing, and in Robert K's emails, an emphasis not only on study of teachings, but also on mindfulness in the moment, during daily life, that I think is of critical importance, but that I see lacking in your perpective at least as you express it. In any case, what remains with us is still a fundamental difference in understanding of what the Buddha taught, and I don't see much usefulness of continuing along the same lines. That, however, does not mean that I am slamming closed my mind door. I will continue to consider, and to not clamp down onto fixed belief. ------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------- > H: >You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught > meditation on the breath! > ---------------------- > > Meditation on breath was practised long before the Buddha arrived. > It is not part of the Middle Way. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't say it was the middle way. I said the Buddha taught it and recommended it. ---------------------------------------------- Admittedly, jhana practitioners > > (particularly those using breath as object) attain higher powers > after enlightenment than do bare-vipassana practitioners. (To each > his own.) But, at parinibana, all arahants are equal. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Meditation on the breath as taught by the Buddha in the Anapansati Sutta is certainly far more than a matter of cultivation of jhanas and special abilities. The Buddha presents it an implementation of the four foundations of mindfulness, and as being a meditative portion of Dhamma practice able to take one "all the way". If one reads the sutta, it is evident that meditation with breathing as taught by the Buddha is much more than samatha bhavana, although that is clearly included. ----------------------------------------------- > > (Pong!) :-) > Ken H > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37438 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:12pm Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > dishonest game. > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > future that cannot happen now? > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > game. Thanks Herman First of all, can I encourage you not to be backward in coming forward ie to actually state in plain language what the point is when you make it. Otherwise dummies like me get left behind! (-: On your point itself, I can't speak for anyone else, but theoretically I am open to the possibility of realisation now. Being honest, though, I don't *feel* like I'm close and thus don't expect it. Do you think I am a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard? Is that your point? (Sounds a bit New Age to me - "think and grow rich"). I'm not sure but do the Abhidhamma people say that there can only be realisation in the future "because of past conditions"? I thought the central point was that it can only happen NOW (the present) and past conditions don't have exclusive sway? Have I misread things? Best wishes Andrew T 37439 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:14pm Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hi Christine and Dighanakha, Sorry to butt in here. > > Thank you for the reference. I'm off to work now, so will look up > the Majjhima this evening. But whether improper or not, most > everyday, run-of-the-mill people are looking for assurance about > what happens to 'them' after death. > Yes, you are quite right. And there is a huge array of views to cater to this need for assurance regarding the inevitable and unknowable. Beyond this need for assurance lies the detestable abuse of ignorance through the marketing of needing the 'right view' about death as the insurance policy into the unknown. A bit like an election campaign about the certainty of high interest rates should a Labour Government come to power :-) (allusion to last weekend's federal election in Australia). Which world religion would have any members if not for death? A view about death has a knowable characteristic. It is fear. But I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we are all guaranteed of at least one test of our assurance. Kind Regards Herman 37440 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Hi Htoo, Although I am not the academic type, I am appreciating your posts very much. ------------- H: > in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! ------------- "Foolishness comes out looking smart!" (Masanobu Fukuoka "The One Straw Revolution") Here in Australia, the extreme right has just won another federal election. People are cheering and patting each other on the back. (Foolishness comes out looking smart!) Repeatedly, I am depressed by it all, but then I remember kamma and vipaka. There are only conditioned dhammas: some are causes, some are results and others are merely functional. Thanks for your very helpful writing. Ken H 37441 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Hello Htoo >The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the coming posts. Thank you for this, and all your Dhamma threads. They are very informative, and clear. During a break from posting at DSG - a much needed study period - I will be rereading them and will have some questions later. You're a very good friend in Dhamma for all of us here at DSG, persevering with your thread so faithfully. Please keep up the good work! Metta, Phil 37442 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha I really appreciate you taking the time to respond so fully to my queries. I'm not a pali scholar as you know (hence my lousy referencing!)and I like to hear and consider different Dhamma views. Your post was long and a number of other questions came to mind when I was reading it. Rather than snip lightly, I will try to pose them here as I would be interested in your thoughts. To kick off with a comment though: I can't think of anyone on this list who argues that "all you need is faith". It's just *one* necessary factor which some people seem to place higher than others. I suspect everyone sees themselves using the truth weeding-hook so the real question is: how do you use the weeding-hook without slashing yourself? (How do you grasp the snake?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: [snip] > "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on > fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he > conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a > disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' > > [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] Andrew: Is not the above view of faith really only applicable to someone in the physical presence of the Blessed One? Someone who, when a question arises, can raise it directly with the Blessed One and be instructed? One of my problems is that, when I read the Suttas, the meaning is often not clear to me. Were I in the presence of the Buddha, I would be asking for more explanation. I'm sure many bhikkhus did. I don't have direct access to the Buddha but I can at least read the explanation in the Commentaries. I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. But you think we shouldn't apply the above type of faith to the Commentaries. Right? But why not? Do you refuse to believe that the commentary writers were arahats because of bizarre comments like the Magadha language ones? Is it not reported that the Buddha said similarly bizarre things (to our minds) like being able to transport himself to other realms, the divine eye etc? What I'm getting at is - what's the basis of the dividing line between the Buddha and arahat commentators? [snip] If one just blindly > trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, > then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be > dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to > report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of > their own sect or monastery). Andrew: Seeing bad faith or ulterior motives in others can be very easy to do and can spiral. I wonder what the benefit really is in scouring the Buddhist world and trying to second-guess the motives of various writers. Why shouldn't we accept that Buddhaghosa had faith and joy and zeal and was doing the honest thing? Where's the evidence he was a "corporate" man? Did he live in a condo by the beach with free alcohol? Why should I accept that Buddhaghosa's "primary aim" was to defend his team and pour dirt on the other teams? Thanks again for a very interesting post and I hope you can find time to consider the above. Best wishes Andrew T 37443 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:08pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for your reply. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > wrote: > [snip] > > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > > dishonest game. > > > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > > future that cannot happen now? > > > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > > game. > > Thanks Herman Do you think I am a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard? Is > that your point? (Sounds a bit New Age to me - "think and grow rich"). The Buddha in his day was quite New Age. In my vocab New Age does not include an immediate dismissal in its connotation. I think the Buddha's New Age thing was "think and suffer" :-) The Buddha taught the end of suffering. When there is an awareness of suffering and one keeps doing what one is doing, all the while maintaining that things will be better in the future, then one is having oneself on. If one maintains that because of accumulations, defilements and conditions there is no other option but to keep doing what one is doing, then one is having oneself on. If it is maintained that there is noone who suffers, and that fact is somehow meant to alter the reality of suffering, then one is having oneself on. I am not interested in digging up old posts, although I wouldn't have to look far, where the explicit message is the certainty of countless aeons of preceding lifetimes, the certainty of countless aeons of lifetimes to follow, and the certainty that nothing is going to be different real soon. I don't think I mentioned the Abhidhamma in this thread, but I could be wrong. I hope that was clearer :-) Kind Regards Herman > > I'm not sure but do the Abhidhamma people say that there can only be > realisation in the future "because of past conditions"? I thought > the central point was that it can only happen NOW (the present) and > past conditions don't have exclusive sway? Have I misread things? > > Best wishes > Andrew T 37444 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Vism.XIV,106 + Nina's intro. Hi all, While Nina is away I will continue posting from Vism. XIV. Also she gave me some additional introductory material for 106, 108, and 111. When she returns she will have more to say on what was posted in her absence. Larry --------------------- "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 106. III. ii. The 'functional', however, is of three kinds according to plane: (A) of the sense sphere, (B) of the fine-material sphere, (C) of the immaterial sphere. Herein, III. ii. A., that of the 'sense sphere' is of two kinds, namely, (1) without root-cause, and (2) with root-cause. III. ii. A. 1. Herein, that 'without root-cause' is that devoid of non-greed, etc., as the cause of result. That is of two kinds, being classed as (70) mind-element, and (71)-(72) mind-consciousness-element. --------------------- Nina wrote: Addition to Vis. 106: We read in the Expositor II, p. 385, about kiriyacittas: ... N: the sense-door adverting-consciousness (pañcadvaaraavajjana-citta) and the mind-door adverting-consciousness which performs in a sense-door process the function of determining (votthapana), are neither kusala, akusala, being different from the javanacittas, nor are they vipaaka. They are fruitless and merely perform their function. Text: <...that which has reached the apperceptional state is fruitless like the flower of an uprooted tree...> N: The javanacittas of the arahat are kiriyacittas which are neither cause nor result. For them there are no longer roots, hetus, which are kusala or akusala and this is compared to the roots which could cause a tree to bear fruits. Text: Nevertheless, because of procedure in accomplishing this and that function, there is the mere doing, hence [the activity] is called inoperative. The phrase Œneither moral [kusala] nor immoral [akusala]¹, etc., means that, owing to the absence of the moral condition called the moral root, it is not moral; owing to the absence of the immoral condition called the immoral root, it is not immoral. Owing to the absence of moral and immoral causes of wise and unwise attention, it is said to be neither moral nor immoral. Owing to the absence of the productive condition called moral and immoral, it is not result of kamma...> ****** Nina. 37445 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:52pm Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] When there is an awareness of suffering and one keeps doing what one > is doing, all the while maintaining that things will be better in > the future, then one is having oneself on. If one maintains that > because of accumulations, defilements and conditions there is no > other option but to keep doing what one is doing, then one is having > oneself on. If it is maintained that there is noone who suffers, and > that fact is somehow meant to alter the reality of suffering, then > one is having oneself on. Herman The above are very specific and very carefully-worded points. I agree with them. More than that, I think they are very wise. Accepting them as premises, though, doesn't always mean I can agree with the arguments built upon them. > I am not interested in digging up old posts, although I wouldn't > have to look far, where the explicit message is the certainty of > countless aeons of preceding lifetimes, the certainty of countless > aeons of lifetimes to follow, and the certainty that nothing is > going to be different real soon. Accepting that your memory of old posts is correct, the explicit message you refer to seems to be in stark contrast to the idea that there is only one happening time and that is NOW. Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... Bye for now Andrew T 37446 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Herman > My post was not intended as an advertisement for Berne or science, > though I can understand it having been read that way. > > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > dishonest game. > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > future that cannot happen now? k: I think the understanding of past namas and rupas do condition this present does not mean we will be like that in the present life or future life. If defilements and accumulations cannot be change, in that sense they are permanent, the gound of Buddhism is totally lost. No one say you can't be enlighted in this lifetime, you definitely can, if ones panna reach that level not even Buddha can stop your enlightment. Ken O > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > game. > 37447 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:00pm Subject: question to all members Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37448 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:20pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Pleasant bodily feeling and painful bodily feeling are nåmas. We can call them 'bodily feeling' because they are conditioned by impact on the bodysense. When, for example, temperature which is just the right amount of heat or cold impinges on the bodysense, the body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) which experiences it is accompanied by pleasant bodily feeling. Body-consciousness is vipåkacitta and in this case kusala vipåkacitta(1). The pleasant bodily feeling which accompanies this kusala vipåkacitta is also kusala vipåka. Pleasant bodily feeling cannot accompany any other kind of citta but the body-consciousness, kåya-viññåùa, which is kusala vipåka. Thus we see that not every kind of feeling can arise with all types of citta. Painful bodily feeling accompanies only the kåya-viññåùa which is akusala vipåka. When, for example, temperature which is too hot or too cold impinges on the bodysense, kåya-viññåùa which is akusala vipåkacitta experiences this unpleasant object. This akusala vipåkacitta is accompanied by painful bodily feeling. Painful bodily feeling cannot accompany any other kind of citta but the kåyaviññåùa which is akusala vipåka. ** (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an unwholesome deed. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37449 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Causality & Impermanance - transcript of TV program Dear Suravira, Thank you for kindly posting the first of your further TV transcripts, 'Causality & Impermanence' and for seeking comments. (post 37273). I apologise for my delay in getting back on this and another post of yours addressed to me. I'll also be glad to see the second transcript on 'The Five Aggregates' later. (I think one or two pages at a time would make it easier for members to comment and discuss further, perhaps. Iyou ask for feedback, you're probably more likely to get it;-)). Also I know many friends here who would be interested to hear any of your comments or report from your retreat w/Gunaratana, especially any points that touch on our discussions. After that ramble, my comments on the transcript will be brief for now: 1. No prob w/the intro paras 2. I'm not clear on 'suchness' in context and when you say there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity…..and the correlation is non-dual, it all begins to sound like the comments I was stressing in my post 'From Naargajuna to Abhidhamma'. Esp, when you go on to say 'not intrinsic to the observed phenomena'. 'Cause and effect are simply one phenomena viewed from two perspectives'. This is not according to the Patthana. Yes, anatta, No, we cannot say the conditioning dh and conditioned dh are the same. 3. You move onto 'objects and events' and then talk about phenomena (dhamma), but it seems you are mixing concepts and realities. 4. Big skip to time. You mention 3 types of dhammas - namas, rupas and time. Time is a concept, it's not a reality to be known. See Karunadasa's article on Time (but not Space). No, I don't agree with your comments on time. 5. You suggest rupas need namas to occur. It depends. In order to be experienced, yes. You mention they are conditioned by time…..again, we're not on the same track. 6. You say it cannot be proved that dhammas exist in a fixed order. By our ignorance, no. By a Buddha's omniscience, yes. See 'Niyama' in 'Useful Posts'. 7. Conc is fine. Of course, I realize there are many limitations b.c it is for a TV transcript. My comments are just from the Theravada und of dhammas. Even when we use 'phenomena', it can easily be a gloss which avoids really distinguishing what has to be known at this moment. 8. If you read more from 'Concepts & Realities' in U.P. while I'm away, you may appreciate more where I'm coming from with these cryptic comments. Suravira, I'm delighted to see you around again and look f/w to more discussions on return. I think there are other members here like Howard perhaps, who would find little to disagree with at all in the transcript. Perhaps others can share their views with you too. I'll just try to add a few on your other post now. Metta, Sarah ========= 37450 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Suravira, > [Suravira] Sarah, to explore the points you have raised, I have a > few thoughts to share. <…> >In addition, consciousness always experiences an object - > there is not consciousness without an object. It is consciousness > that innately misapprehends mental and physical (rupa) phenomena as > existing intrinscially, as independent isolates - that is it > misapprehends a differentiating characteristic or nature of a > reality. …. S: A nama such as seeing consciousness has a very different characteristic or 'nature' than that of visible object, wouldn't you agree? The misapprehension lies in a) taking either for self or lasting or satisfactory or desirable or in b) not distinguishing them or confusing the concepts with realities. … <…> >When consciousness is defiled (kilesa) by > selfish desire (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha), the > discriminatory function of perception is impaired, and as a > consequence, the differentiating characteristic or nature of a > reality are misapprehended. One of the ways that mental and physical > phenomena are misapprehended is as having independent or autonomous > being. … S: OK. Also, I'd like to stress here before I forget, that there are many of your comments I like a lot and where we are in agreement. I'm just picking on points where there is misunderstanding or disagreement mainly as I'm short of time. … > This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, > and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a > sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we > would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or > maintain the path of the bodhisattva. …. S: This reminds me of comments we often hear about needing a self-view to start on the path and so on. I disagree. Without wrong view of self, we'd be far better 'oriented' without any ditthi taking us off-track at every opportunity. Thinking that we can all choose to follow the path of a bodhisattva is one such ditthi as I see it. …. > > It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate > this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. > The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it > is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to > be real in a way that it is not. …. S: The illusion is that the non-existent exists. There is no self at all. …. > > The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that > what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an > entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, > in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the > Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state > was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore > impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. …. S: I think it's not a matter of seeing 'through this image' but understanding that an image is not a reality in any way at all. So only the 5 khandhas ever temporarily exist, arising and passing away. (We cannot say only one arises at a time, but we can say that only one is experienced or can be known at a time). I'm not sure what you mean by 'state' as it sounds like a combination of namas and rupas and therefore another concept or illusion perhaps? …. >A sense object is > not experienced directly - the sense object is conditioned by the > physical limitations of our five sense organs and by our mind. …. S: Visible object is experienced directly by cittas in the sense door process and subsequent ones in the following mind door process. If this wasn't so, it would be impossible to be aware of it, but yet it is possible. …. >We > merely experience an impression of the object, never the object > itself - these objects are synthesized by our sense organs and by > our minds. … S: Then it would just be a concept experienced, but in fact it's possible for the reality to be known. Otherwise, there'd be no chance of developing satipatthana. See Samyutta Salayatana suttas. …. >This is not to assert that life is an illusion - only > that life is like an illusion. Within every moment of the experience > of life, there is a discrepency between the way objects and events > appear and the way they astually exist (unconditioned by our > perception). Let me repeat the previous points that there is not > consciousness without an object, and perception is concommitant with > every moment of consciousness. … Yes, sanna arises with every citta to mark the object. Even when there are moments of satipatthana, sanna is there marking the reality. It can be wholesome or unwholesome or else accompanying moments of vipaka or kiriya cittas.No illusion or discrepancy except with the unwholesome cittas which of course make up a large part of our day. …. > [Suravira] At the risk of demonstrating that I did not understand > this point, let me express the view that all mental (and physical) > phenomena have reciprocal dependence with innumerable causes and > effects. As this is just the way all phenomena exist (tathata), > right views and false views (realities and non-realities) …. samma ditthi and micha ditthi are both realities when they arise. Of course, now as we talk about them, we are discussing concepts about realities. … >are both > dependent of other causes and effects. Right views do not arise when > ignorance (avija) is concommitant with the arising moment of > consciousness. … S: good … > [Suravira] Mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena, just as > physcial phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. … S: To be experienced. With no experience or namas, physical phenomena outside the body would still arise and fall, dependent on temperature. …. >All perceptions of > rupa are re-cognized and by so doing are functionally equivalent to > symbolic representations. …. S: Just in a sense door process, 17 cittas arise and fall away directly experiencing a rupa such as visible object or hardness. The rupa is not any kind of 'symbolic representation' until it is later conceived as such in mind door processes. …. > [Suravira] In that they are expressed in language, these images are > not exempt form being symbolic representations, and are therefore > concepts. Once again mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena > and physical phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. As regards > mirages, are these mental phenomena not strickly imaginary objects? … S: Many kinds of concepts or imaginary objects, inc. those used to explain realities such as 'nama' or 'rupa' even. They may be conceived wisely or unwisely (usually the latter for most of us as kusala cittas are likely to be fewer than akusala cittas). …. … > [Suravira] Concepts are conditioned by language, and by all manner > of symbolic representation, and in turn, by the mindfulness and > clear comprehension of those concepts. … S: I would say the thinking (which thinks about the concepts) is conditioned in many ways as you suggest, but the concepts themselves are imaginary as you've suggested and therefore don't have characteristics which are conditioned in this manner. Because of the language we've heard and used etc, there are conditions to think or use it again. … > [Suravira] That which is conceived is an object that is a mental > phenomena. Concepts do exist as mental phenomena. … S: This is why 'phenomena' is rather vague in this context. It's true that concepts are objects of cittas, but they only 'exist' as objects of experience, not as realities which can be known. …. >However, mental > phenomena does not exist in the same manner as physical phenomena. > Mental phenomena is formless, yet mental phenomena exists - it is > devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste and tangibility, but it > has temporal extensions. … S: We can say concepts have temporal extensions or anything else. Namas exist temporarily and then fall away. Perhaps you are referring to the characteristics of the sub-moments of these namas and I'm misunderstanding you? …. >And mental phenomena manifests certain > abilities as well, e.g., mental factors, defilements, faculties, etc. …. S: I'd put it a little differently and just say there are various classifications of nama. …. > [Suravira] Yet insight arises when seeing through the illusory like > charactertics of the conventional nature of things. …. S: I would put it the other way round and say that insight arises when seeing or directly understanding the characteristics of realities. Then there is no more doubt about illusory objects having characteristics which can be directly known by insight. …. > [Suravira] Well, to delve into this paragraph, I need clarification > from you as to what the meaning of the phrase "cannot be known" is. …. S: I think I said 'conventions cannot be known'. I was talking about the development of satipatthana, of insight, which directly understands realities only. In the development of samatha, concepts 'can be known' and there can be great panna developed with concepts as object. But without the direct knowledge of namas and rupas, there cannot be a Buddha sasana and insight is not possible. Suravira, apologies for probably not giving your fine and detailed posts the time and respect they deserve. I was delighted to see you come in on this thread and appreciate your feedback a lot. I look forward to picking up any further discussion on these points on my return and of course I'll look forward to reading anything further you write to me or others. Metta, Sarah ====== 37451 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: question to all members Hello Ajahn Jose, all, Lovely to see you posting again, Bhante. :-) I remember that you showed concern over this matter of Buddharupa when at the Foundation in Bangkok. For nearly five hundred years after the passing away of the Buddha, there were no statues of the Buddha. When artists wished to indicate the Buddha's presence, they did it with the use of symbols - an empty chair or throne, a tree, a stupa or a pair of footprints. The first Buddha statues began to be produced around 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha. My understanding is that the altar at the Foundation contains a relic of the Buddha - this represents the Buddha and there is no need of a statue. But other more knowledgeable members will, no doubt, comment on whether this is correct. It is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught that is important, don't you think - understanding the Four Noble Truths? In the Khandasamyutta 22.87 (5) Vakkaki, the Buddha says "For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the Blessed One, but I haven't been fit enough to do so." "Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma." I think this can be taken to mean that in order to really see the Buddha one should see the Dhamma, the truth to which he awakened. I have often seen monks at the Foundation, singly and in groups - they come for the Thai discussions - and I have always seen them given respect. In response to "Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane." Thank you for your kind remarks, Bhante. It is true that I do not go to monasteries, not due to any aversion, not because I think I am too good for the Sangha, and not because I do not agree with the monks. It is more a consequence of the fact that most Buddhist temples in Brisbane grew out of refugee communities, as an expression of their culture, and ceremonies are often conducted in their ethnic languages - Vietnamese, Khmer, Cambodian, Sri Lankan, Chinese. Most western Buddhists in this state are from the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. If I knew of an english speaking Theravada Bhikkhu, within a reasonable distance, who had an excellent understanding of the Dhamma, and who offered regular teachings, I would certainly make an effort to attend. with respect, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or > you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37452 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Herman, > ==== > S > But you are saying that this being not enough, we should > `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some > deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, > many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! > ==== >Herman: > When the awareness arises that there is absorption in any act of any > kind whatsoever, for me that is an opportunity to > cease/desist/abstain from being absorbed in that act. But the > possibility remains with that awareness to persist with the folly. > > I will have to accept that you live your life without any belief in > choices or options, if that is what you are maintaining, but that is > very far from how I experience my life. To be totally honest, the > only people who I have ever observed to believe that they were > without option or choice were on the brink of suicide. --------------------------------------------------- =S> A couple or so years ago when I had doubts regarding the influence of the Abhidhamma and whether it merely "conditioned a way of perceiving and interpreting experiences", I was reminded by Sarah about the "reality" of the present moment. Since then this kind of doubt has not arisen. Why? Because it doesn't matter now whether some state is labeled lobha or mana or sound or feeling or wrong view, and how exactly anything was conditioned, there is always a *reality appearing* which can be observed. The objective is not to be able to `identify and label', but to become more familiar with the characteristic of nama and rupa, though we do tend to react with some form of labeling. However as far as this tendency still remains, I think at least that we can begin to differentiate and place in right perspective, the difference between `conditioned dhammas' no matter what label, and our normal every day understanding of experiences. The latter should clearly be seen as being inaccurate and misleading, because associated with `self view'. And even though in the case of the former one's awareness is quite after the fact, pariyatti knowledge about this momentary nature of dhammas is very helpful in checking any wrong view of self from arising. Besides, if it is all `thinking', even this can be known. When we read about some dhamma, this can at the moment be a reminder about any dhamma appearing now and so an increasing familiarity is developed. At other times there can be understanding about conditionality and such on the intellectual level, and this too is a level of panna though different from direct experience. Furthermore this can serve as background knowledge in such a way that when there is some sati in the moment, the nimita can give rise to memory of a description, and recognition here, is sati and panna being developed. But all these moments are very fleeting and not unexpected that akusala of all kinds follow. Lobha for example is so powerful that the present accumulations are unlikely to condition any sati of it. So there will be zillions more moments of akusala than any sati and panna. This is how it is, were it easy as observing bodily movement or having other `concepts' as object, then panna would be developing at a much faster rate. Those who are so optimistic about enlightenment in this very life do not know the difference between satipatthana and what they think to be `mindfulness', which in fact is miccha sati. Were they to experience the real thing, they would immediately reject such practices as taught by *all* meditation schools. The little sati that does arise in daily life, develops along with it an understanding about the conditioned and anatta nature of realities, hence panna is being developed, whereas when we believe that we should observe body postures or other concepts, inadvertently there is a belief in `self' and `control'. I do make choices and exercise control in day to day living; in fact it would be wrong to believe that conventional choices cannot and should not be made. Most if not all the time there is ignorance and other akusala. If and when there is any understanding of the moment, the choices can be made, *but* they will be seen as `conditioned'. If it does happen, the object at those times for me is usually `concepts'. I can for example, decide to stand up now and go out of the room, but there may not be any understanding of precise dhammas but only a vague idea about `self', `sitting', `standing', `walking' and any associated `intention'. Someone with more developed understanding such activities will be seen more clearly. But even when the panna is still weak, intellectually there can be the correct understanding of concepts as different from dhammas. If this is not known, then what is not real will be taken for real, namely `self', `other', `place', `time' and `exercising of control'. Also when for example lobha arises, one will mistakenly suppress it and think otherwise that one has observed its arising and falling away, and this to be `guarding of the senses'. Prompted by the word `sit', even a dog can do so. As humans we will associate the word with other words and symbols learnt, but no special understanding about the conditioned nature of dhammas are required for any action. And we will further try to make sense of this using our reasoning faculty and come up with more words to describe our experiences, but even here there is complete ignorance of dhammas. So we do act and react and come to believe that there is a `self' and `control'. But is there in the ultimate sense? And when it comes to understanding experiences in light of the study of the Buddha's teachings, this can get worse, because now we *think* there is understanding. ------------------------------------------- > Herman: > Many dhammas arise and fall, for sure, and the idea of catching them > comes out of that, as does the idea of a self who has choices and > options. Except for the rare saint, and the more common suicidally > depressed person, everyone else acts from time to time as though > they are an agent with choices. =S> When self is used in relation to conventional realities, this does not necessarily mean there is any wrong view arising at those moments. But when one is `practicing' dhamma, there is the view that *realities* are controllable when in fact they are not, and this is wrong view. A suicidally depressed person is most likely to have wrong view along with other attachments. ------------------------------- > Herman: > When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And so while one is a person in > the world of agents, one can choose to accept or reject the > teachings of the Buddha to the Romans on the effort of cultivation > of right-mindedness. Or one may outsmart themself, and while neither > a saint or suicidally depressed, they choose to remind themselves of > what they do not know, and presume the insight of anicca, anatta and > dukkha while fully engrossed in the circus of life. =S> "While fully engrossed in the circus of life", there can intersperse moments with sati and panna. What you are saying is that as long as we have not `eradicated' self-view, acting in accordance with the way things are would be to act "always" with `self-view'. In fact it would be a reflection of sincerity if one were aware of this `self' when attempting to understand Dhamma. But Herman, `self-view' arises and falls just like any other dhamma. In fact while studying dhamma correctly (pariyatti), there can be *no* self- view at the same time. And self-view does not even arise that often at other times, though other agents like lobha and mana do so very often. However, with regard to Dhamma when we do act (study or meditate) with the idea of `control', then self-view *does* arise and is indirectly encouraged. -------------------------------------- > Herman: > I have not seen the stats regarding success rates of the dsg > approach to sainthood, but I expect they will not rival those of the > sutta approach. Conditions and accumulations, no doubt and for sure, > but while one acts as agent one would do well to consider what > futures one is conditioning and accumulating by ones choices. =S> We can only assume about any stats and about anyone at all reaching any level of sainthood. Regarding `choice', what according to you determines if whether they are right or wrong? One's internal dialogue and apparent sincerity associated? The terms and concepts used, for example, `enlightenment in this lifetime', `develop more metta and karuna', `meditate' and so on? ------------------------------------------ > Herman: > (Please be assured this is meant impersonally, not directed at > speficic ones or theys :-)) > =S> We are here to learn from one another and each person has his own way. :-) --------------------------- Metta, Sukin 37453 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:40am Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Dear Ken H, You are right that I was not impressed with Sarah's "'conceptual right view' about kamma." > But concepts are not ditthi, and I think there can be a concept of > kamma. If such a concept were to be experienced with kusala citta, > what name could we give that citta? Conceptual right view? Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as views, in which case there is ditthi (views). And I agree that there is a concept of kamma. But wouldn't you agree that the concept of kamma is different from kamma itself? "Right view" of kamma sees kamma as it it (yathaasabhaava); when the concept of kamma is pondered, the kamma itself is not seen or understood -- the view is cloudy, there is no 'right view'. This does not necessarily mean there is wrong view, and in your example of a kusala citta, there would not be wrong view. The consciousness would have to be one of the ñanavippayutta kusalacittani. > I think that would be a good name. I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. Sammaditthi is seeing things as they really are, i.e. in the right way; it is about how things are seen, not how they are thought about. The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for mundane right view" and other justifications for a practice consisting of reading and intellectualizing -- in essence serving the same function that "conventional right effort" serves in support of formal practice. "Conceptual right view" tends to support ditthi in essentially the same way that "conventional right effort" tends to support silabbataparamasa. > That way, pariyatti (right > intellectual understanding) could be described, in absolute terms, > as any kusala citta that experienced a concept of Dhamma. Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? Dan 37454 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] question to all members Hi Bante Is been a while, that I have met you. Since you are writing right now, this show that you are in good health and I am very happy about it as previously I know you went for an operation. As for me why I do not attend monastary in Singapore, because they are simply too many of them going not the right direction and I dont feel belong to anyone of them. However, whenever I pass by a temple that has a statue of Buddha, I will bow to him, to show my immerse respect for his compassion towards human being like me. Even those temple that does not have a Buddha, or have deities or Heavenly Gods, I will still bow to them and burn joss sticks to show my respect for them as they have help to protect in one way or another to human beings. As for ceremonies, personally I just couldn't feel in syn with them, I always feel out of place in a ceremony. Nevertheless, I hope I will meet you again as I feel great talking to you because you are straight forward and honest about your opinions. Respectfully Ken O 37455 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:56pm Subject: Re: question to all members Ajahn Jose: Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Bhante, I also thought this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajahn Jose: You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think Crristine said about relics. There are 4 kinds of ceti. Images, and statues are just a kind of ceti. It is uddhissa ceti which just refers The Living Buddha. I think Dhamma ceti is the best. When people are always with Dhamma, they already show that they do respect The Buddha. This also include The Dhamma and The Sangha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajahn Jose: For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why? Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Ken and Christine have answered their matter. I do not know what Connie will say. With respect, Htoo Naing 37456 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Re: Objective and Subjective Scientist Herman Hi Andrew and all, I have appreciated this thread very much. I have considered your reply, and agree with what you say. Thanks for the B.B. notes as well. There was one particular point which you made which I wanted to draw out a bit more. When it comes to Dhamma practice, > however, I think it is acceptable to act unscientifically (without > pretending to act scientifically). This, for me, is where faith > steps in - I am not going to say that the existence of devas is a > scientific fact because, from my perspective, it isn't. However, > acknowledging this, I can remain open to the possibility of their > existence. I think it is useful to distinguish between subjective and objective sources of experience. I have no doubt that devas are and have been a reality for folks. What seems to set devas apart from my Mum, for example, is that a deva is not a shared reality. In Maha-samaya Sutta (DN 20) the Buddha enumerates to a group of 500, mostly arahants, all the devas and other-wordly beings that have gathered to pay homage to him. The 500 did not see what the Buddha saw. As opposed to my Mum, who on appearing in a room requires no announcing, mostly by virtue of her imposing figure :-). There are many experiences I have had which I have confirmed to have only been experienced by me, though there were others present. I think there is room to scientifically differentiate between those experiences that have an origin external to the mind, which are sharable, and those that are purely mind-made, which are private. What do you reckon? Kind Regards Herman 37457 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Re: question to all members Hi Ajahn Jose, It is good to hear from you again. How are things at the Cross? In answer to your questions, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think that the Buddha instituted a ceremony-performing sangha, but a sangha intent on bhavana. Just as Jesus did not institute a ceremony- performing church. I think both teachers urged their audiences to see through the rites and rituals of every day life. It may well be a useful starting point for a person to consider the meaning behind all the ceremonies that are performed in the temples, but if the attendance at ceremonies becomes a ritual in itself, one may as well go to the football. I respect wisdom in all guises, and wisdom becomes visible by what people do. You have my respect. Herman PS I was glad to hear there was no image of the Buddha at Sujin's centre. It's bad enough thaty some of the members go on pilgrimages :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or > you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose > 37458 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:42pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Joop wrote: > > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > the hospital > [Suravira] Dear Joop, May you be well, happy and peaceful. May no difficulties, problems or harm come to you. May you always meet with success. And, may you have the patience, understanding, courage and determination to meet and overcome the inevitable difficulties and problems in life. With metta, Suravira 37459 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:13pm Subject: A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL My Dear Friends in the dhamma, thank you all for the wonderful answers and with no attacks and very frank, wonderfull exchange of ideas, I ,as a wester monk, agree with a lot of your remarks. Moving from monastery to monastery I found that a lot of the asian monks know very little about the dhamma but a lot about the tradition of their own cultures, they can chant wonderfully and they impress the locals, but if you question about certain suttras , their answer sometimes is, do not question a senior monk and keep quiet. Of course I do have a big mouth and reply instantly, which does not make me very popular. I question everything and also tell them very quickly if their are doing something that will interfere in the Australian way. With great Metta. Ajahn Jose 37460 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Re: question to all members Dear Ajahn Jose, I don't really have much to say, but it seemed rude to not answer when I'm the only Connie I know of on this list. It must be another Connie (or maybe you meant Mom Betty?) whose son is a monk. I only have a daughter and do call her husband my son, but they're Lutheran. I've only gone to their church for their wedding and haven't any plans to go back, though I suppose if someone dies or there is some other family kind of thing, I might go for that. There are a few Tibetan monks in our area and I have been up to their retreat center a few times and do discuss Dhamma with them, but I don't have the same faith in their practices that they do. Right now, their center is basically Lama Zopa's private retreat and they don't have any public events. The only other people I have any real contact with outside of cyberspace who claim to be Buddhist are lay-oriented and follow Nichiren. I don't have their faith, either. Mom and I do have an altar and I like that, but I don't think it's necessary. I don't know what 'the authority of the monks' means so I can't say much about that. I don't think that just because someone is a monk that that means they have any better understanding than some laity, if that's what you meant by authority. I hope you will be posting more. peace, connie 37461 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43pm Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Hi Dan, You wrote: -------------------- > Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as views, in which case there is ditthi (views). > --------------------- I think I see what you mean. If I were to say, "There is no result from good and bad deeds," someone might reply, "That is the paramattha dhamma, miccha-ditthi." They would be right in one sense but wrong in another. The wrong understanding indicated (suggested) by those words is ditthi, but the words and the statement themselves are not. They are just concepts. And you are saying, I think, that the mistaking of concepts for ditthi is, itself, ditthi. --------------------- D: > And I agree that there is a concept of kamma. But wouldn't you agree that the concept of kamma is different from kamma itself? --------------------- Yes, and I would stress that there can be a concept of kamma without any confusion between concept and reality. (As you agree below.) --------------------------- D: > "Right view" of kamma sees kamma as it it (yathaasabhaava); when the concept of kamma is pondered, the kamma itself is not seen or understood -- the view is cloudy, there is no 'right view'. This does not necessarily mean there is wrong view, and in your example of a kusala citta, there would not be wrong view. The consciousness would have to be one of the ñanavippayutta kusalacittani. --------------------------- That sounds right to me - "kusala citta dissociated from panna." ---------------------------- D: > I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. --------------------------- You might be worrying unnecessarily. I think people who are prone to that particular wrong impression simply use the term 'right view' for everything (conceptual and paramattha). The use of the word "conceptual" might alert them to the fact that something illusory (some mere conventional designation) is being referred to: It is not something that really exists and, therefore, it could not possibly be a factor of the Middle Way. I suggested (just surmising) yesterday that there might be a paramattha dhamma (a citta) that could be called 'conceptual right view.' That would explain how conceptual right view can be a condition for actual right view. Another suggestion from DSG members has been that panna (even if very weak and elementary) has arisen, in amongst all the kusala conceptualising, to directly know a paramattha dhamma. --------------------------- D: > Sammaditthi is seeing things as they really are, i.e. in the right way; it is about how things are seen, not how they are thought about. The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for mundane right view" ---------------------------- I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. (See my screed below on 'factors for enlightenment.') But I'm not saying it is something we have any control over. I realise that conceptual right view requires kusala hearing and kusala thinking, which are conditioned dhammas, not 'controlled' concepts. --------------------------- D: > and other justifications for a practice consisting of reading and intellectualizing -- in essence serving the same function that "conventional right effort" serves in support of formal practice. --------------------------- That would be shocking, I agree. Of all the conceivable formal practices, 'ritualised reading and intellectualising' would come closest to what the Buddha actually taught, but it would be a travesty to proclaim it as the same thing. ------------------ D: > "Conceptual right view" tends to support ditthi in essentially the same way that "conventional right effort" tends to support silabbataparamasa. ------------------- You probably have a good point, and I may not be seeing the problem as deeply as you are. When we use the term, 'conventional right effort,' our intention is to disassociate the concept of right effort from paramattha right effort. But, even with that usage, we can still fall into the trap of thinking conventional right effort is real. The effort that accompanies ritualistic meditation is no more conventional (in the sense of something we can control) than is the effort that accompanies satipatthana. ---------------- D: > Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? ----------------- I don't know, sorry. It's in the commentaries somewhere. In one or more suttas (often quoted on DSG) there is an explanation of the four factors required for enlightenment. They are, association with the wise, hearing the Dhamma, wise reflection on the Dhamma, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. I don't know if the commentary spells it out, but we have been equating the first three factors with pariyatti and the fourth with patipatti. We (or some of us) consider pariyatti to mean intellectual understanding of the Dhamma and patipatti to mean satipatthana, mundane insight (or at least, all bar the most advanced stages of mundane insight). We understand that pariyatti is a precursor (to use your word) for patipatti, which is a precursor for pativedha. Ken H 37462 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:43pm Subject: confession My dear Friends in the Dhamma; probably you guess it already, I am also not very happy with the organized ceremonies. I sit an recite like a parrot things that do not make me happy and question, Why do I do it?. The answer always is, because I am a monk, I must do it. Maybe I am a very diferent kind of monk. I will never disrobe, but after the vassa I will be living as a monk in the Cross area to help the homeless, drunks and hiv people. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37463 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] confession Dear Ven Sir, It's good to hear from you again. --- Ajahn Jose wrote: > > > My dear Friends in the Dhamma; probably you guess it already, I am also > not very happy with the organized ceremonies. I sit an recite like a > parrot things that do not make me happy and question, Why do I do it?. > The answer always is, because I am a monk, I must do it. .... S: You also raised this for discussion when you joined us and I think we all agreed that we need to do many things in life -- whether as a monk or lay person -- that we might not wish to do. It's just normal. The great joy of understanding a little about satipatthana for me is in realizing it can arise and develop at any time, even whilst in activities which don't really suit us. Herman mentioned something about actions, but I'd like to suggest that wisdom and other noble qualities cannot be measured by outer appearances. Who knows what motivations or intentions are involved when a bhikkhu is reciting or officiating at functions? Who knows what the wisdom is or isn't when a lay person or bhikkhu visits Bodh Gaya or what the intentions are in going in the first place? We can only answer these questions for ourselves and only wisdom can know at any moment what the dhammas or realities involved are, whether in India or New Zealand, at a ceremony or at home. Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the appearance. .... >Maybe I am a > very diferent kind of monk. I will never disrobe, but after the vassa I > will be living as a monk in the Cross area to help the homeless, drunks > and hiv people. .... The question I'd always like to respectfully ask you, Bhante, is with regard to the bhikkhu's life. If one is not able to happily and easily follow all the bhikkhu's rules strictly (including when you do your fine work in the Cross area), what is the purpose of being a bhikkhu? What is the greatest respect we can show to the Sangha in your opinion? With regard to the Foundation and your questions to A.Sujin regarding the statue or lack of statue, you received many answers at the time and it was a long discussion. There were people in the room from various parts of the world who'd come specially for the purpose of the discussion. My second question here is, given that life is short, maybe very short, what are the most important questions and issues to address at this moment? If I tell you I have or don't have a Buddha statue in my home, that I follow or don't follow any ceremony or visit any temples, how will it help you in your practice of satipatthana? With respect and Metta, Sarah p.s.I do hope your health is greatly improved now. ======== Metta. Ajahn Jose 37464 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:03pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner34-Feeling/Vedana (g) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Bodily feelings arise because of impingement of a pleasant or unpleasant object on the bodysense. The kåya-viññåna cognizes the pleasant or unpleasant object which impinges on the bodysense, phassa 'contacts' the object and vedanå experiences the "taste" of the object. The feeling which accompanies kåya-viññåna is either pleasant feeling or painful feeling, it cannot be indifferent feeling. In the case of the other pañca-viññånas(2) which are seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, the accompanying feeling is always indifferent feeling, no matter whether the vipåkacitta which experiences the object is kusala vipåkacitta or akusala vipåkacitta. ** (2) The five pairs of sense-cognitions, seeing, hearing, etc. One of each pair is kusala vipåka and one akusala vipåka. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37465 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:07pm Subject: Re: confession Hi Sarah, I hope you have a great time in India :-) > > Herman mentioned something about actions, but I'd like to suggest that wisdom and other noble qualities cannot be measured by outer appearances. > Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the > appearance. It takes an awful lot of present moments, with lots of determination and effort, to get to India, doesn't it :-)? Enjoy Herman 37466 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:11pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi everyone, It would help me greatly if someone would post an example or two illustrating the following. > ** > (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an unwholesome deed. Thanks in advance and Kind Regards Herman 37467 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Oh Dan (& Ken H), Originally as you know, I joined in the discussion because you were asserting something to the effect that there could not be right view with concepts as objects. I pointed out that there were many kinds of right view, including those kinds accompanying moments of samatha bhavana. There can be reflection on any aspect of the Dhamma under this umbrella with right view, but no one here has suggested or is suggesting that reflection on kamma or on namas and rupas or any other aspect of the Dhamma is necessarily even kusala, let alone with right view. It depends on the cittas as usual, not on any terms or labels. In brief, I think you have something of a straw man argument going on here as you pick out one line here or there;-). No one is suggesting that (wise) reflection about kamma or any other aspects of the Teachings is the same as satipatthana. Of course if we take mere thinking for right understanding of realities, it's wrong. Also, neither Ken H or I would ever suggest that a practice of intellectualizing or book study could equate with any development of satipatthana. In fact we both go to lengths on DSG to say the opposite as I said before. On the other hand, if there is no hearing, considering and reflecting on namas and rupas, on conditions including kamma or other aspects of the Teachings, especially anatta, there cannot and will not be any development of satipatthana, no matter how much kusala there is of other kinds. So yes, someome who has never heard the Dhamma may have much more kusala in a day than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. But, the first person has no chance of developing the Eightfold or fivefold path and thereby finding an 'escape' from samsara. --- "Dan D." wrote: > Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the > Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? …. Here are just a few brief quotes from 'Dispeller', Vbg-A, which I have handy: 1.1954 "For which reasons do they (Discriminations) become manifest? (1) Through attainment (adhigama), (2) through competency [in scriptures] (pariyatti), (3) through hearing (sa.vana), (4) through being questioned, (5) through previous work (yoga). "Herein, ……(2) 'Competency [in scriptures]' (pariyatti) is the Buddha's word; for the Discriminations become manifest as one is learning that… 2. 2169 "For there are threee kinds of disappearance (antaradhaana) [S: of the Buddha sasana]: 1) disappearance of competency (pariyatti), 2) disappearance of penetration (pa.tivedha) and 3) disappearance of practice (pa.tipatti). Herein, 1) competency is the three Pi.takas; 2) the 'penetration' is the penetration of the Truths; 3) the 'practice' is the way….. 3.2350 "And one who is without understanding sits in the midst of his supporters and makes a show of his great understanding by speaking thus: 'As I was looking up in the Majjhima Nikaaya the three kinds of proliferation, I came to the path with the miraculous powers. Competency in the scriptures is not difficult for us. But one who gets involved in scriptural competency is not released from suffering, so we gave up scriptural competency.' And so on. But one who speaks thus strikes a blow at the dispensation. There is no greater rogue (mahaacora) than this. For it is not a fact that an expert in the scriptures is *not* released from suffering." So we all agree that expertise in the scriptures does not in itself lead to satipatthana and whilst reciting, reading or considering, the cittas may be kusala or akusala. Ken and I would say in addition, I think, that there may or may not be a measure of right understanding with the kusala cittas, though no one is suggesting that this would be satipatthana when there are merely concepts about dhammas as objects of course. In addition, we all agree that wrong view can slip in anytime, especially if one has an idea that by reading the text at any time will of itself lead to satipatthana. In the latter case, there is definitely a view with 'conventional right effort' based on an idea of 'self' as you suggest. I hope this clarifies and hope I can extricate myself from this thread til my return;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for your comments on the Dighanakha sutta which I thought was a neat and succinct summary of the main point. Now, must think about packing.... =============== 37468 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: confession Hi Herman, --- Egbert wrote: I hope you have a great time in India :-) ... Appreciated.... ... > > Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the > > appearance. > > It takes an awful lot of present moments, with lots of determination > and effort, to get to India, doesn't it :-)? .... Yes and several years of persuasion by others in my case. I always say, 'never again'....:-) ..... > Enjoy .... That's kind - mudita. I know many people would like to go but don't have the opportunity and here I am half-wishing I could just stay in my familiar surroundings. Probably why I keep putting off 'chores to be done'. Anway, I'll be reading all the posts along the way (connections permitting) and look forward to picking up threads with you later. I'll see if I can fish out the itinerary and abbreviate it to post so you can follow us around and keep handy for any quick notes Jon or I or anyone else can send out. Metta, Sarah ============= 37469 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: question to all members Hello Ajahn Jose, (Connie), all, I was surprised at Connie suddenly being allocated a son who is a monk - and I also wondered if you meant Mom Betty. If so, there is no need to worry about Betty not going to a monastery! She is a frequent attendee. My daughter SarahF and her friend Rob were in Bangkok yesterday and had a wonderful time with Betty - part of which included a visit to her son's temple where they witnessed an Ordination ceremony which Sarah found quite lovely. She felt the pathos of the situation where a mother gives up her son, never again to be able to hold and kiss him or stroke his head with affection, or to physically care for him in any way. Even the thought of it makes my heart ache .... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Dear Ajahn Jose, > I don't really have much to say, but it seemed rude to not answer when I'm > the only Connie I know of on this list. It must be another Connie (or > maybe you meant Mom Betty?) whose son is a monk. 37470 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Ken H, Thanks for your kind reply. I confuse Ken H and Ken O. I thought, I have talked to Ken O more than to Ken H. Ken O is a member at JourneyToNibbana but Ken H is not yet. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Although I am not the academic type, I am appreciating your posts > very much. > > ------------- > H: > in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word > called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all > destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are > still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is > that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! > ------------- > > "Foolishness comes out looking smart!" (Masanobu Fukuoka "The One > Straw Revolution") > > > Here in Australia, the extreme right has just won another federal > election. People are cheering and patting each other on the back. > (Foolishness comes out looking smart!) Repeatedly, I am depressed > by it all, but then I remember kamma and vipaka. There are only > conditioned dhammas: some are causes, some are results and others > are merely functional. > > Thanks for your very helpful writing. > Ken H 37471 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Phil, Thanks for your word. I do love to discuss Dhamma. But there days I am a bit busy. But whenever I have time, I do discuss Dhamma. The thread 'Dhamma Thread' is named and started with ( 001 ). This shows that I might go up to a thousand and all are connected and related. I will be continuing the thread. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello Htoo > > >The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the > coming posts. > > Thank you for this, and all your Dhamma threads. They are very informative, > and clear. > During a break from posting at DSG - a much needed study period - I will be > rereading them and > will have some questions later. > > You're a very good friend in Dhamma for all of us here at DSG, persevering > with your thread so faithfully. Please keep up the good work! > > Metta, > Phil 37472 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:20am Subject: Science and Dhamma - Herman (was Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo) Hi Herman, In my post yesterday, I intended to respond to other points you made in other posts, since I see that they may all be related. But that post was already getting too long (its frustrating that I can't seem to write short. :-/). So in this post I will express my thoughts about the topic of Science and how different this is from Dhamma. The method of science I believe is basically the method of the `uninstructed worldling', only more developed in the direction taken. The worldling perceives earth as earth but goes on to conceive self and other `as earth', as `being apart from it' and `possessing it', reacts with desire or aversion, feeling pleasure, pain or indifference. To him "things" are real and permanent and he is driven to try to make sense of it, naming and identifying. This is where the more intelligent worldling, the `science person' comes in. The science person, like others, does not see the impermanence of rupas and conceives instead `things' out there, which he then attempts to study and classify. Those things are taken for real and further examined to determine the relationship to yet other `things' (sub atomic particles and other external matter). Taste, smell, tangibility, colour which in dhamma are ultimate realities, is perceived conceptually by the science person and classed instead, as properties *of* `things'. Uttu niyama exhibits an array of diverse patterns and relations both within the body and outside, so there is much that an uninstructed worldling will be fascinated by. The science person being in fact one such worldling is able to focus on any given and limited set of such relations and impress others with data both concrete and abstract. And is also able to manipulate and create more fascinating "things". This is not to say that such pursuits are useless, of course they are very useful. DSG wouldn't exist without the success of a number of these combined. ;-) However they are not to be seen as progressing towards the understanding of ultimate realities and the method used should not be seen as applicable to the development of panna. When observing any given `thing' or data, a physicist, a biologist and an industrial designer for example, will each have a different perspective and come to different conclusions about the thing. Looking though an electron microscope or a telescope, different people even in the same field of interest will form different concepts in their minds about what is observed. But what is in fact experienced when data is seen on a computer screen or paper or that which is seen through a microscope or telescope? "The element of "visible object" which arises and falls in an instant. So it seems science is the way of `ignorance' as far as dhamma is concerned. One does not have to know what really takes place in the sense door or even at the mind door. But choose amongst the concepts that develop much later. And without Right View, the concepts chosen would most likely be conditioned by personal bias, i.e. the dominant form of wrong view. And what about the `method' of science which some think to be useful? Does this work with Dhamma? The putting forward of a hypothesis and then seeking to test it out is based on the belief in `things' out there to be tested and proven. But are dhammas similar testable? I think we will have to adopt one kind of wrong view or the other if we are to use the method of science to determine the truth of experiences. In dhamma when the Buddha taught about "ehipassika" I think what is referred to is panna. Can I for example, presuppose that upon touching a book that `hardness' will appear? What about heat/cold? What about the `self' which will determine how I would perceive and conceive? It would be `I'-hardness and `I'-heat and not earth and fire elements. And not knowing this wrong view is increased. When panna arises at whatever level, *it knows* and does not need to refer to other people's opinions or to any theory. Panna at the level of pariyatti is not waiting for patipatti to prove it right, but correct pariyatti is itself proof and so is patipatti and pativedha. They condition each other and no patipatti can arise without correct pariyatti and no pativedha without correct patipatti. It seems on the other hand that wrong view requires such looking back for conformation and so further feeds itself. :-( Must go now. Metta, Sukin. 37473 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:21am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 087 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed all of 13 annasamana cetasikas. Anna or 'an~n~ehi' means 'dealing with'. Samana means 'in accordance with' 'in agreement with'. This means that when these 13 cetasikas arise with akusala cittas, these all 13 will do the job of akusala and equally when they arise with kusala cittas, they will be doing the job of kusala. So they are called 'annasamana cetasika'. They are not fixed to kusala cittas or akusala cittas as in coming 14 akusala cetasikas and 25 sobhana cetasikas. These 13 cetasikas or mental factors which have been discussed are 1. phassa or contact 2. vedana or feeling 3. cetana or volition 4. sanna or perception 5. ekaggata or one-pointedness 6. jivitindriya or mental life 7. manasikara or attention 8. vitakka or initial application 9. vicara or sustained application 10.piti or joy/ happiness 11.viriya or effort 12.adhimokkha or decision 13.chanda or zeal or wish or will When chanda is translated as zeal, wish, will, desire, its original essence is not quite evident. Instead, if not well learned, this translation may lead to wrong interpretation. Once I read at a web site that chanda is wrongly criticized. The writing there is not bad and a bit critical on The Buddha's Dhamma. I think, the writer stood out side of Buddhism. I mean he is a non- believer, this is my opinion. He criticizes The Buddha and disciples that all those saints once looked for nibbana with a desire which is an attachment. This is completely wrong. This shows partial study of The Buddha's Dhamma and immature decision on the matter. This happens and might happen again in newer and newer generations because lobha cetasika always arises with chanda cetasika. Whenever there is lobha, there is also chanda. But when chanda arises with kusala cittas, this chanda does not co-exist with lobha and it arises without lobha. Because chanda in kusala cittas has other kusala cetasikas which are enemies of lobha. These enemies of lobha cetasika are alobha, adosa, amoha, ahirika, anottappa and so on. Chanda in the kusala cittas are called samma-chanda. In this kind of chanda there is no lobha at all. So it is wrong to accuse chanda of being lobha or attachment. Nibbana can never be attained with lobha as a wish's component. But samma-chanda which is longing for nibbana does the job of chanda purely and this finally leads to nibbana. Chanda is one of 4 adhipati dhammas. Adipati dhammas behave like a king and have full power over other dhamma. Chanda also works as iddhipada dhamma or 'the base of success'. But lobha cetasika never does the job of adhipati or the job of iddhipada dhamma. Instead, in the presence of lobha, unnecessary dhamma may arise. These unnecessary dhammas are upadana which is much much more stronger form of lobha cetasika and equally dosa may arise as an alternative because of lobha base. So it is quite evident that lobha and chanda are totally different cetasikas and they each do their job separately. When there is not enough panna or wisdom, people confuse and wrongly interpret The Buddha's Dhamma in such a way that chanda is accused of being a lobha. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37474 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:50am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 15 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 71. 1. Lokantarika-niraya I am not sure but I think it is 'lokantarikka-niraya'. Double checking is better than checking for once. 2. Veyaavacca Again, this is a matter of spelling. I do not say this is wrong. But I think that it is 'Veyyavacca'. I would suggest double checking again. Page 72. 3. Din~n~hijjukamma This is the use of font. Metta.lk would use that 'n~' for 'th'. So I think this word should be 'Ditthijukamma'. I think 'a single ''j'' is the right one. Again, double checking is better. 4. Straightening one's right view What about the word 'uprightness' for 'straightening'. This may well be right. For me, and Myanmars and possibly other asian may understand this straightening of one's own right view. This is a matter of choice of words. 5. Manussa Rob M explains on the term 'manussa'. I will post separately on 'Manussa' as a single post soon. 6. Manussa realm is the centre of all realms. I agree. In terms of abhidhamma, there are manussa who are born with ahetuka kusala santirana patisandhi citta, dvihetuka citta, and tihetuka citta. From manussa realm, beings might be reborn in lower 4 realms with ahetuka akusala pantisandhi citta. With the same patisandhi citta in manussa realms again or they can be reborn with dvihetuka or tihetuka patisandhi cittas. Again they can be reborn in brahma realms of both rupa and arupa realms. So it is quite right to say that manussa realm is the centre of all realms. Page 73. 7. 'Vessavana' I do not think 'Vessavana' is one of catumaharajas or 4 great kings. 4 great kings are 1) Dhatarattha 2) Viruhlaka 3) Virupakkha 4) Kuvera Vessavana is a god or deva who animated for the deva king maagha or indra or sakka. Vessavana is look like an elephant. But he is not an animal. 8. Karmic result Again, karma is not a Pali word. This may be 'kammic result' or simply 'kamma result' as in case of 'school boy'. Page 74 and 75 are good and interesting. To be continued: 37475 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:26am Subject: Manussa Dear Dhamma Friends, The word 'manussa' is a Pali word. In Rob M ebook, it is explained to some extent. Manuno apacca ti manussa, porana pana bhananti. Mana-- ussannataya manussa. Manassa ussannataya manussa. Manussa is a Pali word made up of 'mana' and 'ussanna'. Mana or mano means mind or mind related or thinking. Ussanna means 'overflowing, heaping up, crowded, extensive, abundent, preponderant, excessive, full of etc etc'. Ussanna may means 'thick'. Ussanna may means 'anointed' or 'smeared with oil or ointment'. Ussanna may mean 'spread out' or 'wide'. So man is a kind of being who think a lot. This indirectly mean that man is more intelligent than other beings. Just food for thought for those who are etymologists. It is also related to 'mannus' which means 'hand'. Man is well developed being that who is the only one who use hand very effectively. This is right and man is better than any other animals including primates who can use hand like man but not to the extent that man uses. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37476 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:17am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 76. 1. ''In these planes ( and the planes above ), all Gods are male.'' This is not right, I think. There is no sex at all. In manussa realm or human world, there are 4 types of sexes. 1) pullinga or male or man 2) itthilinga or female or woman 3) napullinga or non-male or physical woman 4) ubhatobyanna or double-sexed or hermaphrodite Those Gods Rob M refers are not related to these 4 sexes. They are not male, they are not female, they are not non-male, and they are not hermaphrodites. But the form or appearances are those of manussa purisa or male. By saying Gods in these realms and above are all male means 'women will never be reborn in these realms'. But this is not right. Ladies who attained jhanas and they die with jhanas, they will be reborn in those respective brahma realm. After that if they have to be reborn in kama bhumis, this will depend on their inclination. If they love femaleness, they will be reborn as female beings. But if they dispassionate femaleness and are reborn in kama bhumis, they will be reborn as male beings. Page 77 is OK. Page 78. 2. 'Unconscious Beings' I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. Unconscious is a common English word. Asian Buddhists may understand 'asanna sattas'. But when 'unconscious beings' is used this may mean the other way round. For example, if a man is found to be unconscious, paramedics will pick him up and send him to 'Accident and Emergency Department of a hospital'. He is unconscious. He is a being. So, he is an 'unconscious being'. But he is definitely not an 'asannisatta' or he is not a brahma wihtout consciousness. So, I would prefer 'consciousness-less' or 'without consciousness' or other alternative instead of 'unconscious beings'. Page 79 is OK. Page 80 is OK. To be continued. 37477 From: Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Hi, Htoo (and Rob) - In a message dated 10/12/04 2:19:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > 2. 'Unconscious Beings' > > I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. > > Unconscious is a common English word. Asian Buddhists may > understand 'asanna sattas'. But when 'unconscious beings' is used > this may mean the other way round. > > For example, if a man is found to be unconscious, paramedics will > pick him up and send him to 'Accident and Emergency Department of a > hospital'. > > He is unconscious. He is a being. So, he is an 'unconscious being'. > But he is definitely not an 'asannisatta' or he is not a brahma > wihtout consciousness. > > So, I would prefer 'consciousness-less' or 'without consciousness' or > other alternative instead of 'unconscious beings'. > ========================= It strikes me that such a consciousness-less existence, and its duration, is recognizable as such only by other beings, but for the being without consciousness, that existence would be but a momentary blip/gap in the flow of experience, noticeable, if at all, only immediately after the fact. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37478 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Howard: It strikes me that such a consciousness-less existence, and its duration, is recognizable as such only by other beings, but for the being without consciousness, that existence would be but a momentary blip/gap in the flow of experience, noticeable, if at all, only immediately after the fact. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, You are right. Thanks for your thought here as a point. It is like a gap in the flow of existence and this again might be noticeable only immediately after the fact. Good point. With respect, With Metta, Htoo Naing 37479 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:56pm Subject: Re: question to all members Friend Ajahn Jose, Ajahn Jose: …what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? James: I have been to several Buddhist temples in my life, several times, and have participated in many ceremonies. So I wouldn't say that "nobody" in this group does those things. Ajahn Jose: I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, James: Hmmm…I find that very strange. No images of the Buddha anywhere? That is odd. But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Did you see any statues of K. Sujin around? ;-)) (just kidding) I think it is important to have statues of the Buddha around to remind oneself of the qualities of the Buddha. They are a visual reminder of the Buddhist life to practice. BTW, good to see that you are now well enough to post. Take care. Metta, James 37480 From: robmoult Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:42pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Those Gods Rob M refers are not related to these 4 sexes. They are > not male, they are not female, they are not non-male, and they are > not hermaphrodites. > 2. 'Unconscious Beings' > > I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. Thanks for the correction and I think the term 'consciousness-less beings' is much better. Metta, Rob M :-) 37481 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:43pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi everyone, Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I am after. "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts resulting in sexual reproduction? "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > unwholesome deed. Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > It would help me greatly if someone would post an example or two > illustrating the following. > > > ** > > (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. > When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > unwholesome deed. > > Thanks in advance and Kind Regards > > Herman 37482 From: Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/12/04 7:45:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi everyone, > > Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I > am after. > > "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " > > Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts > resulting in sexual reproduction? > > "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > >kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > >unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > >unwholesome deed. > > Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that > were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same > again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > =========================== I understand the matter as follows: Suppose, for example, that on some occasion there arises in your experience an odor, say a food odor. In the past perhaps "that odor" was pleasant to you, but this time what you identify as "the same odor" is an unpleasant one. What is being said is that in each case, the particular odor you experience, previously an unpleasant one, but currently a pleasant one, had among the conditions for its arising an act of intention - kusala in the pleasant case, and akusala in the current, unpleasant case. Had the initial act of intention been akusala, then the corresponding (smelled) odor would have been unpleasant instead of pleasant. What I am not following in your question is why you are bringing up the matter of sexual reproduction. Are you assuming that the conditioning cetana was in a prior lifetime? What difference does that make? The original conditioning cetana need not have had anything specific to do with the birth, would it? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37483 From: Andrew Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:30pm Subject: Conceptual Right View Hi Dan D and Ken H and Sarah I will try to take some of the focus off Sarah (so she can finish packing) by pointing out that Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to conceptual right view (saccanulomika-sammaditthi) in his introduction to The Discourse on Right View (Wheel publication #377/379). He says it is "a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning." It is to be contrasted with experinential right view (saccapativedha-sammaditthi). He further says "to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ..." Applying that to the "this present moment" approach has its difficulties as I think you have been discussing. Bon voyage to all the pilgrims! Andrew T 37484 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Some explanations below. ==== > > Hi everyone, > > > > Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I > > am after. > > > > "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " > > > > Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts > > resulting in sexual reproduction? > > > > "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > > >kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > > >unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > > >unwholesome deed. > > > > Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that > > were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same > > again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? > > > =========================== > I understand the matter as follows: Suppose, for example, that on some > occasion there arises in your experience an odor, say a food odor. In the > past perhaps "that odor" was pleasant to you, but this time what you identify as > "the same odor" is an unpleasant one. What is being said is that in each case, > the particular odor you experience, previously an unpleasant one, but > currently a pleasant one, had among the conditions for its arising an act of > intention - kusala in the pleasant case, and akusala in the current, unpleasant case. > Had the initial act of intention been akusala, then the corresponding > (smelled) odor would have been unpleasant instead of pleasant. > What I am not following in your question is why you are bringing up > the matter of sexual reproduction. ==== I read "the five-sense cognitions are the result of kamma" as meaning that the very fact that sense cognitions occur, regardless of their content, is due to kamma. And I take any sense cognition to more or less require an entire body, interdependently. And I take the body to be currently an impossibility without sexual reproduction. I hope that casts a bit more light on my train of thought :-) I see your explanation of the pleasant/unpleasant content of any sense cognition as being quite reasonable and workable. Thanks and Kind Regards Herman Are you assuming that the conditioning cetana > was in a prior lifetime? What difference does that make? The original > conditioning cetana need not have had anything specific to do with the birth, would > it? > > With metta, > Howard 37485 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re: Science and Dhamma - Herman (was Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo) Hi Sukin, Thank you very much for your posts. I do very much appreciate all that goes in to them. You are quite right, they tend to be long, and I feel I do not do justice to you or your posts with my short replies. I agree with you on many things, certainly that scientific enterprise and the enterprise of the Buddha of the Suttas have nothing in common. But a fundamental disagreement remains, and that being what you consider dhamma I consider nonsense. You refer to dhamma and the goal of dhamma in terms of understanding ultimate realities, which is just not anything the Buddha of the Suttas ever taught. Certainly the Buddha of the Kathavatthu and the Buddha of Buddhagosa taught such things, and I am happy for you to be their follower. You also make a connection between pariyatti and panna, which again is Buddhagosism to the hilt. Having been a Christian minister, I am quite sensitive to how priceless teachings can loose their value through the interpretations of well-meaning followers who mean well. St Paul is to Jesus what Buddhagosa is to the Buddha. The legacy of St Paul and Buddhagosa is enormous, but of no interest to me at all. Having said all that, I think you are a fine fellow, and thank you for discussing. Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > In my post yesterday, I intended to respond to other points you made in > other posts, since I see that they may all be related. But that post was > already getting too long (its frustrating that I can't seem to write > short. :-/). So in this post I will express my thoughts about the topic of > Science and how different this is from Dhamma. > > The method of science I believe is basically the method of > the `uninstructed worldling', only more developed in the direction taken. > The worldling perceives earth as earth but goes on to conceive self and > other `as earth', as `being apart from it' and `possessing it', reacts with > desire or aversion, feeling pleasure, pain or indifference. To > him "things" are real and permanent and he is driven to try to make > sense of it, naming and identifying. This is where the more intelligent > worldling, the `science person' comes in. > > The science person, like others, does not see the impermanence of > rupas and conceives instead `things' out there, which he then attempts > to study and classify. Those things are taken for real and further > examined to determine the relationship to yet other `things' (sub atomic > particles and other external matter). Taste, smell, tangibility, colour > which in dhamma are ultimate realities, is perceived conceptually by the > science person and classed instead, as properties *of* `things'. > > Uttu niyama exhibits an array of diverse patterns and relations both > within the body and outside, so there is much that an uninstructed > worldling will be fascinated by. The science person being in fact one > such worldling is able to focus on any given and limited set of such > relations and impress others with data both concrete and abstract. And > is also able to manipulate and create more fascinating "things". > > This is not to say that such pursuits are useless, of course they are very > useful. DSG wouldn't exist without the success of a number of these > combined. ;-) However they are not to be seen as progressing towards > the understanding of ultimate realities and the method used should not > be seen as applicable to the development of panna. > > When observing any given `thing' or data, a physicist, a biologist and an > industrial designer for example, will each have a different perspective > and come to different conclusions about the thing. Looking though an > electron microscope or a telescope, different people even in the same > field of interest will form different concepts in their minds about what is > observed. But what is in fact experienced when data is seen on a > computer screen or paper or that which is seen through a microscope > or telescope? "The element of "visible object" which arises and falls in > an instant. > > So it seems science is the way of `ignorance' as far as dhamma is > concerned. One does not have to know what really takes place in the > sense door or even at the mind door. But choose amongst the concepts > that develop much later. And without Right View, the concepts chosen > would most likely be conditioned by personal bias, i.e. the dominant > form of wrong view. > > And what about the `method' of science which some think to be useful? > Does this work with Dhamma? The putting forward of a hypothesis and > then seeking to test it out is based on the belief in `things' out there to > be tested and proven. But are dhammas similar testable? I think we will > have to adopt one kind of wrong view or the other if we are to use the > method of science to determine the truth of experiences. > > In dhamma when the Buddha taught about "ehipassika" I think what is > referred to is panna. Can I for example, presuppose that upon touching > a book that `hardness' will appear? What about heat/cold? What about > the `self' which will determine how I would perceive and conceive? It > would be `I'-hardness and `I'-heat and not earth and fire elements. And > not knowing this wrong view is increased. > > When panna arises at whatever level, *it knows* and does not need to > refer to other people's opinions or to any theory. Panna at the level of > pariyatti is not waiting for patipatti to prove it right, but correct pariyatti > is itself proof and so is patipatti and pativedha. They condition each > other and no patipatti can arise without correct pariyatti and no > pativedha without correct patipatti. It seems on the other hand that > wrong view requires such looking back for conformation and so further > feeds itself. :-( > > Must go now. > > Metta, > Sukin. 37486 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 0:16am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner35-Feeling/Vedana (h) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** The Paramattha Mañjúså, a commentary to the Visuddhimagga (XIV, note 56) explains why kåya-viññåùa is accompanied by either pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling. This is because of the 'violence of the impact's blow'; there is the direct impact of tangible object on the bodysense. Tangible objects which are experienced through the rúpa which is the bodysense are the following rúpas: solidity, appearing as hardness or softness, temperature, appearing as heat or cold, and motion, appearing as oscillation or pressure. By way of a simile the difference is explained between the impact of tangible object on the bodysense and the impact of the other sense objects on the relevant senses. When a man places cottonwool on an anvil and strikes it with an iron hammer, the hammer goes right through the cottonwool because of the violence of the impact. In the case, however, of the other pañca-viññåùas, the impact is gentle, like the contact between two pieces of cottonwool. Thus, they are accompanied by indifferent feeling. The 'impact' of visible object on the eye-sense is gentle when compared with the direct physical contact of tangible object with the bodysense. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37487 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02am Subject: Andrew L - THIS LIFE, THIS MOMENT Hi AndrewL & All, I said I wished to add a little more to you before my trip. I hope you don't mind and I won't be saying anything others haven't said either. Of course there's no need to agree with or accept anything anyone says here. As Howard pointed out, there are many different understandings of aspects of the teachings and without a discussion of these understandings there is no DSG:-). Sometimes feathers get a little ruffled, but this is natural and a healthy state of affairs as I see it. It merely shows we're all looking at deeply held views (right and wrong) and airing them is a good way to bring them into the open if we're brave enough to do so, like you. URGENCY & THIS LIFE I appreciate your comments and just wish to stress as Ken O did, that no one here has suggested that enlightenment is not possible in this life. Ken O in #37446 "No one says you can't be enlightened in this lifetime, you definitely can. If one's panna reach that level, not even Buddha can stop your enlightenment." It depends on many factors, the main one being the understanding developed to date. We know so little about dhammas now, how can we know what will or won't arise at the next moment, let alone tomorrow or in ten years time. Regardless of any time frame or any views on this account, however, the path as I see it remains the same. Under any scenario there is still no self, nobody at all, to do anything or make it happen. There are merely 5 khandhas, namas and rupas arising and falling away to be understood right now by panna (wisdom). This is not fatalistic or depressing in anyway. If a way was not possible, the Buddha would not have taught it. When awareness and understanding arise, they know what is right and what is wrong and we don't have to think much about it or try hard to find it. But when there's wrong view arising, which thinks a self can really take action, we can never see the path. So really, there's no choice but to leave it to panna and not to a 'you' or 'self' trying. This is why daily life is the real test. As soon as we don't like the defilements such as the lobha, dosa or moha, isn't there an idea of a self who is full of these qualities instead of being aware of their characteristics as not self? Of course, it's very hard and takes the greatest amount of courage and truthfulness to give up the idea of self which we've always held so dearly. Not many people, not even many Buddhists can face up to the truth of anatta right now. ** GOING ON ONE'S OWN You mentioned this as a possibility, but I think that for most of us, it's extremely necessary and valuable to have our views questioned, considered and discussed. I mentioned that sometimes feathers are a little ruffled here and it may seem that no progress has been made after a long discussion, but I don't think this is ever so. I know for myself, that I learn a lot just from trying to formulate my little understanding and from considering other different or similar viewpoints. Later we come to read a sutta or piece of Abhidhamma that we thought we had understood before and find that now it's seen in a new light and the earlier so-called understanding was not correct, for example. As you say, a human rebirth may not come again for a long time and therefore any discussions or reflections which may spotlight any lurking ideas of self or attachment to progress are invaluable, especially as these states really hinder any of the progress we're wanting so much. ** NOW See Andrew T's comments in #37445. "There is only one happening time and that is NOW……Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom…. ** IMPATIENCE I wrote to Phil in #37315 "There can be impatience of course, but I think that when panna itself grows there's simply less and less interest or concern about 'how much', 'when', 'how quickly' and so on. There is more and more confidence that nothing other than the understanding of the present reality really matters at all. Even akusala (unwholesome) states are known more for what they are - conditioned dhammas, that's all." I like a comment Azita gave before about how she's never 'fussed' about the 'how', 'when' and 'why' of the Abhidhamma. She hears and reads it and knows how precious the teachings about this moment are. It's always been like that for me too. By directly understanding these very dhammas - these namas and rupas - nibbana is closer and closer. Maybe this lifetime, maybe not, but there is no other way of following the path, so better not let strong desires or expectations slow down the understanding. Again to quote my dinosaur pal KenO in #37426 "If you believe this lifetime you can achieve it, then go ahead, just be more aware that seeking enlightenment can at times impede progress." [side-note to Ken O, I will be leaving soon - promise;-)] ** A BRUSH WITH THE NOBLE TRUTHS ALREADY You've alluded to this a few times which gives you confidence in what is possible in this lifetime. I would only stress that what's has happened in the past is gone. Only a memory and thinking about it remains. Better to let it go and understand the present dhammas again. Otherwise it's like our dreams and expectations about the future again - a distraction from following the path right now. You also mentioned in your last post to Nina (which I'll give her in case she left before it arrived) that you're 'skeptical' about the necessity of discussion and pondering over the dhamma as conditions 'for the arising of sati'. Of course, there's no rule about how much we need to hear and consider and so on, but in my experience, it's never enough. Indeed, even the great arahants continued to listen and develop wisdom, so how can we ever think we've heard/discussed enough? The main danger, as I see it, is that we may well think we've developed a lot of sati, but it may all be taken for 'my sati' or 'me who develops it', especially when there is that strong wish for results. I do agree with you though, that determination (adhimokkha) can be wholesome and is one of the paramis. Again it needs wisdom to know when it is the wholesome kind and when it is the unwholesome enemy, just like effort (viriya) and wish-to-do (chanda). It's so easy to be fooled by the same mental factors arising with attachment. (Htoo is touching on this point in his series). The same applies to other qualities like renunciation as well and this is where the abhidhamma helps so much. You can read more on it in Useful Posts, in Cetasikas and in Nina's and Sujin's series on the paramis. ** NON-REMORSE AS A FRUIT You raised a couple of qus in a post sometime ago (#36943) and I'm not sure anyone answered. Briefly, it was stated that non-remorse was a fruit of purification of virtue, morality. Isn't this true? When we abstain from harsh speech or thought, wish others well and show metta, for example, what is there to have remorse about? Is non-remorse a prerequisite for a good human rebirth you asked? Remorse is a kind of dosa (aversion), regret conditioned by misconduct through body, speech and mind. Even a sotapanna may have regret or remorse, but no longer any regret about unwholesome deeds which can bring about an unhappy rebirth as there are no more conditions for these to be done/intended. Of course, with an understanding of dhammas, not a self, there will be far less likelihood of any regret and it will be understood for what it is - a temporary mental state, that's all. So yes, we should all be developing all kinds of wholesome states and deeds so that there won't be any remorse, but not out of clinging to self or just wishing self a happy rebirth! As you say, in this way, when death comes, there should be less remorse and more opportunity to reflect on wholesome states and particularly, understanding of present dhammas. It was a good question and not 'mischief';-). ******** Andrew, as I said from the outset, we greatly value your presence here and all your keen questions and comments too. I know that everyone hopes you'll stick around. You mentioned you were following a commentary by Ven U Silananda. You may like to post short extracts from this for discussion too. It would be interesting. I'd also like to mention in passing that you seem to be doing very well recently compared to those early days (not so long ago) and it would seem there is clear evidence of progress from the increased understanding. Of course, there will always be ups and downs. The tone, quality and deep reflection in your posts is really most admirable too. Hope to speak more to you later when I get back. Meanwhile, I'll be reading any replies or anything you write to others with keen interest. I hope you'll continue to discuss with some of the other fine members here. Metta, Sarah ======== 37488 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 088 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have been discussing on mental factors that arise with cittas. First, we discussed on 7 universal mental factors. These 7 mental factors arise with any citta. They are contact, feeling, volition, perception, one-pointedness, mental life and attention. Phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna, ekaggata, jivitindriya, and manasikara are their names in Pali. After that we talked on 6 particular mental factors or pakinnaka cetasikas, which I refer them as flexible ministers of the king citta. This might be misnomers because 7 universal mental factors are also flexible in the way that they agree with any citta kusala or akusala or abyakata. But as these 7 arise with each citta, they are given the name 'permanent ministers' of the king citta. This might also lead to misconception that there is a permanent group of cetasikas. Actually, this is not. I just refer them as permanent ministers because these ministers always involve in the king citta's mental affairs while 6 particular mental factors do not always involve. So they are separately given these names as ministers as similes. The third group of mental faactors is akusala cetasikas. There are 14 akusala cetasikas. They are destructive ministers of the king citta. Their presence makes the king citta very ugly and they all would advise the king citta to do bad things of their preferences. Preferences here means 'lobha will advise the king citta to attach to sensuous things, to become craving, to become clinging' , 'dosa will advise the king citta to get angry, to destroy everything', and so on. There are 14 akusala cetasikas. These cetasikas were explained by The Buddha in different suttanta teachings. These destructive ministers of the king citta are 1. moha or ignorance 2. ahirika or shamelessness 3. anottappa or fearlessness 4. uddhacca or restlessness ~~ These four are led by moha 5. lobha or attachment 6. mana or conceit ( pronounced as 'maana' ) 7. ditthi or misconception/ wrong view ~~ these 3 are led by lobha 8. dosa or hatred/ aversion 9. issa or jealousy 10. macchariya or stinginess 11. kukkucca or worry/ repentence~~these 4 are led by dosa 12. thina or sloth 13. middha or torpor 14. vicikiccha or indecisiveness/ suspicion~~ these 3 are also led by moha May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37489 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Have a great trip, Sarah! I see that we have been almost entirely on different pages during this whole discussion of conceptual right view -- 95% of what I've been talking about is the fallacy and danger of taking conceptualizations and forming of opinions as "conceptual right view". You have been countering with what seems like a non- sequitor: there can be right view outside satipatthana> I keep trying to bring the discussion back to conceptualization and theorizing, which you promptly dismiss as "a straw man argument going on here as you pick out one line here or there." I do apologize for not discussing all the points you raise. How's this: You are right. There can be right view outside satipatthana, e.g., with jhana. Now, for the "straw man"... Is he called "Sarah"? You write, "I would [never] suggest that a practice of intellectualizing or book study could equate with any development of satipatthana." I know very well that you understand there is a strong distinction between intellectualizing and satipatthana, but is there a connection? You go on to write that "I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view." I'd take issue with two parts of this: 1. a conceptual formulation of kamma -- no matter how "right" the words sound -- is in no way "Right view," as I'm sure you'd agree; and 2. the arrow points the other direction, i.e., mundane right view is a pre-cursor to conceptualization of the viewed. Conceptualization that comes before the experience cannot be "right" because it is not based on reality. Instead, right view comes first, and the considering and conceptualization comes upon reflection after the experience. The post-facto reflection and conceptualization helps consolidate the insight, thereby setting the stage for deeper insight. Conceptualizing about what things that have not been experienced does not conduce development, is not a pre-cursor for mundane right view, and really doesn't equate with ANY development of satipatthana -- even as a pre-requisite. I like your quotes from VbgA, beginning with "1.1954 For which reasons do they (Discriminations) become manifest?" The question is distinctly different from "How are the discriminations brought about?" After insight arises, reading, hearing, cogitation, talking, etc. help bring that insight into conceptual focus in subsequent non- insightful moments, i.e., the discrimination becomes "manifest". If the conceptualization is based on mere speculation (or the reflection on someone else's description of their own insight), and NOT based on personal experience, then it doesn't help in development of real pañña in any way. > of satipatthana, no matter how much kusala there is of other kinds. So > yes, someome who has never heard the Dhamma may have much more kusala in a > day than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. True, but I said that someone who has never heard the Dhamma (qua Dhamma) may have much more *sammaditthi* than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. How can this be? Sammaditthi is clear viewing of reality, whereas "Dhamma" (sensu "Buddha's teachings") is conceptualizations of insights. Two people can have insights into the same realities but then conceptualize them with quite different words. You write: "But, the first person has no chance of developing the Eightfold or fivefold path and thereby finding an `escape' from samsara." I agree with the second half of the statement (no chance of escape from samsara) but disagree with the first half (no development). The person outside the dispensation can certainly develop the Eightfold or fivefold path and progress quite far. How far? Almost certainly not to full enlightenment, but certainly to lofty stages of wisdom beyond what I or 99.999% of Buddhists attain. [NOTE: Please don't read this as saying that people in other traditions are wiser than almost all Buddhists because that would be a total misreading of what I wrote. Instead, read: "It is possible for people outside the dispensation to develop deep insight and high levels of understanding beyond what most Buddhists (or Christians, or Hindus, etc.) attain.] The evidence can be seen quite clearly when talking to (or reading) wise non-Buddhists; however, if the idea of "conceptual right view" is clung to as a necessary pre-cursor to the development of insight, then the mind snaps shut when hearing words from a different tradition: "Yes, there can be kusala outside the dhamma-vinaya but not pañña." This is confusing "conceptual right view" with Right view, ditthi with sammaditthi. The insight is one thing. The words attached to the insight are quite another. The evidence can also be seen quite clearly in the suttas. There are many examples of people whose development OUTSIDE the dispensation is so far advanced that only a few sentences from the Buddha or a few weeks of hearing Dhamma leads to enlightenment (even our friend, the original Dighanakha, is an example). The development of insight outside the dispensation can be profound and lofty enough to even reach the threshold of enlightenment, but to go through the door seems to require the help of a Buddha. Please don't feel obliged to respond while you are on your trip -- or even when you get back. Best wishes, Dan 37490 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:58am Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] It's great to hear from you, Ken. I don't have a lot of time to respond now, but I can't resist just a few quick comments... > > Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as > views, in which case there is ditthi (views). > > --------------------- > > I think I see what you mean. If I were to say, "There is no result > from good and bad deeds," someone might reply, "That is the > paramattha dhamma, miccha-ditthi." They would be right in one sense > but wrong in another. The wrong understanding indicated (suggested) > by those words is ditthi, but the words and the statement themselves > are not. They are just concepts. And you are saying, I think, that > the mistaking of concepts for ditthi is, itself, ditthi. I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. > ---------------------------- > D: > I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives > the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. > --------------------------- > > You might be worrying unnecessarily. I think people who are prone to > that particular wrong impression simply use the term 'right view' > for everything (conceptual and paramattha). The use of the > word "conceptual" might alert them to the fact that something > illusory (some mere conventional designation) is being referred to: > It is not something that really exists and, therefore, it could not > possibly be a factor of the Middle Way. > > I suggested (just surmising) yesterday that there might be a > paramattha dhamma (a citta) that could be called 'conceptual right > view.' That would explain how conceptual right view can be a > condition for actual right view. Another suggestion from DSG members > has been that panna (even if very weak and elementary) has arisen, > in amongst all the kusala conceptualising, to directly know a > paramattha dhamma. I don't see it in the teachings, and I don't see a need to construct it. > D: The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions > such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for > mundane right view" > ---------------------------- > > I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. (See my screed > below on 'factors for enlightenment.') I'd say it is a post-cursor, if anything; but that it really isn't anything (at least nothing more than ditthi). More later... Dan 37491 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:55am Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View Dear Andrew T, Thanks for chiming in here. You are getting at the crux of the matter, viz. BB's comments in the introduction to Discourse on Right View... Sarah and I both reject his interpretation of the sutta because both the words of the sutta and the commentary strongly suggest a 'direct veiw' rather than 'proper opinion' interpretation. One of Sarah's recent posts on the topic discuss this in more detail. However, it seems that Sarah accepts his formulation ("to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ...") but that this particular sutta does not support the view. Me? I don't buy the formulation at all. What about you? Dan 37492 From: Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 10/13/04 11:02:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@y... writes: > I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and > conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that > the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. > ======================= I really like the tenor of this and your preceding post on this thread. Yet I do have a question I'd like to pose: It pertains to the distinction between the miccha-ditthi of self, on the one hand, abandoned at stream entry, being surplanted, presumably, by the right view of no-self, versus the sense-of-self or "odor of self", on the other hand, which is uprooted only at achievement of arahanthood. Ultimate right view is, I suppose, the unblemished, direct knowledge of no-self in all dhammas, or, to put it negatively, the utter and complete absence of any *sense* of self/core in the empirical "person" or in any phenomena. How does one distinguish the right view of no-self of the stream entrant from the right view of no-self of the arahant? Most particularly, what is the right view of no-self gained at stream entry? If it is not a kind of conventional right understanding that amounts to an unshakable belief - if it is, instead, a direct knowing, how is it to be distinguished from the right view of the arahant? Is it a matter of partial wisdom versus complete wisdom in your estimation? That doesn't strike me as correct inasmuch as the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi is said to be completely uprooted at stream entry. If it is the unshakable *disbelief* in self which is achieved at stream entry, is that not a matter of concept? Are not belief and disbelief matters of conceptual view more than matters of direct knowing? It seems to me that an initial glimpse of nibbana creates an unshakable disbelief in self without entirely removing the sense of self, and that unshakable belief in no-self gained at stream entry might well be referred to as "conventional right view", whereas the arahant's knowledge of no-self and his/her invulnerability to a sense of self is ultimate right view. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37493 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Hi Dan D The distinction of right view lies on the fact that panna arise on the citta. To my understanding, if panna arise seeing things as anatta, anicca then there is right view regardless whether it is suparmundane path or mundane path. So satipatthana can arise during mundane path if not there is no salvation. Furthermore, conceptualization cannot arise without right view in ultimate reality as its basis, hence there is already right view in ultimate reality before the arise of conceptual right view as understood by us. Sammadithi is about right view on anatta. Without a Buddha, there will no knowledge of Anatta. For those without the teacher dispensation, many other faith practitionar have already practise and eradicate a lot of their sense desire, hence their mind are melleable. If I am not wrong, Buddha initially wish to teach the dhamma to his two teachers who he thinks that will quickly grasp the dhamma and become enlighted and unfortunately they passed away before Buddha became enlighted. Without the Teacher dispensation of Anatta as describe in dependent origination, there will be no enlightment. Both of his teachers are born in the immaterial realm and that show that they have a suppressed sensual desire much much more that me :). Definitely they are in a much better position to learn the dhamma but again without the knowlegde of anatta there will be no salvation. That is how the passage is meant to be understood. Ken O 37494 From: Egbert Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:37pm Subject: The meaning of "papanca" Hi all, The following is from the PTS Pali-English Dictionary. "Papanca (p. 412) [in its P. meaning uncertain whether identical with Sk. prapanca (pra+panc to spread out; meaning "expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness"; cp. papanceti & papanca 3) more likely, as suggested by etym. & meaning of Lat. im--ped--iment--um, connected with pada, thus perhaps originally "pa--pad--ya," i. e. what is in front of (i. e. in the way of) the feet (as an obstacle)] 1. obstacle, impediment, a burden which causes delay, hindrance, delay " So it appears that the Pali papanca is either an open floodgate or a closed one. Any views on which is the intended meaning? Kind Regards Herman 37495 From: Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Vism.XIV,107 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of being the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing visible data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. 37496 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: The meaning of "papanca" Herman: The following is from the PTS Pali-English Dictionary. "Papanca (p. 412) [in its P. meaning uncertain whether identical with Sk. prapanca (pra+panc to spread out; meaning "expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness"; cp. papanceti & papanca 3) more likely, as suggested by etym. & meaning of Lat. im--ped--iment--um, connected with pada, thus perhaps originally "pa--pad--ya," i. e. what is in front of (i. e. in the way of) the feet (as an obstacle)] 1. obstacle, impediment, a burden which causes delay, hindrance, delay " So it appears that the Pali papanca is either an open floodgate or a closed one. Any views on which is the intended meaning? Connie: I guess you could see it as both, but I think the floodgate would be the mind and the papanca would be (wrong) thinking. peace. 37497 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:55pm Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Andrew T, Glad to see you will be taking over from Sarah. :-) _-------------- AT: He further says "to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ..." Applying that to the "this present moment" approach has its difficulties as I think you have been discussing. --------------------------- I was somewhat surprised to learn about panna experiencing concepts. Sarah seems to think it is quite common. I had always thought such moments were restricted to jhana. No doubt, I have been inattentive - again. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi Dan D and Ken H and Sarah > > I will try to take some of the focus off Sarah (so she can finish > packing) 37498 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:04pm Subject: Sidetrack for Dan /Was: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi Dan, You have promised "more later" so I will wait. In the meantime there is something else I'd like to ask. --------------------- KH: > > I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. > > ------------- D: > I'd say it is a post-cursor, if anything; but that it really isn't anything (at least nothing more than ditthi). --------------------- I wonder if you are thinking the same way I was thinking recently. I argued that the experience of dhammas was much more influential (weighty) than the experience of concepts. For example, if I were to experience hatred for an individual (a longboarder, let's say) that would be just a conceptual explanation of what was really going on - strong dosa for sense objects and other dhammas. I have backed off on that theory. It got no support (just well- informed opposition), although one or two members did agree there could be strong emotions for paramattha dhammas. I'd be interested in your opinion. Ken H 37499 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:34pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** We may believe that bodily feeling can be indifferent, but this is not so. The moment of body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) is extremely short; it is only one moment of vipåka and after it has fallen away akusala cittas or kusala cittas arise. Body-consciousness is accompanied either by pleasant bodily feeling or by painful bodily feeling. The akusala cittas or kusala cittas which arise shortly afterwards are accompanied by feelings which are different from bodily feeling. They can be accompanied by happy feeling, unhappy feeling or indifferent feeling. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37501 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - In a message dated 10/14/04 1:35:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > Dear Friends, > > Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] > ***** > > We may believe that bodily feeling can be indifferent, but this > is not so. The moment of body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) is > extremely short; it is only one moment of vipåka and after it has > fallen away akusala cittas or kusala cittas arise. > > Body-consciousness is accompanied either by pleasant bodily feeling or by > painful bodily feeling. The akusala cittas or kusala cittas which arise > shortly afterwards are accompanied by feelings which are different from > bodily feeling. They can be accompanied by happy feeling, unhappy feeling > or indifferent feeling. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah ========================== Assertions in Abhidhamma along these lines are among those elements of Abhidhamma that correlate perfectly with my personal experience. This, in itself, of course, enables no clear conclusion as to the correctness of my understanding of my own experience in this mjatter or of the Abhidhamma's take on this matter. It is simply so. To me, it seems clear that every bodily sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. The sensation, itself, may be strong or weak, and the associated feeling as well may be strong or weak, and weak bodily feeling may be mistaken as neutral, but that *is* a mistake I believe. On the other hand, it seems to me that every visual sensation is neutral, and that what we take for pleasant or unpleasant visual sensations are actually subsequent mind-door objects. Also, when we shut our eyes to escape an unpleasant rapid and strong increase in brightness, such as when we emerge, driving, from a dark tunnel into bright sunlight, we are responding not to unpleasant eye-door experience, but to unpleasant body-door experience - literally to physical pain. What is less clear to me is the vedanic status of ear-door experience. It does seems to me that some sounds are pleasant and some unpleasant, and that it is the sounds, themselves, and not subsequent mind-door phenomena. But I could be mistaken in this. (Whether I am or not, there is also the distinction to be made with regard to sound-door vedana and the body-door vedana pertaining to painfully loud sound similar to pain resulting from relatively bright light.) What is the Abhidhammic take on ear-door vedana? Can it be non-neutral? (My apologies if this was already discussed.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37502 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:33am Subject: Last minute thoughts to Dighanakha Dear Dighanakha, A few last minute comments: 1. Dighanakha Sutta - I agreed with Dan's summary. I read the on-line transl of the sutta and it didn't make any sense to me. It was only when I read the comy notes/summaries provided by B.Bodhi that the meaning became clearer. I'd be glad to see any more of the comy or Tiika if you have time to translate any of it. You mentioned ucchedevada (annihilationist) views are not described elsewhere as they are in this sutta (and you'd know best, I'm sure), but if you're suggesting that Dighanakha's views are right or kusala in anyway, I'd be glad to see any references to where right or kusala views are described elsewhere in suttas in this way. I believe some ucchedvada views refer to jhana states. Could there be a connection, I wonder (just speculation on my part)? 2. Texts on Magadhan/Pali - Thx for the passage from the Vism. We discussed this and the Tiika before. It's not easy I agree, (see U.P. - Patisambhida). I've already given a brief summary of my understanding and look forward to further discussion on this. I'd be very interested to see any translation you give of those passages not already translated, esp Vibhanga -tiika, sutta commentaries etc. As I've said, I think in this case you're taking a very literal approach. (A clever and witty sub-comy too, but pls respect others' faith and regard for the ancient commentators). 3. On Faith - The first two thirds of your post back to Andrew T with the weeding hook simile was good (that means I agreed with it). 'The Blessed One is the Teacher…' and your N.B. - you know better than I do that we read in many places that any teaching by his disciples in conformity with his teachings is the Blessed One's teaching…I also disagree with you on your use/meaning of vimamsa (investigation) as relating to the work of scholars/historians and philologists. Where do we read this definition of vimamsa? Perhaps I misunderstand;-). Surely it has to relate to truths. You revert back to 'that child' again who speaks the language of the parent who speaks to him/her first. Isn't this just a general statement suggesting a child learns his mother language first (i.e the language he first becomes familiar with which may or may not be his mother's). 4. No one suggests any blind trust. But it may happen that by testing, checking and proving, we begin to find we really can rely on what the ancient commentators like Buddhaghosa taught us. Others have already picked up on the last comments about the 'corporate faith' etc which I think detract from your excellent detail and analysis. 5. Women, Jataka, Amara Dialogue - thank you very much for providing the Pali, translation and detail. I can only say that our conclusions to date are different and I don't find Nagasena to be giving the 'dumbest arguments', but one's that are deep in meaning and very helpful, especially for any conceit or complacency that might arise on this score. I'll read your comments more carefully and possibly raise them or any of the other points on the trip. I'll let you know if I have anything to add. Meanwhile I'll certainly look f/w to reading any further translations or other replies you give for further reflection. Many thanks again for your assistance with the translations. Metta, Sarah 37503 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:35am Subject: Re: Vism.XIV,107 Dear Larry, Thank you very much for this message Vism.XIV,107. It is very clear and such short message brings up more meaningful input into learner rather than thick messages which are indigestible at once. Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind element' both will become the same. I prefer Pali words as basic terminology. Because when translated words are used purely, sometimes there does not reflect the original sense. With respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of being > the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing visible > data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as > confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the > interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] > life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. 37504 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - > > In a message dated 10/14/04 1:35:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, .... Good to see you commenting and helping out on these threads - no time to stop and read or discuss your comments just posted now, but I will print out and share with Nina. I was very glad you answered Herman's qu and it was a very good answer I thought. Some of these areas we've discussed a lot together and it's good to see we're on the same page here for the most part;-). I've also found your discussions with Ken H very good - each time one has to explain or clarify, I think the issues become clearer and i know you're both writing with many kindly and well-meant intentions. When KenH mentions his parrot mode, for example, I know he's being very modest (though of course, if any of us manage to parrot the Buddha just a little, it would be the greatest achievement). Thx also for your middle-way post to Dighanakha and me. You made a good point, but I really think the 'older positions' were very 'complete' and rather than being models, were clear and detailed explanations of the truths that are of great value to us. The Buddha's omniscience - see 'omniscience' in U.P. We can never over-estimate the Buddha's knowledge to know all truths -- past, present, future, whatever he put his mind to, as I understand. Yes, he clearly and perfectly understood 'the all' as did the other arahants. In the Buddha's case, he understood 'the all' connected with all beings, at all times, in all planes and in all possible detail, such as the intricate conditions for any state which no one but a Buddha could have taught. Metta, Sarah ======== 37505 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: question to all members Hi James, I thought of you when I woke up on Tues, turned on the computer and there you were on my screen;-). Glad to see you in good form. Like Nina, I miss your good sutta posts and I'd also be interested to see your comments on Rob M's book (and I'm sure he would too). --- buddhatrue wrote: > > James: I have been to several Buddhist temples in my life, several > times, and have participated in many ceremonies. So I wouldn't say > that "nobody" in this group does those things. ... S: Not at all and we'll be visiting temples and attending ceremonies on our trip too. .... > > Ajahn Jose: I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at > their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not > have an imagine of the Buddha, > > James: Hmmm…I find that very strange. No images of the Buddha > anywhere? That is odd. But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. > Did you see any statues of K. Sujin around? ;-)) (just kidding) I > think it is important to have statues of the Buddha around to remind > oneself of the qualities of the Buddha. They are a visual reminder > of the Buddhist life to practice. .... ;-) Actually I don't recall any pictures or statues. There's an altar under the glass container with the relic in, always with many flowers. People pay their respects here as they would if there was a Buddha image. I think K.Sujin said they were offered so many statues when the foundation opened (before that for years and years, she used to teach at Wat Bovan in central Bangkok), that they decided to have none. Minimalist. When I lived in London, I had a little shrine, but since we've been married, we haven't had one. No rules;-). Speak later and hope the teaching's going well. Metta, Sarah ======= 37506 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 089 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far we have discussed on 7 universal mental factors and 6 particular mental factors, all of which agree with citta they arise together with. In the previous post, akusala cetasikas or destructive ministers of the king citta have been enumerated. First comes 'moha'. Moha. The word is simple. But this word represents many meanings behind it. The word itself when you see is just a figure with colour possibly black or you may constructively hear its name in your mind as voice as 'moha'. But we are not discussing such complicated things. Moha is a cetasika. It is ignorance. It is darkness. When it arises with the king citta, while itself is dark, lightless, wisdomless, it also advises the king citta to become deluded. Sometimes it illudes the king citta. Moha is the leader of all akusala dhamma. Everything in akusala dhamma is based on moha and moha is always there as a base for akusala dhamma whenever akusala dhamma arise, it arises. Moha is frequently referred to as ignorance. This is right but still there might arise some minunderstanding regarding 'ignore' the word that is used in everyday English. Characterwise, moha cetasika is darkness and it covers the light of wisdom which otherwise sees 4 ariyas' sacca or 4 Noble Truths. In its presence, these 4 Noble Truths will not be seen. Because of lack of insight into these 4 Noble Truths, moha then leads to all other things that are away from realization of these 4 ariyas' Noble Truths. Moha also covers paticcasamuppada dhamma. This means that paticca samuppada dhammas are not seen because of the presence of moha. In the presence of moha, as ariyas' saccas are not seen, beings are creating kamma through sankhara dhammas. Sankharas are dhamma that create kamma. They are usually written in as mental formations, mental fabrications and so on. These have to arise because of moha. If there is no moha, there is no reason that these sankhara dhammas should arise. As moha covers all the light of wisdom, it has the greatest power in creation of akusala dhamma and their results kamma which are akusala kamma, all of which always give rise to bad things. Moha appears in many suttas and it comes in many names. Whatever its different names there are, moha is just darkness that covers all the light of wisdom. As long as moha covers these right dhamma that we all should have a direct seeing with ur own mind-eye or through our own panna or wisdom, we will not see real dhamma and then we will still be creating more and more kamma in a daily basis and more worse in most of the moments. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37507 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Dan,(Herman in passing) I need to read your post more carefully to do it justice. Just to say, it's been great talking to you again (exhausting as ever;-)), but I always learn from our dialogues. I think I have more idea of where you're heading now and I think there will be less agreement. Just two quick refs come to mind for your consideration and apologies if I'm off-track again in my haste: 1.Mahamalunkya Sutta, MN64 on anusaya (latent tendencies)and the baby that does not have self view, doubt,notion of rules or even some kinds of attachment, BUT, the anusaya are all there.In other words, it's the understanding of the teachings, not the apparent behaviour or personality or measure of kilesa showing that is of importance here. 2.Lots I'd like to quote from the Parinibbana Sutta and comy. Lots on pariyatti and pativedha and so on. [side-note to Herman as I look for a particular quote: "In the text, those who are travelling to visit shrines: Those who make a journey, sweeping here and there in the courtyards of shrines and washing seats and watering Bo-trees, in them there is nothing to criticise. he shows that if people set out with the intention of worshipping a shrine at a certain monastery, even if they should die with thoughts of tranquil faith, they will surely reach heaven without impediment." Better look out a little sweeping brush;-).] Here's the one for Dan: " 'There a [true] renunciate (samana) is not found': it is meant that there a first ascetic, namely a stream-enterer, does not exist....'Others' doctrines are devoid of true renunciates': others' doctrines are vain, empty, devoid of the twelve renunciates, namely the four who undertake insight meditation (vipassanaa) for the sake of the four paths, the four who are on the paths, the four who have fruition......'If they live rightly': If a stream-enterer explains what he has attained to another person, and makes him attain stream-entry, then he is said to live rightly. The same thing applies to a once-returner and the rest. If one is on the path of stream-entry.....If one practises insight meditation for the sake of the path of stream-entry.....lives rightly....". Only one path as I understand, but of course we should respect any kusala, whatever the label or belief or religion. Any lack of tolerance would certainly not be any path. Metta, Sarah p.s I'll read any replies but you should be safe from further responses;-) =================================== 37508 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Howard] Dear Howard, Great to have you aboard on this thread! ... ... Of course, I say that before reading your questions... Uff da. > I really like the tenor of this and your preceding post on this > thread. Yet I do have a question I'd like to pose: It pertains to the distinction > between the miccha-ditthi of self, on the one hand, abandoned at stream entry, > being surplanted, presumably, by the right view of no-self, versus the > sense-of-self or "odor of self", on the other hand, which is uprooted only at > achievement of arahanthood. Ultimate right view is, I suppose, the unblemished, direct > knowledge of no-self in all dhammas, or, to put it negatively, the utter and > complete absence of any *sense* of self/core in the empirical "person" or in > any phenomena. > H: How does one distinguish the right view of no-self of the > stream entrant from the right view of no-self of the arahant? Ai-yo! I don't know. Here's what Khemaka, an Anagami says in reponse to a question about the distinction between the conceit "I am" and the view "I am": "I do not say 'I am' in regard to material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness, nor do I say that there is an 'I am' apart from material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. However, a sense that 'I am' is still found in me infererence to the five clinging aggregates; but I do not consider 'this I am'... Even though the ariyan disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, nevertheless a residual conceit 'I am', desire 'I am', latent tendency 'I am' still remains in him in reference to the five clinging aggregates." [S 22:89/iii,130, as quoted in the introduction to BB's "The Root of Existence"]. My take on it? With the anagami there is no craving for sensations, material form, or even consciousness; but there is still a craving for being, which is his 'conceit'. With the sotapanna there is no craving for the "I", but there is still craving for sensations, material forms, and consciousnesses. The Buddha's words to describe the differences between the 'views' of the learner and the arahant are curiously similar, yet strikingingly different: "Herein, a disciple of mine (i.e., a learner) sees as it really is all material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, thus: 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.' To this extent my disciple is one who follows my instructions and exhortation, has crossed over doubt, gotten rid of questioning, attained to self-confidence, and dwells independent of others in the dispensation of the Teacher. "Herein, a bhikkhu, having seen as it really is all material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, thus: 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,' is emancipated through non-clinging. To this extent a bhikkhu is an arahant... one who is emancipated by final knowledge." [M 35/i, 235, as quoted in the introduction to BB's "The Root of Existence"] The learner 'sees' the aggregates clearly enough to understand that nowhere therein is "I" to be found. The arahant 'has seen' the aggregates as the learner has BUT is also emancipated through non- clinging. Dispelling the view of "I am" is central to the lower paths; but even when that view is eradicated (i.e., ditthi can no longer arise), clinging still remains. What words describe the residual tendency for even lofty disciples to cling? Conceit, restlessness, ignorance, desire for fine-material existence, desire for immaterial existence -- the five higher fetters, which are all eradicated at the same time and are in some sense synonyms or different-sounding terms for the same underlying reality, which is clinging devoid of the lower fetters. > Most particularly, > what is the right view of no-self gained at stream entry? If it is not a kind of > conventional right understanding that amounts to an unshakable belief - if it > is, instead, a direct knowing, how is it to be distinguished from the right > view of the arahant? I don't think it is distinguishable from the right view of the arahant. However, the arahant no longer has the conceit to crave sensual satisfaction or existence. > Is it a matter of partial wisdom versus complete wisdom in > your estimation? That doesn't strike me as correct inasmuch as the fetter of > sakkaya-ditthi is said to be completely uprooted at stream entry. If it is the > unshakable *disbelief* in self which is achieved at stream entry, is that not > a matter of concept? Yes, I would say "disbelief" lends itself much better to "conceptual right view" than to sammaditthi, but I wouldn't say that eradication of ditthi is anything like "unshakable disbelief in self." > Are not belief and disbelief matters of conceptual view > more than matters of direct knowing? I'd say so. Yes. (with caveat that sometimes these words may be used otherwise). > It seems to me that an initial glimpse of > nibbana creates an unshakable disbelief in self without entirely removing the > sense of self, and that unshakable belief in no-self gained at stream entry > might well be referred to as "conventional right view", whereas the arahant's > knowledge of no-self and his/her invulnerability to a sense of self is ultimate > right view. I don't think there is a difference between the arahant's right view and the sotapanna's right view. The difference is in the defilements - - arahant no longer craves, sotapanna does. Must run. Ran overtime this morning... Metta, Dan 37509 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:10am Subject: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi, Dan and all - The Sammaditthi Sutta, taught by Sariputta, seems to have a strong bearing on the issue of conventional versus ultimate right view. In the following, I excerpt a portion of the sutta giving one perspective on what constitutes right view, and I add (brief) comments of mine. (The Wholesome and the Unwholesome) 3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome. 5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. 6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome. 7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome. 8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." -------------------------------------------- To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. The ATI url for the sutta is http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37510 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:45am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. Loki samma-ditthi can arise alone. But lokuttara samma-ditthi always arises with other paths. That right view is ultimate right view. By the same token, samma-vaca, samma-kammanta, samma-ajiva that arise at magga and phala are lokuttara siila. These 3 arise together. But in lokii siila, they do not arise together. Examples are.. when you avoid a particular word at a time, you are nothing to do with avoiding of killing. Because the objects are different here in lokii siila. Butin lokuttara siila, they arise together because object is nibbana. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37511 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:04am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 17 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 81, 82, and 83 are OK. Page 84. 1. Foot note 4, 5, 6 and their reference words are not matched, I think. 4 and 5 are explained. But 6 has not been explained. Page 85, 86, 87 are OK. Page 88. 2. Vedana is expressed with 4 factors of 1.lakkhana (characteristic), 2. rasa (function), 3. paccuppatthana (manifestation) and 4. padatthana (proximate cause). Rob M includes 'vedana is not emotion'. This is very good. Yes. Arahats do have feeling or vedana but not emotions of worldly people. 3. Cetana ( volition/ intention/ will ) I think 'will' should not be used for cetana. Otherwise, cetana's function will be confused with chanda or wish. 'Will' and 'wish' are close. Page 89. 4. Manasikara : driving associated states toward the object I doubt that this might confuse with other cetasikas. This kind of 'driving' may be present in 'vitakka' 'cetana' 'manasikara' 'viriya' 'chanda' 'panna'. 5. Apart from 4 factors, Rob M includes 'Regarded as: .. .. ..' which is also good for understanding. But manasikara should not be charioteer. Charioteer is the function of tatramajjhattata. Manasikara should be steerer, even though charioteer also steers. Charioteer equalises the strength or balance the strength. Page 90. 6. Viriya 'Energy' should be used with care. Because, viriya is not energy even though energy may involve. In 'piti' portion Rob M describes 'function: refresh mind and body'. I think this is more like energising than viriya. Appendix I and II are very good and clear provided after some minor correction. To be continued. 37512 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:39am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 18 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 91. 1. Moha It is good that Rob M describes moha as 'mental blindness'. I use 'darkness' for description of moha. In the Buddha's first discourse, the Buddha preached 'cakku.m' 'nana.m' 'panna' 'vijja' 'aloko' etc etc that He came to know Dhamma in a such way. This is because of total clearence of moha. Aloka means 'light'. Vijja means 'penetrative wisdom'. Panna means 'wisdom'. Nana means 'knowledge'. And cakku.m means 'understanding' 'seeing'. In all these, they all describe absence of moha. Why? As the light appears, darkness runs away instantaneously. So moha is darkness. 2. Regarded as: root of all immoralities. Inclusion is this is very good. Moha always participate in doing any akusala and paticcasamuppada starts with moha or avijja. 3. Anottappa Function: doing evil things without 'shame'. I think Rob M overlooked. Shame was mentioned in ahirika above. It has to be replaced by 'dread' as he includes 'dread' as interpretation of anottappa as dreadlessness. Page 92 is OK. Page 93. 4. Issa This is not only to success of other but also to other achievements of anything of other beings. Sotapams do not have ditthi and they do not see beings as being. So sotapams do not have issa or macchariya. Page 94 and 95 are OK. To be continued. 37513 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 0:52pm Subject: out of town Dear All, I'll be out of town and out of internet contact for several days. Please be patient if you are awaiting responses in the continuation of my active threads! Dan 37514 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, What follows from me is entirely conceptual. A > Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many people do choose the timing of their death. Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which neither choice or death or time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also quite meaningless. Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) Kind Regards Herman 37515 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Htoo "...Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind element' both will become the same..." Hi Htoo, I agree. These are always good reminders. Thanks for your comments. Larry 37516 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:28pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Dear Htoo, You wrote to Howard: ----------------------------- > Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. > ----------------------------- KH: I think you may be missing the central point of this discussion. It is not about 'mundane and supramundane' (lokiya and lokuttara). It is about 'conventional and ultimate' (pannatti and paramattha). Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. Every time he used conventional language, he did so without being misled by it. In other words, every time he referred to a human being, he was referring to the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). When, for example, the Buddha talks about refraining from killing, he is not referring to concepts (of a person who refuses to take life). He is referring to the five khandhas as they arise in a particular moment. I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know what you think of them. I say that most Buddhists care only for the conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. Am I being fanatical? :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37517 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:36pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi Ken, Htoo, Howard and all, I'm butting in here. Hope you don't mind. > I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know > what you think of them. I say that most Buddhists care only for the > conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a > little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate > teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. > > Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of > Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the > Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. > The Buddha did not teach an ultimate reality, either, Ken. > Am I being fanatical? :-) You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma being teachings about ultimate reality. And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) Kind Regards Herman 37518 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Hi Larry and Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Htoo "...Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long > word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind > element' both will become the same..." > > Hi Htoo, > > I agree. These are always good reminders. Thanks for your comments. > > Larry Of course we all understand that as a starting point we still need to translate manodhatu into our mother tongue before we can understand what it means. After much repetition manodhatu comes to mean exactly the same as the words from the mother tongue used to translate it. Which in the case of manodhatu is uncontroversial. There are other Pali words whose meanings are unclear, and simply sticking to the Pali does not make the meaning any clearer. Kind Regards Herman 37519 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/14/04 6:56:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. ==================== Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do ("Conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to include me in that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm concerned, any well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate events. The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on this issue is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha dhammas are self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I see them merely as fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an interconnected, ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha dhammas exist, but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, dynamic network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, freed of the fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; but as it appears when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen folks call "the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we commonly call "samsara". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37520 From: Mike Nease Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] out of town Hi Dan, Do you suggest that concepts are always attended by views and that, since right view only attends satipatthaana or path and fruition, that concepts are always attended by wrong view? Look forward to your response on your return. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:52 PM Subject: [dsg] out of town > > > Dear All, > I'll be out of town and out of internet contact for several days. > Please be patient if you are awaiting responses in the continuation > of my active threads! > > Dan 37521 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:23pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Herman Hi Herman, -------------- KH: > > Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. > > ------- H: > The Buddha did not teach an ultimate reality, either, Ken. -------------- If he didn't teach illusion, he must have taught reality: there are no other options. -------------- H: > You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma being teachings about ultimate reality. --------------- Herman, there is no point in your saying, "Nonsense!" every time someone describes the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts (see our home page). Please quote any part of those texts, that you do regard as genuine, and explain how it is not a teaching of ultimate reality. ------------- H: > And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) ------------ It's nice that you sympathise even when, as a non-surfer, you cannot know how unlovable a longboarder is. But you are probably a motorist; in which case I can give you some idea. You know those city-dwellers who, for no good reason, desecrate our roads with hulking great four-wheel-drive vehicles? When they go surfing, they ride longboards. :-) Ken H 37522 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Ri... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/14/04 8:31:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that > items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I > disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. > ======================== Although the Buddha knew exactly what is what, he *always* taught conventionally, and could not have taught otherwise. For example, look at the Satta Sutta, from the Samyutta Nikaya, one of the collections containing the most literally formulated of suttas. I will add comments, interspersed: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is this "one" who is "caught up there, tied up there"? The Buddha knew there is no thing that is a person, but he taught using that concept. Can you imagine his trying to formulate the foregoing sentence without the use of concepts? There is no language communication without the use of concepts. That is what concepts are about - communication. ------------------------------------------------- "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: What are "boys"? "girls"? "playing"? "sand castles"? -------------------------------------------------- But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What are "hands"? "feet"? What is it when hands and feet smash sand castles? This is all standard, conventional language. Imagine communicating what he did without these conceptual, conventional terms. ----------------------------------------------- "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is "Radha"? If the Buddha didn't use the above conventional sentence, but spoke only using names for paramattha dhammas, he could not have taught anything! ------------------------------------------------ Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37523 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Howard, I will duly note your group membership at the next census :-) > > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. > ==================== > Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do ("Conceptual > events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to include me in > that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm concerned, any > well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate events. > The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on this issue > is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha dhammas are > self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I see them merely as > fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an interconnected, > ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha dhammas exist, > but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, dynamic > network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, freed of the > fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; but as it appears > when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen folks call > "the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we commonly call > "samsara". > What I don't understand is that I agree with you entirely. Am I therefore in the camp of those who put forward an ultimate reality? I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, when there is no thinking? Kind Regards Herman 37524 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Hi Larry and Htoo, ..snip.. Of course we all understand that as a starting point we still need to translate manodhatu into our mother tongue before we can understand what it means. After much repetition manodhatu comes to mean exactly the same as the words from the mother tongue used to translate it. Which in the case of manodhatu is uncontroversial. There are other Pali words whose meanings are unclear, and simply sticking to the Pali does not make the meaning any clearer. Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Herman, I agree. But as you said, sticking to some important Pali words is uncontroversial. For clarity everyone needs initial translation and extensive searching for the meaning to be much more clearer. What I reminded is not to lose originality which is uncontroversial. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37525 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View KenH: Dear Htoo, You wrote to Howard: ----------------------------- > Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': > To me, items 1 through 4, ..snip..or conventional. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. > ----------------------------- KH: I think you may be missing the central point of this discussion. It is not about 'mundane and supramundane' (lokiya and lokuttara). It is about 'conventional and ultimate' (pannatti and paramattha). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I know from the beginning. Howard is not talking mundane and supramundane. He was talking on pannatti and paramattha. What I put in was that as long as nibbana has not been seen, the understanding is just still 'conventional'. And this is equally still in loki level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I doubt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Every time he used conventional language, he did so without being misled by it. In other words, every time he referred to a human being, he was referring to the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I would say that people frequently and increasingly mix pannatti and paramattha dhamma. Once I have heard from a friend regarding a story. There was a couple. Husband totally devotet to The Buddha teachings. He loved paramattha dhamma. I did vipassana and studied dhamma and went to monastries whenever applicable. One day, the couple had a fighting. First started with 'word bullets'. Later the husband hit his wife. Then what the wife shouted to neighbour was.. '' Help me please..!! . Nama and rupa is hitting nama and rupa..O! Bo.ho..ho..ho..'' The husband did not know what to proceed. All neighbour were smiling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: When, for example, the Buddha talks about refraining from killing, he is not referring to concepts (of a person who refuses to take life). He is referring to the five khandhas as they arise in a particular moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is continuation of mixing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know what you think of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As long as nibbana has not been seen, there is no ultimate right view. This means if the viewer is still puthujana, there is no way to say that he understand ultimate right view. Puthujanno ummattakko. All puthujanas ( each and every puthujana ) are just fools and they are mad at illusionary things. Ulitmate level will not reach from 1 through 4 etc etc. Howard is right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: I say that most Buddhists care only for the conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Still mixing of panatti and paramattha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. Am I being fanatical? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Still mixing of pannatti and paramattha. The Buddha taught Dhamma and Dhamma are for our understanding and to guide us in achieving liberation. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37526 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:51am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 090 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Moha does not singly arise. It always arises with other three akusala cetasikas even in ekahetuka citta. Ekahetuka means single-rooted. Single-rooted cittas are 2 moha cittas. Even inn these 2 moha mula cittas, there are also 3 other akusala cetasikas. Moha is the king of akusala dhamma. He has 2 great ministers. These 2 ministers are generals. One is the right wing of the king moha. And the other is the left wing of the king moha. So moha has two great disciples. Moreover, the akusala king moha also has another akusala cetasika as its home secretary. The right wing of the akusala king moha is ahirika or shamelessness. The left wing of the akusala king moha is anottappa or fearlessness. Home secretary for the akusala kingdom is uddhacca cetasika. Moha as a leader brings along all these three akusala cetasikas whenever it goes outside ( or whenever akusala citta arises, moha arises with these three akusala cetasikas ). Ahirika and anottappa always work together. They take the same object with their citta. They arise together with the citta which is akusala citta. They vanish when citta passed away. They depend on the same base where the citta and all other cetasikas have to depend on. Ahirika and anottappa are frineds and they are really close friends for a long long time indefinitely. Even though they are associated with moha, they are not moha cetasika. Ahirika and anottappa are not citta. They are not rupa. What is sure is that they are them and they do exist. They are not citta, not rupa, not nibbana but they are cetasikas. Again they are not moha cetasika. They do stand as they have their own characteristics, own markers and their own functions. When these two friends lead the troop of akusala dhamma, any type of akusala how much wicked they are can be committed by these two frineds. They are so powerful that they are also referred to as bala dhamma. There are 9 bala dhamma. 5 bala dhammas are bodhipakkhiya dhammas. Hiri and ottappa are kusala bala dhamma. Ahirika and anottappa are akusala bala dhamma. As bala dhamma, ahirika and anottappa always lead all akusala dhamma. There is no akusala dhamma that are not led by ahirika and anottappa as leaders. All lobha mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa. All dosa mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa. All moha mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa cetasikas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37527 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Herman Hi Ken, > > If he didn't teach illusion, he must have taught reality: there are > no other options. > > -------------- > H: > You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma > being teachings about ultimate reality. > --------------- > > Herman, there is no point in your saying, "Nonsense!" every time > someone describes the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts (see > our home page). Please quote any part of those texts, that you do > regard as genuine, and explain how it is not a teaching of ultimate > reality. > > ------------- If dependent origination is a teaching of ultimate reality, then, yes I was wrong. Do you see dependent origination as a teaching of ultimate reality? > H: > And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) > ------------ > > It's nice that you sympathise even when, as a non-surfer, you cannot > know how unlovable a longboarder is. But you are probably a > motorist; in which case I can give you some idea. You know those > city-dwellers who, for no good reason, desecrate our roads with > hulking great four-wheel-drive vehicles? When they go surfing, they ride longboards. :-) :-) Kind Regards Herman 37528 From: sarahprocterabbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:09am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Greetings, Dighanaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" < dighanakha@y...> wrote: > > Hello Jon. ... > Firstly, I would not make a distinction between sectarian views > and the views of [those whom you call] the traditional > commentators. If one lays aside one's faith bias and views the > matter objectively, the commentators of the Mahavihara are > sectarian commentators no less than those of any of the other > schools generated after the 2nd Council. They differ only in that > the Mahavihara branch of the Tambapanniya sect (now called the > Theravada) survives as a living tradition, while the others can > be known only through texts. I think you are saying that what we have as the commentaries should be seen as the writings of 'just another sect', and that happen to be the one surviving set of texts, while the texts of other (equally authoritative/suspect) sects have not survived. I think that is a somewhat cynical view, although you would not doubt consider the views I express to be unduly naïve, so let me try and explain my position a little more clearly. As I see it, the commentaries are not there to be 'embraced' and accepted as 'the answer' but, like the suttas themselves, are to be tested in real time as to their veracity. I can only say that in my limited experience the commentaries have proved to be very true to the original as we have it. So naturally I am inclined to continue my investigation of them (although it's true that this investigation is not of the academic kind -- see my further comments below). > Secondly, "modern writers" is too broad. I should prefer to limit > it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field > relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it > to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within > their field of expertise, not just anything that they happen to > write. > > With these qualifications in mind I would then answer yes, with > respect to certain issues there are good reasons for preferring > modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, > *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart > really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building > material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars > like the plague. Hmm. Depends what you mean by 'the truth'. I think academic analysis is useful as far as it goes, but I don't see that usefulness as going much beyond matters of form rather than substance. What I mean is that while such analysis can help us classify a particular text as having an 'earlier' or 'later' form, it cannot tell us to what extent its content is consistent with the Buddha's original teaching. (In any event, as I see it, the 'dating' of a text cannot establish it's date of *origin*, but only the date of the form in which it has come to us; would that be right?) > As to which issues one would be better off consulting modern > sources for, I dealt with this in summary form in my post to > Robert K. on the pros and cons of the Mahavihara commentators. > To recap, these would be Buddhist history (i.e. the history of both > Buddhist thought and Buddhist institutions), and any subject on > which the commentators erred due to the lack of science in their > day. I think you are giving these last-mentioned texts ('scientific inaccuricies') too literal an interpretation. Now I know you regard me as a fundamentalist, but let me assure you that I'm happy to abandon that when it suites me ;-)). Seriously though, my admiration for the texts on doctrinal matters is such that I have never bothered to spend much time on these other aspects (as previously explained). I accept however that for some these apparent scientific inaccuracies can assume a significance. I would only caution against regarding our present 21st century cultural/scientific perspective as a particularly enlightened one, unless your core values are purely scientific ones. On the specific instance of language acquisition, I think the position you attribute to the commentators (for example, that they truly believed that a child acquires the language of the first of its parents whose voice it hears) is unrealistic. It makes them sound like primitive cavemen or worse! It doesn't take a modern linguist to know that language acquisition is a more complex matter than that. ... > 'Uncritical acceptance' is a fair description of what I am witnessing > on this list. Here are some samples of it: I can only speak for myself here, so I won't comment on the samples you give (snipped), except to say I wonder where you see the 'uncritical acceptance' in the following passage (which seems to me pretty unexceptional -- perhaps it was one of mine ;-)): "There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts." Likewise your comment in an earlier post about regarding the ancient texts as being 'absolute authority'. Again, speaking only for myself, I can only say that that is not how I see it. I certainly see the ancient texts as due more serious consideration than modern commentators when it comes to doctrinal analysis (and it's true I don't have much interest if any in modern commentators who claim to have 'reinterpreted' the suttas by taking a 'fresh look' at them), but that's a far cry from absolute authority, as I see it. Yes, you may call it a bias but, as I've explained before, it's a bias that developed gradually over many years of interest in the teachings. To try and understand your point of view a little better, I'd welcome any examples you'd care to give of commentarial material on doctrinal matters that illustrate your concerns about the authenticity or reliability of that material. Jon PS We're getting a good run out of Ben's original subject. Thought of changing it but wasn't sure what would be a suitable subject for this thread at this stage ;-)) 37529 From: sarahprocterabbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > First of all - have a wonderful trip!! Thanks for the good wishes. I'm looking forward to it very much (and will be glad when we are actually underway; the build-up to getting away is never much fun ... ) > Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly > substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the relation > between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they are > distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called "the > experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the second > being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being two > separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think that the > reification of subject or object is error. I may be wrong, but I read you here as saying or implying that only the `experiential event called "the experience of hardness"' can be directly experienced by panna, and not its 2 component dhammas. If so that would contradict what I thought had been agreed as common ground earlier in our discussion, namely that the 2 dhammas in question remain at all times capable of direct experience by panna as to their particular characteristic. I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of `experiential event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the object of insight. I'd be interested to know which particular passage in the suttas you base this idea on. (Apologies if I've misread your comments.) Jon PS The group departs Bangkok for Bodh Gaya tomorrow (Saturday). Will try and post from along the way. 37530 From: Mike Nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi Again Dan, Hope you'll forgive my continuing this in your absence: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] > I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and > conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that > the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. The Great Forty (Majjhima Nikaya 117, Mahacattarisaka Sutta) makes a clear distinction between right view in the conventional or conceptual sense (saccanulomika-sammaditthi) and the cetasika (saccapa.tivedha-sammaditthi) that arises only with the mundane path (satipatthaana) or the supramundane paths (magga-phala). Pariyatti, pa.tipatti, pa.tivedha--we've discussed the interdependence of these here before I think. The likelihood of jumping to pa.tivedha via pa.tipatti without ever having heard and understood the Dhamma (pariyatti) is beyond remote I think. The Paali is worth looking at here: sacca: true; real. anulomika: suitable; in proper order. pa.tivedha: penetration; attainment; comprehension. "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with fermentations [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor of Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path." mike 37531 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/15/04 6:00:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I will duly note your group membership at the next census :-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: Duly noted! ;-) ------------------------------------------- > > > > >>Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > >>Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold > that > >>conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. > >==================== > > Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do > ("Conceptual > >events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to > include me in > >that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm > concerned, any > >well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate > events. > > The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on > this issue > >is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha > dhammas are > >self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I > see them merely as > >fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an > interconnected, > >ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha > dhammas exist, > >but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, > dynamic > >network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, > freed of the > >fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; > but as it appears > >when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen > folks call > >"the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we > commonly call > >"samsara". > > > > What I don't understand is that I agree with you entirely. Am I > therefore in the camp of those who put forward an ultimate reality? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a matter of language use and of emphasis. My reply to your post was motivated by the sense that it goes too far to imply that there are not direct experiences unmediated by conceptual construction and underlying our conventional percepts (e.g., the computer monitor that I'm looking at right now) and our concepts (e.g., the idea of computer monitor). But, as I made clear, I think, I don't attribute to those direct elements of experience the same own-being and separate, self-existence that some others here do. I do think that our understandings are close. It is possible, I suppose, that you believe that there are no aspects of experience, and cannot be, that are free of conceptual construction. (The Theravadin, Buddhist academic, David Kalupahana, seems to take that position, BTW.) If that is your view, then that is an area of difference between us. I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. ------------------------------------------------- > I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the > whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, > when there is no thinking? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I follow you, Herman. Yet I have no problem distinguishing hardness from sound. They are distinguishable. See what I mean? What is there when there is no thinking? That. (And still, without thinking, our hands fly to our ears when the sound is deafening!) ------------------------------------------------ > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37532 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/15/04 9:29:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > > Hi, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > > First of all - have a wonderful trip!! > > Thanks for the good wishes. I'm looking forward to it very much (and will > be > glad when we are actually underway; the build-up to getting away is never > much fun ... ) > > > Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly > >substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the > relation > >between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they > are > >distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called > "the > >experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the > second > >being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being > two > >separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think > that > the > >reification of subject or object is error. > > I may be wrong, but I read you here as saying or implying that only the > `experiential event called "the experience of hardness"' can be directly > experienced by panna, and not its 2 component dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely believe that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the hardness, though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a sphere are inseparable but distinguishable. If one were to lose the ability to make such distinguishings, that would not be an enlightenment, but an obfuscation. However, if one conceptually hardens that distinguishabilty into an independent separateness, that is falling prey to reification. ---------------------------------------------- > > If so that would contradict what I thought had been agreed as common ground > earlier in our discussion, namely that the 2 dhammas in question remain at > all > times capable of direct experience by panna as to their particular > characteristic. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: No, no change in position. ---------------------------------------- > > I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of `experiential > event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > object > of insight. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is the coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or content), and sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). -------------------------------------- I'd be interested to know which particular passage in the suttas you > > base this idea on. > > (Apologies if I've misread your comments.) > > Jon > > PS The group departs Bangkok for Bodh Gaya tomorrow (Saturday). Will try > and post from along the way. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Have a rewarding and safe trip. (The world is not quite as safe as it used to be, I'm sorry to say.) ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37533 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:59am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. A> To kick off with a comment though: I can't think of anyone A> on this list who argues that "all you need is faith". It's A> just one necessary factor which some people seem to place A> higher than others. I suspect everyone sees themselves using A> the truth weeding-hook so the real question is: how do you A> use the weeding-hook without slashing yourself? Four applications of the weeding-hook come immediately to mind: Reject without appeal any truth claim that is observably and demonstrably in error. Reject provisionally any truth claim that is established by unsound argument. ('Provisionally' because it may nonetheless be true in spite of the bad argument). If one is going to place oneself under a teacher's guidance then first check him/her out in the way described in the Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47) and check out his/her teachings using the four great standards of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Observe the injunctions in the Canki Sutta (MN 95) about being honest (with both oneself and others) about the basis on which one holds something to be true. This the Buddha calls preservation or guarding of truth (saccaanurakkha.naa): "If a person has faith, Bharadvaja, he preserves truth when he says: 'My faith is thus'; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: 'This alone is true, all else is false.' In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no awakening to truth (saccaanubodha)." This paragraph is then repeated four times, but with 'faith' replaced by 'preference' (ruci) ... 'something received through an oral tradition' (anussava) ... or 'arrived at by speculation' (aakaaraparivitakka) ... or by 'reflective acquiescence in a view' (di.t.thinijjhaanakkhanti). dig>> "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent dig>> on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that dig>> he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I dig>> am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' dig>> dig>> [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] A> Is not the above view of faith really only applicable to A> someone in the physical presence of the Blessed One? Someone A> who, when a question arises, can raise it directly with the A> Blessed One and be instructed? No, I think it retains its relevance even after the parinibbana, though with the difference that it is the Dhamma and Vinaya one is approaching and not the Buddha himself. A> One of my problems is that, when I read the Suttas, the A> meaning is often not clear to me. Were I in the presence of A> the Buddha, I would be asking for more explanation. I'm sure A> many bhikkhus did. I don't have direct access to the Buddha A> but I can at least read the explanation in the Commentaries. A> I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. But you think A> we shouldn't apply the above type of faith to the A> Commentaries. Right? Right. Teachings later than the Suttas are acariyavada and should be tested with the four great standards. A> But why not? Do you refuse to believe that the commentary A> writers were arahats because of bizarre comments like the A> Magadha language ones? On the alleged attainments of the commentators I have not made any comment, and in fact have no comment to make. In my opinion it is not an issue worth discussing. The commentators' writings don't make any claims for their authors, and claims made by later generations of Mahaviharan monks, in panegyrics and hagiographies, are of no historical value. Moreover, even if these authors had made claims for themselves, if we are following the Buddhism of the Suttas then the proper response to such claims should be "neither acceptance nor rejection, but questioning" (see the Chabbisodhana Sutta MN 112). And as the commentators are not around for us to question, the recommended procedure is impossible and so we should stick to the recommendation of "neither acceptance nor rejection." Regarding the commentators' claims about the language of Magadha, I disagree with your assessment of them as "bizarre". Far from being bizarre, the idea of a primordial Ursprache from which all other languages derive, and the idea that a child growing up in a wilderness will naturally acquire that language, are common to many savage cultures, and some civilized but pre-scientific ones. Such fanciful notions are not at all surprising in societies that have not yet developed an empirical approach to comparative linguistics. Before the advent of scientific linguistics even the greatest minds tended to spout nonsense when they applied themselves to the subject of linguistic evolution and relationships between languages (e.g. Plato's Cratylus Dialogue). So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the commentators is not that it is bizarre, but that it is demonstrably false and could have known to be false by the commentators themselves, had they bothered to check. Likewise for many of the other putatively scientific claims that they made. Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? I think they tell us that they were fallible men who were not above venturing into groundless speculation and presenting as truths assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, or anussava or takka. I agree of course that it's dhammically inconsequential that Buddhaghosa was wrong about the size of the sun by hundreds of thousands of miles. But it should forewarn us about the man's methods. It should cause us to ask just how much of his exposition of the Dhamma is similarly a product of a priori speculation, uncritical reporting of tradition etc. A> Is it not reported that the Buddha said similarly bizarre A> things (to our minds) like being able to transport himself A> to other realms, the divine eye etc? Yes, these things ARE bizarre, but not in a way that is problematic for me. I have myself experienced enough bizarre things in my life to be open-minded about the supra-normal content of the Suttas. But the point is, though there is much in the Suttas that I have not personally verified, there is nothing that contradicts what I know to be true. The same does not apply to the Commentaries. My academic background is in linguistics and I know that nearly every word that Buddhaghosa writes on this subject is utter twaddle. A> What I'm getting at is - what's the basis of the dividing A> line between the Buddha and arahat commentators? I hope what I've written above has made this clear. dig>> If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient dig>> exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the dig>> whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources dig>> composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the dig>> truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their dig>> own sect or monastery). A> Seeing bad faith or ulterior motives in others can be very A> easy to do and can spiral. So can uncritical appeals to authority based on the authority's posthumously asserted sanctity and infallibility. ;-) A> I wonder what the benefit really is in scouring the Buddhist A> world and trying to second-guess the motives of various A> writers. It seems pretty obvious to me that it benefits our understanding of a writer if we can ascertain something about the conditions under which he was working. In the case of Buddhaghosa & co. it may not be altogether irrelevant that they were part of an enormous institution, the Mahavihara, whose economic survival depended on royal patronage, and which was involved in a bitter four-century-long rivalry with two other enormous viharas, Jetavana and Abhayagiri. Furthermore, although some Ceylonese kings were happy to support all three viharas, most were not; those who were not wanted to invest in the vihara that would give them the best return on their patronage in the form of merit; it was believed that the most merit would be obtained from the vihara that was preserving the true teaching. Each vihara therefore had a material interest in hiring scholastics who could present its teachings in the best possible light, so that the royal families of Kandy and Anuradhapura could be persuaded to support it, and to shun or even suppress its rivals. A> Why shouldn't we accept that Buddhaghosa had faith A> and joy and zeal and was doing the honest thing? Because we know virtually nothing about the man other than what can be inferred from his writings, and these writings do not give the impression of having been composed by a man of your description. They appear to have been composed by a scholarly functionary who will do whatever it takes to defend his vihara's line. Particularly in the Vinaya Commentary, there are passages where Buddhaghosa is clearly not at all "faithful, joyful, zealous and honest" at the content of the work he is translating. Nevertheless he translates it, and tries to smooth over all the points on which it blatantly contradicts what is given in the Vinaya Pitaka. In contrast with, say, Vasubandhu or Dharmakirti, Buddhaghosa's writings are not those of a man who is in a position to think for himself, so no matter how personally honest he may have been, it seems he was working under corporate pressure to defend a sectarian line, no matter what. A> Where's the evidence he was a "corporate" man? Did he live A> in a condo by the beach with free alcohol? Not THAT sort of corporate! Go look up the word in a dictionary. I used 'corporate faith' advisedly, in the mistaken belief that with your Roman Catholic background you would know what I meant by it. I suppose you can't have been paying much attention in catechism class. I was not referring to commercial corporations or suggesting that Buddhaghosa indulged in the sort of perks beloved of corporate executives. For the Pauline origin of 'corporate faith' take a look at 1 Corinthians ch 12, 12-30. A few other quotes on the subject: "Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human being to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. "Whoever says 'I believe' says 'I pledge myself to what WE believe.' Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, clauses 166, 185) "They are fully INCORPORATED in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her." (Pope Paul VI, 'Lumen Gentium' 1964) Finally, a Catholic contrasting his church's corporate faith with Protestant individualism: "Environment, culture and other factors shape us all and mould our thinking in different ways. Because of the necessity of unity as an identifiable trait of truth, religious convictions in a large part depend on the social influences that shape us from the time we are born and throughout our lifetimes. It is foolish to claim that we are in any way free from these and other influences impacting our paradigms of thought, yet Protestantism in its individualistic approach seems to deny this claim (and often explicitly at that). If our environment plays a large role in our formation and that if truth must logically lead to unity that the individualistic "personal salvation" mould that Protestantism preaches cannot be true because truth is not relative .... Christianity by its very nature has to be a social and CORPORATE FAITH in order to maintain any semblance of unity of belief. Therefore is it not reasonable that God - knowing about our nature as He does - provided for this in building His Church and promulgating a CORPORATE FAITH that is based on the social elements that make up the nature of mankind? ".... Historic Christianity as manifested by all the Apostolic Churches with ties to the Apostles (the Catholic Church and the sixteen Eastern Churches) is covenantal and CORPORATE .... "Thousands of conflicting denominations within Protestantism .... can never give an orderly definition to truth. Instead, they make a laughing stock of the Christian faith to unbelievers. However, as true as this is, the Catholic and the Eastern Churches need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Thousands of denominations compromise truth indeed, but so does ANY number of "true" churches more than one universal church. The Protestant model does not and cannot work in sustaining unity in faith." (Fr. S. McElhinney, Christian Unity and the Role of Authority, chapter 6. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/unity8.html) A> Why should I accept that Buddhaghosa's "primary aim" was A> to defend his team and pour dirt on the other teams? If you're really comfortable with Sujin's take on the speculative philosophy of Buddhaghosa, then you probably shouldn't. In a post to Herman you wrote: A> I have a Catholic background and I well remember the concept A> of Christian faith - at every mass, we would all recite in A> unison "We believe in the Father etc etc". And in medieval A> times, if you refused to speak those words, you were A> endangering your life! That was dogmatic faith. Buddhist A> faith (or "confidence" or "trustful confidence") is A> something very different. I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study at the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that most of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is EXACTLY like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party catechism class. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37534 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 19 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 96, 97 are OK. Page 98. 1.Kayujjukata. I think this has been discussed in earlier posts. Rob M already responded on this matter. Page 99 is OK. Page 100. 2. The figure is exceptionally good and very clear. Page 101 is fine. Page 102. 3. Appendix IV is excellent. Page 103. 4. First confused but later clear. Because a piece of message appears in the next page 104. Page 104 to 111 are all fine. But for me they give me head-ache because of simple English. During all these criticism, I left something behind. I said I would go back to them later. I would check old messages ( from 1 to 18 ) and then I would go for the left messages. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37535 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:27pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 19 ) by Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Continue-: During all these criticism, I left something behind. I said I would go back to them later. I would check old messages ( from 1 to 18 ) and then I would go for the left messages. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, It was in the message (14 ). What I left was the table in the page 67. I will deal with it later. With respect, Htoo Naing 37536 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Dear Rob M, Thanks for your effort in writing your ebook of 'Theory Behind The Buddha's Smile'. It is hard to accomplish such work. Your work on this ebook is excellent and I just wrote as critics but mostly in good side as your work is already good. I admire your Engineering idea on construction of figures, tables and illustrations. They make the messages in the ebook much more clearer. I left a page. That page is page 67. That page contains a large table showing 31 bhumis. As words are small, I just left it. Now I have read it. There is only one spelling error. 'Dehapphala Deva' should have been 'Vehapphala Deva'. In the critic message ( 14 ), I wrote that I would leave this table in page 67 and I would leave some pages on citta. But now I could not find the original idea when I wrote that. When I find them, I will discuss as separate topic. This message is a conclusion message that the whole book has been read and criticized. Sorry for my interruptions, delays and my difficulty in reading at 'Files' section. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37537 From: Mike Nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "kenhowardau" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > I was somewhat surprised to learn about panna experiencing concepts. > Sarah seems to think it is quite common. Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other words depending on context. As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or supramundane path. In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept as an object as I understand it. > I had always thought such > moments were restricted to jhana. No doubt, I have been inattentive > - again. Well, jhaana can certainly take a concept as an object--and at a moment of understanding concentration of the level of jhaana can also arise for a moment, outside the practice of jhaanabhavana, I think. So neither jhaana, pa.n.natti nor pa~n~naa are mutally exclusive, I think--any of the three can arise with or with either of the other two. mike 37538 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:15pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Thanks for your effort in writing your ebook of 'Theory Behind The > Buddha's Smile'. ===== You are correct, it was an effort. I want to incorporate all of your feedback and get it printed by the end of the year, so that it is ready for the beginning of my next year's class. I can't thank you enough for your detailed corrections and comments. Metta, Rob M :-) 37539 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View (correction) ...of course I meant: > So neither jhaana, > pa.n.natti nor pa~n~naa are mutally exclusive, I think--any of the three > can > arise with or without either (or both) of the other two. 37540 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:53pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner37-Feeling/Vedana (j) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Somanassa, happy feeling, can arise with cittas of all four jåtis, with kusala citta, akusala citta, vipåkacitta and kiriyacitta. Somanassa is of the same jåti as the citta it accompanies. It does not arise with every citta. Somanassa cannot accompany dosa-múla-citta which has aversion towards an object and it cannot accompany moha-múla-citta, citta rooted in ignorance. Somanassa can accompany lobha-múla-citta but it does not always accompany lobha-múla-citta. Lobha-múla-citta can be accompanied by somanassa or by upekkhå, indifferent feeling. When somanassa accompanies lobha-múla-citta, somanassa is also akusala. There can be pleasant feeling when one likes a pleasant visible object, a beautiful sound, a fragrant odour, a delicious taste, a soft touch or an agreeable thought. We would like to have pleasant feeling all the time, it often seems to be the goal of our life. However, pleasant feeling cannot last and when it is gone we are sad. We find it very important what kind of feeling we have, but feelings are beyond control, they arise because of conditions. Lobha accompanied by somanassa is more intense than lobha accompanied by upekkhå. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37541 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:06pm Subject: India 1 Dear All, We were planning on getting an early flight today from Hong Kong and just staying in transit to meet the group at Bangkok airport, but we got cold feet -- what if our flight was late and so on and so on or we were needed to check in with the group ...too many papanca. So got into Bkk yesterday and meeting up with everyone this morning (the schedule says 11am) for the flight over 3 hrs later (!! ) direct to Gaya, outside Bodhgaya. Must try not to help Azita spill her coffee down her clean clothes as I managed last time when we met at the airport:-(. It'll at least be good to lessen the weight of my day-pack when I hand her a copy of CMA which seems twice as thick now as when I left home. More papanca. Off for a quick swim and somanassa with lobha... Hope to speak from Bodhgaya;-);-) Metta, Sarah ====== 37542 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:45pm Subject: Only Understanding Opens ... BlankFriends: The Power of Comprehension: By Faith one crosses the Flood.. By Awareness one traverses the Ocean.. By Effort one reaches beyond Pain.. By Understanding one is all Purified... Sutta Nipata 184 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=201818 Bhikkhus & Friends, this Supreme State of Sublime Peace has been discerned by the Well-Gone-One, that is Release through Not-Clinging by Understanding as they actually are: The Origination of, the Ceasing of, the Gratification of, the Danger of, & the Escape from the 6 sources of Contact: The Eye, Ear, Nose, Mouth, Body and Mind ... Majjhima Nikaya 102 [ii 238] "Five & Three" http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X We have to do the effort ourselves, as nobody can purify another. The Buddha's only rediscover & point out & explain this ancient Way. Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37543 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:25pm Subject: LIberation is not only conceptual (was Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play) Hello Herman and all How have you all been? Self attempted to dictate a break from Dhamma discussion in order to concentrate on other projects but as always self is unable to control things in this way. An undeniable desire to continue to develop my understanding of the Buddha's teaching together with others moves my hands to the keyboard! There is no stopping it. At least my hands are not being moved to throttle someone - yet. Herman :> > >>Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > >>Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold > > that > > >>conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Liberation can *certainly* be experienced, even by beginners, as a "knowable ultimate event", if that is to mean free of language, free of concept, as something that is directly experienced to the degree that a beginner like myself is able to experience it. And it can be experienced as a finite event that rises and falls away. Perhaps those of us who are prone to bursts of aversion-rooted anger can understand this most clearly. When one begins to come to understand the great web of conditions that underlies anger (I'm currently reading Nina's "Conditions" - highly recommended) one begins to see it clearly when it arises, as not-self, as impermanent, as dukkha. There are countless opportunities in daily life, for me at least, to see this kind of irritation rising and falling away very clearly. Understanding, even to a basic degree, the first and second noble truths allows us detachment from believing this dosa to be self. Surely we've all experienced such liberation from anger! There are real moments of liberation there. I don't care if dosa is called paramittha dhamma, or daramittha phamma or shake boppa looppa, it is real and experienceable in the moment - it rises and falls away beyond my control, due to conditions. And when panna sees this, it conditions the arising of further moments of liberation. I mean, is there any doubt about this? How could there be? Hasn't your own experience shown you this? These moments of liberation from suffering, though nothing resembling the liberation that the enlightened experience, allow me to start every day in great gratitude to the Buddha, and this gratitude arises during the day, in a way that cannot be controlled, and falls away again as moha floods up again. Liberation is not just a conceptual experience, surely, and believing so is an indication, in my opinion, of the faith faculty being entirely disabled. The Buddha teaches that faith is a faculty to be developed, along with wisdom, concentration, energy and mindfulness. It's wise to be cautious in one's faith, but if one is unable even to recognize that the Buddha's teaching liberates people in a real way, I would say the balance is off. Let's all take note of any gratitude to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha that does or does not arise through our busy (I assume) daily lives. This is not piety, or neuroticism. It is understanding and appreciating fairly basic aspects of the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Phil 37544 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Howard, Thanks for your post. I found it very clarifying. ==== It is possible, I suppose, that you believe that there are no aspects of experience, and cannot be, that are free of conceptual construction. (The Theravadin, Buddhist academic, David Kalupahana, seems to take that position, BTW.) If that is your view, then that is an area of difference between us. ==== This difference can be a flavoursome spice :-) ==== I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha > dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. > ------------------------------------------------- If you feel inclined, I would love to read more of your thoughts on points 1 and 2 above. ==== > > I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the > > whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, > > when there is no thinking? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I follow you, Herman. Yet I have no problem distinguishing hardness from sound. They are distinguishable. See what I mean? >What is there when there is no thinking? That. (And still, without > thinking, our hands fly to our ears when the sound is deafening!) > ------------------------------------------------ Well pointed out! Kind Regards Herman 37545 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/15/04 7:41:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our > experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are > largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think > so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of > infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility > of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha > >dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha > vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. > >------------------------------------------------- > > If you feel inclined, I would love to read more of your thoughts on > points 1 and 2 above. > ============================= I haven't thought these out in great detail, so what I say will be very sketchy. With regard to the first: If every experience we have is a conceptual construct that is an assembly of other such constructs, then there are either infinitely many experiences involved, or recursion involved, or both, but, in any case, it seems to me to become a matter of a house of cards without foundation. Oddly, I have no problem with a similar infinite chain as regards ordinary conditionality (causality). I have no problem, assuming (as I do) a no-beginning to "existence", with the idea that whatever phenomena arise do so in dependence on other co-occurring and pre-occurring similarly dependent phenomena. But in terms of conceptual fabrication, the analogous situation just doesn't make sense to me. It strikes me that a conceptual construct must be built on (or composed of) a finite number of components, not an infinite number. Perhaps that reflects limited imagination on my part. ;-) My perspective on the second point has weaker foundation. About the best I can say is the following: To me, ignorance is concept-based, and wisdom amounts to seeing through our conceptual errors (and seeing through the concepts themselves). But without a foundation of conceptually unmediated experience, there is no basis for evaluating conceptual structures as correct or incorrect - there is no criterion for detecting error. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37546 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:53pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: >> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: > > candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m > suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m > > "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) > "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) > > (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) > > Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? I > think they tell us that they were fallible men who were not above > venturing into groundless speculation and presenting as truths > assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, or anussava or takka. > . the point is, though there is much in > the Suttas that I have not personally verified, there is nothing > that contradicts what I know to be true. The same does not apply > to the Commentaries. ========= Dear Dighanaka, How can we be sure that Buddhaghoisa wasn't referring to the moon and sun in relation to the size they appear on the horizon, or in some other way. Or is this a point that is stressed as been of importance by Buddhaghosa? It is good you have faith in the suttas but then sometimes there are things the suttas say about the moon and sun that (on the surface) seems to contradict what we think is true. Take the common passage about the pwoers of those with mastery of jhana: "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn11.html I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but like you I don't doubt the suttas on this matter. But you can imagine some academics might look twice at such a passage; and even say that it shows the Buddha wasn't infallallible! They might consider such passages to be cause to doubt the whole teaching. RobertK 37547 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:50pm Subject: Re: Objective and Subjective Scientist Herman Hi Herman Sorry for being slow ... cars breaking down and houses needing paint etc. ]--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] > I think it is useful to distinguish between subjective and objective > sources of experience. I have no doubt that devas are and have been > a reality for folks. What seems to set devas apart from my Mum, for > example, is that a deva is not a shared reality. > > In Maha-samaya Sutta (DN 20) the Buddha enumerates to a group of > 500, mostly arahants, all the devas and other-wordly beings that > have gathered to pay homage to him. The 500 did not see what the > Buddha saw. > > As opposed to my Mum, who on appearing in a room requires no > announcing, mostly by virtue of her imposing figure :-). > > There are many experiences I have had which I have confirmed to have > only been experienced by me, though there were others present. I > think there is room to scientifically differentiate between those > experiences that have an origin external to the mind, which are > sharable, and those that are purely mind-made, which are private. > > What do you reckon? Andrew: I can certainly identify with your experience here. My only query is: how shareable is an experience external to the mind? When you are in a court of law listening to witness after witness testify on oath about a "common experience" (something they all heard/saw), it soon becomes clear that the experience was different for each. Each remembers things differently - often *radically* differently. Yes, some of the witnesses are deliberately lying. But most aren't. I think the human mind and consciousness are incredibly complex - it is indeed like trying to separate the ingredients in a soup to sort things out. And what about the witnesses who all say much the same thing? I suppose that shows that powerful external conditions (like a loud bang) are "shareable" (something about that word seems out of context; it almost implies a "giving" - but who is the "giver"?) End of random thoughts! (-: Andrew T 37548 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hi, Robert (and Dighanakha) - In a message dated 10/15/04 10:54:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Take the common passage > about the powers of those with mastery of jhana: > "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. > With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so > mighty and powerful' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn11.html > I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but like you I > don't doubt the suttas on this matter. ======================== In other suttas the Buddha has spoken of a mind-made body that can be removed from the physical body like withdrawing a sword from its scabbord. That sounds to me like what Theosophists and other occultists call an etheric body or an astral body. Perhaps it is such that is referred to here, flying through space and touching moon and stars. Likewise for the rest of that paragraph: "Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land." That might be an explanation, don't you think? (Not that this is of any importance as regards the Dhamma!) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37549 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:02pm Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Andrew T, > Thanks for chiming in here. You are getting at the crux of the > matter, viz. BB's comments in the introduction to Discourse on Right > View... > > Sarah and I both reject his interpretation of the sutta because both > the words of the sutta and the commentary strongly suggest a 'direct > veiw' rather than 'proper opinion' interpretation. One of Sarah's > recent posts on the topic discuss this in more detail. > > However, it seems that Sarah accepts his formulation ("to arrive at > direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of > the teaching ...") but that this particular sutta does not support > the view. > > Me? I don't buy the formulation at all. What about you? Hi Dan D You're outta town, I know, so I'm not holding my breath for a response to this post. Sarah's right, isn't she, in the sense that an incorrect conceptual grasp of the teaching excludes direct penetration. They simply can't co-exist. A correct conceptual grasp implies panna but because the object is not parramattha, direct penetration is excluded. But panna helps condition more panna, as needed for direct penetration. Someone will tell me if I've completely missed (or mangled) the point! Best wishes Andrew T 37550 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Herman I've interspersed some comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > What follows from me is entirely conceptual. > > A > Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, > according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing > of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our > liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, > defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate > volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... > > > > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level > of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many > people do choose the timing of their death. Andrew: Strictly speaking, I think all we can really say is that some beings choose the APPROXIMATE time of their death. Can you give an example of a person who chooses the PRECISE time of their death? We don't control ALL the necessary conditions to achieve this. Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which neither choice or death or > time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also > quite meaningless. > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is > basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a > quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that > knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) Andrew: Interesting. When the Buddha knew that one of the bhikkhus had died and was able to say where rebirth had occurred, did the Buddha's knowing affect the rebirth? Best wishes Andrew T 37551 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:55pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha Thanks for another long, considered and interesting reply. I had come across the Canki Sutta and been very impressed with it. Outright honesty. So vital to keeping "faith" from turning into "blind faith" or masquerading as "science". Don't read anything into my wild snipping below, it's just that time is limited at the moment so I will stick to some main ideas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the commentators > is not that it is bizarre, but that it is demonstrably false and > could have known to be false by the commentators themselves, had > they bothered to check. Likewise for many of the other putatively > scientific claims that they made. Andrew: I have just been looking at the Commentary to the Discourse on Right View. When discussing nutriment, the commentator lists some rather unscientific beliefs about animal diets but it is always in conjunction with "they say" eg "they say" crocodiles eat stones which dissolve as soon as they reach the stomach. "They say" clearly indicates that these matters are not being touted as fact. Has Bhikkhu Bodhi translated this correctly? > Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: > > candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m > suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m > > "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) > "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) > > (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) Andrew: Should "they say" appear in this translation in context? [snip] > I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study at > the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that most > of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is EXACTLY > like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party catechism class. Andrew: It's been decades since anybody told me off for not listening in catechism class! Thanks for the memories! (-: Seriously, though, why do these Abhidhammikas behave in this way? Is it purely a power or towing-the-corporate-line thing? Could it be that cynicism is such a debilitating and "muddying" thing that it needs to be suspended for a time (by a water-clearing gem) so that clarity about the teachings can be achieved, this then leading on to an ability to test the teachings better? There is so much in the teachings one could have doubts about from anger-eating yakkhas to magnificent deva palaces. On DSG from time to time there are passionate debates about sabhava and so on. None of its a problem if we stick to the Canki Sutta, is it? Re Buddhaghosa, I was surprised you didn't mention what I personally consider is the strongest point in your armoury - the Buddha predicting the decline of his teaching. Social pressure, economic pressure and peer pressure are constants and there have been many exceptional individuals who have been able to resist succumbing to them. Whether Buddhaghosa was one of them, I honestly don't know. Best wishes Andrew T 37552 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi Howard, When I said the Buddha "never taught conventionally" I didn't mean he didn't use concepts. Sorry for giving the wrong impression. --------------- . . . H: > For example, look at the Satta Sutta, ... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' ----------- Howard: What is this "one" who is "caught up there, tied up there"? -------------- Apart from the question of concepts and realities, what does it mean that one is "caught up" in the khandhas? . I know that, at some stage (arahantship?), the khandhas are no longer subject to clinging. I suppose that is when one is no longer caught up in them, but I don't remember the details. Do you? ---------------------------- H: > The Buddha knew there is no thing that is a person, but he taught using that concept. Can you imagine his trying to formulate the foregoing sentence without the use of concepts? --------------------------- Maybe not, but I can imagine it purely in concepts that refer to realities. In that sentence, the concepts "Radha" and "one" refer to a being, which is also a concept, but the remaining concepts refer to realities. ---------------------- "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play." Howard: What is "Radha"? If the Buddha didn't use the above conventional sentence, but spoke only using names for paramattha dhammas, he could not have taught anything! ------------------------ I think I know what you are saying: The Buddha used similes (just as Htoo uses "king and retinue" for "citta and cetasikas"); otherwise he could not have described the paramattha dhammas he was teaching. It's nice that we can agree occasionally, but there still remains the Sammaditthi Sutta, about which you said, "To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional." Do you simply mean they contain concepts, or do you mean they contain a conventional teaching? Ken H 37553 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:59am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Dear Htoo, Thanks for your reply. I think I know what you mean about mixing pannatti and paramattha dhamma and I liked your story about "Nama and rupa is hitting nama and rupa!" :-) However, I prefer to think that pannatti and paramattha dhamma do not mix. Needless to say, an object (arammana) is either one or the other, never a mixture. In a moment of satipatthana, there is no idea of people, places and conventional activities. Conversely, in a moment of pannatti, there is no satipatthana. I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. Ken H 37554 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Ri... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/16/04 6:06:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > It's nice that we can agree occasionally, but there still remains > the Sammaditthi Sutta, about which you said, "To me, items 1 through > 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional." Do you > simply mean they contain concepts, or do you mean they contain a > conventional teaching? > ======================== What they are *ultimately* about, what everything is ultimately about, particularly as understood by an arahant, are direct elements of experience, unmediated by concept. However, the matters being discussed in items 1 through 4 and 6 involve such incredible complexity of relation that their communication requires the use of an extremely high level of conceptualization, and would be utterly impossible to convey at a level closer to that of direct "paramatthic" experience. All communication (and thought) is a matter of convention and conceptualizing, but some topics require more of this, and some less. I don't think that we are on different pages in this matter, but have been differing on formulation of the matter. If, in saying that the Buddha never taught conventionally you are merely recognizing that the Buddha didn't attribute anything more than conventional reality to "conventional entities" and that he was not taken in by concepts, I agree. But, again, we *must* think and communicate conventionally, using concepts. For example, consider the TRUE STATEMENT "I woke up late this morning ... at ten," and contemplate what would be required to fully reformulate this in terms even somewhat close to the "paramatthic level," not that I even think there IS a pure paramatthic level for speech. This perfectly clear and true statement would have to be replaced by a discourse larger than the combined texts of all the libraries across the world! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37555 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - In a message dated 10/16/04 7:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but > there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems > to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. > ====================== It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance of confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic level. Also, there is "knowing" and there is "knowing". The "knowing" about ultimate reality that consists in learning facts is, in fact, a conceptual knowing and is not the knowing that liberates. Some contemplation and study along these lines is, of course, worthwhile, but, as I see it, coming to really see what is what, and to distinguish what seems from what is, requires the full program of practice laid out by the Buddha, especially including a regular mindfulness practice, whether including "formal meditation" or not, cultivating the mind and leading to a direct knowing. As the Zen folks say: "Look! Look!" ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37556 From: dighanakha Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:34am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Robert. dig>> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: dig>> "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) dig>> "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) dig>> (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) dig>> Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? dig>> I think they tell us that they were fallible men who were dig>> not above venturing into groundless speculation and dig>> presenting as truths assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, dig>> or anussava or takka. R> How can we be sure that Buddhaghoisa wasn't referring to the R> moon and sun in relation to the size they appear on the R> horizon, or in some other way. You be the judge: "The sun deity, having given light all day, goes down and darkness returns. Living beings think: 'Wouldn't it be good if there were another light like that!' Then the moon deity, knowing their chanda (desire), arises. For that reason he is given the name 'canda' ('moon'). The moon deity lives in a mansion made of quartz on the inside and silver on the outside. Both the interior and exterior of the mansion are very cold. The sun deity lives in a mansion made of gold on the inside and quartz on the outside. Both the interior and exterior of the mansion are very hot. "The length of the moon's polar axis is 49 yojanas. Its circumference is 250 yojanas. The length of the sun's polar axis is 50 yojanas. Its circumference is 250 yojanas. The moon is below, the sun is above. They are situated one yojana apart. The distance from the lowest point of the moon to the highest point of the sun is 100 yojanas. The moon rotates slowly, but orbits quickly. Constellations of stars revolve on both sides of the moon. The moon moves close to them like a cow approaching her calf, but the stars do not move from their place. The sun revolves quickly on its polar axis, but orbits slowly. For six months the moon and sun move away from Mt. Sineru, then for six months they orbit towards it .... etc. etc." (from the Commentary on the Agga~n~na Sutta) R> Or is this a point that is stressed as been of importance R> by Buddhaghosa? He repeats the statistics in five different commentaries, so I assume he did think it was something we need to know about. As for your sun and moon on the horizon theory, well that only makes matters worse. The sun and moon as perceived on the horizon have no fixed size at all. Whether one measures them by holding up a finger or by noting landmarks on the horizon, their size will vary according to the season, the kind of horizon (plains, seascapes and mountainscapes will all refract the light in different ways), the observer's distance from the horizon, and the angle from which he views them. R> "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged R> bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and R> moon, so mighty and powerful' R> I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but R> like you I don't doubt the suttas on this matter. But you R> can imagine some academics might look twice at such a R> passage; and even say that it shows the Buddha wasn't R> infallallible! I've never met an academic who said such a thing, but if I do I'll just say, "Listen sonny, if you don't believe humans have the elasticity to touch the sun and moon, just go to dsg and watch how Robert and Sarah stretch themselves defending Nagasena and Buddhaghosa!" :-) (sorry, moderators, couldn't resist it) Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37557 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Howard: Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance of confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That is true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Also, there is "knowing" and there is "knowing". The "knowing" about ultimate reality that consists in learning facts is, in fact, a conceptual knowing and is not the knowing that liberates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. I would say 'still not penetrated the thick layer of the darkness'. Understanding of dhamma is good. But just understanding for a while while in contemplation is not a real understanding. The is the point why some people( who have learnt a lot ) are apparently annoying when they face with what they do not like. Some are much annoyed that they have the mind that shows willingness to kill. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some contemplation and study along these lines is, of course, worthwhile, but, as I see it, coming to really see what is what, and to distinguish what seems from what is, requires the full program of practice laid out by the Buddha, especially including a regular mindfulness practice, whether including "formal meditation" or not, cultivating the mind and leading to a direct knowing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not know why some people deny formal meditation. I would define formal meditation as 'a meditation method which was formed by The Buddha'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As the Zen folks say: "Look! Look!" ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the essence of Diamond Sutra'? With Metta, Htoo Naing 37558 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:24pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Ken H: Dear Htoo, ..snip.. However, I prefer to think that pannatti and paramattha dhamma do not mix. Needless to say, an object (arammana) is either one or the other, never a mixture. In a moment of satipatthana, there is no idea of people, places and conventional activities. Conversely, in a moment of pannatti, there is no satipatthana. I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Very good. So as long as pannatti is the arammana of the citta, it is not satipatthana, do you agree? All rupa jhanas have arammanas and these arammanas are all pannatti, do you agree? With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37559 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:29pm Subject: Re: India 1 Sarah: ...snip...snip... It'll at least be good to lessen the weight of my day-pack when I hand her a copy of CMA which seems twice as thick now as when I left home. More papanca. Off for a quick swim and somanassa with lobha... Hope to speak from Bodhgaya;-);-) Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, Thanks for your sharing regarding trip to India. For me, I am swimming in the dhamma pool with somanassa. :-) Some may say lobha. When you swam, did you control your limbs? :-) With Metta, Htoo Naing 37560 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:32pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Rob M: Hi Htoo, ..snip..snip.. You are correct, it was an effort. I want to incorporate all of your feedback and get it printed by the end of the year, so that it is ready for the beginning of my next year's class. I can't thank you enough for your detailed corrections and comments. Metta, Rob M :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, Actually I must thank you. You sent me with readable form. Otherwise, I could not have read your ebook at Files section. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37561 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:56pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 091 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Ahirika and anottappa are 2 akusala cetasikas that always work together. They are the right wing and the left wing of the akusala king-cetasika moha. Ahirika is a cetasika or a mental factor that always arises with each of akusala cittas. Ahirika is shamelessness. It is shameless. It advises the citta not to be shameful. And it also advises all other associated cetasikas not to be shameful. Becuase of it presence, all mental faculties including citta and its associated cetasikas become shameless. Ahirika is absence of inhibititon. This inhibition is the nature that would otherwise speculate on the possible bad consequences and would inhibit doing the action that may lead to bad consequences because of shame. Its view is with shamefulness. Absence of this shame then makes every akusala possible. The friend of ahirika who always works with him is anottappa cetasika. It is fearlessness. It advises the king citta not to be fearful in doing things that might lead to bad consequences. And it also advises all other associated cetasikas not to be fearful. In the presence of anottappa, any akusala is quite possible. These include from minor ones to the greatest ones like 'anantariya kamma' or the most wicked akusala which invlove patricide, matricide, division of the Sangha, killing of arahats, and harming to The Live Buddha causing brusing. Anottappa is also a kind of disinhibition. This disinhibition is with the view of fearlessness regarding the possible consequences of the current actions. Both of these two friends, ahirika and anottappa, are led by moha who is the leader of all akusala. Again, in the presence of moha or darkness, ahirika and anottappa will not see or speculate on the future and on the possible consequences of the current actions. While ahirika does not see the possible consequences because he is disinhibited with shamelessness, anottappa also does not see the possible consequences because he is disinhibited with fearlessness. Both friends are disinhibitions. But one of disinhibition is without shame and another is without fear. As there is difference, these 2 cetasikas stand as separate cetasikas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37562 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:04pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for the ongoing food for thought :-) Some more to crunch on below. > > > > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level > > of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many > > people do choose the timing of their death. > > Andrew: Strictly speaking, I think all we can really say is that some > beings choose the APPROXIMATE time of their death. Can you give an > example of a person who chooses the PRECISE time of their death? We > don't control ALL the necessary conditions to achieve this. ==== Personally I do not accept that there is such a thing as a precise time of death. In a complex, interdependent organism part of the organism can be dead, while another part can still be alive. The historical record has many gruesome occurences of death as a definition having been contradicted by the observed phenomena of what was relegated to the morgue "coming back" to life. Who knows how many human beings have been buried or cremated alive? Defined ultimate events such as cuti-citta are, in my book, poor philosophy following poor science. > Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which > neither choice or death or > > time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also > > quite meaningless. > > > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is > > basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a > > quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that > > knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) > > Andrew: Interesting. When the Buddha knew that one of the bhikkhus had died and was able to say where rebirth had occurred, did the Buddha's knowing affect the rebirth? I do not know the specific intentions of the Buddha in predicting the unpredictable (why do you think the number of rebirths for a sotapanna is not fixed?), but I do know that the intention behind the Buddha's life time was to teach. And he taught the end of suffering. Kind Regards Herman 37563 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hi to all those involved in this discussion, Just a general comment. The infallibility of the pope is a belief held dear by billions of members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and nurtured by those who benefit from it. The infallibility of the Theravadan tradition is likewise held by millions, and similarly nurtured. What is observable in day to day life is the human condition, which for many involves the need for authority. This much can be known, while the infallibility of a tradition cannot. Those who argue from a position of the infallibility of their tradition would do well to come to understand the basis for their conviction. We will be away for a few days, and there are still some unanswered posts, including one from Phil, so I apologise for any delay. Enjoy the discussions Kind Regards Herman 37564 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 10/16/04 5:21:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart > Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the > essence of Diamond Sutra'? > > ========================= Shall I explain these while standing on one foot? ;-)) More seriously, these are very deep and difficult sutras, and people far more knowledgeable of Mahayana than I would have trouble explaining them. The essence of the Diamond Sutra, I believe, is the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth, and the emptiness (lack of independence) of dhammas. The material from the Diamond Sutra I have as my signature line, of course, is easy to grasp, dealing as it does with the radical impermanence of all phenomena. Inasmuch as these sutras are not from the Pali canon, and are not, IMO, the direct word of the Buddha, I'm not really sure that it makes much sense to pursue them on DSG. If you (and others) would like to form an informal, offlist email group to discuss these suttas trying to figure out what they are about as related to the Dhamma as given in the Tipitaka, or even to set up a Yahoo group for such discussions, I will be happy to participate! Maybe such a Yahoo group would be of value. Let's talk about it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37565 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi to all those involved in this discussion, > > Just a general comment. > > The infallibility of the pope is a belief held dear by billions of > members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and nurtured by those who > benefit from it. > > The infallibility of the Theravadan tradition is likewise held by > millions, and similarly nurtured. > > What is observable in day to day life is the human condition, which > for many involves the need for authority. This much can be known, > while the infallibility of a tradition cannot. > > Those who argue from a position of the infallibility of their > tradition would do well to come to understand the basis for their > conviction. > > We will be away for a few days, and there are still some unanswered > posts, including one from Phil, so I apologise for any delay. Hi Herman Enjoy your few days off. A comment for your return. From this post and others, I get the strong impression that for you, "faith" is interwoven with "authority". The faithful are those who succumb to authority; the unfaithful are those who reject authority. For me, this analysis is far too simplistic. Yes, as a RC, you had to succumb. But my experience in Buddhism has been very different. I have never been told that I must adopt a belief or leave. Instead, I have been told "Look, this may sound strange to you now but it's what the teachings say. Think about it in this context or put it aside for a while and concentrate on the things that your experience demonstrates are accurate ..." It has never been power authoritarianism. For my brand of Dhamma, the faithful are not those who succumb to authority but those who refuse to succumb to every wave of cynicism that sweeps over them. Dighanakha shows that one can be cynical about Buddhaghosa and yet maintain a strong faith in the Dhamma. Others are not prepared to "give up on" Buddhaghosa. There's little to be achieved by sniping at one another. We just follow the Canki Sutta and say "my belief is ..." or "my approach is ..." In short, having faith doesn't necessarily make you a sheep quaking under the shepherd's staff! (-: Best wishes Andrew T 37566 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:51pm Subject: The indispensability of Pali Hello all This is a key phrase repeated four times in the Buddha's first discourse, in three different translations available at access to insight. "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the understanding, the finding, the light, that arose in regard to ideas not heard by me before." "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before " Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before" This a good reminder that we don't have to go far into the Suttanta before we are reminded that it is impossible to begin to fully understand suttas without turning to Pali for clarification of key phrases, unless we want to take a leap of faith and try to guess at the meaning of each abstract noun that appears. I suppose some would say "rely upon yourself," the most tragically misinterpreted words in the Canon, in my beginner's opinion. Of course, referring to Pali is only a step in the right direction, only a step closer to the words that came out of the Buddha's mouth. Fortunately, we also have ancient commentaries to turn to. The authors were much closer to the source than any of us here - that much is for sure, no matter how we doubt (rightfully) their full reliability. Metta, Phil 37567 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Dear Howard, Thanks for your reply. Sometimes, I might try it. But as I said, I am stopped on the way while sutras are touched. But whenever I touch suttas, vinaya, abhidhamma I am dragged along from the start to the end. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo - > > In a message dated 10/16/04 5:21:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart > > Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the > > essence of Diamond Sutra'? > > > > > ========================= > Shall I explain these while standing on one foot? ;-)) > More seriously, these are very deep and difficult sutras, and people > far more knowledgeable of Mahayana than I would have trouble explaining them. ...snip...> Yahoo group would be of value. Let's talk about it. > > With metta, > Howard 37568 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:13pm Subject: Re: The indispensability of Pali Phil: Hello all This is a key phrase repeated four times in the Buddha's first discourse,in three different translations available at access to insight. "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the understanding, the finding, thelight, that arose in regard to ideas not heard by me before." ..snip..snip.. Fortunately, we also have ancient commentaries to turn to. The authors were much closer to the source than any of us here - that much is for sure,no matter how we doubt (rightfully) their full reliability. Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Phil, In Myanmar these are daily heard. 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, aloko udapaadi.' Cakkhu or vision arises. Nana or knowledge arises. Panna or wisdom arises. Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. Aloko or direct light arises. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37569 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Herman and Andrew Nobody can choose the precise time of death but Arahants who practise the breath comtemplation will know when is their precise time of death :) Ken O 37570 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard: > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > believe that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the hardness, though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a sphere are inseparable but distinguishable. k: If hardness experience at that moment is distinguish with the knowing of the hardness, then in the first instance, what is that recognise the hardness to distinguish it between the knowing of the hardness. There must be something that recognise hardness if we would to distinguish between hardness and the knowing of the hardness. Could you tell me more about your thinking in this? Ken O 37571 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:00pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Dear Ken O and Herman (in absentia) Thanks for your extra comment, Ken O. What do you think about this view of Herman's: > Personally I do not accept that there is such a thing as a precise > time of death. In a complex, interdependent organism part of the > organism can be dead, while another part can still be alive. [snip] Defined ultimate events such as cuti-citta are, in my book, poor > philosophy following poor science. If I can use my preferred terminology for a moment, Herman is saying that nama-rupa is a composite "interdependent organism", the parts of which die at separate times. In that case, there should be more than one cuti-cittas. The claim that there is only one cuti-citta per nama-rupa stream lifetime indicates to me that a nama-rupa stream should be viewed as a (conventional) whole dependent upon (ultimate) parts. For the cuti- citta to be characterised as a "defined ultimate event", this requires the ultimate parts to fall away in unison. Right? Is "death" one moment ie does "death" equal cuti-citta? Or is "death" a process, the final namic moment of which is cuti-citta? What are your thoughts on that? Best wishes Andrew T 37572 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: The indispensability of Pali --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: [snip] > This a good reminder that we don't have to go far into the Suttanta before > we are reminded that it is impossible to begin to fully understand suttas > without turning to Pali for clarification of key phrases, unless we want to > take a leap of faith and try to guess at the meaning of each abstract noun > that appears. Hi Phil For what it's worth, I have always thought that studying Theravadan Buddhism without having anything to do with Pali is like trying to become an expert on Roman literature without learning Latin. This is where scholars play such a useful role - in deciphering meanings and shades of meanings. But direct insight is ultimately up to us ... Best wishes Andrew T 37573 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/16/04 11:07:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: If hardness experience at that moment is distinguish with the > knowing of the hardness, then in the first instance, what is that > recognise the hardness to distinguish it between the knowing of the > hardness. There must be something that recognise hardness if we > would to distinguish between hardness and the knowing of the > hardness. Could you tell me more about your thinking in this? > ======================== I think the distinguishing is after the fact. When "I experience the hardness," there is just the hardness. There is no me that is known, and there is no knowing that is known (at least not dualistically, as a subject knows an object). There is just the hardness as an experiential presence. This is the way it appears to me. More than this I can't say. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37574 From: nori Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:32pm Subject: Pride and right view What is pride ? Pride is taking delight, taking pleasure in measuring oneself in regard to others. It is an ignoble pleasure. Some take pride in their view, their virtue and works. Some are motivated in their actions to this end, for obtaining this ignoble delight. I for one am not yet completely free of this defilement, but I am glad at least I see it. There can be no right view when ones view is possessed by this, or any other inclinations. ---- Sutta-Nipâta IV. ATTHAKAVAGGA 3. DUTTHATTHAKASUTTA 2. How can he who is led by his wishes and possessed by his inclinations overcome his own (false) view? Doing his own doings let him talk according to his understanding[4]. 4. SUDDHATTHAKASUTTA 7. They do not form (any view), they do not prefer (anything), … 4. Let him not form any (philosophical) view in this world, either by knowledge or by virtue and (holy) works, let him not represent himself equal (to others), nor think himself either low or distinguished. 8. They do not form (any view), they do not prefer (anything), the Dhammas are not chosen by them, ... ---- 4. SUDDHATTHAKASUTTA 1. `I see a pure, most excellent, sound man, by his views a man's purification takes place', holding this opinion, and having seen this view to be the highest he goes back to knowledge, thinking to see what is pure. 2. If a man's purification takes place by (his philosophical) views, or he by knowledge leaves pain behind, then he is purified by another (way than the ariyamagga, i.e. the noble way), … 3. But the Brâhmana who does not cling to what has been seen, or heard, to virtue and (holy) works, or to what has been thought, to what is good and to what is evil, and who leaves behind what has been grasped, without doing anything in this world, he does not acknowledge that purification comes from another. --- http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/index.htm with metta, nori 37575 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Mike, You wrote: --------------- > Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other words depending on context. > -------------- Panna doesn't have worldly functions, though, does it? For example, our understanding "1 + 1 = 2" is more a matter of recognition than of understanding. -------------- M: > As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or supramundane path. > --------------- That's where I was going wrong: I was restricting it entirely to satipatthana with only one exception - for jhana. But I am happy to learn it is more wide-ranging. ---------------- M: > In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept as an object as I understand it. > ---------------- So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) Ken H 37576 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew and Herman I get these materials from old posts :) about three types of death. Post no 13767 by Nina << I would like to add a quotation from the Dispeller of Delusion (Commentary to the Book of Analysis of the Abhidhamma) Ch 4, 101, about three kinds of death: Momentary death is the falling away at each moment of the khandhas and conventional death takes place when the dying consciousness falls away. Death as cutting off: the final passing away of the arahat who does not have to be reborn.>> Here is a note from RobK at post 13743. I add { } for clarification << At this moment {talking about one citta moment} this process of arising and passing, birth and death, (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive it. But truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions {because of kamma that condition this conventional life we have :)} arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because different kamma change in kamma will produce results. >> To me this meant that we experienced momentary death in billions of citta times while cuti citta only once which we called conventional death. Regarding Herman assertation is basically base on science. We can be clinically death yet our body is alive, why? There could be reasons, clinically death by medical doctor may not mean we are dead, there are stories that those who are clinically dead in live support system still suddenly awakens :) - because kamma likes to play game and decided that conventional death by cuti citta should not arise. However, there are cases when kamma already conditioned conventional death yet the body still alive, it is because science has managed to infuse nutriments and temperature to rupas, that is why the body is alive. Hence we can still keep some part alive while other part died by science. But if we are experience cuti citta - we are surely conventional dead. So what is clinically dead by today standard - I dont know, cuti citta is still something cannot be detected by modern science yet. Ken O 37577 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard << I think the distinguishing is after the fact. When "I experience the hardness," there is just the hardness. There is no me that is > known, and there is no knowing that is known (at least not dualistically, as a subject knows an object)>> k: replacing I as citta, then in fact you have experience hardness when citta arise. I think another way of explaining why we can distinguished between hardness and the knowing of hardness. When we experience an hardness in ultimate reality sense, that citta already arise. In the experiential world we live in and not in the world of an Arahant, only after we experience hardness in ultimate reality in the sense process, we are then able to know the presence of hardness in the mental process. I think our experiential is limited in scope so we thought we experience hardness after knowing hardness in the mental process. Ken O 37578 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:36am Subject: "Kira" - "so they say..." was: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. dig>> So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the dig>> commentators is not that it is bizarre, but that it is dig>> demonstrably false and could have known to be false by the dig>> commentators themselves, had they bothered to check. dig>> Likewise for many of the other putatively scientific claims dig>> that they made. A> I have just been looking at the Commentary to the Discourse A> on Right View. When discussing nutriment, the commentator A> lists some rather unscientific beliefs about animal diets A> but it is always in conjunction with "they say" eg "they A> say" crocodiles eat stones which dissolve as soon as they A> reach the stomach. "They say" clearly indicates that these A> matters are not being touted as fact. Has Bhikkhu Bodhi A> translated this correctly? Probably. The word he has translated as "They say..." is 'kira'. Kira is an adverb usually inserted in a sentence to inform about the status of the speaker's claim. In sub-commentarial glosses its range extends from "It is rumoured that..." to "It is generally known that..." But the most common gloss is mayaa suta.m ("it was heard by me..."; "I heard..."). dig>> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: dig>> candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m suuriyama.n.dala.m dig>> pa~n~naasayojana.m dig>> "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) "The dig>> diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) A> Should "they say" appear in this translation in context? No. You won't see a 'kira' when the commentators are doing cosmology, any more than when they're doing paramattha dhammas. In both cases they were making truth claims and historically these claims were taken as truth wherever the Mahavihara's Dhamma prevailed. And I don't just mean among thick peasants; Ledi Sayadaw, the renowned Burmese abhidhammika, was expounding and defending Buddhaghosa's flat earth geocentric cakkavaala right up to his death in the 1920's. dig>> I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study dig>> at the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that dig>> most of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is dig>> EXACTLY like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party dig>> catechism class. A> It's been decades since anybody told me off for not A> listening in catechism class! Thanks for the memories! (-: A> Seriously, though, why do these Abhidhammikas behave in this A> way? Because they can. Historically Theravada Buddhism in SE Asia faced no serious competition. Unlike the Buddhists in India the SE Asian sanghas were not obliged to defend their teachings against the criticisms of brahmins and Jains. Unlike the Western Church in Europe there was no classical humanist tradition to come to terms with. Lack of competition means you never have to confront any challenges to your views, and this leads to intellectual complacency and dogmatic slumber. In pedagogy this leads naturally to a conformist Hegelian model of education, rather than a Deweyan one. To be educated is to be a passive receptacle into which the corporately approved dogma is poured. A> Is it purely a power or towing-the-corporate-line thing? Probably not. Large institutions and their members are seldom purely this or purely that. Nevertheless I think the corporate factor is a significant one. A> Could it be that cynicism is such a debilitating and A> "muddying" thing that it needs to be suspended for a time A> (by a water-clearing gem) so that clarity about the A> teachings can be achieved, this then leading on to an A> ability to test the teachings better? Sure. I did not myself start out with any strong preconceived views about the Mahavihara commentators. My present view is the result of having read them and compared their take on the Suttas with that of other Indian Buddhist writers who were dealing with a very similar body of texts to the Pali Suttas. My reading lead me to respect Buddhaghosa as a grammarian and lexicographer, but as far as Dhamma is concerned I found the Sautrantika writings generally (though not invariably) fared better when examined in the light of the four great standards. A> Re Buddhaghosa, I was surprised you didn't mention what I A> personally consider is the strongest point in your armoury - A> the Buddha predicting the decline of his teaching. Social A> pressure, economic pressure and peer pressure are constants A> and there have been many exceptional individuals who have A> been able to resist succumbing to them. Whether Buddhaghosa A> was one of them, I honestly don't know. Well, I don't actually have an armoury; just a weeding-hook, and a few other gardening tools. I have not brought up the issue of the predicted decline because I take these teachings as being a warning about the sort of thought and behaviour that is to be avoided if the Sasana is to last, not as guidelines for calculating where the Sasana is at. I'm not an historical determinist and don't envisage the Buddha's predictions as coming to pass in a linear and uniform way, such that one could say: "After n years matters will stand like this." So you're not going to hear me say "Don't trust Buddhaghosa, for he lived a thousand years after the Buddha!" but you might hear me drawing attention to particular developments that happened during those thousand years. For example, I regard the composition of the Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka and the two Apadanas, and the controversial inclusion of these in the Khuddaka Nikaya, as symptomatic of a partial and localized degeneration, but not an across-the-board one pertaining to the whole Sasana. The school that wrote these texts introduced an unwarranted element of deliberative teleology into the career of the Bodhisatta and his arahant disciples -- something absent in the first four Nikayas. In so doing they fell into the error Bergson and Sartre call 'illusion retrospective du vrai' (i.e. explaining/inventing what happened before to account for what happened later in someone's life). They were fantasy creations and the subsequent evolution of this way of thinking did much to damage and undermine the teachings concerned with awakening. But this same school also did some useful things like preserving the best version we have of the Majjhima Nikaya and the second best version of the Samyutta Nikaya. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37579 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:25am Subject: India 2 Dear All, The waiting around and queueing yesterday were as bad as I was expecting - well over 3 hrs at Bangkok airport before departure and well over two hours at immigration in Gaya, India, waiting for the one customs official with his assistant to individually process the entire plane load. Actually, I had to go back to his desk a second time as I was given the wrong form, fortunately spotted by our tour guide. Without this, I would not be allowed to leave the country in two weeks time:-). Anyway, the whole experience was made bearable for me by the good spirits and humour, not to mention patience of our group members and all the friendly chats along the way. I had one very brief chat with K.Sujin, as we were picking up our bags, about the authenticity or otherwise of the Milinda-panha. She said it didn't matter at all whether it was Theravadan or anything else or which part of the text a dialogue comes from. If it's helpful, fine. If it's not helpful or if it just leads to thinking, doubt or aversion, just leave it aside. The same with difficult parts of the commentaries. We have so little undestanding so we should just leave anything beyond our understanding, rather than just thinking and doubting. It was dark and getting late as the coaches drove the short distance into Bodh Gaya. They headed straight for the cente near the bo tree. The road in looked just as I recalled from 30 yesrs ago - dark, very dark with a few very simple dwellings and tea-stalls, wandering cattle and dogs, white figures squatting in fields. As we approached Bodh Gaya, I began to see the occasional ragther ugly and modern hotel building springing up on the flat land on either side of the road and then we arrived into the centre, into light, trinket and souvenir stalls everywhere, vendors and beggars, new temple buildings and a new walled enclosue of the Bo tree area. Off the bus after a very long day into the hassle and bustle that is now the centre of Bodh Gaya, into the stupa and bo tree area, shoes off and a walk down a new, wide paved path, lined with all kinds of insects. It was impossible to watch one's feet, watch the insects, watch the beggars and watch where the group was going at the same time. Suddenly Nina and Lodewijk appeared as if were the most natural thing to meet here at the Bo tree. They'd been waiting for us all afternoon and looked as well and cheery as usual. Round the temple and straight to the Bo tree. There were more groups reciting familiar chants, lots of paying respect and into the new inner enclosure around the trunk of the very healthy looking Bo tree which is only opened for one or two hours a day. The ground is now so well swept and walked, there was not a Bo leaf in sight to pick up. We laid our flowes at the base of the trunk and then followed an Indian monk chanting familiar pali stanzas paying respect to the qualities of the Buddha and then he recited the Mangala sutta and there were furtherThai offerings of respect too. It was all very moving and a condition for short respite of respect to the Triple Gem for me and some piti and saddha before making our way back to the bus along the obstacle course of severely deformed and handicapped child beggars who at times literally were under our feet. As we stepped to avoid hurting them, we'd almost fall over or knock each other over. Dosa and metta following each other and of course we all had our different stories about the experiences going on, but for many of us it was also a condition for reflections on kamma and opportunities for metta, karuna and upekkha . I forget when we actually had a chance to have a wash, but was too tired to fuss about the mouse running round our smartish hotel bedroom and bathroom, just like mice used to run around in my tent accommodation when I first came to Bodh Gaya or the Thai temple rooms when I last visited Bodh Gaya with K. Sujin and aThai group;-). When I woke up this morning I wondered how I'd manage more queues, bus-loads, vendors and beggars. Fortunately, K.Sujin suggested any of us could stay behind at the hotel for dhamma discussion so whilst most people went off to visit the place where the Buddha floated his bowl and Suchada gave him milk-rice. K.Sujin, Nina, Jill, Azita, O, Jon and myself sat quietly discussing satipatthana for a long while. When someone asked, K.Sujin said she never thinks about feeling tired or fed up with hearing questions or explaining dhamma. We discussed a lot on attachment to sati andother wholesome states, the importance of khanti (patience), how it's not a matter of trying so hard to understand, pariyatti & conceptual understanding, how without understanding intellectually, realities can never be known directly but again even this intellectual or conceptual understanding has to apply to this moment, not just memorizing or reading texts, understanding what appears like lobha rather than what doesn't appear like phassa or indifferent feeling...Lots more to say, but no time. Most of the group have headed back already into Bodh Gaya (5 mins away from our hotel). Jon and I are resting up, checking DSG and will catch up with them for a ceremony with candles and more chanting at the bo tree this evening. Tomorrow is a long bus-ride to Varanasi (Banares). I'll send another note if I have a chance. Metta, Sarah p.s Htoo, no control by me of limbs whether in the pool or at the bo-tree - just namas and rupas conditioned to perform their various functions;-). ===== 37580 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > believe > that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the > hardness, > though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a > sphere > are inseparable but distinguishable. So if it is accepted that there are the 2 dhammas that are hardness (Dh B) and the knowing of hardness (Dh A), their relationship can I think be described by saying that 'Dh A knows Dh B'. After all, without the relationship of one dhamma knowing (or experiencing) another, we would be unable to define consciousness or indeed nama. ... > > I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of > `experiential > > event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > > > object > > of insight. > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is > the > coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or > content), and > sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). > -------------------------------------- As I said, I'd be interested to see a specific sutta passage. Are you referring to the description of the ayatanas? If so, are you saying that one of the ayatanas is in a class of its own as an 'event'? Jon 37581 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] India 2 Hi Sarah, and all Thanks so much for finding the time and energy to send us a message after such a long day(s), Sarah. Before reading your message, I'd been terribly envious of your pilgrimage...now I'm just....mildly envious! haha Sounds wonderful, really. Please send us more if you have time and say hello to everyone. > before making our way back to the bus along the obstacle course of > severely deformed and handicapped child beggars who at times literally > were under our feet. As we stepped to avoid hurting them, we'd almost > fall over or knock each other over. Dosa and metta following each other > and of course we all had our different stories about the experiences going > on, but for many of us it was also a condition for reflections on kamma > and opportunities for metta, karuna and upekkha . This reminds me of a failure of metta to arise when it could have today. As usual on Sunday, I made the long trip into work in Tokyo and was dog tired when I got back and started off on my long walk home from the station. There is a gauntlet of young people on the promenade from the station handing out various promotional brochures, coupons and whatnot. When I'm tired I make such a story out of my fatigue that there is no room for metta to arise and I brush by the sorry part-time pamphlet pushers without a look. A young fellow with brochures for seaside condominiums followed me and made a pitch in English. "Not interested" I snapped back at him, in Japanese. All these failings of metta, but there is no point in regretting. I see the dosa. I experience the dosa. The dosa is not self - it comes and goes. A few moments later there was something nicer when I came across Naomi, by chance, also on her way home from work, on her bike. Ah, but that was lobha, that clinging to a comfortable loved one. Ah, what the hell. It was nice! Metta, Phil 37582 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:38am Subject: Aloko ( wasRe: [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. > > 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, > aloko udapaadi.' > > Cakkhu or vision arises. > Nana or knowledge arises. > Panna or wisdom arises. > Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. > Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil 37583 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi, Ken (and Mike) - In a message dated 10/17/04 2:56:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from > kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is > right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) > > ========================== I'm afraid I have some reservations with regard to an operation of pa~n~na that can directly know the incorrectness of the thought 'there is no result from kamma'. That seems to make pa~n~na into a kind of magical force that can directly know what is not directly knowable. Not all phenomena are directly knowable, only paramattha dhammas, it seems to me. It seems to me that it is by observing sequences of events and the relations among those events that it is possible to realize that kamma has consequences, and that this seeing/knowing comes about in a regular, well structured, certain but inferential way. It doesn't seem correct to me that such knowing is an instance of direct insight-knowing, although it is supported by such. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37584 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/17/04 7:33:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >----------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > >believe > >that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the > >hardness, > >though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a > >sphere > >are inseparable but distinguishable. > > So if it is accepted that there are the 2 dhammas that are hardness (Dh B) > and the knowing of hardness (Dh A), their relationship can I think be > described by saying that 'Dh A knows Dh B'. > > After all, without the relationship of one dhamma knowing (or > experiencing) another, we would be unable to define consciousness or > indeed nama. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, Jon, I'm happier to leave my words as they were. If you wish to paraphrase them in a way that makes them a better "fit" for you, by all means go ahead! ;-) --------------------------------------------- > > > ... > >>I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of > >`experiential > >>event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > > > >>object > >>of insight. > >> > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is > >the > >coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or > >content), and > >sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). > >-------------------------------------- > > As I said, I'd be interested to see a specific sutta passage. Are you > referring to the description of the ayatanas? If so, are you saying that > one of the ayatanas is in a class of its own as an 'event'? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm saying that contact is what I'm talking about, and that in the suttas, though not in Abhidhamma, it is described as a convergence event. ---------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37585 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > I'm afraid I have some reservations with regard to an operation of > pa~n~na that can directly know the incorrectness of the thought 'there is > no > result from kamma'. That seems to make pa~n~na into a kind of magical > force that > can directly know what is not directly knowable. Not all phenomena are > directly > knowable, only paramattha dhammas, it seems to me. It seems to me that it > is > by observing sequences of events and the relations among those events that > it > is possible to realize that kamma has consequences, and that this > seeing/knowing comes about in a regular, well structured, certain but > inferential way. It > doesn't seem correct to me that such knowing is an instance of direct > insight-knowing, although it is supported by such. This (last bit) sounds right to me, too--saccanulomika-sammaadi.t.thi isn't the same thing as saccapa.tivedha-sammaadi.t.thi precisely because it can take concepts as objects, as I understand it. The Great Forty seems to me to make it clear that it is consistent with the Dhamma, though. Otherwise how could sammaadi.t.thi 'have fermentations, side with merit & result in acquisitions', and how would this differ from the sammaadidi.t.thi that "is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path"? Or do you think I've mistaken the Buddha's words here? mike 37586 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "kenhowardau" To: Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > > Hi Mike, > > You wrote: > > --------------- >> Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other > words depending on context. > > -------------- > > Panna doesn't have worldly functions, though, does it? For example, > our understanding "1 + 1 = 2" is more a matter of recognition than > of understanding. Not sure, but: saccanulomika: sacca: true; real; anulomika: suitable; in proper order; sounds to me like it might apply to something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2--this is conventionally true, correct and in the proper order. Don't know if this is supportable from the Abhidhamma, though. > > M: > As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas > when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or > supramundane path. > > > --------------- > > That's where I was going wrong: I was restricting it entirely to > satipatthana with only one exception - for jhana. But I am happy to > learn it is more wide-ranging. Yes, a good thing--if understanding couldn't take a concept such as 'akusala kamma leads to akusala vipakka', or that 'the Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation, leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise' then why would we bother? > M: > In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept > as an object as I understand it. > > ---------------- > > So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from > kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is > right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) So do I--when I think of pa~n~naa in this way I'm reminded of the expression, 'aadikalyaa.na, majjhekalya.na, pariyosaanakalya.na, 'beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and beautiful in the end'. If there could be no understanding before the arising of insight, we'd be sunk I think. mike 37587 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:53am Subject: Aloko Is Ruupa ( was Aloko [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Dear Phil, Htoo, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K, Bob M and all How are you? Phil asked: "I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. .. What is it if it isn't rupa? Light is ruupa according to Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Light is one of the visual venues (ruupaayatanam), and listed as such in Dhammasanganii. Please see Sections 616, 617, 618, and 619 there. For example, "616. Katamam tam ruupam ruupaayatanam? Yam ruupam catunnam mahaabhuutaanam upaadaaya va.n.nanibhaa sanidassanam sappa.tigham niilam piitakam lohitakam odaatam kaa.lakam mañji.t.thakam ‚01 hari hariva.n.nam ambaªkurava.n.nam diigham rassam a.num thuulam va.t.tam parima.n.dalam caturamsam, cha.lamsam a.t.thamsam so.lasamsam ninnam thalam chaayaa aatapo AALOKO andhakaaro abbhaa mahikaa dhuumo rajo candama.n.dalassa va.n.nanibhaa suuriyama.n.dalassa ‚ va.n.nanibhaa taarakaruupaanam va.n.nanibhaa aadaasama.n.dalassa va.n.nanibhaa ma.nisa`nkhamuttaave.luriyassa va.n.nanibhaa jaataruuparajatassa va.n.nanibhaa, yam vaa panaññampi atthi ruupam catunnam mahaabhuutaanam upaadaaya va.n.nanibhaa sanidassanam sappa.tigham, yam ruupam sanidassanam sappa.tigham cakkhunaa anidassanena sappa.tighena passi vaa passati vaa passissati vaa passe vaa, ruupam petam ruupaayatanam petam ruupadhaatu pesaa- idam tam ruupam ruupaayatanam." Please take note of the term "AALOKO" in Capital letters in the above quote. I hope that your doubt has been removed if light is matter in the Abhidhamma teaching. Abhidhammatthasangaha is a digest text, so it cannot list all forms of matter. But, it did mention Ruupaayatanam (the visual venue) in item 25 in Ruupaka.n.dam there. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. > > 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, > aloko udapaadi.' > > Cakkhu or vision arises. > Nana or knowledge arises. > Panna or wisdom arises. > Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. > Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil 37588 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play > To me this meant that we experienced momentary death in billions of > citta times while cuti citta only once which we called conventional > death. This is the way it seems to me too, and points out the importance of seeing kamma/vipakka in the countless instances in the course of this life (especially at present), rather than focussing on single occurrences of cuti and patisandhi in each conventional lifetime. mike 37589 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:04am Subject: Aloko ( wasRe: [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Phil: Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. >'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m uda...snip..Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I believe 'light' is rupa. Light is seen by cakkhu pasada. For blindness assessment in science it is recorded as totally blind when light perception is absent. This already means that light is a rupa and it is seen by cakkhu pasada by a partially blind people. Rupaarammana is vanna or colour. It is the object for cakkhuvinnana citta. Colours have different degrees of brightness from completely dark to invisibly bright. Sound, smell, taste, touch also have such different in degrees. This difference causes different 'Visayapavatti'. Visaya means 'object' or 'arammana' and pavatti means 'arising'. Light is a rupa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The Buddha used different and various words so that listeners could understand well. For example 'water' in Pali is 'udaka'. It is sometimes said as 'apo'. Cakkhu.m, nana.m, panna, vijja, aloka are similar but there might be some differences in degree. In human beings, eye-sight is the most sensible. So most similes are related to sight. There are 5 physical senses. 2 are said to be far away. They are sight and sound. Sight may be as far as millions of light years. Sounds may be as far as miles away. But there are 3 senses that need closeness. They are smell, taste, and touch. Even in English, people use 'Oh! I see'. This does not mean that 'their eyes are seeing(see) the object but they understand'. When there is full of light, every thing can be seen clearly. When there is dim of light, some will be seen and some will not be. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37590 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard That will depends on how we define panna. When we observed sequences events and see its relations that is panna + application of thought, which is right view + right thoughts to have such a conclusion. To me, only those who are enlighted could understand the kamma in one citta moment as death is see in each citta, while the rest of us have to use right view + right thoughts to figure it out. Ken O 37591 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard As far as my understanding, you are right to say that contact is the convergence and this contact is not just in the sutta, it also act the same way as in the Abhidhamma. Quote from Nina book on cetasikas. <> In the dependent origination, we can see that contact is the link between our sense consciouness and sense medium with feelings. Hence without contact, there is no convergence with feelings, cravings to arise then again with the cycle that cause rebirth etc. And in another sutta where Buddha clearly discribe that there will be no seeing without seeing consciouness cognize with the visible objects hence contact is the link between them. This contact does not differentiate a subject or an object, the subject and object is one in order to cognize the object. There is no distinguishing that is an object first or the subjective knowledge later, it is the moment of the contact, the experience of the object is know by the subject. Just like the other time when we talk about darkness, a blind man would not know what it is like to visualise the world until somone told him about (contact him with the outside world), or he remains the thought that the world is all darkness. I am most happy we can discuss this further as this train of thoughts help me to have more faith in the sutta and Abhidhamma and their correlation. Ken O 37592 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 092 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, All akusala dhamma are led by moha cetasika. Moha is the king of akusala dhamma. Moha has two generals of his right wing and his left wing. Right wing general is ahirika cetasika. It is shamelessness. It also advises moha not to be shameful. Moha and ahirika support each other but with different characters. Left wing general is anottappa cetasika. It is fearlessness. It not only advises citta but also advises moha not to be fearful in performing actions. Moha and anottappa support each other and they strengthen each other. Moha still has a third power apart from these two generals of right wing and left wing. This third power is uddhacca cetasika. He is the home secretary of the akusala kingdom. Uddhacca is a mental factor that always arises with any kind of akusala citta. It is upsetness. It is restlessness. It is unstillness. It is a spreading mental factor. It advises the mental king citta to be upset and restless. It also advises other cetasikas to be upset and restless. Here arises 'A PROBLEM'. It is ekaggata cetasika and uddhacca cetasika. They seem to be opposite and they do oppose each other in terms of character. Ekaggata cetasika is one-pointedness. When we say samadhi, it is a collection of ekaggata cetasikas. It is stillness. It is restfulness. It is concentration. But uddhacca is unstillness, unrestfulness or restlessness, upsetness, and spreading. Can they arise together? Yes, they can arise together in case of 'upekkha sahagatam uddhacca sampayutta citta'. This is one of 2 moha mula cittas. In that citta there is ekaggata cetasika. And at the same citta at the same moment and at the same object, there is also uddhacca cetasika. If they arise together, how are they behaving there in that 'upekkha sahagatam uddhacca sampayutta moha mula citta'? That is why I said that ekaggata cetasika fixes at a point rather than one-pointedness. Its function is to fix at a point. To fix at an object. So in case of uddhacca citta, ekaggata cetasika also fixes at the object of uddhacca citta. This means ekaggata cetasika fixes uddhacca citta at that object. At the same citta, at the same object, at the same moment, uddhacca cetasika also arises and it does its job there. Its main function is not fixing. So it becomes restless and upset. In a single uddhacca citta, ekaggata cetasika fixes at the object, while uddhacca cetasika tries to move away. So as soon as the object passes away, uddhacca brings citta and all other cetasikas to another object and as soon as this new object passes away, uddhacca will again bring citta and all other cetasikas to the other objects one after another. But at each object, ekaggata cetasika will fix citta at the object. When we talk on jhananga, ekaggata in uddhacca citta does not deserve as jhananga. Uddhacca cetasika is also a powerful akusala cetasika after moha, ahirika, and anottappa cetasikas. At each akusala moment, uddhacca always arises and help mental facors and citta upsetting. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37593 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 12:51:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > That will depends on how we define panna. When we observed sequences > events and see its relations that is panna + application of thought, > which is right view + right thoughts to have such a conclusion. To > me, only those who are enlighted could understand the kamma in one > citta moment as death is see in each citta, while the rest of us have > to use right view + right thoughts to figure it out. > > > Ken O > ======================== It's not a matter of directly seeing kamma ( = intention = cetana) that we are discussing, Ken, but of coming to know that kamma has consequences, a fact which is a matter of conditionality across time. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37594 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 1:10:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > As far as my understanding, you are right to say that contact is the > convergence and this contact is not just in the sutta, it also act > the same way as in the Abhidhamma. > > Quote from Nina book on cetasikas. > > < Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so > that citta can experience it. When seeing experiences visible object, > phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences > visible object but it performs its own function. At that moment > phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness > to see. >> > > ===================== No, I see this as quite different. This Abhidhammic view presents contact as some thing (or operation) that arises with a citta (another thing) and that acts by "experiencing an object". On the other hand, in the suttas, the Buddha simply said, in talking about sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness, that "The COMING TOGETHER [emphasis mine] of the three is contact". That makes contact into an experiential event that is a concurrence or convergence, a tripartite experiential event. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37595 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard Abhidhammic view does not present a different from a sutta. It is the same meaning. The three comes together comes contact, similarly in Abhidhamma, contact of the object is only possible when seeing consciousness and visible objects comes together. There cannot be seeing consciouness arise without contacting a visible object when seeing It must come together with contact as link among them. It is not different just that the method in Abhidhamma is maybe a too meticulous way of presenting the sutta meaning, hence could result in not presenting correctly to reader. Just like reader may misunderstood that contact comes as a separate entity in dependent origination which in fact it is the link of convergence between the three as mention by you below. Just like feelings depends on contact to arise, so without contact there is no convergence of feelings, cravings or the sense processs, door and consciouness. To me it is a matter of presentation. Ken O 37596 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 1:40:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > Abhidhammic view does not present a different from a sutta. It is > the same meaning. The three comes together comes contact, similarly > in Abhidhamma, contact of the object is only possible when seeing > consciousness and visible objects comes together. There cannot be > seeing consciouness arise without contacting a visible object when > seeing It must come together with contact as link among them. It > is not different just that the method in Abhidhamma is maybe a too > meticulous way of presenting the sutta meaning, hence could result in > not presenting correctly to reader. Just like reader may > misunderstood that contact comes as a separate entity in dependent > origination which in fact it is the link of convergence between the > three as mention by you below. Just like feelings depends on contact > to arise, so without contact there is no convergence of feelings, > cravings or the sense processs, door and consciouness. To me it is a > matter of presentation. > > > Ken O > ========================= I don't agree. I think the words of Abhidhamma "speak for themselves", and are quite different on this matter from the suttic material. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37597 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard Knowing kamma has consequences are the the cause of the function of right view + right thoughts. Without right view, there is no knowledge that kamma has consequences and without right thought investigation it, there is no reinforcement of right view to know that kamma has consequences. Directly seeing kamma has consequences in paramatha level is possible because of our past practise of panna to investigate the meaning and consequences of kamma in a citta moment. However the knowledge of its consequences must start somewhere, it must have a begining for investigation - that is now what we are doing. Your view is correct and also the view of others about kamma knowing is correct, it depends on where are we basing on. There is no contradiction, just a matter where do we position ourselves in the discussion. Ken O 37598 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details why you think it is so different because I could not understand your point on the differences. Maybe if you dont mind, provide mathemathical symbols and equation to present why Abhidhamma is not what its said in the sutta. Ken O 37599 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 2:03:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details > why you think it is so different because I could not understand your > point on the differences. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no details to add. I don't see why anyone would consider them to be the same! ------------------------------------------------ Maybe if you dont mind, provide > > mathemathical symbols and equation to present why Abhidhamma is not > what its said in the sutta. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) You have a good sense of humor, Ken! ---------------------------------------------- > > > Ken O > > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37600 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard Maybe I should explain in another way. The sutta said the convergence of the three there is contact. Is it possible to have seeing wihout contact arisen of seeing citta with visible objects. In Abhdihamma, all these are one moment. Do you think, these are different moments there? Is it possible that seeing consciouness arise first then visible objects then contacting to see it. Buddha said convergencing of the three comes contact and he not say that seeing citta comes first, then visible object then contact to have seeing. So to me the convergence of the three is one citta moment with contact. Then do you think it is possible that after this convergence there is contact? If it is after the convergence, how do seeing citta knows a visible object? There must be someway a citta must knows a visible object if we say that contact comes after the convergence. Ken O 37601 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 3:02:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > > Hi Howard > > Maybe I should explain in another way. The sutta said the > convergence of the three there is contact. Is it possible to have > seeing wihout contact arisen of seeing citta with visible objects. > In Abhdihamma, all these are one moment. Do you think, these are > different moments there? Is it possible that seeing consciouness > arise first then visible objects then contacting to see it. Buddha > said convergencing of the three comes contact and he not say that > seeing citta comes first, then visible object then contact to have > seeing. So to me the convergence of the three is one citta moment > with contact. Then do you think it is possible that after this > convergence there is contact? If it is after the convergence, how do > seeing citta knows a visible object? There must be someway a citta > must knows a visible object if we say that contact comes after the > convergence. > > Ken O > ======================== We seem to agree that the single convergence event is what contact is. What we disagree on is what Abhidhamma says contact is. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37602 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:04pm Subject: Vism.XIV,108 + Nina's addition "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 108. But the 'mind-consciousness-element' is of two kinds, namely, shared by all and not shared by all. [457] Herein, (71) that 'shared by all' is the functional [mind-consciousness-element] accompanied by equanimity without root-cause. It has the characteristic of cognizing the six kinds of objects. Its function is to determine at the five doors and to advert at the mind door. It is manifested as the states [of determining and adverting] corresponding to those [last-mentioned two functions]. Its proximate cause is the departure either of the resultant mind-consciousness-element without root-cause (40)-(41) [in the first case], or of one among the kinds of life-continuum [in the second]. (72) That 'not shared by all' is the functional [mind-consciousness-element] accompanied by joy without root-cause. It has the characteristic of cognizing the six kinds of objects. Its function is to cause smiling41 in Arahants about things that are not sublime. It is manifested as the state corresponding to that [last-mentioned]. Its proximate cause is always the heart-basis. So the sense-sphere functional without root-cause is of three kinds. ---------------------- Note 41. 'With respect to such unsublime objects as the forms of skeletons or ghosts' (Pm. 476). See e.g. Vin.iii,104. ++++++++++++++++++ Nina wrote: addition to Vis. 108: N: We read in the Expositor (II, p. 386) about the smiling-consciousness of the arahat which arises in the processes of cittas experiencing objects through the six doors: We read that evenso the Tathaagata smiles at the thought of the arising of Silent Buddhas in the future. N: First the Buddha directs his attention to the past or the future with mahaa-kiriyacittas accompanied by wisdom, and after that he smiles with ahetuka kiriyacittas, which are hasituppaada cittas. **** Nina. 37603 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: "kira" - "so they say" Dear Dighanakha Thanks for this information about "kira" and all your other well- considered answers. I would like to ask you a question about the following passage written by Sarah in her India2 post: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: about the authenticity or otherwise of the > Milinda-panha. She [K Sujin] said it didn't matter at all whether it was Theravadan > or anything else or which part of the text a dialogue comes from. If it's > helpful, fine. If it's not helpful or if it just leads to thinking, doubt > or aversion, just leave it aside. The same with difficult parts of the > commentaries. We have so little undestanding so we should just leave > anything beyond our understanding, rather than just thinking and doubting. Andrew: If I were a scholar, of course, I would not adopt the above approach because it is important for scholars to *be* scholarly. However, from the point of view of a Dhamma practitioner, the above approach appeals to me because (1) it doesn't require me to be dishonest about my true state of understanding or (2) to ignore that some assertion is unscientific or even bizarre-sounding to me at the present point in time. If asked "do you believe in this assertion?" I can reply frankly in the negative and yet still maintain saddha in the teachings. This is openly acknowledging anomalies but not getting swept up in them. In your view, is this a wise usage of the weeding-hook? Can one swing with the weeding-hook so fiercely that one ends up clinging to views? Also, do you believe that saddha is important *before* knowing the teaching, as suggested in these quotes: "If saddha is born, then he approaches" [Horner, Middle Length Sayings, Vol II p 365]; "Had he no saddha he could not attain whatever is to be won by saddha" [MN II 94, MLS II 281]. I better shut up now as one question has already spawned into 3. (-: When you have a spare moment, I would appreciate hearing your views but don't feel obliged. Best wishes Andrew T 37604 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:33pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken. If I may butt in... > Hi Howard > > > Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details > why you think it is so different because I could not understand your > point on the differences. In "Cetasikas" Nina summarizes the commentarial conception of phassa thus: [begin quote] "Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the universals. Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it. When seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it performs its own function. At that moment phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see.... "... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to the monks concerning contact: " 'This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory impingement (phassa)... ' " [end quote] If the above quote from the Madhupi.n.d.ika Sutta is not to be misunderstood, we need to go back a few paragraphs in the same Sutta to see *why* there is a manifestation of phassa at this time: "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) (cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, ti.n.na.m sa"ngati phasso, phassapaccayaa vedanaa, ya.m vedeti ta.m sa~njaanaati, ya.m sa~njaanaati ta.m vitakketi, ya.m vitakketi ta.m papa~nceti, ya.m papa~nceti tatonidaana.m purisa.m papa~ncasa~n~naasa"nkhaa samudaacaranti atiitaanaagatapaccuppannesu cakkhuvi~n~neyyesu ruupesu.) This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37605 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:38pm Subject: "kira" Dear Dighanakha and all In a spare moment, I looked up "kira" in the PTS online Pali-English dictionary. One result. It means "a parrot". Couldn't resist parroting this .... (-: Andrew T 37606 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi Htoo, You said to Howard: ------------- > I do not know why some people deny formal meditation. > ------------- The Buddha did not teach formal meditation. He taught the cause of every dhamma that arises. Every step on the way to enlightenment is conditioned by right understanding of dhammas and their causes. How could there be right formal practice? There are only dhammas: any idea (pannatti) of a traveller on the way to enlightenment denies the doctrine of conditionality. So too does any idea of studying or sitting in order to control the process of enlightenment. You jokingly asked Sarah; " When you swam, did you control your limbs?" May I suggest that question was consistent with your belief in a mixture of pannatti and paramattha dhamma? Sarah's reply was: "No control by me of limbs whether in the pool or at the bo-tree - just namas and rupas conditioned to perform their various functions;-)." That answer is consistent with conditionality. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Howard: > > Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - > > It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance of > confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting > to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic level. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Htoo: That is true. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 37607 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi DN and Ken O Nina's explanation of phassa comes from the Abhidhamma, not from her reading of the Honey-ball Sutta. DN, you tell us that phassa is a concept - a coming together. I assume this is your personal reading of the Sutta. But concepts are the domain of scientists and other uninstructed worldlings: the Buddha taught ultimate reality (the loka). A 'coming together' is not an ultimate reality: it is a conventional description of an ultimate reality, phassa. Ken H > This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of > (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can > "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming > together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because > phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not > some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. > 37608 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:17am Subject: Re: Joop - Best wishes Dear all Thanks for the wishes for my health. I've had a by-pass in my leg and we (the doctor and me) think it done well; only the wounds are painfull and I can still hardly walk (so can do much meditation and much reading internet) I was a little nervous before the operation and when I was reading in Goldstein book's "One Dharma" I thought: when I die I will have next quote he used in it from the Buddha in the advertisement in the journals: "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge." (From DN 16, Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, in a dutch translation) I realize dead gets enough new chances. With metta Joop 37609 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:15am Subject: Re: Vism.XIV,108 + Nina's addition Dear Larry and Nina, Just a few words. Please see below. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 108. But the 'mind-consciousness-element' is of two kinds, ...snip...snip..without root-cause is of three kinds. > ---------------------- > Note 41. 'With respect to such unsublime objects as the forms of > skeletons or ghosts' (Pm. 476). See e.g. Vin.iii,104. ++++++++++++++++++ Nina wrote: addition to Vis. 108: N: We read in the Expositor (II, p. 386) about the smiling- consciousness of the arahat which arises in the processes of cittas experiencing objects ...snip...snip...conclusion of the practice of which this laughter- producing consciousness arises. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I would not use laughter-producing consciousness. Laugh is related to lobha where smile may or may not be related to lobha. Other parts are OK, Larry and Nina. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > We read that evenso the Tathaagata smiles at the thought of the arising > of Silent Buddhas in the future. > > N: First the Buddha directs his attention to the past or the future with > mahaa-kiriyacittas accompanied by wisdom, and after that he smiles with > ahetuka kiriyacittas, which are hasituppaada cittas. > **** > Nina. 37610 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Ken H: Hi Htoo, You said to Howard: ------------- > I do not know why some people deny formal meditation. > ------------- The Buddha did not teach formal meditation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: When the lent came bhikkhus asked kammatthanas from Bhagava. Bhagava would instructed them you should do such kammatthana and you the other bhikkhu should do such kammatthana. After obtaining instruction, bhikkhus were delighted and they went for the lent for the rainy season for three months. Meditation and formal meditation are basically meditation. Formal is just a word of modification. The Buddha did teach kammatthana. There had been a lot of suttas that include how to do meditation. Once a group of bhikkhus obtained kammatthanas and they went to a forest. But as they were more powerful than those who were living at trees, those tree-dwellers had to go away from their dwelling. So they all showed unsighted things, voices, noice, smell etc etc. These bhikkhus could not proceed their kammatthana practice and they went back to Bhagava and told the matter. Bhagava then preached loving kindness and they were sent again to the same forest. They could then practise kammatthana well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: He taught the cause of every dhamma that arises. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is right. But did He not teach how to meditate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Every step on the way to enlightenment is conditioned by right understanding of dhammas and their causes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is true but I think these words come from intellect that stored deep in the mind when these dhamma were studied. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H How could there be right formal practice? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Without practice, no one can approach nibbana. Even The Buddha had to practise. All Paccekabuddhas had to practise. All arahats practised. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: There are only dhammas: any idea (pannatti) of a traveller on the way to enlightenment denies the doctrine of conditionality. So too does any idea of studying or sitting in order to control the process of enlightenment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dhamma cannot be controlled. Even The Buddha Himself could not control Dhamma. Once I read at a list that 'The Buddha could control rupa etc etc'. This was written by a well-known writer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: You jokingly asked Sarah; " When you swam, did you control your limbs?" May I suggest that question was consistent with your belief in a mixture of pannatti and paramattha dhamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sarah knew me well and she would know what I intended. Sukin was asked like that and I just gave her my regards. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Sarah's reply was: "No control by me of limbs whether in the pool or at the bo-tree - just namas and rupas conditioned to perform their various functions;-)." That answer is consistent with conditionality. Kind regards, Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I know Sarah and her wisdom. And I have already read her message among the busy messages here. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37611 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi Ken Howard Buddha did teach meditation we can see that in Visud, but one must meet those conditions favourable then one able to practise meditations. In Visud, the criterias like suitable place etc are spelt for one to practise jhanas. Anyway in order to practise jhanas as spelt in the suttas, one must free from sensual pleasure - still a very tall order for me :)! Ken O 37612 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:18am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 093 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed four akusala cetasikas. They are moha or ignorance, ahirika or shamelessness, anottappa or fearlessness, and uddhacca or restlessness. These four akusala cetasikas are called sabba akusala sadharana cetasikas. Because they always arise with any of akusala cittas. There are three cetasikas which can be called as lobha-led cetasikas. They are lobha or attachment, maana or conceit, and ditthi or wrong view. These three cetasikas have lobha as a base or root and they always have lobha as their accompanying cetasika or leading cetasika. Lobha is a cetasika or mental factor that have a strong and powerful attraction to arammanas or objects. It is like a magnet and it will attract arammana or object. Lobha is attachment. That is atachment to objects of different kinds. Lobha always co-exists with moha and there is no lobha that does not have moha as its accompanying cetasika. Because of moha, lobha will not see any right dhamma and instead, it will strongly attach to arammana or object. Lobha has a support from moha and this support is darkness. As long as darkness is there, lobha cannot see right things. ( And lobha will never see right things.) Lobha has many different names. There are many suttas that refer to lobha. Dhamma are preached so as the listeners can understand. There were a lot of similes regarding dhammas in different settings. Similes are actually not the exact nature of what have been compared with. But at least the dhamma compared can be understood to some extent. There are 8 lobha mula cittas and they can be read up in the earlier posts of this series. All these 8 lobha mula cittas have lobha as a cetasikas. No other cittas in 89 cittas apart from these 8 cittas have lobha as a cetasikas. And all these 8 lobha cittas serve as javana citta. This is the response to the current object or arammana which has recently seen by vipaka citta such as cakku/ sota/ ghana/ jivha/ kaya-vinnana citta and so on, which again was started with panca dvara avajjana citta which is a kiriya citta. Lobha is attachment. It advises the king citta to be greedy and attached to the object and not depart from that object. It is like 'drinking of salty water when thirsty in oceans'. So drinking salty water will never satietise the drinkers. And lobha will never satietise sattas. Lobha is referred to as the main culprit causing endless continuation of the samsara. Moha always involves in any akusala citta. Sometimes moha is so subtle that it is hardly recognised. Lobha always has the quality of greediness and attachment and this quality is evident. Lobha is the cetasika that appears as samudaya sacca of 4 Ariyas' Noble Truths. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37613 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Causality & Impermanance - transcript of TV program Dear Sarah, Thanks so much for taking the time to review the TV transcript and to reply to it. > feedback, you're probably more likely to get it;-)). Also I know many > friends here who would be interested to hear any of your comments or > report from your retreat w/Gunaratana, especially any points that touch on > our discussions. > [Suravira] Unfortunately, as a broker in charge of a real estate firm, my current fiduciary responsibilities to my clients are such that I am unable to take time off from work next week to attend the 10 day retreat. The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. Fortunately, the benefits derived from the assigned research (in preparation of the advanced teachers retreat) are very rewarding in themselves (nonetheless not being able to attend the retreat and spend more time with Venerable Bhante G does sadden me). > time. Time is a concept, it's not a reality to be known. See Karunadasa's > article on Time (but not Space). [Suravira] I have tracked down Karunadasa's paper (Time and Space: The Abhidhamma Perspective), and have read it. It is a really good essay. I will get back to you on this paper. By appending the phrase "(but not Space)" are you implying that you concur with Karunadasa's presentation of Time, but not his presentation of Space? > ignorance, no. By a Buddha's omniscience, yes. See `Niyama' in `Useful > Posts'. [Suravira] I will try to locate Niyama's paper. Thanks once again. With metta, Suravira 37614 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Dear Ken O, I confuse with 2 Ken. Now I see there are 2 Ken in the same discussuion. One is Ken O and another is Ken H. Ken O was once an active member at JourneyToNibbana and now apparently does not share his dhamma any more at JourneyToNibbana. There are many beginners at JourneyToNibbana. Ken H is not a member there. Regarding meditation, yes, The Buddha did teach meditation. There were many instruction. This is how to calm down the stray thoughts or how to calm down nivarana dhamma or how to attain samadhi or how to attain jhanas. I have read frequently that formal meditation or not and so on. There are many meditation centres and there are many people. Those who are intelligent and have studied The Buddha Dhamma at theoretical level would accuse of those who are sitting at meditation centres while they themselves never did meditation. Instead they would say, understanding is first. This may automatically mean that those who are sitting may not understand well like them and they are formally sitting with lobha that wants to remove the sufferings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken O: Hi Ken Howard Buddha did teach meditation we can see that in Visud, but one must meet those conditions favourable then one able to practise meditations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The Buddha did teach meditation. Ken O is right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken O: In Visud, the criterias like suitable place etc are spelt for one to practise jhanas. Anyway in order to practise jhanas as spelt in the suttas, one must free from sensual pleasure - still a very tall order for me :)! Ken O ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Ken O, you are right. The idea that leads these people denying formal meditation is that some go to a forest and sit under a tree and try to develop dhamma such as sati and panna. They cannot be developed or abolished. Any learned Buddhist knows this. But disciples of The Buddha do the practise and they touch patipatti. Some say that priyatti should be finished up so that all dhamma can be understood at theoretical level. They would go practising after completion of pariyatti. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37615 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Dighanakha and Howard k: It always my pleasure to dicuss sutta meanings and Abhidhamma meanings. I think without of both of you, there is no fun learning the dhamma. > In "Cetasikas" Nina summarizes the commentarial conception of > phassa thus: > > [begin quote] > > "Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the > universals. Phassa arises together with every citta; it > "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it. When > seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies > seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it > performs its own function. At that moment phassa "contacts" > visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see.... > "... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length > Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to the monks > concerning contact: > > " 'This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your > reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual > consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory > impingement (phassa)... ' " > [end quote] k: On the question of convergence, below in the explanation why it is a convergence. The below passage said clearly about <>. Hence the unity of the sense bases, sensory object and sensory consciouness only happen with the manifestation of "touching". Therefore there is no incongruent meaning in this sutta and Abhidhamma The passage is extract for your reference. Using the book Expositor, under Part IV, chapter II << That which on that occassion is contact refers to that contact which on that occassion arises as a fact of touching. The word in simple form expresses the intrinsic nature of touch (meaning as express in ultimate reality - i.e. absence of a living entity - Anutika). Phusana is the act of touching. Samphusana increased by the prefix, is the way of touching [viz : to unite with the object]. Samphusitatttam is the state of so touching. And this is the construction: There is on the occassion contact by virtue of touching; there is the occassion that which is the act of touching; there is on that occassion that which is the act of touching to unite with; there is that which, on that occassion, is the state of touching to unite with. Or that which, on that occassion, is contact by virture of touching is, in other different ways, said to be the act of touching, the act of touching to unite with, and the state of touching to unite with. This contact there is on that occassion. And the same construction of the words in the expositions of feeling and the rest should be understood.>> > If the above quote from the Madhupi.n.d.ika Sutta is not to be > misunderstood, we need to go back a few paragraphs in the same > Sutta to see *why* there is a manifestation of phassa at this time: > > "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness > arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With > contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has > mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions > tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, > future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) > > This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of > (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can > "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming > together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because > phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not > some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. k: I have explain the mainfestation of contact in convergence or unity. Now I like to explain why it is a mental factor or a condition that accompanies the coming together. In fact if you look carefully on MN18, with contact as condition 8), hence it is already an indication of an additional factor that accompanies the coming together. How could it not be a condition or a factor if it helps to arise another conditions of feelings, preception etc. If you look again in the dependent origination, contact is a condition for feelings, cravings, therefore it is a an additional factor for the convergence or unity. Likewise if you see the Honey Ball Sutta again, <> - this clearly show it can be seen, understood and investigate, it is a sabhava, it has its particluar characteristic, it is indentifiable, and hence it is a condition or a mental factor. Please feel free to add more comments. An interesting topic. Other topic questions are always welcome. As I say to Howard before, it is matter of presentation, there is no difference. Ken O 37616 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Dighanakha (and Ken and Nina) - In a message dated 10/18/04 1:33:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dighanakha@y... writes: > > Hello Ken. > > If I may butt in... > > >Hi Howard > > > > > > Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details > >why you think it is so different because I could not understand your > >point on the differences. > > In "Cetasikas" Nina summarizes the commentarial conception of > phassa thus: > > [begin quote] > > "Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the > universals. Phassa arises together with every citta; it > "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it. When > seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies > seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it > performs its own function. At that moment phassa "contacts" > visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see.... > > "... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length > Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to the monks > concerning contact: > > " 'This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your > reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual > consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory > impingement (phassa)... ' " > > [end quote] > > If the above quote from the Madhupi.n.d.ika Sutta is not to be > misunderstood, we need to go back a few paragraphs in the same > Sutta to see *why* there is a manifestation of phassa at this time: > > "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness > arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With > contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has > mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions > tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, > future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) > > (cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati > cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, ti.n.na.m sa"ngati phasso, phassapaccayaa > vedanaa, ya.m vedeti ta.m sa~njaanaati, ya.m sa~njaanaati ta.m > vitakketi, ya.m vitakketi ta.m papa~nceti, ya.m papa~nceti > tatonidaana.m purisa.m papa~ncasa~n~naasa"nkhaa samudaacaranti > atiitaanaagatapaccuppannesu cakkhuvi~n~neyyesu ruupesu.) > > This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of > (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can > "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming > together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because > phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not > some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker ======================= Thank you very much. You have pinpointed exactly what needed to be pinpointed! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37617 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - In a message dated 10/18/04 2:51:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > The Buddha did not teach formal meditation. ======================== ;-)) It seems that Ken O is not the only Ken here with an excellent sense of humor!! What you are doing here, it seems to me, Ken, is an instance of the following technique of argumentation: Given [let us accept this] that the Buddha understood language to be a system of conventional shorthand for communicating information about what is ultimately only apprehended directly, whenever the Buddha uses any speech that does not accord with ones own preference, claim that the Buddha was not teaching that unhappy doctrine ;-) because "there are only dhammas". When a Buddha teaches what virtually all Buddhists call "formal meditation", what he is doing is the same as he does in teaching anything: speaking to people as he must, using language that expresses a complex multitude of realities by means of a system of abbreviational shorthand, all the time understanding the realities that underlie what is being expresssed. Conventional truth, is truth-communicated as opposed to truth-directly-apprehended, but it is truth nonetheless. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37618 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Ken H: Hi Htoo, You said to Howard: ------------- > I do not know why some people deny formal meditation. > ------------- The Buddha did not teach formal meditation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please see in Majjhima Nikaya 20. "When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering." This clearly states that 'beating down of evil mind by good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate..' These are actions that arise during meditation. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- He taught the cause of > every dhamma that arises. Every step on the way to enlightenment is > conditioned by right understanding of dhammas and their causes. > > How could there be right formal practice? There are only dhammas: > any idea (pannatti) of a traveller on the way to enlightenment > denies the doctrine of conditionality. So too does any idea of > studying or sitting in order to control the process of > enlightenment. > > You jokingly asked Sarah; " When you swam, did you control your > limbs?" May I suggest that question was consistent with your belief > in a mixture of pannatti and paramattha dhamma? > > Sarah's reply was: "No control by me of limbs whether in the pool > or at the bo-tree - just namas and rupas conditioned to perform > their various functions;-)." > > That answer is consistent with conditionality. > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > > > Howard: > > > > Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - > > > > It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance > of > > confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting > > to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic > level. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > --- > > Htoo: That is true. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - 37619 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken (and Dighanakha, and Ken O) - In a message dated 10/18/04 3:19:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi DN and Ken O > > Nina's explanation of phassa comes from the Abhidhamma, not from her > reading of the Honey-ball Sutta. DN, you tell us that phassa is a > concept - a coming together. I assume this is your personal reading > of the Sutta. But concepts are the domain of scientists and other > uninstructed worldlings: the Buddha taught ultimate reality (the > loka). A 'coming together' is not an ultimate reality: it is a > conventional description of an ultimate reality, phassa. > > Ken H > ========================= Ken, you are getting bogged down in view. There is no reason to consider "the coming together of the three," which BTW, is *exactly* what the Buddha defined contact to be (!), to be pa~n~natti. It can just as easily be considered a momentary experiential event, a "cetasika", if you will, and a reality. It is not something *composed* of sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness, which would be a complex and, hence, pa~n~natti. It is an experiential event, an event that is a convergence. It is important to think in terms of events, Ken, and not things. It is events that are "real", and not things. Consciousness is not a thing, it is an event. Hardness is not a thing, it is an event. Fleeting events, Ken, not momentary true existents. If dhammas are solidified into true existents, then the Dhamma is solidified into a block of ice. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37620 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Howard: Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - In a message dated 10/18/04 2:51:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > The Buddha did not teach formal meditation. ======================== ;-)) It seems that Ken O is not the only Ken here with an excellent sense of humor!! What you are doing here, it seems to me, Ken, is an instance of the following technique of argumentation: Given [let us accept this] that the Buddha understood language to be a system of conventional shorthand for communicating information about what is ultimately only apprehended directly, whenever the Buddha uses any speech that does not accord with ones own preference, claim that the Buddha was not teaching that unhappy doctrine ;-) because "there are only dhammas". When a Buddha teaches what virtually all Buddhists call "formal meditation", what he is doing is the same as he does in teaching anything: speaking to people as he must, using language that expresses a complex multitude of realities by means of a system of abbreviational shorthand, all the time understanding the realities that underlie what is being expresssed. Conventional truth, is truth- communicated as opposed to truth-directly-apprehended, but it is truth nonetheless. With metta, Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, this is a good argumentation. Logician logicises logicstically logic logies. :-) With Metta, Htoo Naing 37621 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Howard: Hi, Ken (and Dighanakha, and Ken O) - > In a message dated 10/18/04 3:19:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > Hi DN and Ken O Ken, you are getting bogged down in view. There is no reason to consider "the coming together of the three," which BTW, is *exactly* what the Buddha defined contact to be (!), to be pa~n~natti. It can just as easily be considered a momentary experiential event, a "cetasika", if you will, and a reality. It is not something *composed* of sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness, which would be a complex and, hence, pa~n~natti. It is an experiential event, an event that is a convergence. It is important to think in terms of events, Ken, and not things. It is events that are "real", and not things. Consciousness is not a thing, it is an event. Hardness is not a thing, it is an event. Fleeting events, Ken, not momentary true existents. If dhammas are solidified into true existents, then the Dhamma is solidified into a block of ice. With metta, Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, sorry butting in. So there is nothing at all? There are only events and not a thing that exists. Nama are events. Rupas are events. Nibbana is eventless. And what about pannatti? With Metta, Htoo Naing 37622 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 10/18/04 10:35:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Htoo: > > Dear Howard, sorry butting in. So there is nothing at all? There are > only events and not a thing that exists. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I don't consider events to be nothing at all. That would be a nihilistic position that I do not take. ----------------------------------------- > > Nama are events. Rupas are events. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as I see it. --------------------------------------- Nibbana is eventless. ------------------------------------ Howard: I don't know what nibbana is, Htoo. I suspect that it is the "one true reality", but that any description of it must fail. I have my ideas about it, but they are not really particularly important. The closest I can come to my take on nibbana is what I wrote a couple days ago to Herman: << I see them [paramattha dhammas] merely as fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an interconnected, ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha dhammas exist, but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, dynamic network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, freed of the fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; but as it appears when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen folks call "the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we commonly call "samsara". >> ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- And what > > about pannatti? > ------------------------------------ Howard: That depends on what one means exactly by that. In one sense, pa~n~natti are nothing at all - nonexistent. In the sense of (elementary) "ideas" or "thoughts", they are events. In the sense of concepts that are not elementary, they are only conventional designations of complexes of elementary thoughts. This business of pa~n~natti is not trivial, and is not succinctly dealt with. --------------------------------- > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37623 From: dighanakha Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:24am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken H. K> Nina's explanation of phassa comes from the Abhidhamma, not K> from her reading of the Honey-ball Sutta. Yes, I know. And I implied as much in my post, when I drew a contrast between Nina's commentarial Abhidhammic exposition of phassa and how phassa is defined in the Suttas. In "Cetasikas" Nina quotes one passage from the Honey-ball which appears to be compatible with the Abhidhammic understanding of phassa. I quoted an earlier passage from the same Sutta to show that there appears to be a difference, as noted earlier in this thread by Howard. Not that Howard was the first to notice this: Buddhaghosa in the Atthasaalinii, and Upasena in the Saddhammappajotikaa, were both probably aware of the problem, for neither of them will allow the Suttas' definition of phassa (a definition repeated many times) to be what it appears to be. Both commentators state: "This [the manifestation of contact] is shown here and there by the Sutta phrase: 'the coming together of the three is contact.' And in this phrase the meaning is that it is contact because of the coming together of the three, *but it should NOT be understood that the mere coming together is itself contact*." Aya~nhi tattha tattha 'ti.n.na.m sa"ngati phasso'ti eva.m kaara.nasseva vasena paveditoti. Imassa ca suttapadassa ti.n.na.m sa"ngatiyaa phassoti ayamattho, na sa"ngatimattameva phasso. (Atthasaalinii, Commentary to Phassapa~ncamakaraasi. Saddhammappajjotikaa, Commentary to Guha.t.thakasuttaniddesa; Expositor I 144-5) In other words, Buddhaghosa and Upasena will not allow that the Buddha's definition of phassa is in fact a definition of phassa! To fit it into the commentarial framework they maintain that the Buddha's definition is merely a definition of one item in the fourfold Abhidhammic description of phassa. The problem with accepting this is that the fourfold description scheme (i.e. characteristic, proximate cause, function, & manifestation) is simply not in evidence in any text before Buddhaghosa's time, not even in the sort of texts where you'd expect to find it. Early hermeneutical treatises like the Nettipakara.na and Pe.takopadesa contain an exceptionally elaborate apparatus for defining terms, but no mention at all of the fourfold scheme: an incredible omission if their authors had known about it. Likewise in the two Niddesas, early commentaries on parts of the Suttanipaata. These also had their own defining apparatus, but again, no mention of the fourfold scheme that is so central to the Mahavihara's eisegesis. K> DN, you tell us that phassa is a concept - a coming K> together. My post made no mention of phassa being a concept. For me the concept vs reality distinction does not figure in the scheme of things. I think what you mean, Ken, is that you construed what I wrote to be about concepts, in accordance with your own commentary-based presuppositions. K> I assume this is your personal reading of the Sutta. Then I suggest you stop assuming and re-read the post. I trust you will see that I merely quoted the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta and offered no personal reading beyond what the Sutta states. K> But concepts are the domain of scientists and other K> uninstructed worldlings: Ken, there is nothing about a scientist that necessitates his being an uninstructed worldling. Since 'scientist' and 'aryan' are not mutually exclusive sets, there's no a priori reason why there shouldn't be an overlap between them. Moreover, your attempt to convey your antipathy to science in this way is, frankly, rather infantile. If the Buddha's Dhamma entailed contempt for science then Kumara Kassapa wouldn't have bothered teaching Prince Payasi (DN 23) -- a man with a thoroughly scientific approach to matters. K> the Buddha taught ultimate reality (the loka). A 'coming K> together' is not an ultimate reality: it is a conventional K> description of an ultimate reality, phassa. Conventional description, in my opinion, is the only game in town. Having said that, your commentator friends in fact take the 'coming together' (sangati) as an alternative expression for coincidence/meeting/congruence (sannipaata), which in the Abhidhammic fourfold description of contact is said to be its manifestation (paccupa.t.thaana). So being concerned with dhammas and their relations, I should have thought that this would be (in your terms) an ultimate description. At least when it's in the dialect of Magadha. :-) Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37624 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Dhiganaka Let me address your questions again > > Not that Howard was the first to notice this: Buddhaghosa in the > Atthasaalinii, and Upasena in the Saddhammappajotikaa, were both > probably aware of the problem, for neither of them will allow the > Suttas' definition of phassa (a definition repeated many times) > to be what it appears to be. Both commentators state: > > "This [the manifestation of contact] is shown here and there by > the Sutta phrase: 'the coming together of the three is contact.' > And in this phrase the meaning is that it is contact because of > the coming together of the three, *but it should NOT be > understood that the mere coming together is itself contact*." Using your above translation. There is nothing wrong with this passage. It is trying to explain that the mere coming together is itself not contact because contact is a condition. Only when these three manisfest together then contact will manifest. This is to distingish that contact is not just mere coming together, it saying that contact is a condition arise when the three comes together. Again using your translation "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) So again if you look closely at the asterisk sentence *the coming together of the three is contact* Then if you loook again the Sutta emphasis, With contact as condition..... so the coming together will condition the arisen of contact. If this is not the point, how does contact later becomes a condition for feeling. So there is no contradiction. Contact arise out of the coming together of the three but contact is not the three - is to illustrate that contact is a condition Ken O 37625 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Howard: Hi, Htoo - Howard: That depends on what one means exactly by that. In one sense, pa~n~natti are nothing at all - nonexistent. In the sense of (elementary) "ideas" or "thoughts", they are events. In the sense of concepts that are not elementary, they are only conventional designations of complexes of elementary thoughts. This business of pa~n~natti is not trivial, and is not succinctly dealt with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, yes this business of pannatti is not trivial. But it does not arise and does not pass away. I still remember 'Howard tree'. Actually they do not arise. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Nina, I am swimming from the upflow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >With Metta, >Htoo Naing > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37626 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 10/18/04 2:43:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Htoo: > > Dear Howard, yes this business of pannatti is not trivial. But it > does not arise and does not pass away. I still remember 'Howard > tree'. Actually they do not arise. > > ===================== Well, yes. "The tree in the garden" that I seem to perceive through my window at this very moment indeed does not arise, because there is no dhamma at all that IS that. But there *are* a host of actual phenomena, interrelated in a complex fashion, that do serve as the basis for that empty percept, making it what I call "well grounded". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37627 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:57pm Subject: Holy cow! Missed a few days and a TON of posts. Will catch up shortly... Dan 37628 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV,108 + Nina's addition Hi Htoo, Good point about laughter not being the same as the arahant's smile. Another thing that might be a little misleading is the quote below from the Expositor. The arahant's smile producing consciousness is without roots so there is no understanding. It is just a reaction, like smiling when seeing an old friend. A more conventional way of seeing this is that the joy produces the smile. Can an arahant's functional root consciousness also produce a smile? Larry ----------------------- Expositor : Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi DN, ----------- KH: > > Nina's explanation of phassa comes from the Abhidhamma, not from her reading of the Honey-ball Sutta. > > > DN: > Yes, I know. And I implied as much in my post, when I drew a contrast between Nina's commentarial Abhidhammic exposition of phassa and how phassa is defined in the Suttas. > ---------------------- KH: Yes, I know you know. I was making a point. Nina aims to understand suttas in a way that is consistent, not just with a sutta on its own, but also with the rest of the Tipitaka and its ancient commentaries. That is the stated aim of DSG (see our home page). --------------------- DN: > In "Cetasikas" Nina quotes one passage from the Honey-ball which appears to be compatible with the Abhidhammic understanding of phassa. I quoted an earlier passage from the same Sutta to show that there appears to be a difference, as noted earlier in this thread by Howard. Not that Howard was the first to notice this: Buddhaghosa in the Atthasaalinii, and Upasena in the Saddhammappajotikaa, were both probably aware of the problem, for neither of them will allow the Suttas' definition of phassa (a definition repeated many times) to be what it appears to be. Both commentators state: "This [the manifestation of contact] is shown here and there by the Sutta phrase: 'the coming together of the three is contact.' And in this phrase the meaning is that it is contact because of the coming together of the three, *but it should NOT be understood that the mere coming together is itself contact*." > ------------------ KH: The ancient commentaries frequently point out the difference between paramattha dhammas and conventional ideas. The Buddha taught the former, everyone else taught (teaches) the latter. ----------------- DN: > In other words, Buddhaghosa and Upasena will not allow that the Buddha's definition of phassa is in fact a definition of phassa! > ------------------ KH: Of course they will! The sutta does not give a comprehensive description of phassa. The Abhidhamma and commentaries provide additional details that were always known to students of the Dhamma. ------------------ DN: > To fit it into the commentarial framework they maintain that the Buddha's definition is merely a definition of one item in the fourfold Abhidhammic description of phassa. The problem with accepting this is that the fourfold description scheme (i.e. characteristic, proximate cause, function, & manifestation) is simply not in evidence in any text before Buddhaghosa's time, not even in the sort of texts where you'd expect to find it. Early hermeneutical treatises like the Nettipakara.na and Pe.takopadesa contain an exceptionally elaborate apparatus for defining terms, but no mention at all of the fourfold scheme: an incredible omission if their authors had known about it. Likewise in the two Niddesas, early commentaries on parts of the Suttanipaata. These also had their own defining apparatus, but again, no mention of the fourfold scheme that is so central to the Mahavihara's eisegesis. > ------------- KH: If I understand you correctly, you are not pointing to any contradiction by Buddhaghosa of the Dhamma, but you think he may have elaborated on it. Buddhaghosa said he was translating the works of other, much earlier commentators (whose original documents have since been lost). Is there any possibility, after your investigations, that he was telling the truth? ----------------------- KH: > > DN, you tell us that phassa is a concept - a coming together. > > > DN: > My post made no mention of phassa being a concept. For me the concept vs reality distinction does not figure in the scheme of things. I think what you mean, Ken, is that you construed what I wrote to be about concepts, in accordance with your own commentary-based presuppositions. > --------------------- KH: Yes, that is what I meant. Anything that is not ultimately real is, by definition, a concept. Ultimate realities (dhammas) are not solid objects that move around in space and occasionally bump into each other. So, any "coming together of dhammas" must be either another dhamma (the cetasika, phassa) or a descriptive term of speech (concept). --------------------- KH: > > I assume this is your personal reading of the Sutta. > > > DN: > Then I suggest you stop assuming and re-read the post. I trust you will see that I merely quoted the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta and offered no personal reading beyond what the Sutta states. > ------------ KH: If only it were that simple! Every reader of every sutta has a different impression of what it "states." ------------- KH: > > But concepts are the domain of scientists and other uninstructed worldlings: > > > DN: > Ken, there is nothing about a scientist that necessitates his being an uninstructed worldling. Since 'scientist' and 'aryan' are not mutually exclusive sets, there's no a priori reason why there shouldn't be an overlap between them. Moreover, your attempt to convey your antipathy to science in this way is, frankly, rather infantile. > -------------------------- KH: My apologies. It is difficult (for me at least) to write in a way that covers all bases. I knew my words could have been misconstrued in the way you have done, but I took the chance. My point was that concepts (including the complex ones used by scientists) are understandable by people, not only within, but also without the Buddha's dispensation. ------------------------ KH: > > the Buddha taught ultimate reality (the loka). A 'coming together' is not an ultimate reality: it is a conventional description of an ultimate reality, phassa. > > > DN: > Conventional description, in my opinion, is the only game in town. > > ------------------- KH: What does a sutta's conventional description describe? According to your stated opinion, it must be a conventional description of a conventional description of a conventional description . . . . Sorry if I appear to be raving, but you postulate a world in which, ultimately, nothing exists! ------------- DN: > Having said that, your commentator friends in fact take the 'coming together' (sangati) as an alternative expression for coincidence/meeting/congruence (sannipaata), which in the Abhidhammic fourfold description of contact is said to be its manifestation (paccupa.t.thaana). So being concerned with dhammas and their relations, I should have thought that this would be (in your terms) an ultimate description. At least when it's in the dialect of Magadha. :-) -------------------------- KH: I have never considered the possibility of an "ultimate description;" only of a "description of ultimate reality." Your thread on the dialect of Magadha went over my head. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37630 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Dighanakha: "This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not some additional factor that accompanies the coming together." Hi Dighanakha, I agree it is a little strange to think of contact as a cetasika. Perhaps one reason might be the perceived need to see contact as a paramattha dhamma. "Coming together" is a concept. One thing we should watch out for is misunderstanding cetasikas as mini selves, as Howard has alluded to. Contact is one of the few dhammas that is obviously anatta but actually they are all like that, dependently arisen. Larry 37631 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Larry (and Dighanakha, and Ken) - In a message dated 10/18/04 7:52:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Dighanakha, > > I agree it is a little strange to think of contact as a cetasika. > Perhaps one reason might be the perceived need to see contact as a > paramattha dhamma. "Coming together" is a concept. One thing we should > watch out for is misunderstanding cetasikas as mini selves, as Howard > has alluded to. Contact is one of the few dhammas that is obviously > anatta but actually they are all like that, dependently arisen. > > Larry > ======================= There is certainly a concept of "coming together", just as there are concepts of "hardness" and of "feeling", but this does not mean that any of these are not actual events. There certainly is an abstraction called "coming together", but an actual instance of the concurrence of eye-door activation, visual content, and visual consciousness is not a concept - it is an event, an experiential event, and no less (or more) of a real event than, for example, an itch. So, yes, "coming together" is a concept, but a coming together (i.e., a concurrence) of "the three" is not; it is an actual experiential event. But there is something which I find more important than this particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very perplexing. It is seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred Abhidhammic material. It seems to me that a perspective that treats Abhidhamma as more the word of the Buddha than the Sutta Pitaka is close to being an establishment of a new philosophy of "Abhidhammism", a philosophy or religion that is considered to be the "true" Dhamma, improving upon and even replacing the Dhamma. I see this as a very extreme view. [The opposite extreme is to see little value in Abhidhamma, and changing the tipitaka to the dvipitaka. BTW, I am guessing here at the Pali for "two baskets".] With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37632 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard, Are you arguing that contact is a cetasika, as real as an itch? Who are you referring to as "people who are very, very fastidious"? Larry ----------------------------- H: "There is certainly a concept of "coming together", just as there are concepts of "hardness" and of "feeling", but this does not mean that any of these are not actual events. There certainly is an abstraction called "coming together", but an actual instance of the concurrence of eye-door activation, visual content, and visual consciousness is not a concept - it is an event, an experiential event, and no less (or more) of a real event than, for example, an itch. So, yes, "coming together" is a concept, but a coming together (i.e., a concurrence) of "the three" is not; it is an actual experiential event. But there is something which I find more important than this particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very perplexing. It is seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred Abhidhammic material. It seems to me that a perspective that treats Abhidhamma as more the word of the Buddha than the Sutta Pitaka is close to being an establishment of a new philosophy of "Abhidhammism", a philosophy or religion that is considered to be the "true" Dhamma, improving upon and even replacing the Dhamma. I see this as a very extreme view. [The opposite extreme is to see little value in Abhidhamma, and changing the tipitaka to the dvipitaka. BTW, I am guessing here at the Pali for "two baskets".]" 37633 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi Htoo, Thanks for your replies. I am not the only DSG member who "denies formal meditation" (to use your words), but I must speak for myself because, often, I confuse the facts. "Formal meditation" is a term used at DSG to refer to the idea (pannatti) of meditation. It is distinct from "actual meditation" (bhavana), which is a momentary, conditioned phenomenon that arises independently of any formal procedure (independently of sitting in a certain way, holding the hands in a certain way, concentrating on postures and activities, and so on). People of all sorts can practise formal meditation (can have an idea of practising meditation). They can be lustful, hateful and ignorant. Momentary meditation, however, is practised only by the wise (by kusala citta with panna). You said about Majjhima Nikaya 20: --------------- > This clearly states that 'beating down of evil mind by good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate.' These are actions that arise during meditation. > ------------- Yes, they happen when the citta is kusala, not akusala. Kusala citta and panna arise irrespective of pannatti (concepts of appropriate times, inappropriate times, secluded places, busy places, straight backs, slumped backs, peaceful demeanours, frenzied excitement). Having said that, I agree that wise people tend, on average, to live quiet, simple lives. You are the authority on jhana, so I can't tell you anything about it, but I gather practitioners prefer extremely secluded lifestyles - otherwise they can forget their object of meditation. I gather also that they sometimes clench their teeth when kusala citta is suppressing the hindrances. When I said, "The Buddha did not teach formal meditation," you replied with several sutta references, most of which were to jhana, I think. My understanding is: 1) Jhana meditation (even when the meditator is seated, straight-backed at the base of a tree) is not a formal practice: it is a conditioned phenomenon. 2) Other, simpler, calm-producing meditations (mindfulness of; the Buddha, metta, death, repulsiveness) are likewise, momentary, conditioned phenomena. 3) Insight meditation is a conditioned, momentary phenomenon that leads to enlightenment, but unlike 1 and 2, it is in no way connected with concepts. 4) Ariyans who attain jhana have higher powers than ariyans who attain by insight alone, but even so, jhana and other samatha- bhavana are not factors that cause (lead to) enlightenment. I am not telling you anything you don't already know. As you said to Ken O, ". . . . those who are sitting may not understand well . . . and they are formally sitting with lobha that wants to remove their suffering." So I wonder what you mean when you say the Buddha taught meditation. Do I have any control over whether I am wise or foolish? Or is the situation the same as for Sarah in the pool or at the Bo-tree - no control, "just namas and rupas conditioned to perform their various functions?" You also said to Ken O: ----------- > Ken O, you are right. The idea that leads these people denying formal meditation is that some go to a forest and sit under a tree and try to develop dhamma such as sati and panna. They cannot be developed or abolished. Any learned Buddhist knows this. But disciples of The Buddha do the practise and they touch patipatti. Some say that pariyatti should be finished up so that all dhamma can be understood at theoretical level. They would go practising after completion of pariyatti. > ---------- I am still not sure we understand each other. Patipatti is satipatthana (mundane insight into conditioned dhamma). It leads to more thorough penetration of the Dhamma (pativedha). Formal meditation does not lead to patipatti: Association with the wise, hearing the true Dhamma and wise consideration of the true Dhamma are the factors that lead to patipatti. I don't know of anyone here who believes we have to finish studying and then go practising. A lot of people spend a lot of time studying and discussing Dhamma with good friends (like yourself), but that is their lifestyle. Again, there is no control and it is useless to have any plans for bringing about satipatthana. There are only namas and rupas, conditioned to perform their various functions. Kind regards, Ken H 37634 From: Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/18/04 11:55:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Are you arguing that contact is a cetasika, as real as an itch? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as real as an itch. I see it as an experiential event that really occurs. Whether it is properly called a cetasika I'm not so sure, though. --------------------------------------------- Who are> > you referring to as "people who are very, very fastidious"? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What I had in mind was people who have no doubts about every last detail of Abhidhamma and will go through what I see as mental gymnastics to justify their faith in Abhidhamma even over and above the suttas. You, it happens, are very flexible as I see it, and I don't think that "fastidious" fits at all. (It just happens that it was your post that I was replying to when I "blew my cool". Sorry, Larry.) Actually, I apologize to everyone for the way I said what I said. While it wasn't wrong of me to state my opinion, it was very wrong to have done it with an undercurrent if anger. I'm afraid I shot my mouth off before considering the offense I was likely to be giving. I regret to say that the activity of promoting Abhidhamma (whose direct origination by the Buddha is at least doubtful) as superior to the Dhamma as given in suttas (whose origins surely do lie with the Buddha) really upsets me, and I'm afraid I very much reacted badly based on that upset. This is a lesson for me of the harm there is in expressing anger in any form, even so called "righteous anger", which is really not righteous at all, because at least in part it is always an expression of ego. Again, I truly apologize for speech that was not right speech. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ----------------------------- > H: "There is certainly a concept of "coming together", just as there are > concepts of "hardness" and of "feeling", but this does not mean that any > of these are not actual events. There certainly is an abstraction called > "coming together", but an actual instance of the concurrence of eye-door > activation, visual content, and visual consciousness is not a concept - > it is an event, an experiential event, and no less (or more) of a real > event than, for example, an itch. > So, yes, "coming together" is > a concept, but a coming together (i.e., a concurrence) of "the three" is > not; it is an actual experiential event. > But there is something which I > find more important than this particular issue of what contact is. It is > something I find very perplexing. It is seeing people who are very, very > fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly said when it appeals to > them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but are > not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely said in > the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred > Abhidhammic material. It seems to me that a perspective that treats > Abhidhamma as more the word of the Buddha than the Sutta Pitaka is close > to being an establishment of a new philosophy of "Abhidhammism", a > philosophy or religion that is considered to be the "true" Dhamma, > improving upon and even replacing the Dhamma. I see this as a very > extreme view. [The opposite extreme is to see little value in > Abhidhamma, and changing the tipitaka to the dvipitaka. BTW, I am > guessing here at the Pali for "two baskets".]" > > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37635 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:21pm Subject: Sarah: "One path" Dear Sarah, You quoted from the Parinibbana Sutta commentary (?) in an eloquent restatement of something we agreed on: > " 'There a [true] renunciate (samana) is not found': it is meant > that there a first ascetic, namely a stream-enterer, does not > exist....'Others' doctrines are devoid of true renunciates': > others' doctrines are vain, empty, devoid of the twelve > renunciates, namely the four who undertake insight meditation > (vipassanaa) for the sake of the four paths, the four > who are on the paths, the four who have fruition......'If they live > rightly': If a stream-enterer explains what he has attained to > another person, and makes him attain stream-entry, then he is said > to live rightly. The same thing applies to a once-returner and the > rest. If one is on the path of stream-entry.....If one practises > insight meditation for the sake of the path of stream- > entry.....lives rightly....". And you continue: > Only one path as I understand, but of course we should respect any > kusala, whatever the label or belief or religion. Right. Only one (right) path and we should respect any kusala. Agreed. And on dsg we discuss what that path is. Is it a path of thinking, conceptualizing, intellectualizing, cogitation, and theorizing? Or is it a path of understanding reality as it is? This is the question. Development of wisdom consists neither of sitting quietly in a corner with closed eyes and directing the attention to this or that object nor of speculating on reality, constructing theories about reality, and blindly developing a conceptual framework based on someone else's understanding and description of reality. Of course, it can be helpful to listen to others' descriptions of what reality looks like when it is understood directly, as it is. If we hear something that is verified by our experience and "strikes a chord", then the description can serve to help solidify our understanding. However, conceptual models about anything beyond our understanding we should just set aside rather than spin off into thinking, doubting, or blindly accepting. Metta, Dan 37636 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:24pm Subject: "The distinction of right view" [Ken O] Dear Ken O, You wrote: "The distinction of right view lies on the fact that panna arise on the citta. To my understanding, if panna arise seeing things as anatta, anicca then there is right view regardless whether it is suparmundane path or mundane path." Bingo! Right view is about pañña arising with the citta rather than about any conceptual model of reality. Does the conceptual model help consolidate an understanding? If it helps you now, use it. If it does not, don't worry about it. It makes all the difference in the world where your understanding is at the moment. You go on to write: "Sammadithi is about right view on anatta. Without a Buddha, there will no knowledge of Anatta." But how does this square with your comment that the distinction of right view lies on the fact that pañña arises with the citta? Can there not be pañña and sammaditthi of some other characteristic (such as anicca or dukkha or metta or kammassakata)? I agree that if there is view of self, the view is not sammaditthi, but is there no other characteristic of reality that can be the object of sammaditthi? Finally, you mention: "If I am not wrong, Buddha initially wish to teach the dhamma to his two teachers who he thinks that will quickly grasp the dhamma and become enlighted and unfortunately they passed away before Buddha became enlighted. ...but again without the knowlegde of anatta there will be no salvation." Buddha taught many disciples who were already fairly advanced in wisdom and samatha outside the dispensation. Many such disciples quickly attained stages of enlightenment and would not have been able to without the Buddha's help. I also agree that outside the dispensation, there is no enlightenment; however, that is quite different from saying that there can be NO sammaditthi at all outside the dispensation. Metta, Dan 37637 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:23pm Subject: "Conceptual right view" is 'uncontestable' [Howard] Dear Howard, I contest your uncontestable take on the Sammaditthi sutta as dealing with "conceptual right view" (and "supramundane right view") rather than "mundane right view" (and "supramundane right view"). For example, you take section 3 as uncontestably conceptual rather than direct: "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Isn't the disciple with 'perfect confidence in the Dhamma' and the one who 'has arrived at this true Dhamma' referring to the Noble disciples, sotapanna through arahant? Surely you can't mean that intellectual acceptance of a conceptual formulation of the unwholesome, etc. is what defines enlightenment. Do you mean that 'perfect confidence in the Dhamma' and arriving 'at this true Dhamma' refer to intellectual acceptance of Buddha's teachings rather than direct understanding at deep levels? I see that you also refer to paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 6 as uncontestably conceptual, but let's start with 3. Metta, Dan 37638 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:25pm Subject: "[weighty] experience of dhammas" [Ken H] Dear Ken H, You discuss an interesting line of thought that you have been toying with. To wit, you wrote: > KH: "I wonder if you are thinking the same way I was thinking recently. I argued that the experience of dhammas was much more influential (weighty) than the experience of concepts. For example, if I were to experience hatred for an individual (a longboarder, let's say) that would be just a conceptual explanation of what was really going on - strong dosa for sense objects and other dhammas. I have backed off on that theory. It got no support (just well-informed opposition), although one or two members did agree there could be strong emotions for paramattha dhammas. I'd be interested in your opinion." I'm not sure what you mean. Dhammas (including concepts) are experienced all the time. Did you mean that direct understanding of paramattha dhammas was more weighty than conceptualization? I don't think it makes sense to generalize about this because direct understanding can range from a very brief instant of rudimentary insight that is very quickly forgotten (or perhaps even barely noticed) to magga and phala of an emergent arahant. Metta, Dan 37639 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:26pm Subject: "Concepts always attended by ditthi?! " [Mike] Dear Mike, Your question: "Do you suggest that concepts are always attended by views..." No. Not at all. What I am saying is that sammaditthi is "Right Viewing" rather than "right opinion" or "right conceptual formulation". The phrase "conceptual right view" muddies this critical distinction and can readily serve to encourage ditthi in a way that is very much the parallel of how "conventional right effort" so commonly serves to encourage silabbataparamasa. You continue: "...and that, since right view only attends satipatthaana or path and fruition, that concepts are always attended by wrong view?" No. Not at all. Concepts are not always attended by wrong view. However, it is not the concept itself that defines the distinction between ditthi and sammaditthi; it is the nature of the experiencing citta. Is it with right view, clinging, or neither (ñanavippayutta)? Metta, Dan 37640 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:27pm Subject: Two sammaditthi's in MN 117 (not three) [Mike] Dear Mike, In MN 117, there are only two kinds of right view discussed, not three. The distinction between the two is mundane vs. supramundane. As you rightly point out, the "mundane" here refers to right view of the mundane path, i.e., mundane satipatthana. The notion of "conceptual right view" does not make an appearance either in the sutta or the commentary. The commentary states that "two kinds of right view are forerunners: the right view of insight, which investigates formations as impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical destruction of defilements." [MLDB, n. 1100] It goes on to specifically address the (possibly) conceptual- sounding "One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one's right view [MLDB 117:4]" in the following way: "..this is the right view of insight which understands wrong view as an object by penetrating its characteristics of impermanence, etc., and which understands right view by exercising the function of comprehension and by clearing away confusion." [MLDB, n 1101] In the sutta, Buddha speaks of sammaditthi wihout any qualifier suggesting 'conceptual understanding.' The commentary strongly suggests that the mundane sammaditthi in this sutta is mundane satipatthana rather than adhering to some conceptual formulation and makes no suggestion about any 'conceptual right view' as pre-cursor to anything. It is curious that Bhikkhu Bodhi here inserts his own opinion that "the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view..." [MLDB, n. 1102], but this does not appear to be supported by the sutta or commentary. You also write: "The likelihood of jumping to pa.tivedha via pa.tipatti without ever having heard and understood the Dhamma (pariyatti) is beyond remote I think." Not sure what you mean... If you mean that the likelihood of someone developing the deeply penetrating insight of "enlightenment" without having heard the Dhamma is beyond remote, I'd agree. If you mean that it is impossible to have any insight at all without having heard the Dhamma, I'd have to say "Nonsense!" -- to put it mildly. Metta, Dan 37641 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:28pm Subject: "correct conceptual grasp" [Andrew] Dear Andrew, I like your comment: "... an incorrect conceptual grasp of the teaching excludes direct penetration. They simply can't co-exist." This is certainly true. When right view arises in moments of satipatthana (direct penetration), there is no grasping at any conceptual formulation at all. Ditthi and direct penetration cannot co-exist. It may sound a little like I'm playing word games here; but you are close to expressing the distinction between ditthi and sammaditthi, and I'm trying to amend your wording just a little bit to bring that distinction a little more into focus. You go on to say: "A correct conceptual grasp implies pañña..." You lost me here. What do you mean when you write "correct conceptual grasp"? In what sense is there a "grasp"? And how is it 'conceptual'? In what sense is it 'correct'? I think these questions are the crux of the whole thread. Metta, Dan 37642 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard and Mike, Howard wrote: ------------------------ > I'm afraid I have some reservations with regard to an operation of > pa~n~na that can directly know the incorrectness of the thought 'there is > no > result from kamma'. That seems to make pa~n~na into a kind of magical > force that > can directly know what is not directly knowable. -------------------------- To digress a little: Namas in general do not know their objects, do they? Take vedana (feeling), for example: if there is lobha, vedana "tastes" its object (arammana) as pleasant (or indifferent). But if, instead of lobha, dosa had arisen, vedana would have tasted that same arammana as painful. So, it seems to me that vedana is responsive to the root of the citta, but it does not know the inherent qualities of its object. Some namas do know their objects, though, don't they? Citta, sati, sanna are possibilities that come to mind, and panna is a definite starter. There is a simile somewhere about panna being like a moneychanger who knows the inherent qualities of a coin: Certain other namas are like a child and a villager who have less intricate levels of coin-knowledge. So panna knows its object, and we can accumulate a level of panna that knows the characteristics of dhammas. I suspect that same level of panna can arise even when pannatti is being experienced. A simile would be a rocket scientist changing a light bulb. He wouldn't launch the light bulb into orbit, but he would have no trouble with the technology. In the same way, a vipassana practitioner would be wise and capable when tending to commonplace, household duties. ------------------- H: > Not all phenomena are > directly > knowable, only paramattha dhammas, it seems to me. -------------------- A correction, Howard, if I may: Only paramattha dhammas are referred to, in Abhidhamma parlance, as 'phenomena.' All other arammana are pannatti (illusions). Please continue :-) -------------------- > It seems to me that it > is > by observing sequences of events and the relations among those events that > it > is possible to realize that kamma has consequences, and that this > seeing/knowing comes about in a regular, well structured, certain but > inferential way. It > doesn't seem correct to me that such knowing is an instance of direct > insight-knowing, although it is supported by such. --------------------- Mike replied: ------------------------- > This (last bit) sounds right to me, too--saccanulomika- sammaadi.t.thi isn't the same thing as saccapa.tivedha-sammaadi.t.thi precisely because it can take concepts as objects, as I understand it. The Great Forty seems to me to make it clear that it is consistent with the Dhamma, though. Otherwise how could sammaadi.t.thi 'have fermentations, side with merit & result in acquisitions', and how would this differ from the sammaadidi.t.thi that "is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path"? Or do you think I've mistaken the Buddha's words here? > -------------------------- I have learnt not to translate suttas on my own. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but I seem to remember someone explaining that sutta to me. I think the right view with fermentations is satipatthana (patipatti), whereas the right view without fermentations is supramundane right view (pativedha). The elaborate description of right view is an intellectual understanding (pariyatti). That's certainly an oversimplification, and possibly entirely wrong. :-) Ken H 37643 From: samuraitradr Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Help with clarification of "control" Greetings, I've been reading one of Nina Van Gorkum's books, and I guess I need some clarification on something. To some degree, I understand that we have no control over mind and body. I can't stop the body from getting sick or old, etc. and I can't stop my mind from liking and disliking certain things. On the other hand, I CAN control the body. I can make it stand, walk, run, sit etc. I CAN make the mind concentrate on a project, etc. So, there seems to be two things going on here. An aspect of body and mind that is beyond control as well as an aspect that "I" can control. And perhaps that is why I have difficulty in letting go of of the self; because to me "I" still, to some degree have some control of what "my" body does and what "my" mind thinks. Any ideas? Thanks. 37644 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 0:03am Subject: Dangerous Delight ... !!! Friends: Delight => Craving => Need => Urge => Pain => Suffering: Punna, there are these: Forms recognizable by the eye, Sounds recognizable by the ear, Smells recognizable by the nose, Tastes recognizable by the tongue, Touches recognizable by the body, Mental States recognizable by the mind, which are attractive & liked, wished for, desired & provocative of lust & greed. If one welcomes them, enjoys them & thus remains clinging to them, Delight Arises...!!! With the arising of Delight, Punna I tell you, there is also the arising of Suffering.!!! However, if one do neither welcome, enjoy, nor cling to these sense objects, Delight Ceases! With the ceasing of Delight, Punna I tell you, there is also the ceasing of all Suffering.!!! Given this brief instruction by the Buddha, as a meditation device, Punna, the business man, dwelling alone, alert, aware & keen, in no long time became another one of the fully Awakened Arahats. Source: The Middle length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya MN 145 [iii 267] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma http://uk.geocities.com/bhikkhu_samahita http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome. 37645 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:41am Subject: Re: Joop - Best wishes Joop, Welcome back to the land of the living! I gather you were lying in hospital composing your own obituary, and you decided to take pot luck on the Dhamma quote be used in it. What do you mean where you write: "I realize dead gets enough new chances?" Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > Dear all > > Thanks for the wishes for my health. 37646 From: plnao Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:55am Subject: Contact swings both ways. (Was Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of) Hi Howard, and all H > But there is something which I find more important than this > particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very perplexing. It is > seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly > said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma > Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely > said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred > Abhidhammic material. The important thing is the proliferation that happens after contact, I would say, not the contact itself. I am comfortable with either the Abhidhamma phassa-as-element, or the Honeyball "coming together." Either "version" of contact is not-self, and though I haven't examined the point nearly as closely as you gents I don't yet see how going with either version makes a difference in terms of the proliferation that follows. But I would be very grateful to be taught otherwise. Metta, Phil p.s in passing, thank you Htoo and Suan for your feedback on aloko (light) the other day. 37647 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two sammaditthi's in MN 117 (not three) [Mike] OK--thanks, Dan... mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:27 PM Subject: [dsg] Two sammaditthi's in MN 117 (not three) [Mike] > > > Dear Mike, > > In MN 117, there are only two kinds of right view discussed, not > three. The distinction between the two is mundane vs. supramundane. > As you rightly point out, the "mundane" here refers to right view of > the mundane path, i.e., mundane satipatthana. The notion > of "conceptual right view" does not make an appearance either in the > sutta or the commentary. The commentary states that "two kinds of > right view are forerunners: the right view of insight, which > investigates formations as impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and > the right view of the path, which arises as a consequence of insight > and effects the radical destruction of defilements." [MLDB, n. 1100] > It goes on to specifically address the (possibly) conceptual- > sounding "One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as > right view: this is one's right view [MLDB 117:4]" in the following > way: "..this is the right view of insight which understands wrong > view as an object by penetrating its characteristics of impermanence, > etc., and which understands right view by exercising the function of > comprehension and by clearing away confusion." [MLDB, n 1101] In the > sutta, Buddha speaks of sammaditthi wihout any qualifier > suggesting 'conceptual understanding.' The commentary strongly > suggests that the mundane sammaditthi in this sutta is mundane > satipatthana rather than adhering to some conceptual formulation and > makes no suggestion about any 'conceptual right view' as pre-cursor > to anything. It is curious that Bhikkhu Bodhi here inserts his own > opinion that "the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls > under mundane right view..." [MLDB, n. 1102], but this does not > appear to be supported by the sutta or commentary. > > You also write: "The likelihood of jumping to pa.tivedha via > pa.tipatti without ever having heard and understood the Dhamma > (pariyatti) is beyond remote I think." > > Not sure what you mean... If you mean that the likelihood of someone > developing the deeply penetrating insight of "enlightenment" without > having heard the Dhamma is beyond remote, I'd agree. If you mean that > it is impossible to have any insight at all without having heard the > Dhamma, I'd have to say "Nonsense!" -- to put it mildly. > > Metta, > > Dan 37648 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, > I have learnt not to translate suttas on my own. I don't know if you > are right or wrong, but I seem to remember someone explaining that > sutta to me. I think the right view with fermentations is > satipatthana (patipatti), whereas the right view without > fermentations is supramundane right view (pativedha). The elaborate > description of right view is an intellectual understanding > (pariyatti). That's certainly an oversimplification, and possibly > entirely wrong. :-) This is certainly what Dan's reply suggests too (by the way, Dan, I also noticed that odd interpolation of BB's)--you're probably both right. Apologies all around, also to Howard for broadcasting my misunderstanding. mike 37649 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two sammaditthi's in MN 117 (not three) [Mike] p.s. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:27 PM Subject: [dsg] Two sammaditthi's in MN 117 (not three) [Mike] > If you mean that > it is impossible to have any insight at all without having heard the > Dhamma, I'd have to say "Nonsense!" -- to put it mildly. Thank you for putting it mildly--here we disagree categorically, though. 37650 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:25am Subject: Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard Dear Howard, Phil, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K and all How are you? I missed Howard's original post on this issue. But, I can assure you that the teachings on contact (phasso) like those on feeling (vedanaa) are the same everywhere within the whole Tipi.taka and their standard Pali commentaries. The Buddha taught contact as an ultimate reality in Sutta Pi.taka. For example, contact (phasso in phassa paccayaa) in various Suttams on Dependent Origination is a paramattha dhamma. Of course, if Howard found something different on the issue of contact between the Pi.takas, please give me a reference. I will look into the matter. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: Hi Howard, and all H > But there is something which I find more important than this > particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very perplexing. It is > seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly > said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma > Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely > said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred > Abhidhammic material. The important thing is the proliferation that happens after contact, I would say, not the contact itself. I am comfortable with either the Abhidhamma phassa-as-element, or the Honeyball "coming together." Either "version" of contact is not-self, and though I haven't examined the point nearly as closely as you gents I don't yet see how going with either version makes a difference in terms of the proliferation that follows. But I would be very grateful to be taught otherwise. Metta, Phil p.s in passing, thank you Htoo and Suan for your feedback on aloko (light) the other day. 37651 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken H and Mike We cannot say that right view with fermentations is satipatthana because supramundane right view is also satipatthana. Satipatthana includes Arahants not just for worldings. Ken O 37652 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The distinction of right view" [Ken O] Hi Dan > Bingo! Right view is about pañña arising with the citta rather than > about any conceptual model of reality. Does the conceptual model > help consolidate an understanding? If it helps you now, use it. If > it does not, don't worry about it. It makes all the difference in > the world> where your understanding is at the moment. Yes we need a conceptual understanding of right view in order to develop understand into subtle level. I would say investigation of right view which is a function of right thought where our mind is applied to the right view. > You go on to write: "Sammadithi is about right view on anatta. > Without a Buddha, there will no knowledge of Anatta." > > But how does this square with your comment that the distinction of > right view lies on the fact that pañña arises with the citta? Can > there not be pañña and sammaditthi of some other characteristic > (such as anicca or dukkha or metta or kammassakata)? > Buddha taught many disciples who were already fairly advanced in > wisdom and samatha outside the dispensation. Many such disciples > quickly attained stages of enlightenment and would not have been > able to without the Buddha's help. I also agree that outside the > dispensation, there is no enlightenment; however, that is quite > different from saying that there can be NO sammaditthi at all > outside the dispensation. When Buddha talk about right view, it emcompasses anatta. Without the knowledge of Anatta, there will no knowledge of not-self which is the basis for right view. We have to see it in the position of Buddha dhamma. Whereas for others, I would say they have correct view on the knowledge or anicca and dukkha because they are visible but it is not right view because as is no knowledge of Anatta. But Sammadithi is in the arena of the Buddha, only with the arisen of Buddha, the knowlege of anatta is able to be taught to us. So it said that there is no sammadithhi at all outside the dispensation. Some people may develop the understanding of not-self but theirs is limited because they would not know the underlying three roots where it cause all our rebirths. Ken O 37653 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Conceptual right view" is 'uncontestable' [Howard] Hi, Dan - I agree with you about item 3. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/19/04 2:25:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > I contest your uncontestable take on the Sammaditthi sutta as dealing > with "conceptual right view" (and "supramundane right view") rather > than "mundane right view" (and "supramundane right view"). For > example, you take section 3 as uncontestably conceptual rather than > direct: "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, > the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the > wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is > straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived > at this true Dhamma." Isn't the disciple with 'perfect confidence in > the Dhamma' and the one who 'has arrived at this true Dhamma' > referring to the Noble disciples, sotapanna through arahant? Surely > you can't mean that intellectual acceptance of a conceptual > formulation of the unwholesome, etc. is what defines enlightenment. > Do you mean that 'perfect confidence in the Dhamma' and arriving 'at > this true Dhamma' refer to intellectual acceptance of Buddha's > teachings rather than direct understanding at deep levels? > > I see that you also refer to paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 6 as > uncontestably conceptual, but let's start with 3. > > Metta, > > Dan > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37654 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sarah: "One path" Hi Dan > Right. Only one (right) path and we should respect any kusala. > Agreed. And on dsg we discuss what that path is. Is it a path of > thinking, conceptualizing, intellectualizing, cogitation, and > theorizing? Or is it a path of understanding reality as it is? This > is the question. Development of wisdom consists neither of sitting > quietly in a corner with closed eyes and directing the attention to > this or that object nor of speculating on reality, constructing > theories about reality, and blindly developing a conceptual > framework based on someone else's understanding and description of reality. Development of the path must start somewhere. So in that sense we are all just having conceptual right view. I would said thinking is good for understanding right view because it helps one to discriminate, comtemplate and investigate the dhamma. We cannot say we dont think because thinking which is with acorrdance with right view is right thought. Buddha has always in the sutta exhort us to reflect on our thoughts, actions and speech and reflection is to me right thought. Ken O 37655 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:48am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hello Ken (and Htoo). Htoo>> This clearly states that 'beating down of evil mind by good Htoo>> mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate.' Htoo>> These are actions that arise during meditation. K> Yes, they happen when the citta is kusala, not akusala. K> Kusala citta and panna arise irrespective of pannatti K> (concepts of appropriate times, inappropriate times, K> secluded places, busy places, straight backs, slumped backs, K> peaceful demeanours, frenzied excitement). Having said that, K> I agree that wise people tend, on average, to live quiet, K> simple lives. You are the authority on jhana, so I can't K> tell you anything about it, but I gather practitioners K> prefer extremely secluded lifestyles - otherwise they can K> forget their object of meditation. I gather also that they K> sometimes clench their teeth when kusala citta is K> suppressing the hindrances. I think the text is describing something rather more proactive than your paraphrase would suggest: "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind. When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them, his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. "Just as a strong man might seize a weaker man by the head or shoulders and beat him down, constrain him, and crush him, so too, when, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, a bhikkhu beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them, his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated." And the commentary is even MORE proactive. Some weeks ago someone posted a rather limp paraphrase of it that didn't do justice to it at all. Here is what Dr. Buddhaghosa actually says: "The phrase 'dantebhidantamaadhaaya' means that one should press the upper teeth down on the lower teeth. "The phrase 'balavaa puriso' ['as a strong man'] means that just as a strong man, a great man, having seized a weak man by the head, throat or limbs, might squeeze him, crush him, pin him down securely and make him squirm, make him suffer, make him tremble as if he were on the point of death, even so, a bhikkhu should be a wrestler who wrestles with unskillful thoughts [thinking] thus: "Just who are YOU compared with ME!" Gaining mastery over the unskillful thoughts by means of his great exertion he should undertake the great resolve: " 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' " Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37657 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > Hi Ken H and Mike > > We cannot say that right view with fermentations is satipatthana > because supramundane right view is also satipatthana. Satipatthana > includes Arahants not just for worldings. > Hi Ken, Interesting! So, what is satipa.t.taana with fermentations (as in the Great Forty)? I did NOT know that the supramundane path factor sammaadi.t.thi is satipa.t.taana... Thanks, mike 37658 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:25pm Subject: Re: Help with clarification of "control" Greetings . . . , Welcome to DSG. You wrote: ------------ > I've been reading one of Nina Van Gorkum's books, and I guess I need some clarification on something. To some degree, I understand that we have no control over mind and body. I can't stop the body from getting sick or old, etc. and I can't stop my mind from liking and disliking certain things. > ------------------------ I agree. To some extent, we uninstructed worldlings do know what the Buddha taught: There is no control over realities (nama and rupa). If there could be control over rupa, we could decree, "Let my body remain young and healthy!" And if there could be control over nama, we could decree, "Let my mind be pure and wise!" ----------------------- > On the other hand, I CAN control the body. I can make it stand, walk, run, sit etc. I CAN make the mind concentrate on a project, etc. > ---------------------- Right again! A little knowledge of the Buddha's teaching (ultimate reality) should not turn us into helpless morons: We don't need to flop on the ground muttering, "As a Buddhist I have no control over mind and body!" -------------------- > So, there seems to be two things going on here. An aspect of body and mind that is beyond control as well as an aspect that "I" can control. And perhaps that is why I have difficulty in letting go of of the self; because to me "I" still, to some degree have some control of what "my" body does and what "my" mind thinks. Any ideas? > ------------ The mental and physical phenomena that are real and that are beyond control will, inevitably (unavoidably, uncontrollably), arise and perform their functions. They will create concepts. They will create concepts (of control) that deny the Buddha's teaching and they will create other concepts that are more in accord with the teaching. It all depends on the conditions prevailing at the time. Hopefully, they will create concepts of a person who behaves sensibly and they will not create concepts of an idiot who flops on the floor babbling, "No control!" :-) It all depends on conditions. Some conditions go way back many lifetimes; others are from the more recent past; some are created here and now. A sound, intellectual understanding of the Dhamma is one condition for sensible, constructive behaviour, both ultimate and conventional. Kind regards, Ken H P.S. A name would be handy. You can give a made-up one if you are worried about security, but I have never heard of any problems with giving a real name. 37659 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard, I don't know if contact is a real internal experience but we can certainly see contact happening "out there". At any rate, I think you and abhidhamma are in agreement. As to the superiority and location (sutta or abhidhamma) of the Buddha's teaching, I think that is a matter of faith and is best left to individuals and those whose business it is to cultivate faith. As far as learning goes, one learns where one can. There is no real hierarchy, even between concept and reality, imo. Larry Btw, it can also be a good intellectual exercise to try to bring discordant views in-line with one's own. You see this a lot in Mahayana attempts to resolve differences between sutta and sutra. 37660 From: Andrew Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard I think we all understand when one of us goes "gunning for bear" so don't feel too bad about it. (-: I just have one comment to make (or query to pose): --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > But there is something which I find more important than this > particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very perplexing. It is > seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha has supposedly > said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the Abhidhamma > Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has definitely > said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with preferred > Abhidhammic material. It seems to me that a perspective that treats Abhidhamma as more > the word of the Buddha than the Sutta Pitaka is close to being an > establishment of a new philosophy of "Abhidhammism", a philosophy or religion that is > considered to be the "true" Dhamma, improving upon and even replacing the Dhamma. > I see this as a very extreme view. [The opposite extreme is to see little > value in Abhidhamma, and changing the tipitaka to the dvipitaka. BTW, I am > guessing here at the Pali for "two baskets".] Andrew: There is something that perplexes me too. I may be wrong (and please someone correct me if I am) but essentially the same people are responsible (or at least had a hand in or some influence upon) the transmitting of the Sutta pitaka as well as the Abhidhamma pitaka to us in its present form. So if the Abhidhamma pitaka is a corruption by corporate monks, can we have any confidence that the Sutta pitaka is the pristine and faithfully-preserved word of the Buddha? Would not those foolish monks have corrupted the wording of the Suttas as well? If so, doesn't that put the Abhidhamma "extremists" and the Sutta "extremists" in one and the same boat? I can hear my Viking ancestors telling me that thrashing about with a weeding-hook in a boat over deep water has a down-side. (-: Best wishes Andrew T 37661 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Mike Right view is of two types, mundane and supramundane as seen in the sutta Great Forty. Right view with fermentations (mundane) are those still not in stream entry stage, however developing the path to that stage. For those in the supramundane right view, they still practise satipatthana even they are Arahant, Because they are the living examples of satipatthana. They are consistent just a matter of looking right view as panna, then right view is part of satipatthana, is a path factor Ken O 37662 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/19/04 7:14:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't know if contact is a real internal experience but we can > certainly see contact happening "out there". At any rate, I think you > and abhidhamma are in agreement. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: With respect to the position that contact is an experiential reality, as opposed to being concept-only, I would say that, yes, there is agreement. (Or should I say "concurrence"? ;-) Where I see a difference between Abhidhamma and Sutta on this issue, is what the nature of that reality is. The Buddha described it in suttas as a convergence or concurrence, whereas the Abhidhamma describes it as some thing or operation that is associated with (or is a condition for, or manifests as) such a convergence. ----------------------------------------- As to the superiority and location> > (sutta or abhidhamma) of the Buddha's teaching, I think that is a > matter of faith and is best left to individuals and those whose business > it is to cultivate faith. As far as learning goes, one learns where one > can. There is no real hierarchy, even between concept and reality, imo. ------------------------------------ Howard: Now, that last sentence of yours is interesting. You really *are* a flexible guy, Larry! ;-) ----------------------------------- > > Larry > Btw, it can also be a good intellectual exercise to try to bring > discordant views in-line with one's own. You see this a lot in Mahayana > attempts to resolve differences between sutta and sutra. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree. I even try to do this with regard to aspects of different religions!! (For example, Buddhism and Judaism.) ====================== With metta, Howard P.S. Thank you for the kindness of your reply. /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37663 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 10/19/04 8:05:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Howard > > I think we all understand when one of us goes "gunning for bear" so > don't feel too bad about it. (-: > ------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you! :-) ----------------------------------- I just have one comment to make > > (or query to pose): > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > >But there is something which I find more important than this > >particular issue of what contact is. It is something I find very > perplexing. It is > >seeing people who are very, very fastidious about what the Buddha > has supposedly > >said when it appeals to them, and, especially when it occurs in the > Abhidhamma > >Pitaka, but are not at all so fastidious about what the Buddha has > definitely > >said in the Sutta Pitaka when that material is at odds with > preferred > >Abhidhammic material. It seems to me that a perspective that treats > Abhidhamma as more > >the word of the Buddha than the Sutta Pitaka is close to being an > >establishment of a new philosophy of "Abhidhammism", a philosophy > or religion that is > >considered to be the "true" Dhamma, improving upon and even > replacing the Dhamma. > >I see this as a very extreme view. [The opposite extreme is to see > little > >value in Abhidhamma, and changing the tipitaka to the dvipitaka. > BTW, I am > >guessing here at the Pali for "two baskets".] > > Andrew: There is something that perplexes me too. I may be wrong > (and please someone correct me if I am) but essentially the same > people are responsible (or at least had a hand in or some influence > upon) the transmitting of the Sutta pitaka as well as the Abhidhamma > pitaka to us in its present form. So if the Abhidhamma pitaka is a > corruption by corporate monks, can we have any confidence that the > Sutta pitaka is the pristine and faithfully-preserved word of the > Buddha? > Would not those foolish monks have corrupted the wording of > > the Suttas as well? If so, doesn't that put the > Abhidhamma "extremists" and the Sutta "extremists" in one and the > same boat? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I follow you, and it is a good point. However, let me say a couple things: 1) I would not describe the Abhidhamma as a corruption of corporate monks, whatever "corporate monks" might be! ;-), but an attempt at synopsizing and fleshing out details of the Buddhadhamma by scholar-monks in a context-independent form, and I also accept that materials from the Samyutta Nikaya and early presentations by Sariputta likely constituted important input to the process. I do believe that in the process, some things got changed, some lost, and considerable added both in terminology and in perspective, but for the most part it is a truly amazing piece of work. 2) Some corruption - especially in the form of cuts, pastes, and borrowings, occured with the suttas. But they were just being passed forward, whereas the Abhidhamma Pitaka was, so it seems, a new creation, with most of the early schools coming up with their own Abhidhamma, often quite different from each other, whereas the suttas compiled by the schools had more in common. This latter can be seen in comparing the Chinese Agamas, which are very close to the Theravadin suttas, but were inherited from other early Indian schools. ------------------------------------------------------ > > I can hear my Viking ancestors telling me that thrashing about with a > weeding-hook in a boat over deep water has a down-side. (-: > > Best wishes > Andrew T > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37664 From: ashkenn2k Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:27pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi DN > "The phrase 'dantebhidantamaadhaaya' means that one should > press the upper teeth down on the lower teeth. > > "The phrase 'balavaa puriso' ['as a strong man'] means that just > as a strong man, a great man, having seized a weak man by the > head, throat or limbs, might squeeze him, crush him, pin him down > securely and make him squirm, make him suffer, make him tremble > as if he were on the point of death, even so, a bhikkhu should be a > wrestler who wrestles with unskillful thoughts [thinking] thus: > "Just who are YOU compared with ME!" Gaining mastery over the > unskillful thoughts by means of his great exertion he should > undertake the great resolve: > > " 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let > the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be > relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by > manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' " k: Is that all about the commentary or could you please give me the full translation of the commentary on that paragraph. From the initial reading if that is the commentary by Buddhaghosa, there is nothing wrong in it, it is just describing the a strong man. k: You have not get back to me about my explanation of contact of my earlier two emails. One thing about the methodology of Abhidhamma is that it describes what is and what is not, to make it clear to reader. Sometimes it goes in great detail for eg in some Abhidhamma text, there is couplets, triplet etc. All for the sake of making it concise and clear. Ken O 37665 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:43pm Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View + Temporary absence Hi Ken O and all, Thanks for the messages you have addressed to me over the past few days, Ken. I have commented on them indirectly, but I also wanted to reply directly. I'm a bit rushed now, however, as I have to go to Brisbane to look after my sick parents. So, no internet access for a couple of days at least. You wrote: ----------------------- > We cannot say that right view with fermentations is satipatthana because supramundane right view is also satipatthana. > ---------------------- I think satipatthana refers to right view of conditioned dhammas. Admittedly, the one unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, is a mental object and so belongs in the fourth Foundation of Mindfulness, and that does complicates things. :-) But I think right view of Nibbana is supramundane and therefore called, vipassana. Vipassana refers to all insight, mundane and supramundane, but satipatthana is mundane insight (into conditioned dhammas) only. ---------------------- KO: > Satipatthana includes Arahants not just for worldings. > ----------------------- Oh yes, that is another complication: When an arahant practices mundane insight, we would hardly say there are fermentations. I hope you have it sorted out by the time I get back. :-) Ken H 37666 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Howard: "With respect to the position that contact is an experiential reality, as opposed to being concept-only, I would say that, yes, there is agreement. (Or should I say "concurrence"? ;-) Where I see a difference between Abhidhamma and Sutta on this issue, is what the nature of that reality is. The Buddha described it in suttas as a convergence or concurrence, whereas the Abhidhamma describes it as some thing or operation that is associated with (or is a condition for, or manifests as) such a convergence." Hi Howard, Abhidhamma describes contact as touching or impingement while sutta seems to describe it simply as an event or concurrence. In a sense it is the closest thing there is to real grasping. Larry 37667 From: nori Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Primitive Buddhism Hi Dhamma Friends, It seems that the Sutta-Nipata is very old compared to most of the Pali Canon which is post monastery era. "...for we see here a picture not of life in monasteries, but of the life of hermits in its first stage." I have posted part of the introduction of the English translation published by Oxford Books. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/index.htm --- INTRODUCTION TO THE SUTTA-NIPÂTA. THE Collection of Discourses, Sutta-Nipâta, which I have here translated[1], is very remarkable, as there can be no doubt that it contains some remnants of Primitive Buddhism. I consider the greater part of the Mahâvagga, and nearly the whole of the Atthakavagga as very old. I have arrived at this conclusion from two reasons, first from the language, and secondly from the contents. 1. We not only find here what we meet with in other Pâli poetry, the fuller Vedic forms of nouns and verbs in the plural, as avîtatamhâse, panditâse, dhammâse, sitâse, upatthitâse, pavâdiyâse, &c., and karâmase, asmase, sikkhissâmase; the shorter Vedic plurals and the instrumental singular of nouns, as vinikkhayâ, lakkhanâ for vinikkhayâni, lakkhanâni, mantâ, pariññâ, vinayâ, lâbhakamyâ for mantâya, &c.; Vedic infinitives, as vippahâtave, sampayâtave, unnametave; contracted (or sometimes old) forms, as santyâ, gakkâ, duggakkâ, sammukkâ, titthyâ, thiyo, parihîrati for santiyâ, gâtiyâ, sammutiyâ, titthiyâ, itthiyo, parihariyati, by the side of protracted forms, such as âtumânam; but also some unusual (sometimes old) forms and words, as apukkhasi, sagghasi[2] = sakkhissasi, sussam = sunissâmi (Sansk. sroshyâmi), pâva and pâvâ = vadati, pavekkhe = paveseyya, parikissati = parikilissati, vineyya, vikeyya, nikkheyya, pappuyya, = vinayitvâ, &c., datthu = disvâ (S. drishtvâ), atisitvâ = atikkamitvâ, anuvikka = anuviditvâ, paribbasâna = vasamâna, amhanâ (S. asmanâ) = pâsânena, vâkîbhi, katubbhi, rattamahâbhi, ise (vocative), suvâmi = sâmi, maga = miga, [1. Sir M. Coomâra Swâmy's translation of part of the book has been a great help to me. I hope shortly to publish the Pâli text. 2. C reads pagghasi.] p. xii tumo = so, parovara = parâvara, bhûnahu = bhûtihanaka, upaya, âmagandha, dhona, vyappatha, vyappathi, vevikkhâ, visenibhûta, visenikatvâ, patiseniyanti. Sometimes we meet also with difficult and irregular constructions, and very condensed expressions. All this proves, I think, that these parts of the book are much older than the Suttas in which the language is not only fluent, but of which some verses are even singularly melodious. 2. In the contents of the Suttanipâta we have, I think, an important contribution to the right understanding of Primitive Buddhism, for we see here a picture not of life in monasteries, but of the life of hermits in its first stage. We have before us not the systematizing of the later Buddhist church, but the first germs of a system, the fundamental ideas of which come out with sufficient clearness. From the Atthakavagga especially it is evident where Buddha takes his stand in opposition to Philosophy (ditthi = darsana). ... metta, nori 37668 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:42pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Andrew. A> There is something that perplexes me too. I may be wrong A> (and please someone correct me if I am) but essentially the A> same people are responsible (or at least had a hand in or A> some influence upon) the transmitting of the Sutta pitaka as A> well as the Abhidhamma pitaka to us in its present form. So A> if the Abhidhamma pitaka is a corruption by corporate monks, A> can we have any confidence that the Sutta pitaka is the A> pristine and faithfully-preserved word of the Buddha? Let me remark that as far as the Abhidhamma Pitaka goes, I don't myself view it as a "corruption by corporate monks", though such a description might well be applied to large chunks of the commentarial elaboration of it. What the corporate monks of the Mahavihara did was to concoct an after-the-fact account of the Abhidhamma Pitaka's origin, probably with the aim of lending weight to the text at a time when the mere fact of a text being useful for the goal of liberation was not enough for canonicity to be conferred upon it (in contrast with an earlier period in the Sasana's development when 'authorship' was a more fluid and pragmatically based affair, and the accolade "Buddha word" could be applied to any work by a Buddhist that achieved some measure of popularity (e.g. a Jataka story), or that was found to be useful dhammically (e.g. the Patisambhidamagga), or was good for fund-raising (e.g. the Petavatthu and Vimanavatthu). A> Would not those foolish monks have corrupted the wording A> of the Suttas as well? They might have, but the evidence suggests they didn't. The schools that preserved the first four Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka and the Agamas (their Sanskrit and Chinese parallels) appear to have operated on the principle that these are texts you don't tamper with. For example, there is nothing in the doctrinal content of the first four Pali Nikayas to indicate that it was specifically the Tambapanniya school which had transmitted this collection. And in the Chinese Agamas there is very little to indicate that they were Sarvastivadin and Dharmagupta texts that were later preserved by Mahayanists. To quote a few modern scholars... Msgr. Etienne Lamotte: "However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in the Ekottara [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's Anguttara], which are easily discernible, the variations in question affect hardly anything save the method of expression or arrangement of the subjects. The doctrinal basis common to the agamas [preserved in Chinese and partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] is remarkably uniform. Preserved and transmitted by the schools, the sutras do not however constitute scholastic documents, but are the common heritage of all the sects." (History of Indian Buddhism p 156) Lance Cousins: "These divergences [between Nikayas and Agamas] are typically in matters of little importance -- such items as locations of suttas, the names of individual speakers or the precise order of occurrences of events. Only rarely are they founded on doctrinal or sectarian differences." (Pali Oral Literature, in "Buddhist Studies Ancient & Modern") Cousins again: "Although there are differences as to details and many variations of arrangement, the four Nikayas contain more or less the same fundamental ideas in all recensions. Such variation as exists is probably due to chance rather than sectarian differences. Indeed this is wholly to be expected in an oral literature. The texts contain much repetition of stock passages and formulaic patterns. This is a technique to ensure accurate preservation of oral traditions, but it is one that allows considerable variation of exact form. Such oral works, we know from studies elsewhere, are recited identically. Their content, however, is very traditional and conservative." (Handbook of Living Religions pp 288-9) David Kalupahana: "Doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the Pali Nikaya, especially because they were preserved by the Theravada sect of Buddhism and hence were taken to represent the ideas of that school. But a comparative study of the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas shows that the Pali Nikayas do not represent the Theravada standpoint. In fact, there is nothing in the Nikayas that can be called Theravada. The Nikayas and the Agamas agree so well with regard to the doctrines they embody...one can be very optimistic about the attempt to determine the nature of pre-Abhidharmic Buddhism. ... Therefore, one is fully justified in depending on the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas for the study of early or primitive Buddhism. (Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis pp xi-xiii) Finally Bruce Burrill, summarizing Thich Minh Chau's findings in his "Comparative Study of the Chinese Madhyama Agama and the Pali Majjhima Nikaya": "[Ven. Minh Chau] takes a very detailed look at these two bodies of texts. There are differences in the numbers of discourses that each has, but what he finds is essentially what Cousins points out. In some cases the one is clearer than the other in particular passages, but far more often there is a very marked correspondence to the point of identity between the two groups of texts -- a remarkable thing to consider given that the Chinese texts have been translated from the Magadhi into a prakrit then into Sanskrit and then into Chinese. So, the point is that what we find in the discourse collection of the Pali Canon is common property of all the Buddhist schools and was material that was settled quite early. No reason to believe that we are not seeing the Buddha's teachings in these texts. Sectarian differences within that grouping of texts are minimal. As has been said, the significant differences are found in the commentarial and exegetical literature." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37669 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View + Temporary absence Dear Ken - In a message dated 10/19/04 9:44:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > I'm a bit rushed now, however, as I have to go to > Brisbane to look after my sick parents. ==================== I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope they do well. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37670 From: Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/19/04 10:20:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Abhidhamma describes contact as touching or impingement while sutta > seems to describe it simply as an event or concurrence. In a sense it is > the closest thing there is to real grasping. > > Larry > ==================== That wasn't the impression I got from what Nina has written. Quoting from Cetasikas, there is the following: __________________________ Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the Universal. Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it. ----------------------------- Howard: This doesn't say that phassa is a coming together. It says that phassa is something that, accompanying a citta, contacts the object. ------------------------------ When seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it performs its own function. ---------------------------- Howard: Here phassa is described as something that accompanies consciousness, that is a thing that, itself, experiences, and that performs a function. ----------------------------- At that moment phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see. ------------------------- Howard: Again, phassa is not defined as a contacting but as some thing that contacts a sense object, and by so contacting, serves as a condition for experiencing. ------------------------- The Atthasalini (Expositor, Part IV, chapter I, 108) states about contact: Contact means "it touches" It has touching as its salient characteristic, impact as its function, "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its manifestation, and the object which has entered the avenue (of awareness) as proximate cause . ------------------------------- Howard: Here the Atthasalani, not Nina, states, not that phassa is the coming together of the three, but that it is something that has "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its *manifestation*. This is just not the same as what one finds in the suttas, imo. ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37671 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:38pm Subject: Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hello Ken O (and Ken H). dig>> "The phrase 'dantebhidantamaadhaaya' means that one should dig>> press the upper teeth down on the lower teeth. dig>> dig>> "The phrase 'balavaa puriso' ['as a strong man'] means that dig>> just as a strong man, a great man, having seized a weak man dig>> by the head, throat or limbs, might squeeze him, crush him, dig>> pin him down securely and make him squirm, make him suffer, dig>> make him tremble as if he were on the point of death, even dig>> so, a bhikkhu should be a wrestler who wrestles with dig>> unskillful thoughts [thinking] thus: "Just who are YOU dig>> compared with ME!" Gaining mastery over the unskillful dig>> thoughts by means of his great exertion he should undertake dig>> the great resolve: dig>> dig>> " 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, dig>> and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy dig>> shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can dig>> be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly dig>> persistence.' " K> Is that all about the commentary or could you please give me K> the full translation of the commentary on that paragraph. The above translation is the whole of the commentarial gloss on the teeth-clenching passage, minus the one sentence that Nina has already covered in her paraphrase. Here's the missing sentence: 'Cetasaa cittan' ti kusalacittena akusalacitta.m abhinigga.nhitabba.m " 'Mind with mind' means the unskillful mind must be suppressed by the skillful one." K> From the initial reading if that is the commentary by K> Buddhaghosa, there is nothing wrong in it, it is just K> describing the a strong man. I too see nothing wrong in what the Commentary says. The problem was with Ken H's reading of the Sutta -- his failure to see it as an ovaada, an exhortation to purposive action. K> You have not get back to me about my explanation of contact K> of my earlier two emails. As I recall, neither of the two posts did much more than reiterate Buddhaghosa's view of phassa, without adding anything substantive to show that his description was consistent with that of the Suttas. But when I have time I'll take another look and see if I missed something. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37672 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard Hello Suan Thank you for writing. S: :> I missed Howard's original post on this issue. > > But, I can assure you that the teachings on contact (phasso) like > those on feeling (vedanaa) are the same everywhere within the whole > Tipi.taka and their standard Pali commentaries. > > The Buddha taught contact as an ultimate reality in Sutta Pi.taka. > > For example, contact (phasso in phassa paccayaa) in various Suttams > on Dependent Origination is a paramattha dhamma. > Of course, if Howard found something different on the issue of > contact between the Pi.takas, please give me a reference. I will > look into the matter. I think it was Dig Nutcracker who laid it out quite clearly, but it does appear that contact is described in a somewhat different way in some suttas when compared to the way it is in Abhidhamma. I had wondered about this in the past, and now as I look at my copy of the Honeyball Sutta ( MN18) I see I wrote a question mark in the margin along with "but isn't this different from the cognitive progress described in Abhidhamma?" The Honeyball has "dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. WIth contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling." This sounds different to me than the way phassa is described in Abhidhamma (in "Cetasikas", for example) but frankly the slight difference, if there is one (I have probably misunderstood) doesn't concern me. The purpose of studying Dhamma is to get closer to understanding anatta, in my opinion. And I don't see how a slight discrepancy in the way phassa is described interferes with our ability to see phassa as not-self. The proliferation that follows is where we can gain insight that will help to eradicate defilements, it seems to this beginner. I guess my point is I don't quite understand why people feel obliged to persecute Abhidhamma or the commentaries based on discrepancies from the Suttanta. There are so many suttas that have very peculiar messages that don't seem to click with the Buddha's teaching of anatta. I think for instance of the sutta in AN that says that if a husband and wife live together in tune with Dhamma, they will be rewarded by living together in the next life. There are countless other examples. It seems to me that Abhidhamma is more consistently pure in its teaching of anatta than some suttas are. There seems to be reason to agree with what the "abhi" stands for. So I am not concerned by discrepancies. If a teaching is false, panna will know and it will not help to understand anatta. The truth will out. There is no need to play tug of war with Dhamma views, in my opinion. Panna will know if a teaching is false. I'm off topic here. Metta, Phil p.s I will now now add the passage I referred to from Dig the Nutcracker for your reference. Please follow up by joining the "thinking and thoughts" thread if you'd like, since those gents are much more willing and able to discuss this point than I am. Thanks again for writing! Dig the Nutcracker wrote: >>>If the above quote from the Madhupi.n.d.ika Sutta is not to be misunderstood, we need to go back a few paragraphs in the same Sutta to see *why* there is a manifestation of phassa at this time: "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. 37673 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View + Temporary absence Hi Ken H > ---------------------- > I think satipatthana refers to right view of conditioned dhammas. > Admittedly, the one unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, is a mental > object and so belongs in the fourth Foundation of Mindfulness, and > that does complicates things. :-) But I think right view of Nibbana > is supramundane and therefore called, vipassana. Vipassana refers > to all insight, mundane and supramundane, but satipatthana is mundane insight (into conditioned dhammas) only. > Oh yes, that is another complication: When an arahant practices > mundane insight, we would hardly say there are fermentations. k: We must remember, satipatthana is a living emboidment of the Buddha. It is a way of living by the Buddha. Satipatthana method is to help worldings to reach enlightment. We must remember that satipatthana is not just address to worldings, it was address to noble disciples who have yet accomplish the path. It was also to show the worldlings that Buddha live in the world of satipatthana. Satipatthana includes the four noble truth which is both mundane and supramundane. Even great disciples of Buddha still live the way of satipatthana, but for them they have no fermentations. Ken O > > ---------------------- > KO: > Satipatthana includes Arahants not just for worldings. > > ----------------------- > 37674 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi DN > As I recall, neither of the two posts did much more than > reiterate Buddhaghosa's view of phassa, without adding > anything substantive to show that his description was > consistent with that of the Suttas. But when I have time > I'll take another look and see if I missed something. I thought you are asking for the explanation on why Buddhaghosa's view of phassa and I give you the explanation of what it meant to say. And I give you the explanation of its meaning in consistency with the sutta. If you think it is not consistent after my explanation, please state the inconsistency. I am not a mind reader :) Ken O 37675 From: dighanakha Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:47am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Herman Hello Ken H. To Herman you wrote: K> Herman, there is no point in your saying, "Nonsense!" every K> time someone describes the Dhamma as found in the Theravada K> texts (see our home page). Please quote any part of those K> texts, that you do regard as genuine, and explain how it is K> not a teaching of ultimate reality. Below is a translation of the Kula Sutta from the Anguttara Nikaya (A ii 248). It is a teaching that I regard as genuine, but if it is a "teaching of ultimate reality", then my daughter's home economics teacher must be a Sammasambuddha. [begin quote] Whatsoever families, monks, after attaining greatness of wealth, fail to endure for long, all of them do so because of four reasons, or one or another of them. Which four? They do not look for things they have lost. They do not repair things that are old. They eat and drink to excess. They place in authority a man or a woman lacking virtue. Whatsoever families, monks, after attaining greatness of wealth, fail to endure for long, all of them do so because of these four reasons, or one or another of them. Whatsoever families, monks, after attaining greatness of wealth, endure for long, all of them do so because of four reasons, or one or another of them. Which four? They look for things they have lost. They repair things that are old. They eat and drink moderately. They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of virtue. Whatsoever families, monks, after attaining greatness of wealth, endure for long, all of them do so because of these four reasons, or one or another of them. [end quote] To avoid error when interpreting a Sutta, it is best to keep in mind those utterances of a most general character that the Buddha made regarding his teaching. These would include sayings such as: "As the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, so the Dhamma has but one taste, the taste of freedom." "I teach only dukkha and the ending of dukkha." "I teach Dhamma for the threefold benefit: benefit in the present, benefit in the future, and the highest benefit." And so on and so forth. There are many statements of this kind in the Suttas, but none that say, or even imply: "My teaching is all about ultimate and irreducible physical and psychical atoms." The above Sutta is simply concerned with di.t.thadhammikattha, 'benefit to be obtained in the present life'. It comprises four common-sense prudential maxims for householders who desire their families and family property to be stable and long-lasting. Nothing more. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37676 From: dighanakha Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:56am Subject: Re: Teeth-clenching Hello Ken O. K> If you think it is not consistent after my K> explanation, please state the inconsistency. Howard has described the inconsistency about as clearly as it can be described in message 37670. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37677 From: samuraitradr Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:49pm Subject: Re: Help with clarification of "control" Ken, no problem with my name, Dave Kinney, of Windsor CT, USA. But still, there seems to be nama and rupa that CAN be controlled, and nama and rupa that can not. And maybe it's that aspect that we think, well, I can walk, drive, fly where I want I can say what I want, etc. etc. that keeps us believing that there MUST be a "self", "soul", whatever. To me, that's the hurdle I can't, as yet, jump. And then again, there is always the conundrum that, even when we start to observe what is going on, I think, OK, who is doing the observing? Get's to be an iterative process... Thanks for replying, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Greetings . . . , > > Welcome to DSG. > > You wrote: > > ------------ > > I've been reading one of Nina Van Gorkum's books, and I guess I > need some clarification on something. To some degree, I understand > that we have no control over mind and body. I can't stop the body > from getting sick or old, etc. and I can't stop my mind from liking > and disliking certain things. > > ------------------------ > > I agree. To some extent, we uninstructed worldlings do know what the > Buddha taught: There is no control over realities (nama and rupa). > If there could be control over rupa, we could decree, "Let my body > remain young and healthy!" And if there could be control over nama, > we could decree, "Let my mind be pure and wise!" > > ----------------------- > > On the other hand, I CAN control the body. > I can make it stand, walk, run, sit etc. I CAN make the mind > concentrate on a project, etc. > > ---------------------- > > Right again! A little knowledge of the Buddha's teaching (ultimate > reality) should not turn us into helpless morons: We don't need to > flop on the ground muttering, "As a Buddhist I have no control over > mind and body!" > > -------------------- > > So, there seems to be two things going on here. An aspect of body > and mind that is beyond control as well as an aspect that "I" can > control. And perhaps that is why I have difficulty in letting go of > of the self; because to me "I" still, to some degree have some > control of what "my" body does and what "my" mind thinks. > > Any ideas? > > ------------ > > The mental and physical phenomena that are real and that are beyond > control will, inevitably (unavoidably, uncontrollably), arise and > perform their functions. They will create concepts. They will > create concepts (of control) that deny the Buddha's teaching and > they will create other concepts that are more in accord with the > teaching. It all depends on the conditions prevailing at the time. > > Hopefully, they will create concepts of a person who behaves > sensibly and they will not create concepts of an idiot who flops on > the floor babbling, "No control!" :-) > > It all depends on conditions. Some conditions go way back many > lifetimes; others are from the more recent past; some are created > here and now. A sound, intellectual understanding of the Dhamma is > one condition for sensible, constructive behaviour, both ultimate > and conventional. > > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > P.S. A name would be handy. You can give a made-up one if you are > worried about security, but I have never heard of any problems with > giving a real name. 37678 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:23am Subject: Brief India update Hello All We have just arrived at our hotel near Lumbini (in Nepal) after a 12 hour drive from Benares. Looking forward to a non-travelling day tomorrow! Sarah and I both have reports of happenings since the last post from Bodh Gaya, but I'm not able to use my USB key on the computers at this or our previous hotel due to the antiquity of the Windows OSs ;-)). Hoping to find a handy internet cafe tomorrow evening, time permitting (the days are very full). Nina and Lodewijk send their warm regards to everyone. Time to get my bag up to the room and get ready for tomorrow. Cheers Jon 37679 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/20/04 7:05:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > I guess my point is I don't quite understand why people feel obliged to > persecute > Abhidhamma or the commentaries based on discrepancies from the Suttanta. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Just for the record, I, for one, feel no such obligation. The word 'persecute' is a tad strong, I think. ;-) I have no interest in persecuting, especially not that which I think has enormous value. But I do have an interest in evaluating, attempting to see what is the case and what is not. -------------------------------------------- > There are so many suttas > that have very peculiar messages that don't seem to click with the Buddha's > teaching of anatta. > I think for instance of the sutta in AN that says that if a husband and wife > live together in > tune with Dhamma, they will be rewarded by living together in the next life. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see why this is contrary to anatta any more than any other other conventional assertion. Do you assume this is false? I, myself, might wonder whether such a living connection would necessarily occur in the very next lives of the people involved, but I certainly do presume that kammic connections (chains? ;-) forged in one life are not quickly abandoned. (BTW, there is only one way to avoid conventional speech, and that is through utter silence.) ------------------------------------------- > There are > countless other examples. It seems > to me that Abhidhamma is more consistently pure in its teaching of anatta > than some > suttas are. There seems to be reason to agree with what the "abhi" stands > for. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: And what is that? One extreme, as I see it, is "superior" or "higher". The other extreme, which I disagree with, but which amuses me [my apologies] is Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's given meaning of "superfluous". ---------------------------------------- > So I am not concerned by discrepancies. If a teaching is false, panna will > know and it will not help to understand anatta. The truth will out. There is > no need > to play tug of war with Dhamma views, in my opinion. Panna will know if a > teaching is false. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Where is this pa~n~na? Where shall we find it, and how will we know it as distinct from mere preferred view? Whether pa~n~na is a special cognitive ability or is "merely" the natural, proper cognitive functioning that occurs when filters, obscurations, and defilements are pushed aside or, better, uprooted, what is the basis for knowing that it is in play? I think that reliance on an unexperienced answer-to-all-problems called "pa~n~na", much like reliance on an unexperienced creator god, leaves one open to being led merely by our tanha-driven preferences. I think that we must rely on careful investigation, looking to see for ourselves what is the way matters are, as suggested in the sutta to the Kalamas, and, in doing this, *whatever* perspective we may develop, it is very important to keep "So it SEEMS" at the front of the mind at all times. The three poisons are not easily removed, and knowing that we fall prey to them all the time is, perhaps, the beginning of wisdom. ---------------------------------------------- > I'm off topic here. ====================== I don't know. There are a lot of important topics. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37680 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Brief India update Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/20/04 11:29:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Hello All > > We have just arrived at our hotel near Lumbini (in Nepal) after a 12 hour > drive from Benares. Looking forward to a non-travelling day tomorrow! > Sarah and I both have reports of happenings since the last post from Bodh > Gaya, but I'm not able to use my USB key on the computers at this or our > previous hotel due to the antiquity of the Windows OSs ;-)). Hoping to > find a handy internet cafe tomorrow evening, time permitting (the days are > very full). > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Good to hear from you! :-) ------------------------------------------- > > Nina and Lodewijk send their warm regards to everyone. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Please send them my best. I hope the rigors of the trip are quite tolerable for them both, and that all of you experience a wonderful, uplifting joy of devotion to the three jewels. ---------------------------------------- > > Time to get my bag up to the room and get ready for tomorrow. > > Cheers > Jon > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37681 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard Dear Phil, Howard, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K, Dighanakha and all How are you? The formula "Cakkhuñcaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññaa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso," is a very beautiful abhidhamma teaching presented by means of Suttantabhaajaniiya (Suttam style analysis). As such, it is merely another aspect of abhidhamma teaching, and so it is a waste of time for us to treat it as though something different from abhidhamma teaching on abhidhamma. Of course, Dighanakha is entitled to his own personal opinions as long as he qualified them as such. That is to say, Dighanakha would be very unwise, and arrogant even, to complain about Abhidhamma teachings and Standard Pali commentaries on the ground of their being different from his personal opinions and interpretations. Having said that, I will get back to you later to discuss that formaula further. Meanwhile, please read "Dutiyadvaya Suttam", in Section 93, Sa.laayatana Samyuttam, Samyuttanikaaya, and see how it supports Abhidhamma Style Analysis (Abhidhammabhaajaniiya) of contact (phasso). Verily, Abhidhamma is beautiful! With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: Hello Suan Thank you for writing. S: :> I missed Howard's original post on this issue. > > But, I can assure you that the teachings on contact (phasso) like > those on feeling (vedanaa) are the same everywhere within the whole > Tipi.taka and their standard Pali commentaries. > > The Buddha taught contact as an ultimate reality in Sutta Pi.taka. > > For example, contact (phasso in phassa paccayaa) in various Suttams > on Dependent Origination is a paramattha dhamma. > Of course, if Howard found something different on the issue of > contact between the Pi.takas, please give me a reference. I will > look into the matter. I think it was Dig Nutcracker who laid it out quite clearly, but it does appear that contact is described in a somewhat different way in some suttas when compared to the way it is in Abhidhamma. I had wondered about this in the past, and now as I look at my copy of the Honeyball Sutta ( MN18) I see I wrote a question mark in the margin along with "but isn't this different from the cognitive progress described in Abhidhamma?" The Honeyball has "dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. WIth contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling." This sounds different to me than the way phassa is described in Abhidhamma (in "Cetasikas", for example) but frankly the slight difference, if there is one (I have probably misunderstood) doesn't concern me. The purpose of studying Dhamma is to get closer to understanding anatta, in my opinion. And I don't see how a slight discrepancy in the way phassa is described interferes with our ability to see phassa as not-self. The proliferation that follows is where we can gain insight that will help to eradicate defilements, it seems to this beginner. I guess my point is I don't quite understand why people feel obliged to persecute Abhidhamma or the commentaries based on discrepancies from the Suttanta. There are so many suttas that have very peculiar messages that don't seem to click with the Buddha's teaching of anatta. I think for instance of the sutta in AN that says that if a husband and wife live together in tune with Dhamma, they will be rewarded by living together in the next life. There are countless other examples. It seems to me that Abhidhamma is more consistently pure in its teaching of anatta than some suttas are. There seems to be reason to agree with what the "abhi" stands for. So I am not concerned by discrepancies. If a teaching is false, panna will know and it will not help to understand anatta. The truth will out. There is no need to play tug of war with Dhamma views, in my opinion. Panna will know if a teaching is false. I'm off topic here. Metta, Phil p.s I will now now add the passage I referred to from Dig the Nutcracker for your reference. Please follow up by joining the "thinking and thoughts" thread if you'd like, since those gents are much more willing and able to discuss this point than I am. Thanks again for writing! Dig the Nutcracker wrote: >>>If the above quote from the Madhupi.n.d.ika Sutta is not to be misunderstood, we need to go back a few paragraphs in the same Sutta to see *why* there is a manifestation of phassa at this time: "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what he has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the eye." (MN 18) This is where Suttas' conception of phassa differs from that of (commentarial) Abhidhamma. In the Suttas' conception one can "point to the manifestation of phassa when there is a coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness," precisely because phassa is nothing other than this 'coming together'. It is not some additional factor that accompanies the coming together. 37682 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard and DN There is no disagreement with convergence of the bases, sense objects and sense cittas. So there is no need for me to explain it again. The issue is why a cetasika comes together with citta rather than after the convergence. I think one will have to see from the point of manifestation. Is contact able to be manifest itself before the convergence - No. Even though cetasikas can be an accompanying citta but it will not be manifested if there is no object for it to touch. Just like feelings who follow the citta will not be manifested if contact does not touch the object. So likewise a cetasikas would follow a citta, only will be manifested if the bases, sense objects and sense cittas converge and not before. Likewise in the four Great Elements, even though four of the come in a group, but only one will be manifested if the conditions are there for its manifestation. Please kindly comment Ken O 37683 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV,108 + Nina's addition Larry: Hi Htoo, Good point about laughter not being the same as the arahant's smile. Another thing that might be a little misleading is the quote below from the Expositor. The arahant's smile producing consciousness is without roots so there is no understanding. It is just a reaction, like smiling when seeing an old friend. A more conventional way of seeing this is that the joy produces the smile. Can an arahant's functional root consciousness also produce a smile? Larry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Of course. Hasituppada citta or smile-generating consciousness does not have sati and panna. It does not have mindfulness and wisdom. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37684 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 0:45pm Subject: Re: the meaning of "papanca" Hi, Herman, On second thought, make it the heart-base rather than the mind that's the floodgate for papanca. peace, connie 37686 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" Hi Dave You can walk because there is an Earth, gravity, sun, plants (sustenance) etc. You can drive because of millions of "man hours" of technology, car manufactures, built roads, oil refineries, gas stations, etc. You can fly because of even more complex technologies, destinations, pilots, ground workers, ticket offices, runways, tower control, etc. You can say what you want because language was invented, and learned over many thousands of years. You can do these things because of your parents, and their parents, etc., etc. Without the Buddha, one couldn't study Buddhism. Without Christ, no Christianity. The point is, all of these things arise due to conditions. The only reason that "you" can do them, is because the conditional circumstances are currently supporting those abilities. If the conditions will allow it, an effort can be made. A human is on this planet because the conditions arose for that. Our bodies are sustained by conditions and our thoughts, ideas, plans, etc., are as well. An effort can be made to work within those conditions. But the belief in "control" is ultimately the belief in a "self" that is outside of conditions. TG In a message dated 10/20/2004 8:12:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, samuraitradr@y... writes: Ken, no problem with my name, Dave Kinney, of Windsor CT, USA. But still, there seems to be nama and rupa that CAN be controlled, and nama and rupa that can not. And maybe it's that aspect that we think, well, I can walk, drive, fly where I want I can say what I want, etc. etc. that keeps us believing that there MUST be a "self", "soul", whatever. To me, that's the hurdle I can't, as yet, jump. And then again, there is always the conundrum that, even when we start to observe what is going on, I think, OK, who is doing the observing? Get's to be an iterative process... Thanks for replying, Dave 37687 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard, I think you and Nina are both misunderstanding contact. Vism.XIV,134: Herein, (i) it touches (phusati), thus it is 'contact' (phassa). This has the characteristic of touching. Its function is the act of impingement. It is manifested as concurrence. Its proximate cause is an objective field that has come into focus. L: I don't read this as a cetasika that touches things but as the "act of impingement". In other words, rupa touches sensitive matter and sensitive matter touches consciousness. It doesn't say so but it seems clear to me that sensitive matter translates rupa into nama. If the sensitive matter is healthy the translation is a good one but not a perfect one. The human eye cannot see the whole spectrum, ear cannot hear all sound frequencies, etc. Also it doesn't seem likely that chunks of hardness are rattling around in the bhavanga stream. The above also says contact manifests as concurrence. I believe this is how the Honeyball Sutta describes it. So there is that slight difference between sutta and abhidhamma: concurrence or impingement. Also, in describing contact as touch or impingement abhidhamma is using the language of the cognizing of tangible data. We could argue that this gives a materialistic bias to our understanding of experience. However, that might be a little nit-picky. Larry ---------------------- H: Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/19/04 10:20:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: Hi Howard, Abhidhamma describes contact as touching or impingement while sutta seems to describe it simply as an event or concurrence. In a sense it is the closest thing there is to real grasping. Larry ==================== That wasn't the impression I got from what Nina has written. Quoting from Cetasikas, there is the following: __________________________ Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the Universal. Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it. ----------------------------- Howard: This doesn't say that phassa is a coming together. It says that phassa is something that, accompanying a citta, contacts the object. ------------------------------ When seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it performs its own function. ---------------------------- Howard: Here phassa is described as something that accompanies consciousness, that is a thing that, itself, experiences, and that performs a function. ----------------------------- At that moment phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see. ------------------------- Howard: Again, phassa is not defined as a contacting but as some thing that contacts a sense object, and by so contacting, serves as a condition for experiencing. ------------------------- The Atthasalini (Expositor, Part IV, chapter I, 108) states about contact: Contact means "it touches" It has touching as its salient characteristic, impact as its function, "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its manifestation, and the object which has entered the avenue (of awareness) as proximate cause . ------------------------------- Howard: Here the Atthasalani, not Nina, states, not that phassa is the coming together of the three, but that it is something that has "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its *manifestation*. This is just not the same as what one finds in the suttas, imo. ====================== With metta, Howard 37688 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Vism.XIV,109 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 109. III. ii. A. 2. That, however, 'with root cause' is of eight kinds (73)-(80), like the profitable (1)-(8), being classed according to joy and so on. While the profitable arises in trainers and ordinary men only, this arises in Arahants only. This is the difference here. So firstly, that of the sense sphere is of eleven kinds. III. ii. B., III. ii. C. That, however, of the 'fine-material sphere' (81)-(85), and that of the 'immaterial sphere' (86)-(89) are [respectively] of five kinds and of four kinds like the profitable. But they should be understood to differ from the profitable in that they arise only in Arahants. So functional consciousness in the three planes is of twenty kinds in all. 37689 From: Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV,109 Hi all, This paragraph is about an arahant's javana cittas that, unlke the smile producing consciousness, are "with roots", panna, alobha, adosa. They are exclusive to an arahant because they are functional, i.e., not kamma producing. Nina will have more to say on this later. If anyone else would care to comment, please do. Larry --------------------------- "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 109. III. ii. A. 2. That, however, 'with root cause' is of eight kinds (73)-(80), like the profitable (1)-(8), being classed according to joy and so on. While the profitable arises in trainers and ordinary men only, this arises in Arahants only. This is the difference here. So firstly, that of the sense sphere is of eleven kinds. III. ii. B., III. ii. C. That, however, of the 'fine-material sphere' (81)-(85), and that of the 'immaterial sphere' (86)-(89) are [respectively] of five kinds and of four kinds like the profitable. But they should be understood to differ from the profitable in that they arise only in Arahants. So functional consciousness in the three planes is of twenty kinds in all. 37690 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:02pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Dear DN and Howard I hope you don't mind if I succumb to the convenience of abbreviating your name even though, to me, DN *really* stands for "Dagens Nyheter" (a Swedish newspaper). (-: Thank you both for your comments and the quotations from a number of scholars. As I was largely introduced to Theravadan Buddhism by someone who considered that the whole Canon had been tampered with and "jazzed up" to make Buddhism more competitive with Brahmanism/Hinduism among the masses, I suspected that there were other Indologists who disagreed with those you have selected. A brief flap through my scant library has turned up that the German Indologist, H W Schumann, considered that the 2nd Council had tampered with the Canon (yes, including the suttas) to make a better case for the Buddha's omniscience. So, again, it seems that the scholars are at odds with one another (as to be expected). The end result is that, according to some Indologists, those who hold that the suttas are the faithfully-preserved word of the Buddha are not correct - which places those people in the same boat with the "extreme" Abhidhammists, as I originally stated. It all depends on which view you take. My attitude is: acknowledge whatever view you have but don't cling to it and don't encourage aversion to contrary views and certainly not to those who hold them. I *don't* find this easy advice to follow. I personally feel that my consideration of Abhidhamma has been incredibly helpful in getting me to focus on and gain some understanding of anatta and conditionality. I think I differ from Ken H by not being so dismissive of conventional reality (thanks DN for your post on help in the present, in this regard) but I can sense how a being with a complete direct understanding of anatta must have such a different outlook on things to we worldlings. Thanks again for your comments. Best wishes Andrew T --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: [snip] > A> Would not those foolish monks have corrupted the wording > A> of the Suttas as well? > > They might have, but the evidence suggests they didn't. > > The schools that preserved the first four Nikayas of the Sutta > Pitaka and the Agamas (their Sanskrit and Chinese parallels) > appear to have operated on the principle that these are texts you > don't tamper with. For example, there is nothing in the doctrinal > content of the first four Pali Nikayas to indicate that it was > specifically the Tambapanniya school which had transmitted this > collection. And in the Chinese Agamas there is very little to > indicate that they were Sarvastivadin and Dharmagupta texts that > were later preserved by Mahayanists. To quote a few modern > scholars... > > Msgr. Etienne Lamotte: > "However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in > the Ekottara [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's > Anguttara], which are easily discernible, the variations in > question affect hardly anything save the method of expression or > arrangement of the subjects. The doctrinal basis common to the > agamas [preserved in Chinese and partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] > is remarkably uniform. Preserved and transmitted by the schools, > the sutras do not however constitute scholastic documents, but > are the common heritage of all the sects." > (History of Indian Buddhism p 156) > > Lance Cousins: > "These divergences [between Nikayas and Agamas] are typically in > matters of little importance -- such items as locations of > suttas, the names of individual speakers or the precise order of > occurrences of events. Only rarely are they founded on doctrinal > or sectarian differences." > (Pali Oral Literature, in "Buddhist Studies Ancient & Modern") > > Cousins again: > "Although there are differences as to details and many variations > of arrangement, the four Nikayas contain more or less the same > fundamental ideas in all recensions. Such variation as exists is > probably due to chance rather than sectarian differences. Indeed > this is wholly to be expected in an oral literature. The texts > contain much repetition of stock passages and formulaic patterns. > This is a technique to ensure accurate preservation of oral > traditions, but it is one that allows considerable variation of > exact form. Such oral works, we know from studies elsewhere, are > recited identically. Their content, however, is very traditional > and conservative." > (Handbook of Living Religions pp 288-9) > > David Kalupahana: > "Doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the Pali > Nikaya, especially because they were preserved by the Theravada > sect of Buddhism and hence were taken to represent the ideas of > that school. But a comparative study of the Pali Nikayas and the > Chinese Agamas shows that the Pali Nikayas do not represent the > Theravada standpoint. In fact, there is nothing in the Nikayas > that can be called Theravada. The Nikayas and the Agamas agree so > well with regard to the doctrines they embody...one can be very > optimistic about the attempt to determine the nature of > pre-Abhidharmic Buddhism. ... Therefore, one is fully justified > in depending on the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas for the > study of early or primitive Buddhism. > (Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis pp xi-xiii) > > Finally Bruce Burrill, summarizing Thich Minh Chau's findings in > his "Comparative Study of the Chinese Madhyama Agama and the Pali > Majjhima Nikaya": > > "[Ven. Minh Chau] takes a very detailed look at these two bodies > of texts. There are differences in the numbers of discourses that > each has, but what he finds is essentially what Cousins points > out. In some cases the one is clearer than the other in > particular passages, but far more often there is a very marked > correspondence to the point of identity between the two groups of > texts -- a remarkable thing to consider given that the Chinese > texts have been translated from the Magadhi into a prakrit then > into Sanskrit and then into Chinese. So, the point is that what > we find in the discourse collection of the Pali Canon is common > property of all the Buddhist schools and was material that was > settled quite early. No reason to believe that we are not seeing > the Buddha's teachings in these texts. Sectarian differences > within that grouping of texts are minimal. As has been said, the > significant differences are found in the commentarial and > exegetical literature." 37691 From: nori Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:10pm Subject: Re: Brief India update Hi Jon and company, Pleasent journey. metta, nori --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hello All > > We have just arrived at our hotel near Lumbini (in Nepal) after a 12 hour > drive from Benares. Looking forward to a non-travelling day tomorrow! > Sarah and I both have reports of happenings since the last post from Bodh > Gaya, but I'm not able to use my USB key on the computers at this or our > previous hotel due to the antiquity of the Windows OSs ;-)). Hoping to > find a handy internet cafe tomorrow evening, time permitting (the days are > very full). > > Nina and Lodewijk send their warm regards to everyone. > > Time to get my bag up to the room and get ready for tomorrow. > > Cheers > Jon 37692 From: dighanakha Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:46pm Subject: Contact (phassa) was: Re: Are You Sure? Hello Suan. S> Dear Phil, Howard, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K, Dighanakha S> and all S> How are you? I'm fine, thank you. How are you? S> The formula "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso," is a very S> beautiful abhidhamma teaching presented by means of S> Suttantabhaajaniiya (Suttam style analysis). S> As such, it is merely another aspect of abhidhamma teaching, S> and so it is a waste of time for us to treat it as though S> something different from abhidhamma teaching on abhidhamma. In the discussion so far, Howard and I have offered reasons as to why we think the treatment of phassa in the commentarial Abhidhamma (in particular the Atthasaalinii) is incompatible with that given in the Suttas (e.g. the Honeyball Sutta), that is, it appears the Atthasaalinii's treatment of phassa is not merely an expansion of the Suttas' conception, but a different conception entirely. If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting our time by disagreeing. S> Of course, Dighanakha is entitled to his own personal S> opinions as long as he qualified them as such. Au contraire, since I don't reside in North Korea, Myanmar, or any other Orwellian police state, I am unconditionally entitled to my own opinions. Perhaps what you meant to say is that I am entitled to *express* these opinions on this list ... provided that I give due notice that they are mine. If so, then I would answer that this seems a needless affectation. I believe most of dsg's readers are smart enough to realize that expressed opinions are most likely to belong to the people who express them. One more point: when you name someone as one of the recipients of your posts, courtesy requires that he be addressed as 'you' not 'he'. S> Meanwhile, please read "Dutiyadvaya Suttam", in Section 93, S> Sa.laayatana Samyuttam, Samyuttanikaaya, and see how it S> supports Abhidhamma Style Analysis (Abhidhammabhaajaniiya) S> of contact (phasso). I have read it and don't see how it supports Buddhaghosa's conception of phassa any more than does the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta. Dutiyadvayasuttanta -- Second Discourse on Dyads (S. iv 67-9; Kindred Sayings IV 39-40; Connected Discourses II 1172-3) "Consciousness, bhikkhus, comes to be dependent on a dyad. How, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be dependent on a dyad? Dependent on the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is wavering, unstable, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is likewise impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness having arisen, bhikkhus, dependent upon a condition that is impermanent, how then could it be permanent? "Bhikkhus, that which is the coming together, the meeting, the concurrence of these three dhammas is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-contact having arisen, bhikkhus, dependent upon a condition that is impermanent, how then could it be permanent? Contacted bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these dhammas too are wavering, unstable, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise." [repeat for ear, nose, tongue...etc.] The definition of phassa here is exactly the same as in the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta except that 'coming together' (sa"ngati) is supplemented with two other words, 'meeting' (sannipaata) and 'concurrence' (samavaaya), and the Sutta's focus is on impermanence rather than papa~nca. This does not seem to resolve any of the difficulties noted by Howard: [begin quote] Quoting from "Cetasikas", there is the following: "Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the Universal. Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it." ------------------------- Howard: This doesn't say that phassa is a coming together. It says that phassa is something that, accompanying a citta, contacts the object. ------------------------- When seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it performs its own function. ------------------------- Howard: Here phassa is described as something that accompanies consciousness, that is a thing that, itself, experiences, and that performs a function. ------------------------- At that moment phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see. ------------------------- Howard: Again, phassa is not defined as a contacting but as some thing that contacts a sense object, and by so contacting, serves as a condition for experiencing. ------------------------- The Atthasalini (Expositor, Part IV, chapter I, 108) states about contact: Contact means "it touches" It has touching as its salient characteristic, impact as its function, "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its manifestation, and the object which has entered the avenue (of awareness) as proximate cause . ------------------------- Howard: Here the Atthasalani, not Nina, states, not that phassa is the coming together of the three, but that it is something that has "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its *manifestation*. This is just not the same as what one finds in the suttas, imo. [end quote] Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37693 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:17pm Subject: India brief update Thurs (near Lumbini) Hello again Thursday lunchtime. Found a handy internet cafe but connection painfully slow and equipment even more outdated (no usb ports on the cpu), so again no chance of posting off anything composed on the laptop. Were fortunate to have Ajarn Sujin available for discussion this morning, so did that at the hotel. This afternoon we all go to pay respects at the place of the Buddha's birth. Sarah struggling with a bout of her broncial condition that kept her from any sleep last night, but otherwise in good spirits ;-)) Cheers Jon 37694 From: dighanakha Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: Contact (phassa) was: Re: Are You Sure? Hello all. I wrote: dig> "Consciousness, bhikkhus, comes to be dependent on a dyad. dig> How, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be dependent on a dig> dyad?" Later it occurred to me that the phrasing in my translation might wrongly suggest that consciousness BECOMES dependent on a dyad. These would be better translations of the phrase: "Bhikkhus, dependent on a dyad, consciousness comes to be." "Consciousness, bhikkhus, arises dependent on a dyad." "Consciousness, bhikkhus, comes to be, in dependence on a dyad." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37695 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard) Hi Howard, and all Thanks for the reply, Howard. Please forgive me if I only get back to one point. > Howard: > Where is this pa~n~na? Where shall we find it, and how will we know it > as distinct from mere preferred view? Ph: I couldn't answer this, of course, without speculating. When I refer to panna, it is a fairly basic level and is absolutely based on examining one's own experience. So yes, it could certainly be preferred view. But I am prone to pay attention to simple teachings from K Sujin and/or Nina such as "when panna sees the benefits of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala, it will condition the arising of more kusala." Now, this is common sense, of course. When we realize that something is bad for us, based on our own experience, we will be less likely to do it again. By referring to panna, however, we stress that it is not we ourselves who are changing our behaviour, but that changes are arising due to conditions. I find Abhidhamma very liberating in that sense. It *doesn't* mean that we no longer have any control over things, as I'm sure you appreciate. We make wise choces and behave in an increasingly wholesome way, thanks to panna. As for the panna which is an ultimate reality and eradicates defilements at advanced stages of enlightenment, I only know about that in theory. It is good to know about it in theory so as to know that it will take time and that assuming we can pull enlightenment off in this lifetime as long as we bear down and practice hard is a mistake - a mistake that lead many achievment-oriented Westerners into getting bound up tighter into self, I suspect. But as for the panna which helps us see through gross defilements, I have experienced a lot. For example, this basic panna arose to guide me away from internet web sites such as "antiwar.com" which present the news so as to attack Bush in a way that takes pleasure in the failures of the Iraq war that have killed so many. Now, I had in the past decided often enough that these sites were unwholesome, and stopped for a few days, and started using them again, but last week I had very clear and fairly deep insight into the unwholesomeness in a way that was beyond mere thinking about it logically. It was panna arising to show me the benefits of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala. I can't really communicate this experience to you - as you know these subjective experiences are difficult to communicate with any real oomph. You'll have to take my word for it. I've stopped using the internet in that way. We'll see what happens. There are unwholesome conditions at work as well. But I feel quite confident, and grateful to the Abhidhamma approach which stresses that these wholesome changes are beyond my control in the sense of will power but are conditioned by Dhamma study and discussion and reflection that help to condition panna. H >Whether pa~n~na is a special cognitive > ability or is "merely" the natural, proper cognitive functioning that occurs > when filters, obscurations, and defilements are pushed aside or, better, > uprooted, what is the basis for knowing that it is in play? I think that reliance on > an unexperienced answer-to-all-problems called "pa~n~na", much like reliance > on an unexperienced creator god, leaves one open to being led merely by our > tanha-driven preferences. Ph: I admire your scrutiny in these matters, Howard. I'm a faith-driven kind of guy, so having people like you in my practice is very important for balance. Thanks for the rest of your feedback as well. I'll be printing it out as I do all replies for reconsideration later. (It's interesting to re-read posts several monhts later and see how one's understanding has progressed.) Please forgive me if I don't make any further replies in this thread, as my work week is starting again and I really am not able to keep up with you gents. Oh, very nice today when I was taking socks from my sock drawer and suddenly felt well-being towards Bush, whom I usually despise, and a sincere wish for peace and understanding and no more American casualities. That was metta arising beyond my control, when I least expected it. Conditioned by panna which had shown me clearly and deeply the unwholesomeness of the way I was using antiwar.com. The gross defilements are standing our more clearly, thanks to a basic level of panna. Tanha-driven preferences. Quite possibly. There is so much clinging involved in my Dhamma study now. Also faith that suggests wholesome forces are at work as well. And examined experience in the moment, experience that confirms this faith. Metta, Phil 37696 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:16am Subject: A red hat Hello everyone. I read a lot in K Sujin and Nina's teaching about the importance of seeing. "Is there seeing now?" K Sujin asks again and again. And of course there are many discussions here about the intricacies of seeing. "Of course there's seeing!" I thought at first. "I'm not a blind man!" Of course, I came to understand in theory that seeing visible object happens in a flash before other processes put the visual information together to form the concept of the person or thing we come to be so interested in, almost always to ou detriment. Understanding this in theory didn't help me at all to be able to "see visual object" "Damn! I'm no good at seeing visual object!" I thought. "Maybe I am a blind man after all!" Today, cycling down by the sea, I saw a man's red hat. And I really quite deeply understood in a flash how difficult it is to see visual object and colour before the mind leaps to perceive a red hat. Difficult to a degree that makes me almost want to say impossible in this lifetime." But never say never. And in the meantime, today's very humble but very clear insight into how quickly the mind leaps to form concepts encourages me, because it has brought me another small step closer towards knowing anatta. Very grateful to K Sujin and Nina for helping to make Abhidhamma understandable to beginners such as myself. Of course, the difficulty of seeing visual object is also laid out in the Suttanta. I think of the sutta about the monk who is able to *stop at seeing* Can't provide a reference at the moment - I trust you know the one I'm referring to. Metta, Phil 37697 From: dighanakha Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:08am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken O. I have looked again at your two posts. I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of the first one, and have only a couple of comments to make on the second. dig>> Not that Howard was the first to notice this: Buddhaghosa in dig>> the Atthasaalinii, and Upasena in the Saddhammappajotikaa, dig>> were both probably aware of the problem, for neither of them dig>> will allow the Suttas' definition of phassa (a definition dig>> repeated many times) to be what it appears to be. Both dig>> commentators state: dig>> "This [the manifestation of contact] is shown here and there dig>> by the Sutta phrase: 'the coming together of the three is dig>> contact.' And in this phrase the meaning is that it is dig>> contact because of the coming together of the three, *but it dig>> should NOT be understood that the mere coming together is dig>> itself contact*." K> Using your above translation. There is nothing wrong with K> this passage. It is trying to explain that the mere coming K> together is itself not contact because contact is a K> condition. Are you saying that an event (e.g. a coming together) cannot be a condition (paccaya)? If so, I can show you lots of examples from the Suttas where events are so described. K> Only when these three manisfest together then contact will K> manifest. This is to distingish that contact is not just K> mere coming together, it saying that contact is a condition K> arise when the three comes together. But the Sutta doesn't say that. It says the coming together IS contact. There is not even the slightest hint in the Suttas that contact is something other than this coming together. K> Again using your translation dig>> "Friend, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness dig>> arises; *the coming together of the three is contact*. With dig>> contact as condition there is feeling. What one feels, that dig>> one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. dig>> What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With dig>> what he has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions dig>> and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with dig>> respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the dig>> eye." (MN 18) K> So again if you look closely at the asterisk sentence *the K> coming together of the three is contact* Then if you look K> again the Sutta emphasis, With contact as condition..... so K> the coming together will condition the arisen of contact. If K> this is not the point, how does contact later becomes a K> condition for feeling. By virtue of the fact that an event can serve as a paccaya. What do you see as problematic about this equation: "With contact as condition there arises feeling" = "With the coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness as condition there arises feeling" ? I see no problem at all. K> So there is no contradiction. Contact arise out of the K> coming together of the three but contact is not the three - K> is to illustrate that contact is a condition Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37699 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:32pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Ken O. > > I have looked again at your two posts. I'm afraid I couldn't > make any sense of the first one, and have only a couple of > comments to make on the second. Friend DN, I just wanted you to know that I very much enjoy your posts. We see eye to eye on several issues; you use proper documentation to back up your points; and you are very straightforward. Anyway, I just wanted to share an off-list e-mail that I had recently written to Rob M. It is related to the Honeyball Sutta: Hi Rob M, Gosh, you just have to get me started don't you?? ;-)) I have read your pamphlet on Rupa and I still don't agree with the basic premise of the philosophy. You see, even though the Honeyball discourse does state that "Dependent on eye and form, eye consciousness arises" I don't think that this statement is supposed to be understood as an ontological declaration. You write, "In the sensuous planes, all nama must be supported by rupa" but I think this presents only one side of the issue. I believe that rupa is also supported by nama. Take for example this Buddhist verse: As a water-vessel is variously perceived by beings: Nectar to celestials, is for a man plain drinking-water, While to the hungry ghost it seems a putrid ooze of pus and blood, Is for the water serpent-spirits and the fish a place to live in, While it is space to gods who dwell in the sphere of infinite space. So any object, live or dead, within the person or without -- Differently is seen by beings according to their fruits of kamma. Therefore, there is no "ultimate reality" to rupa or nama, they are both relative to kamma. I believe that the only ultimate reality is kamma and/or perception (As I have posted to DSG at times). Metta, James 37700 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:57pm Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Dear Dighanakha, Howard, Nina, Robert K, Mike Nease, Ken O, Phil, Andrew T and all How are you? I am well, Dighanakha. You wrote: (you, not he, as requested by you ) "In the discussion so far, Howard and I have offered reasons as to why we think the treatment of phassa in the commentarial Abhidhamma (in particular the Atthasaalinii) is incompatible with that given in the Suttas (e.g. the Honeyball Sutta), that is, it appears the Atthasaalinii's treatment of phassa is not merely an expansion of the Suttas' conception, but a different conception entirely." I got the impression that Howard and you were unhappy about Aacariya Buddhagosa and other Theravada commentators treating phasso as a paramattha dhamma (as one of the ultimate realities) - by the strength of the formula "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". Was my impression correct? The way Aacariya Buddhaghosa understood phasso is in line with what Gotama the Buddha taught phasso in Dhammasa`nganii. For example, " 2. Katamo tasmim samaye phasso hoti? Yo tasmim samaye phasso phusanaa samphusanaa samphusitattam- ayam tasmim samaye phasso hoti." So Aacariya Buddhaghosa wasn't introducing any alien concept into the Buddha's authentic teachings. Dighanakha also wrote: "If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting our time by disagreeing." I would not merely assert that you and Howard were mistaken, but I will note that you both seemed to be suffering from short- sightedness due to anti-Abhidhamma and anti-Commentary preconceptions and influences (wrong schooling and reading the wrong books by speculative academics such as David Kalupahana and the like? ) As you insisted that I will need to do more than merely assert your disagreement with Abhidhamma to be a mistake, I looked at the treatment of phasso in Atthasalini again. We read the following statement: "Tikasannipaatasa`nkhaatassa pana attano kaara.nassa vasena paveditattaa sannipaatapaccupa.t.thaano. Ayañhi tattha tattha "ti.n.nam sa`ngati phasso"ti evam kaara.nassa vasena paveditoti. Imassa ca suttapadassa ti.n.nam sa`ngatiyaa phassoti ayamattho; na sa`ngatimattameva phassoti." (Tikasannip±tasaªkh±tassa pana attano k±raºassa vasena paveditatt± sannip±tapaccupaµµh±no. Ayañhi tattha tattha "tiººam saªgati phasso"ti evam k±raºassa vasena paveditoti. Imassa ca suttapadassa tiººam saªgatiy± phassoti ayamattho; na saªgatimattameva phassoti. From CSCD) The above statement does take into account the Suttam folmula ""Cakkhu~nca, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". Aacariya Buddhaghosa clearly explained the word "sa`ngati" to be understood as "san`ngatiyaa". By the way, thank you for translating "Ditiyadvaya Samyuttam" for all of us. I will discuss that Suttam and your translation at a later date. I also read the corrections of the wordings in that translation you posted afterwards. I am glad to have a chance to discuss issues on Abhidhamma with a Pali scholar who effortlessly translates Pali texts. For now, please kindly look at again the Pali passage quoted from Atthasalinii, and I am sure you are comfortable with the Pali, if not with the meaning of it. Now I asked you the following questions. 1. Do you understand the quoted Pali statement from Atthasanili? (Of course, you understand it. Only double checking! You may, of course, assure us of your understanding by translating it.) 2. If so, do you agree with it? 3. If not, what are the reasons for your disagreement (apart from the apparent difference from the Suttam formula on phasso under discussion). I hope that I did not impose on you too much difficult questioning, but then again, you were challenging Abhidhamma Pitaka and Standard Pali Commentaries wittingly or unwittingly. As you read Pali, you need to take more responsibility when making statements that contradict Abhidhamma and Standard Pali Commentaries which have been being preserved and transmitted, with greatest reverence, by generations after generations of learned Theravada ascetics in various countries. As Howard does not read Pali, we cannot hold him accountable. He is free to go unless he0wanted to be charged with lesser offense!  With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: Hello Suan. S> Dear Phil, Howard, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K, Dighanakha S> and all S> How are you? I'm fine, thank you. How are you? S> The formula "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso," is a very S> beautiful abhidhamma teaching presented by means of S> Suttantabhaajaniiya (Suttam style analysis). S> As such, it is merely another aspect of abhidhamma teaching, S> and so it is a waste of time for us to treat it as though S> something different from abhidhamma teaching on abhidhamma. In the discussion so far, Howard and I have offered reasons as to why we think the treatment of phassa in the commentarial Abhidhamma (in particular the Atthasaalinii) is incompatible with that given in the Suttas (e.g. the Honeyball Sutta), that is, it appears the Atthasaalinii's treatment of phassa is not merely an expansion of the Suttas' conception, but a different conception entirely. If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting our time by disagreeing. S> Of course, Dighanakha is entitled to his own personal S> opinions as long as he qualified them as such. Au contraire, since I don't reside in North Korea, Myanmar, or any other Orwellian police state, I am unconditionally entitled to my own opinions. Perhaps what you meant to say is that I am entitled to *express* these opinions on this list ... provided that I give due notice that they are mine. If so, then I would answer that this seems a needless affectation. I believe most of dsg's readers are smart enough to realize that expressed opinions are most likely to belong to the people who express them. One more point: when you name someone as one of the recipients of your posts, courtesy requires that he be addressed as 'you' not 'he'. S> Meanwhile, please read "Dutiyadvaya Suttam", in Section 93, S> Sa.laayatana Samyuttam, Samyuttanikaaya, and see how it S> supports Abhidhamma Style Analysis (Abhidhammabhaajaniiya) S> of contact (phasso). I have read it and don't see how it supports Buddhaghosa's conception of phassa any more than does the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta. Dutiyadvayasuttanta -- Second Discourse on Dyads (S. iv 67-9; Kindred Sayings IV 39-40; Connected Discourses II 1172-3) "Consciousness, bhikkhus, comes to be dependent on a dyad. How, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be dependent on a dyad? Dependent on the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is wavering, unstable, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is likewise impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-consciousness having arisen, bhikkhus, dependent upon a condition that is impermanent, how then could it be permanent? "Bhikkhus, that which is the coming together, the meeting, the concurrence of these three dhammas is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Eye-contact having arisen, bhikkhus, dependent upon a condition that is impermanent, how then could it be permanent? Contacted bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these dhammas too are wavering, unstable, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise." [repeat for ear, nose, tongue...etc.] The definition of phassa here is exactly the same as in the Madhupi.n.dika Sutta except that 'coming together' (sa"ngati) is supplemented with two other words, 'meeting' (sannipaata) and 'concurrence' (samavaaya), and the Sutta's focus is on impermanence rather than papa~nca. This does not seem to resolve any of the difficulties noted by Howard: [begin quote] Quoting from "Cetasikas", there is the following: "Contact, in Pali: phassa, is mentioned first among the Universal. Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so that citta can experience it." ------------------------- Howard: This doesn't say that phassa is a coming together. It says that phassa is something that, accompanying a citta, contacts the object. ------------------------- When seeing experiences visible object, phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences visible object but it performs its own function. ------------------------- Howard: Here phassa is described as something that accompanies consciousness, that is a thing that, itself, experiences, and that performs a function. ------------------------- At that moment phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness to see. ------------------------- Howard: Again, phassa is not defined as a contacting but as some thing that contacts a sense object, and by so contacting, serves as a condition for experiencing. ------------------------- The Atthasalini (Expositor, Part IV, chapter I, 108) states about contact: Contact means "it touches" It has touching as its salient characteristic, impact as its function, "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its manifestation, and the object which has entered the avenue (of awareness) as proximate cause . ------------------------- Howard: Here the Atthasalani, not Nina, states, not that phassa is the coming together of the three, but that it is something that has "coinciding" (of the physical base, object and consciousness) as its *manifestation*. This is just not the same as what one finds in the suttas, imo. [end quote] Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37702 From: Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, James (and DN, and Rob) - In a message dated 10/21/04 4:47:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Friend DN, > > I just wanted you to know that I very much enjoy your posts. We see > eye to eye on several issues; you use proper documentation to back > up your points; and you are very straightforward. Anyway, I just > wanted to share an off-list e-mail that I had recently written to > Rob M. It is related to the Honeyball Sutta: > > Hi Rob M, > > Gosh, you just have to get me started don't you?? ;-)) > I have read your pamphlet on Rupa and I still don't > agree with the basic premise of the philosophy. You > see, even though the Honeyball discourse does state > that "Dependent on eye and form, eye consciousness > arises" I don't think that this statement is supposed > to be understood as an ontological declaration. You > write, "In the sensuous planes, all nama must be > supported by rupa" but I think this presents only one > side of the issue. I believe that rupa is also > supported by nama. Take for example this Buddhist > verse: > > As a water-vessel is > variously perceived by beings: > > Nectar to celestials, > is for a man plain drinking-water, > > While to the hungry ghost it seems > a putrid ooze of pus and blood, > > Is for the water serpent-spirits > and the fish a place to live in, > > While it is space to gods who dwell > in the sphere of infinite space. > > So any object, live or dead, > within the person or without -- > > Differently is seen by beings > according to their fruits of kamma. > > Therefore, there is no "ultimate reality" to rupa or > nama, they are both relative to kamma. I believe that > the only ultimate reality is kamma and/or perception > (As I have posted to DSG at times). > > Metta, James > ======================= Two points, James: 1) Just for the record, and not that you implied otherwise, the quoted material on water perceived in various ways by various beings is, indeed, Buddhist, but isn't sutric, and isn't Theravadin. 2) That same material makes a valid point, in my opinion. The point as I see it is that differing accumulations result in distinguishable perceptions or experienced rupas, pleasant in some cases, unpleasant in others. The way I would explain the quoted material is that were a human to taste some water, and see various other beings "do the same", the human and all the other beings would not be experiencing the same rupa - they would be having differing experiences as conditioned by their individual make-ups. They probably wouldn't even think about what was going on in the same way - that is, they would impose differing conceptual stories. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37703 From: Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Enter The Abhidhammika! Hi, Suan (and Dighanakha) - In a message dated 10/21/04 8:03:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > > Dear Dighanakha, Howard, Nina, Robert K, Mike Nease, Ken O, Phil, > Andrew T and all > > > I got the impression that Howard and you were unhappy about Aacariya > Buddhagosa and other Theravada commentators treating phasso as a > paramattha dhamma (as one of the ultimate realities) - by the > strength of the formula > > "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, > ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". > > Was my impression correct? > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider contact to be a real experiential event, that actually occurs, in dependence on causes and conditions of course. I have no problem with calling such an event a "cetasika". The debate pertains to exactly what its nature is from the perspective of sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary. I do not believe these perspectives coincide. ---------------------------------------------- > > The way Aacariya Buddhaghosa understood phasso is in line with what > Gotama the Buddha taught phasso in Dhammasa`nganii. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: There is a presumption in that last statement, Suan, namely that the Dhammasa`nganii was taught by the Buddha. Do you think that is unquestionable, and *should* not be questioned? ----------------------------------------------- > > For example, > > " 2. Katamo tasmim samaye phasso hoti? Yo tasmim samaye phasso > phusanaa samphusanaa samphusitattamâ€" ayam tasmim samaye phasso > hoti." > > So Aacariya Buddhaghosa wasn't introducing any alien concept into > the Buddha's authentic teachings. > > Dighanakha also wrote: > > "If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us > the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely > assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting > our time by disagreeing." > > I would not merely assert that you and Howard were mistaken, but I > will note that you both seemed to be suffering from short- > sightedness due to anti-Abhidhamma and anti-Commentary > preconceptions and influences (wrong schooling and reading the wrong > books by speculative academics such as David Kalupahana and the > like? ) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Would that make me a member of a school called Anti-Abhidhammism, Suan? Are you making me into the Madeline Murray O'Hare of Theravada? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------- > > As Howard does not read Pali, we cannot hold him accountable. He is > free to go unless he wanted to be charged with lesser offense!  > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: After this post, except to respond to a possible reply you choose to make to it, I will, indeed, bow out. I'm no Buddhist scholar, and hardly know Pali from Swahili. --------------------------------------------------- > > With regards, > > Suan > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37704 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:58pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Friend Howard, Howard: Just for the record, and not that you implied otherwise, the quoted material on water perceived in various ways by various beings is, indeed, Buddhist, but isn't sutric, and isn't Theravadin. James: Yeah, I know. Actually, I don't know the source as I came across the quote in an article from the Buddhist Publication Society. Do you know the source? I originally included it in an off-line e-mail and had no intention of posting it to DSG (I am trying to stay away from posting nowadays). But, since there is this wonderful thread on questioning the commentaries by Buddhaghosa (much to my satisfaction!), I wanted to break my silence and contribute a little something. Sorry to have broken the rules here. Howard: That same material makes a valid point, in my opinion… James: Glad that you agree! Metta, James 37705 From: Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard) Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/21/04 6:59:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hi Howard, and all > > Thanks for the reply, Howard. Please forgive me if I only get back to one > point. > > ========================== Phil I just want to address one matter in your post. It pertains to politics ... and yet, it really doesn't. I just wanted to say that whatever your political inclinations may be, I am very impressed by, and very much admire, your approach that emphasizes the wholesome - that emphasizes the welfare of people. Because that's what really matters. There are honest differences that people can have when it comes down to details, to hierarchies of values, and to pragmatic issues, but when they are people of good will who genuinely value human beings and who have real compassion for them, they can easily agree to disagree without rancor on many matters of approach and evaluation, without hostility and even supportively. (I think, for example, of such people as John McCain, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Biden to mention a few.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37706 From: Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, James - In a message dated 10/22/04 12:01:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Howard, > > Howard: Just for the record, and not that you implied otherwise, the > quoted material on water perceived in various ways by various beings > is, indeed, Buddhist, but isn't sutric, and isn't Theravadin. > > James: Yeah, I know. Actually, I don't know the source as I came > across the quote in an article from the Buddhist Publication > Society. Do you know the source? > > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall. Perhaps Shantideva? ----------------------------------------------- I originally included it in an > > off-line e-mail and had no intention of posting it to DSG (I am > trying to stay away from posting nowadays). But, since there is > this wonderful thread on questioning the commentaries by Buddhaghosa > (much to my satisfaction!), I wanted to break my silence and > contribute a little something. Sorry to have broken the rules here. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I think they allow occasional short quotations of heretical material here! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > Howard: That same material makes a valid point, in my opinion… > > James: Glad that you agree! > > Metta, James > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37707 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:32pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > The point as > I see it is that differing accumulations result in distinguishable > perceptions or experienced rupas, pleasant in some cases, unpleasant in others. The way > I would explain the quoted material is that were a human to taste some water, > and see various other beings "do the same", the human and all the other beings > would not be experiencing the same rupa - they would be having differing > experiences as conditioned by their individual make-ups. They probably wouldn't > even think about what was going on in the same way - that is, they would impose > differing conceptual stories. ===== Howard, do I take it from this that you reject the idea of "intrinsic nature" of rupas? Metta, Rob M :-) 37708 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:07pm Subject: India -- further brief update (from near Lumbini) Hello again All Yesterday (Thursday) afternoon we visited the place of the Buddha's birth at Lumbini, in present day Nepal. It was pleasing to see the beginning of the Heritage master plan being implemented by the UN. The whole area is being restored and preserved as a heritage site, with commercial premises and even temples being moved outside the park area. Quite a few changes since my last visit 3 years ago, and a world of difference from my first visit 25 years ago. Last night was my turn to feel unwell, running a fever, but fortunately both Sarah and I had a good night and are feeling much better today. This morning we had another session of discussion, with quite a few useful points (which Sarah, Nina and I will report on in due course). After an early lunch shortly we will be setting off for the 8+ hour drive to Savatthi, site of Jetavanna grove provided to the Buddha by Anathapindika, where the Buddha spent many years and delivered many of the discourses we have today. I see you are all keeping busy talking to each other. Keep up the good work! Jon 37709 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are You Sure? (Was: Contact swings both ways. To Howard) Hi Howard , I am very impressed by, and very much admire, > your approach that emphasizes the wholesome - that emphasizes the welfare of > people. Because that's what really matters. > There are honest differences that people can have when it comes down > to details, to hierarchies of values, and to pragmatic issues, but when they > are people of good will who genuinely value human beings and who have real > compassion for them, they can easily agree to disagree without rancor on many > matters of approach and evaluation, without hostility and even supportively. Thanks for the kind words, Howard. "The welfare of people." Really, that's what Dhamma is all about, no matter what we think of phassa, or other fine points of Dhamma. Metta, Phil 37710 From: Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Rob - In a message dated 10/22/04 1:32:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >The point as > >I see it is that differing accumulations result in distinguishable > >perceptions or experienced rupas, pleasant in some cases, > unpleasant in others. The way > >I would explain the quoted material is that were a human to taste > some water, > >and see various other beings "do the same", the human and all the > other beings > >would not be experiencing the same rupa - they would be having > differing > >experiences as conditioned by their individual make-ups. They > probably wouldn't > >even think about what was going on in the same way - that is, they > would impose > >differing conceptual stories. > > ===== > > Howard, do I take it from this that you reject the idea > of "intrinsic nature" of rupas? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ====================== No, Rob, exactly the opposite. You misinterpreted me. What I said was not that these beings were dealing with the same rupas and experiencing them differently, but rather that the rupas they were experiencing were different rupas. That water-taste that was tongue-door object for the human was *not* the rupa experienced by any of the others at the time that they were all supposedly experiencing "the same thing". Different rupas were involved. Don't forget, Rob, my approach is phenomenalist. The rupas that I am talking about are experiential phenomena, not alleged unexperienced, external entities. The water-taste experienced by the human had a specific nature and a specific associated vedana - it was exactly what it was during its brief appearance. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37711 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 094 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed on moha who is the king of akusala dhamma. We also have discussed on ahirika and anottappa who are the right wing and the left wing generals of the king moha. We have talked about the secretary of the akusala uddhacca. These four dhammas are called sabba akusala sadharana cetasikas. Sadharana means 'always bearing'. These four dhammas arise with each and every of akusala dhamma and without any of these four dhammas, no akusala can arise. After that we have run on another class of akusala cetasikas. They are cetasikas whom are led by lobha cetasika. Whenever lobha-related akusala dhamma arises, lobha cetasika always arises. There are different types of lobha cittas and there are countless lobha cittas. But when they are considered on the ground of the basic character, then there are only 8 lobha cittas. All these 8 lobha cittas are led by lobha cetasika. Other lobha-related cetasikas are ditthi ( wrong view/ wrong impression/ wrong belief ) and maana ( conceit ). Each of these two cetasikas are also led by lobha cetasika. This means that whenever ditthi arises, lobha cetasika also has to arise. By the same token, whenever maana arises, lobha cetasika also has to arise. In the previous post, we have discussed about lobha cetasika to some extent. In this class of akusala cetasikas who are led by lobha cetasika, there left 2 more akusala cetasikas called ditthi and mana. Ditthi and mana will soon be discussed in the near future. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37712 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:52pm Subject: killing in a dream Hello all Last night I dreamed I was in the kitchen, and Naomi, my wife, and one of her friends asked me to take care of a insect that had gotten in. In reality it is usually a cockroach or an an or a spider, but in this case it was a bee. In "reality" I now almost invariably abstain from killing, but in the dream I took great delight in waiting for just the right moment to slam a big book down on the bee. Afterwards, I took delight in showing them how big the body was - it really was huge by now, just about as big as a small lobster, thanks to proliferation. A few interesting (maybe) points... - We know from a sutta that the temple monk who accidentally kills some ants (?) that he steps on when doing walking meditation(?) is free from bad kamma because there was no intent whatsoever. Some would say that there is no intent in a dream, that it is the sub-conscious at work, but it would seem that the very clear intent in the dream makes for bad kamma. Don't worry - I'm not asking you to try to absolve me of my sin! We know that it is pointless to try to conjecture on the workings of kamma. Just wanted to share what I think is an interesting point. - I was prompted to do the act. I think I have learned that an akusala citta is less powerful when it is prompted. Would that apply here? - I note that this morning there is hiri (shame) and ottappa (fear of wrongdoing), the states which are called "the Guardians of the world by the Buddha because they protect the world from falling into widespread immorality."(CAM) I think that is something good to come from my akusala dream. - I've noticed that the following day can be affected emotively by a dream. I start the day affected by it emotionally, and that effect quite often lingers during the day. I think a dream that really stands out can be a decisive object condition of some kind ( ? haven't worked out all the terms for conditions yet) that conditions many aspects of the following day. Could this be right? Metta, Phil 37713 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:41pm Subject: Re: killing in a dream Phil: Hello all Last night I dreamed I was in the kitchen, and Naomi, my wife, and one of her friends asked me to take care of a insect that had gotten in. In reality it is usually a cockroach or ..snip.. ..snip..snip..all snip.. I think a dream that really stands out can be a decisive object condition of some kind ( ? haven't worked out all the terms for conditions yet) that conditions many aspects of the following day. Could this be right? Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Phil, Bhavanga cittas just see the past object in immediate past life. Dreaming is not bhavanga cittas. But during dreams, all 5 sense doors are nearly closed and only mano dvara is opened. In mano dvara vithi, after stoppage of bhavanga there arise 1. manodvara avajjana citta ( kiriya/ so no kamma ) 2. 7 javana cittas In dream people have 12 akusala cittas or 8 mahakusala cittas. As dreaming is not jhana or magga there will be cittas from 29 javana cittas. 29 javana cittas are a) 12 akusala cittas b) 8 mahakusala cittas c) 8 mahakiriya cittas d) 1 hasituppada citta c) and d) are cittas of arahats and these are not of dream mind. So there are akusala or kusala only. 3. 2 tadaarammana cittas These are 8 mahavipakas and 3 santirana cittas. As all 11 are vipaka cittas, there is no kamma. So in dreams, 12 akusala or 8 maha kusala have to arise. But these are not very strong so as to give rise to results as in cases of awake physical actions like bodily moment or verbal citation. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37714 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:03pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > >The point as > > >I see it is that differing accumulations result in distinguishable > > >perceptions or experienced rupas, pleasant in some cases, > > unpleasant in others. The way > > >I would explain the quoted material is that were a human to taste > > some water, > > >and see various other beings "do the same", the human and all the > > other beings > > >would not be experiencing the same rupa - they would be having > > differing > > >experiences as conditioned by their individual make-ups. They > > probably wouldn't > > >even think about what was going on in the same way - that is, they > > would impose > > >differing conceptual stories. > > > > ===== > > > > Howard, do I take it from this that you reject the idea > > of "intrinsic nature" of rupas? > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > ====================== > No, Rob, exactly the opposite. You misinterpreted me. What I said was > not that these beings were dealing with the same rupas and experiencing them > differently, but rather that the rupas they were experiencing were different > rupas. That water-taste that was tongue-door object for the human was *not* the > rupa experienced by any of the others at the time that they were all > supposedly experiencing "the same thing". Different rupas were involved. Don't forget, > Rob, my approach is phenomenalist. The rupas that I am talking about are > experiential phenomena, not alleged unexperienced, external entities. The > water-taste experienced by the human had a specific nature and a specific associated > vedana - it was exactly what it was during its brief appearance. We are 100% aligned except on a very minor semantics issue (phenomonology). Thanks for clarifying. Metta, Rob M :-) 37715 From: Antony Woods Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:39am Subject: Future Potential of Sense-objects Dear dsg Dhamma friends, Thankyou for opening this post. I think I have had a wrong view about sense-objects as experienced in vipassana practice. In the past I have noted seeing visible objects mechanically as if they were neutral, meaningless, momentary impressions breaking up leaving no lasting effect. Tonight I started perceiving the visual objects as having future potential for benefit. Examples are furniture, computer, this body etc etc. Even the mind and thoughts are not random, isolated phenomena but follow organic, kammic and other laws. There is momentum from past experiences and present choices. Even you reading this post are maybe not just a momentary acquaintance but maybe we will write group posts again and again in the future of dsg. Thanks for your attention / Antony. 37716 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: killing in a dream Hello Htoo Thank you for your detailed and clear feedback > So in dreams, 12 akusala or 8 maha kusala have to arise. But these > are not very strong so as to give rise to results as in cases of > awake physical actions like bodily moment or verbal citation. It's interesting though, that in my case at least, an action in a dream can - rarely- really reverberate the following day. That very reverberation suggests that the dream has some kind of conditioning power. After all, if I find that there is thinking about the dream, that means the thinking was conditioned by the dream, doesn't it? And there is unpleasant mental feeling as well. I'm also interested in the way the first thought that pops into our head as we wake in the morning can condition many thoughts during the rest of the day. For example, one morning several weeks ago as I woke up I thought immediately about the sutta of the man looking at the Ganges river, and watching the bubbles go by. (In Samyutta Nikaya, I think.) It is one of the suttas that most clearly calls for the Abhidhamma approach of seeing momentary mental states. Thinking of that sutta just as soon as I opened my eyes in the morning seemed to lead to a very good day with many Dhamma reflections arising. On the other hand, some days I wake to a thought that is very unwholesome. Who knows the way that thought affects/conditions the mental states that will arise later in that day or in days to come? I think those first thoughts that appear stand out as very strong conditioning objects in some way, but I am only guessing. (I need to learn a lot more about conditions.) I think it might have something to do with the expression "I got up on the wrong side of the bed." It could be that the flavour of the day to come is conditioned by that first thought, if and when it stands out clearly, the way they sometimes do. This is mere idle speculation. But it's interesting to me. Metta, Phil 37717 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: killing in a dream Phil: Hello Htoo Thank you for your detailed and clear feedback > > So in dreams, 12 akusala or 8 maha kusala have to arise. But these > > are not very strong so as to give rise to results as in cases of > > awake physical actions like bodily moment or verbal citation. It's interesting though, that in my case at least, an action in a dream can - rarely-really reverberate the following day. That very reverberation suggests that the dream has some kind of conditioning power. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I don't think so. The dream itself is a concept and sannakkhanda bring that concept. Actually, the power is in you. This sentence may be interpreted in many different way. Philosophically, this is right. Socially, this is also right. Morally, this again is right. From some other believers point of view, this is also right. The power is inside of you. Not in the dreams. For those who believe 'Buddha Nature', this is also right as 'Buddha Nature' is inside of you. ( I include this because there are Mahayanists here ). For those who believe kamma, this is also right. As at the point of waking up the dream has given you past kamma but this should not lead you to commiting new kamma. For not committing new ones, the power is inside of you. For those who love paramattha dhamma and Buddha Abhidhamma, this is also right. The power is inside of you. And not in the dream. Dream is a pannatti. When you remember it, it is because of cittas with sannas that bring that idea of the dream. Still the power is inside of you. Here, there is no you but the power is inside of you. You are the master of your kamma even though there have never been you there. So the dream should not at any moment lead you the whole day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: After all, if I find that there is thinking about the dream, that means the thinking was conditioned by the dream, doesn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It has been far away to condition thinking as the dream has passed away when you wake up. But what conditions your thinking is that your thinking itself. This again is directed by yourself. Actually you are the master of the day and the master is not the dream. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: And there is unpleasant mental feeling as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is cognition of vedana which is a reality. If this is done properly, this is kusala citta and this will finally lead you to enlightenment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: I'm also interested in the way the first thought that pops into our head as we wake in the morning can condition many thoughts during the rest of the day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Interesting. But it is not the only condition for the whole day. If this is so, you have surrendered the mastery through out the day. Should this happen? No. I would not allow such matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: For example, one morning several weeks ago as I woke up I thought immediately about the sutta of the man looking at the Ganges river, and watching the bubbles go by. (In Samyutta Nikaya, I think.) It is one of the suttas that most clearly calls for the Abhidhamma approach of seeing momentary mental states. Thinking of that sutta just as soon as I opened my eyes in the morning seemed to lead to a very good day with many Dhamma reflections arising. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This again is you who perform all the whole day activities and it is not the first thought or the dream. But the first thought or the dream may forerun. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: On the other hand, some days I wake to a thought that is very unwholesome. Who knows the way that thought affects/conditions the mental states that will arise later in that day or in days to come? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: People used to forsee or predict the future for example predict a day in the morning because of signs that they notice. Actually this should not follow. Signs themselves are nothing but sense impressions and as soon as these impressions are considered as signs, there have already arisen attached mind. Whether good past kamma or bad past kamma are just coming should not influence us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: I think those first thoughts that appear stand out as very strong conditioning objects in some way, but I am only guessing. (I need to learn a lot more about conditions.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: I think it might have something to do with the expression "I got up on the wrong side of the bed." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Maybe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: It could be that the flavour of the day to come is conditioned by that first thought, if and when it stands out clearly, the way they sometimes do. This is mere idle speculation. But it's interesting to me. Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You can be interested in it. But you should not. This will lead you to have less and less power. The power is in our hand. We are our master. We govern our kamma. Kamma does not govern us. We are the master of kamma. And kamma is not the master of us. But kamma just give as supportive conditions for us to master another kamma. When we can stop another kamma, then we are the absolute master of our kamma then. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37718 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:26am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the akusalas that are governed by lobha cittas, lobha cetaiska is the king and he dictates all akusala related to lobha-related things like stealing in various forms, trying to satisfy needs of pleasure including sex and addictives, and telling lies with the base of attachment. There are 14 akusala cetasikas. We have discussed 4 moha-led cetasikas. There are 3 lobha-led cetasikas. They are lobha, ditthi and mana. Lobha cetasika is the king of all lobha cittas. This king lobha has chief queens. They are ditthi and mana. Whenever the king goes round the city, he takes one of his queen as his accompaniment. The king never sleeps with 2 queens in a single room. One queen is in a room and another queen is in another room. And he never takes both queens when he goes out for city-round. When a lobha citta arises, there always is lobha cetasika. But as the king lobha cetasika never take 2 queens at the same time, ditthi and mana never arise together. Instead they are mutually exclusive. If one follows the king lobha cetasika, another queen just stays in her room in the palace. So any lobha citta will have lobha cetasika. In these lobha cittas (please see in the earlier posts), there is an extra lobha-led cetasika. This may be one of 2 alternatives. They are ditthi and mana. So there may be lobha cetasika with ditthi cetasika or lobha citta may be with lobha cetasika with mana cetasika. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37719 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:57am Subject: Re: Rupa Hallo Rob Some weeks ago I've sent a reaction to your new pages on Rupa. (# 37234 of Oct 3) Perhaps you have not noticed it, I had a question in it, I qoute myself: "The differences between 'decay', 'impermance' (of a collection of rupas) and ''falling away' of an individual rupa is not clear. The time-scales of these three are different (decades of years, seconds (?) and billionths part of a second) but is that a real fundamental difference; are all three chraracteristics on a ultimate level?" I'm still interested in your answers to my message in general too. Metta Joop 37720 From: Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Future Potential of Sense-objects Hi, Antony - In a message dated 10/23/04 6:40:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, antony272b@h... writes: > Dear dsg Dhamma friends, > > Thankyou for opening this post. > > I think I have had a wrong view about sense-objects as experienced in > vipassana practice. > > In the past I have noted seeing visible objects mechanically as if they were > > neutral, meaningless, momentary impressions breaking up leaving no lasting > effect. > > Tonight I started perceiving the visual objects as having future potential > for benefit. Examples are furniture, computer, this body etc etc. > > Even the mind and thoughts are not random, isolated phenomena but follow > organic, kammic and other laws. There is momentum from past experiences and > present choices. > > Even you reading this post are maybe not just a momentary acquaintance but > maybe we will write group posts again and again in the future of dsg. > > Thanks for your attention / Antony. > > ========================= My inclination is to respond with "Yes, this is an important, even critical insight, but ... " You are quite correct that events have significance, that they occur lawfully, and that they relate backwards by a variety of relations to prior events, currently to related events, and forwards in varied ways to many events yet to occur. It is well said when you say "Even the mind and thoughts are not random, isolated phenomena but follow organic, kammic and other laws. There is momentum from past experiences and present choices," and it makes very good sense, as you say, to be "... perceiving the visual objects as having future potential for benefit." My only caveat, and this is minor, is that in the process of seeing matters this way, at the same time, we should continue to realize that conditions and events are, indeed, "momentary impressions breaking up," without substance, not remaining (and in-and-of-themselves never to recur) but leading onwards only to new, fresh, never-before-occurring phenomena, all fragile, insubstantial, fleeting, merely dependently occurring aspects of an ongoing flux. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37721 From: connieparker Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Hi, Htoo (and Herman), Thanks for king lobha and the two queens, Htoo. Just reading Dr. Mehm Tin Mon's Ultimate Science - THE ESSENCE OF BUDDHA ABHIDHAMMA and he writes: Lobha, together with its two great followers, i.e., di.t.thi (wrong view) and maana (conceit), is responsible for extending the life cycle or the round of rebirth that is known as sa.msaara. On account of this fact, lobha, di.t.thi and maana are collectively called 'papa~nca dhamma'. peace, connie 37722 From: m. nease Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Connie and Htoo, Many thanks Htoo for the Queens--interesting, Connie--I don't recall hearing of this connection between papa~nca, maana and di.t.thi before. All very useful I think--if one thinks that concepts can be useful (and of course I do). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "connieparker" To: "dsg" Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) > Hi, Htoo (and Herman), > Thanks for king lobha and the two queens, Htoo. > Just reading Dr. Mehm Tin Mon's Ultimate Science - THE ESSENCE OF BUDDHA > ABHIDHAMMA and he writes: Lobha, together with its two great followers, > i.e., di.t.thi (wrong view) and maana (conceit), is responsible for > extending the life cycle or the round of rebirth that is known as > sa.msaara. On account of this fact, lobha, di.t.thi and maana are > collectively called 'papa~nca dhamma'. > peace, > connie 37723 From: antony272b2 Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Future Potential of Sense-objects Dear Howard, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The word "fragile" is a word I used this morning to describe my computer. Only one connection (e.g. the mouse socket - I asked my father for a new mouse) has to fail and I may need a new computer and my relationship with my father would be strained. He has a very wise expression: "LEEEVE THIIINGSSS ALOOONE!" Do you think that the resistance to the perception of things breaking up is the "deja vu" effect where we believe that we have experienced the arising objects before in a reliable state? My limited practice of Dependent Origination is to say: "This is contact (phassa)". This seems to give relief from discursive thought although thoughts are contact at the mind-door. Thanks again for your reply. with metta / Antony. 37724 From: Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Future Potential of Sense-objects Hi, Antony - In a message dated 10/23/04 9:30:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, antony272b@h... writes: > Do you think that the resistance to the perception of things breaking > up is the "deja vu" effect where we believe that we have experienced > the arising objects before in a reliable state? > ======================= I think that the resistance to the perception of things breaking up is due to our desire for stability - for an anchor, and to our fear of shifting sands and the world's slipping out from under our feet as in an earthquake. The irony is that the sands *are* shifting, there *is* no firm footing, and the only real stability obtainable is obtained by letting go. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37725 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:58pm Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching / Was The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi DN, I wrote: -------------- > > . . . . . I gather also that they sometimes clench their teeth when kusala citta is suppressing the hindrances. > > -------------- To which you replied: ----------- > I think the text is describing something rather more proactive than your paraphrase would suggest: > ----------- There are only conditioned dhammas in the world, so it stands to reason that there can't be anything more (or less) proactive than conditioned dhammas. In the remainder of your message you offer no thoughts on what the "something more" might be. Do you believe in an eternal soul? I ask that in all seriousness because I know some Buddhists do. The people behind AccessToInsight, for example, are dedicated to putting the self back into the Dhamma. They share your aversion to a teaching of ultimate reality because that teaching makes no allowance for a possible "something more." It teaches there are only dhammas and that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta while the one unconditioned dhamma is anatta. (No scope for a "something more.") In a subsequent post you write: ------------------- > There are many statements of this kind in the Suttas, but none that say, or even imply: "My teaching is all about ultimate and irreducible physical and psychical atoms." > ------------------- It's amazing that people can have such radically different views of the dhamma - ranging from "all about conditioned dhammas" to "nothing about conditioned dhammas." :-) --------------- > The above Sutta is simply concerned with di.t.thadhammikattha, 'benefit to be obtained in the present life'. It comprises four common-sense prudential maxims for householders who desire their families and family property to be stable and long-lasting. Nothing more. ----------------- Do you ever wonder why the Bodhisattva wandered samsara for countless aeons developing a simplistic, introductory lesson in home economics? What is the meaning of "they" "things" and "a man or a woman" in: "They look for things they have lost. They repair thin?s that are old. They eat and drink moderately. They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of virtue." Ken H 37726 From: nori Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:58pm Subject: Details on Vedana Hi Dhamma Friends, I think it is a common misunderstanding, as expressed by some in the past, that Vedana (feeling) is understood as being exclusively 'a mind born emotional feeling' and discludes bodily sensation via contact of body sense (organ). I think the error comes from an association made with nama and rupa, being thus: nama is associated with, exclusively, Vedana (feeling) which originates in the mind, and Rupa associated with "bodily sensation" via contact of body sense. But in the Maha-Satipathana Sutta it says explicitly: "And how does a monk remain focused on feelings (Vedana) in & of themselves?...When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh. When feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh. ..." So it is clear from this that the term Vedana (feeling) encompasses both feelings/sensations of the flesh and not of the flesh. It encompasses both sensation born via contact of body sense organ, and feeling born from the mind. I can imagine some others, as I have, confuse the first frame of reference to be referring to bodily sensation and the second to feeling born of the mind. ...but the first frame of reference regarding (Kaya) body/aggregate is NOT referring to bodily sensation which is actually part of the second frame of reference. The first frame of reference is referring to Kaya/body/aggregate in the sense of what it is about, or having clear comprehension, awareness of it; its constitution, and its disposition ... its nature. with metta, nori 37727 From: dighanakha Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:32pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Hello Suan. S> I got the impression that Howard and you were unhappy about S> Aacariya Buddhagosa and other Theravaada commentators S> treating phasso as a paramattha dhamma (as one of the S> ultimate realities) - by the strength of the formula S> S> "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". S> S> Was my impression correct? No, I'm afraid not. The discussion was about whether the thing called contact in the Suttas is the same as the thing called contact in the Atthasaalinii. Or to be more precise, it was about whether the descriptions attached to the term 'contact' in these two texts are sufficiently close and compatible to count as descriptions of the same referent. At the end of my last post you will see that I included Howard's summary of where the Suttas and Atthasaalinii appear to differ. Neither of us has raised the question of phassa being or not being an ultimate reality. But now that you've brought the matter up, I suppose we could add "being an ultimate reality" to the list of attributes predicated of phassa in the Commentaries, but not mentioned by the Buddha in the Suttas. As to whether I'm unhappy about Buddhaghosa's description of phassa, I would have to say no. I believe he is wrong, but this doesn't cause me unhappiness. We are, after all, dealing with a man who believed the sun and moon are only 8 km apart, and who thought feral children would grow up speaking Pali, so we shouldn't be surprised or upset if he blunders when dealing with more subtle matters known only to Buddhas and noble disciples. A man with such a tenuous grasp of ordinary reality is unlikely to get it right about ultimate reality. S> The way Aacariya Buddhaghosa understood phasso is in line S> with what Gotama the Buddha taught phasso in S> Dhammasa`nganii. S> For example, S> "2. Katamo tasmim samaye phasso hoti? Yo tasmim samaye S> phasso phusanaa samphusanaa samphusitattam: ayam tasmim S> samaye phasso hoti." Translation: "What, on that occasion, is contact? Anything which on that occasion is contact, contacting, way of contacting, the state of contacting: this, on that occasion, is called contact." In future I should appreciate it if you would supply your own translations when you post Pali quotes. Although most of the dsg members seem to have a large vocabulary of Pali technical terms, I don't think there are many who can actually read the language. It would also be helpful if you would add some words of explanation, clarifying how you understand the passage and how you think it supports your point, rather than just assuming that this will be obvious to everyone. Regarding the quote from the Dhs. it seems to me that though it is different from the description in the Madhupi.n.dika and Dutiyadvaya Suttas, it does not unambiguously show contact to be something distinct from the coming together of the internal and external aayatanas and consciousness (as maintained by Buddhaghosa). I would be tentatively inclined to take it as a definition of the term rather than a description of its referent. But I look forward to further exegesis from you. dig>> If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us dig>> the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely dig>> assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting dig>> our time by disagreeing. S> I would not merely assert that you and Howard were S> mistaken, But you did. All the same, I'm thankful that you undertake not to do it again. S> but I will note that you both seemed to be suffering from S> short-sightedness due to anti-Abhidhamma and anti-Commentary S> preconceptions and influences (wrong schooling and reading S> the wrong books by speculative academics such as David S> Kalupahana and the like?) Like the sort of short-sightedness that led SE Asia's foremost abhidhammikas to be still insisting on the truth of the flat earth Sineru cosmology well into the 20th century? In fact my view of the Commentaries is not a preconception, but a judgement I arrived at *after* studying them under the guidance of teachers trained in the Theravaada tradition. So it's a postconception, if there is such a word. As for Kalupahana, he hasn't been an important influence on me at all. On those points where I agree with him I had already formed my own judgement before I had read a single word by him. Staying on the subject of Kalupahana, I am intrigued to see him described as 'speculative'. Those buddhologists who criticize him and his mentor, Dr. Jayatilleke, usually allege that they go overboard in trying to make Buddhism seem more empirical and scientific than it really is, and downplay the role of saddhaa (cf. Jan Ergardt, "Faith & Knowledge in Early Buddhism"; Frank Hoffman, "Rationality & Mind in Early Buddhism"; and Rupert Gethin's book on the enlightenment factors). Nevertheless, Kalupahana is very careful to back up his arguments, point by point, by appeal to the texts, so it's strange to hear him being called 'speculative'. May I ask which of his books has led you to this conclusion? Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by 'speculative' -- it's an adjective you seem to apply rather liberally to people you disagree with. S> As you insisted that I will need to do more than merely S> assert your disagreement with Abhidhamma to be a mistake, I S> looked at the treatment of phasso in Atthasalini again. I didn't insist that you do anything. I simply offered what Kantians would call a hypothetical imperative: "IF you wish to persuade me .... then you will need to ...." S> We read the following statement: S> "Tikasannipaatasa`nkhaatassa pana attano kaara.nassa vasena S> paveditattaa sannipaatapaccupa.t.thaano. Aya~nhi tattha S> tattha "ti.n.nam sa`ngati phasso"ti evam kaara.nassa vasena S> paveditoti. Imassa ca suttapadassa ti.n.nam sa`ngatiyaa phassoti S> ayamattho; na sa`ngatimattameva phassoti." S> The above statement does take into account the Suttam S> folmula ""Cakkhu~nca, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". S> Aacariya Buddhaghosa clearly explained the word "sa`ngati" S> to be understood as "san`ngatiyaa". [For non-Pali readers: sangati means 'the coming together' and is in the nominative case, meaning that it's the subject of a sentence. Sangatiyaa is the causal ablative case of the same word and means 'due to the coming together'. So Dr. Buddhaghosa is saying that the "coming together of eye, forms and eye-consciousness" really means "BECAUSE OF the coming together..."] He didn't "clearly explain it". He simply asserted that 'sangati' means 'sangatiyaa'. The problem with this is that no Sutta contains the form 'sangatiyaa' in this context. Do you think the Buddha was incapable of saying 'sangatiyaa' if that was what he meant? Or to put it another way, why did the Buddha choose to say 'sangati' if that wasn't what he really meant? This definition of phassa is given 33 times in the Suttas and in none of them does the Buddha say 'sangatiyaa' or add any other words implying 'sangatiyaa'. [As an aside, there is a Sarvaastivaadin Aagama Sutra that DOES contain the form sa.mgate.h (the Sanskrit equivalent of sangatiyaa) in this context. The Sarvaastivaadins used this to support their own conception of phassa, which is substantially the same as that of the Mahaavihaara monks. The Sautraantikas rejected it because their Sutras -- like the Pali Suttas -- did not contain this form. But I suppose that wouldn't really help your case, would it? I mean we don't want to go slumming with them Sarvaastivaadins. ;-) Still, for anyone interested I will give the passage in my postscript] S> For now, please kindly look at again the Pali passage quoted S> from Atthasalinii, and I am sure you are comfortable with S> the Pali, if not with the meaning of it. S> Now I asked you the following questions. S> 1. Do you understand the quoted Pali statement from S> Atthasanili? Yes. In fact I posted a translation of it last week. S> You may, of course, assure us of your understanding by S> translating it. See message 37623. S> 2. If so, do you agree with it? S> 3. If not, what are the reasons for your disagreement (apart S> from the apparent difference from the Suttam formula on S> phasso under discussion). In message 37623 you will see I have already stated my disagreement and the reasons for it. Its discrepancy with the Sutta description is the major reason and that alone would be a sufficient cause to reject it (cf. the four great standards of the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta). There are other reasons that lie outside the scope of dsg, since they would require introducing Sautraantika doctrines to the discussion. I would also note that the lateness of the Atthasalini's conception of phassa is evidenced by the fact that in the Kathavatthu's debates there is an implicit rejection of the view tena phassena ta.m phassa.m phusati (by that contact that contact contacts) in no fewer than three of the debates (see: Kvu. Part V: Pa.tuppanna~naa.nakathaa; Part XIII Samaapanno assaadetikathaa; and Part XVI Adhigayhamanasikaarakathaa). So it seems the Atthasaalinii's view of phassa as being in the nature of an agent rather than an event was not held by the Theravaadins at the time of the 3rd Council. S> I hope that I did not impose on you too much difficult S> questioning, but then again, you were challenging Abhidhamma S> Pitaka and Standard Pali Commentaries wittingly or S> unwittingly. S> As you read Pali, you need to take more responsibility when S> making statements that contradict Abhidhamma and Standard S> Pali Commentaries which have been being preserved and S> transmitted, with greatest reverence, by generations after S> generations of learned Theravaada ascetics in various S> countries. I suppose I could reply: "As you read Pali, you need to take more responsibility when making statements that contradict Suttas that were taught by the Buddha and preserved by arahants." But I won't. You would probably answer that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries were also taught by the Buddha and preserved by arahants. I would then deny this and we'd just end up going on a fruitless dance around the mulberry bush. I suggest a better course would be for you to trust that however misguided you think I am, I am nevertheless putting forward my understanding in good faith and not with the aim of harming the Saasanaa. I trust likewise that this is the case with you. Then, instead of appealing to the authority of tradition ("generations after generations"), hearsay or faith ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all arahants"), you should just stick to discussing what the texts are saying, relying on reason and evidence rather than argumenta ad hominem and ad antiquitatem. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ P.S. For anyone interested, I am appending a discussion of phassa from the Abhidharmakosabhasyam. This work is a commentary (bhaasyam) on a Sarvastivadin Abhidharma treatise (the Abhidharmakosa). Both the treatise and its commentary are by Vasubandhu who appears to favour the Sautraantika perspective (though unlike Buddhaghosa & Co., he does give a fair and sympathetic account of his opponents' views). As you will see, disagreement on the subject of phassa is nothing new. My notes are in square brackets. [To Sugeniuses: POTENTIAL HERESY COMING UP - DELETE THE POST NOW!] _____________________________ What is the nature of contact? The aacaaryas are not in agreement. The Sautraantikas say: "Contact is merely the coming together itself." They support this view citing the Sutra, "The coming together, the encounter, the meeting of these three dharmas is contact." The Sarvaastivaadins say: "Contact is a dharma associated with a citta, distinct from the coming together."* They support this view citing the Satsatka Sutra,** "The six internal bases [aayatanas, eye, ear etc.], the six external bases, the six consciousnesses, the six contacts, the six feelings, and the six cravings." The Sutra, they claim, knows of the six contacts, together with the six categories of internal bases, external bases, and the consciousnesses; thus the contacts are separate dharmas, for the Sutra does not contain any repetition or double usages. [* cf Atthasaalinii 109. ** the Sanskrit version of the Chachakka Sutta MN 148] The Sautraantikas reply, explaining this Sutra thus: "If the Sutra did not contain any repetition, it would follow that feelings and cravings would exist apart from the dharmas-base (dharmaayatana) which is the sixth external base, the object of the mind-base (manaayatana), since you can hold only that the first two categories (six organs and objects) refer to the organs and objects without any relation to the consciousnesses." A second Sautraantika reply, from Bhadanta Srilaabha: "Every eye and visible object is not the cause of a visual consciousness, as all visual consciousness is not the result of the eye and a visible thing. Thus what is defined as contact in the Satsatka Sutra is the eye, a visible thing, and the consciousness which are cause and effect." But how do the Sarvaastivaadins, who maintain that contact is something distinct from the coming together of an eye, visible object and consciousness, explain the Sutra passage, "The coming together, the encounter, the meeting of these three dharmas is contact" ? They do not read the Sutra in this form*; or rather, they say that the expression is metaphorical**: when the Sutra says "the coming together" they claim that it really means "the result of the coming together." [* their version is: ya e.saa.m dharmaa.na.m sa.mgate.h sa.mnipaataat samavaayaat sa spar"sa.h. ** cf. discussion of Dhp. 194 at Path of Purification XVII 16] But this discussion is taking us too far afield. (Abhidharmakosabhasya III 30b-d) An abrupt and disappointing end. Luckily Vasubandhu was a bit of an erratic writer and so a few pages later he changes his mind and resumes the discussion. If the moderators don't mind I will post the rest of it in future postscripts. 37728 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hello Ken H. K>>> I gather also that they sometimes clench their teeth when K>>> kusala citta is suppressing the hindrances. K> To which you replied: dig>> I think the text is describing something rather more dig>> proactive than your paraphrase would suggest: K> There are only conditioned dhammas in the world, so it K> stands to reason that there can't be anything more (or less) K> proactive than conditioned dhammas. K> In the remainder of your message you offer no thoughts on K> what the "something more" might be. In your original post you had interpreted an exhortation ("he SHOULD beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind") as if it were merely a narration or description of certain things that might happen. This is a misuse of language and does violence to the meaning and purpose of the passage. By "something more proactive" I meant that the Buddha in this passage is giving an instruction relating to mind development that a person should deliberately undertake. There is no suggestion that the bhikkhu just passively waits for teeth-clenching and "constraining mind by mind" to occur by itself. Now perhaps it would be possible to use some other mode of discourse to describe what is going on when the monk clenches his teeth and endeavours to constrain mind with mind, e.g. an explication in terms of paramattha dhammas. And such a description might, for all I know, be an accurate one. But to say that this is what the Buddha really *meant* is simply a falsehood. His discourse is advisory or homiletic and to convert it into a descriptive mode of discourse is to eviscerate it. K> Do you believe in an eternal soul? No, I don't. But your question hardly seems apropos of the Vitakkasanthaana Sutta. K> I ask that in all seriousness because I know some Buddhists K> do. I expect that there are, though I'm a little bemused by this sudden preoccupation with eternal souls. Were you perhaps wondering whether *you* might have one? K> The people behind AccessToInsight, for example, are K> dedicated to putting the self back into the Dhamma. If you mean the venerable Thanissaro, I can't agree with you. His take on anattaa is idiosyncratic and not how this doctrine was understood by any of the Indian aacaariyas, but nevertheless it's quite distinct from both the Vedantic interpretation of Mrs Rhys Davids (and numerous others) and the neo-Pudgalavaadin interpretation of George Grimm and A.P. Buddhadatta. I think Thanissaro might well be convicted on a charge of eel-wriggling, but not eternalism. His 'strategic interpretation' is in essence a dumbed down version of a thesis first proposed by the Austrian scholar Erich Frauwallner in the late 1950's. Frauwallner was famous for his skill in propounding eccentric theories plausibly enough for them to be taken seriously for a year or so, before he himself would disown them. His most famous and long-lasting one was the "Two Vasubandhus Theory" which was taken seriously for nearly two decades. As for the "Strategic Anatta Theory", this was shot down by buddhologists from all sides, disowned by Frauwallner himself within a year of it being published, and would have been all but forgotten were it not for Thanissaro. I suspect it may also be from Frauwallner that Thanissaro picked up his curious ideas on what Indians thought about extinguished fires. K> They share your aversion to a teaching of ultimate reality K> because that teaching makes no allowance for a possible K> "something more." It teaches there are only dhammas and that K> all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta while K> the one unconditioned dhamma is anatta. (No scope for a K> "something more.") I am very unmystical and not at all a 'something more' enthusiast. But if you are trying to imply that the only possibilities are being a believer in physical and psychical atoms or being an eternalist, and that if I'm not the former then I must be the latter, then I'd say you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation, for there are plenty of other possibilities besides these two. One might, for example, accept that there are only dhammas, but not go along with how this or that Abhidharma tradition conceives dhammas. One might be a Puggalavaadin, with a dharmas theory AND a transmigrating 'person' who is held to be inscrutable but not eternal, and who is extinguished in parinirvana; one might be a Sautrantika and conceive of dharmas as thing-events rather than things; one might take the Dhamma as a 'leap philosophy' in which all such conceivings are to be eschewed. dig>> There are many statements of this kind in the Suttas, but dig>> none that say, or even imply: "My teaching is all about dig>> ultimate and irreducible physical and psychical atoms." K> It's amazing that people can have such radically different K> views of the dhamma - ranging from "all about conditioned K> dhammas" to "nothing about conditioned dhammas." I think it comes partly from a tendency to recklessly venture opinions without having studied the teaching very much, and partly from a tendency to speak one-sidedly (eka.msavaadii) and to fail to make necessary distinctions and qualifications. In my post I mentioned the distinction between the three kinds of benefit that the Buddha taught. Another one is the distinction between the 'Dhamma teaching specific to Buddhas' (buddhaana.m saamukka.msikaa dhammadesanaa) -- meaning the four noble truths -- and then everything else that a Buddha happens to teach, but which unawakened persons might also be able to teach. When one considers the range of teachings that lie within each of these two categories, one ought to see that both of the claims you have cited above rather exceed what can be supported in the Suttas. dig>> The above Sutta is simply concerned with dig>> di.t.thadhammikattha, 'benefit to be obtained in the present dig>> life'. It comprises four common-sense prudential maxims for dig>> householders who desire their families and family property dig>> to be stable and long-lasting. Nothing more. K> Do you ever wonder why the Bodhisattva wandered samsara for K> countless aeons developing a simplistic, introductory lesson K> in home economics? No, it isn't a subject I wonder about. Should I? K> What is the meaning of "they" "things" and "a man or a K> woman" in: K> "They look for things they have lost. K> They repair things that are old. K> They eat and drink moderately. K> They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of K> virtue." Really Ken, at your age you shouldn't expect other people to fill in ALL the gaps in your knowledge. Can't you think the answers out for yourself? Very well then, here goes:- "They" is a pronoun standing for two or more items or persons; in this case it refers to families whose conduct will conduce to their long-lastingness. "Things" could mean any items that a householder might conceivably mislay. So, in your case it might include your lunchbox, satchel, teddybear, tricycle, surfboard, toothbrush, plastic duck etc. etc.; or anything you own that might go astray: dogs, emus, ostriches, guinea pigs inflatable sheep etc. etc. "A man or a woman" means an adult male or female human. In this context it refers to those male or female humans who might be appointed to some position of stewardship or governorship. In your case it would mean your mother should not employ as a nanny some wanton wench who is likely to lead you astray. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37729 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:29am Subject: Concepts as condition beyond our control (was Re: [dsg] Re: killing in a dream) Hello Htoo and all Thank you for your feedback, Htoo. Ph: > It's interesting though, that in my case at least, an action in a > dream can - rarely-really reverberate the following day. That very > reverberation suggests that the dream has some kind of conditioning > power. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- : > Htoo> I don't think so. The dream itself is a concept and sannakkhanda > bring that concept. Ph: But cannot concepts also act as conditioning factors? I quote from Nina's "Conditions": "Not only realities but also concepts can be a natural decisive support-condition for phenomena. (snip) The concept of a person can then be a natural decisive support-condition for attachment or loving-kindness. (snip) We need to think of concepts in order to take care of ourselves or in order to understand the Dhmma, and thus, time and again in our daily life concepts condition different types of citta by way of natural decisive support-conditioning." (end quote) If a powerfully vivid concept arises in a dream, I would think it could condition cittas in the same way as if it were a concept fabricated in waking life. It would seem to me that this can be confirmed by experience. I mean, if I have a horrible dream, and feel aversion the next day, that dosa was conditioned by the dream, surely. Htoo> Actually, the power is in you. This sentence may be interpreted in > many different way. Philosophically, this is right. Socially, this is > also right. Morally, this again is right. From some other believers > point of view, this is also right. > > The power is inside of you. Not in the dreams. For those who > believe 'Buddha Nature', this is also right as 'Buddha Nature' is > inside of you. ( I include this because there are Mahayanists here ). > For those who believe kamma, this is also right. As at the point of > waking up the dream has given you past kamma but this should not lead > you to commiting new kamma. For not committing new ones, the power is > inside of you. Phil: I must say this puzzles me a bit, Htoo. There are conditions at work. There is the potential for right understanding in me that may gradually eradicate defilements, but the "power is in you" sounds like something I can grab hold on to at will, and I don't think that's right. It could be a matter of wording. The power is the potential to have right understanding of the dosa that arises because of the dream, to understand that the dosa is conditioned, and not-self, to see that and be detached from it. But the condition is still there at work, surely. I mean, if I feel aversion because of the dream, what else could it be except a condition at work? Again, I'm just beginning to learn about conditons. Htoo > Here, there is no you but the power is inside of you. You are the > master of your kamma even though there have never been you there. So > the dream should not at any moment lead you the whole day. Phil: Should not, ideally, if I have the right understanding to see the dosa for what it is. But that right understanding is not-self, not within my immediate control. Htoo> It has been far away to condition thinking as the dream has passed > away when you wake up. But what conditions your thinking is that your > thinking itself. This again is directed by yourself. Actually you are > the master of the day and the master is not the dream. Phil: Htoo! "Master of the day?!?" That sounds like a action movie title, not anatta! Have you been taking Dhamma steroids! (joke) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Phil: > > And there is unpleasant mental feeling as well. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > This is cognition of vedana which is a reality. If this is done > properly, this is kusala citta and this will finally lead you to > enlightenment. Ph: Ah yes, as I learned from Nina, if there is dosa or lobha and I am mindful of it as anatta, the citta will then be kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Phil: > > I'm also interested in the way the first thought that pops into our > head as we wake in the morning can condition many thoughts during the > rest of the day. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Interesting. But it is not the only condition for the whole day. If > this is so, you have surrendered the mastery through out the day. > Should this happen? No. I would not allow such matter. Ph: I'm still interested in this. The way the thought stands out so clearly, sometimes, when we wake. But Htoo, how can you demand mastery when each lifetime is conditioned in an irreversible way by the patisandhi citta (spelling?) There is only so much we should expect to control. Yes, there is always the opportunity to have right understanding of realities, thus liberating us from creating fresh akusala kamma, but I think "surrendering the mastery" is part and parcel of the renunciation that is one of the Paramis. Of course it is all very subtle. We see that in the "crossing the flood" sutta. We don't press ahead too hard, but we don't stand still either. Thank you, Htoo. I teased you in a friendly way about "master of the day" but truly it is good to read stirring encouragement like that. I talk of having no control over things, but there *is* control arising, of course, thanks to wisdom we gain from the Buddha's teaching, and examination of our experience, and Dhamma discussion with good Dhamma friends. But it is control that we should be very wary of thinking we can exercise at will just because a friend tells us we can. It has to arise, or not arise, in a conditioned way, I think. Otherwise it can turn into a self-preservation exercise, especially for beginners like me. Metta, Phil 37730 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:42am Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hello Ken H. K>>> I gather also that they sometimes clench their teeth when K>>> kusala citta is suppressing the hindrances. K> To which you replied: dig>> I think the text is describing something rather more dig>> proactive than your paraphrase would suggest: K> There are only conditioned dhammas in the world, so it K> stands to reason that there can't be anything more (or less) K> proactive than conditioned dhammas. K> In the remainder of your message you offer no thoughts on K> what the "something more" might be. In your original post you had interpreted an exhortation ("he SHOULD beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind") as if it were merely a narration or description of certain things that might happen. This is an abuse of language and does violence to the meaning and purpose of the passage. By "something more proactive" I meant that the Buddha in this passage is giving an instruction relating to mind development that a bhikkhu should deliberately undertake. There is no suggestion that the bhikkhu just passively waits for "teeth-clenching" and "constraining mind by mind" to occur by itself. Now *maybe* it would be possible to use another mode of discourse in which one narrates what is going on when the bhikkhu clenches his teeth and endeavours to constrain mind with mind, e.g. an explication in terms of supposed paramattha dhammas. But even if this explication were an accurate one it would nonetheless be false to claim that this was what the Buddha *really meant* or that this would be an equivalent statement. No 'ought' statement can be the equivalent of an 'is' statement. The two are just not commensurate. The Buddha's mode of discourse in the Vitakkasanthana Sutta is advisory or homiletic and to convert this into a descriptive mode of discourse would be to eviscerate it. The full meaning and function of an utterance lies not only in its propositional content, but also in the outcome that the speaker anticipates his words will have. An utterance that is an incitant to a certain course of action is just not the same as a description of what will be going on if/when the listener undertakes that course of action. Am I making myself clear? K> Do you believe in an eternal soul? No, I don't. But your question hardly seems apropos of the Vitakkasanthaana Sutta. K> I ask that in all seriousness because I know some Buddhists K> do. I'll take your word for it, though frankly I'm a little puzzled by this sudden preoccupation with eternal souls. Were you perhaps wondering if *you* might have one? If so, wouldn't it be better to go and talk it over with your parish vicar? K> The people behind AccessToInsight, for example, are K> dedicated to putting the self back into the Dhamma. If you mean the venerable Thanissaro, I can't agree with you. His take on anattaa is idiosyncratic and not how this doctrine was understood by any of the Indian aacaariyas, but nevertheless it's quite distinct from both the Vedantic interpretation of Mrs Rhys Davids (and numerous others) and the neo-Pudgalavaadin interpretation of George Grimm and A.P. Buddhadatta. I think Thanissaro might well be convicted on a charge of eel-wriggling, but not eternalism. His 'strategic interpretation' is in essence a dumbed down version of a thesis first proposed by the Austrian scholar Erich Frauwallner in the late 1950's. Frauwallner was famous for his skill in propounding eccentric theories plausibly enough for them to be taken seriously for a year or so, before he himself would disown them. His most famous and long-lasting one was the "Two Vasubandhus Theory" which was taken seriously for nearly two decades. As for the "Strategic Anatta Theory", this was shot down by buddhologists from all sides, disowned by Frauwallner himself within a year of it being published, and would have been all but forgotten were it not for Thanissaro. I suspect it may also be from Frauwallner that Thanissaro picked up his curious ideas on what Indians thought about extinguished fires. K> They share your aversion to a teaching of ultimate reality K> because that teaching makes no allowance for a possible K> "something more." It teaches there are only dhammas and that K> all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta while K> the one unconditioned dhamma is anatta. (No scope for a K> "something more.") I am very unmystical and not at all a 'something more' enthusiast. But if you are trying to imply that the only possibilities are being a believer in physical and psychical atoms or being an eternalist, and that if I'm not the former then I must be the latter, then I'd say you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation, for there are plenty of other possibilities besides these two. One might, for example, accept that there are only dhammas, but not go along with how this or that Abhidharma tradition conceives dhammas. One might be a Puggalavaadin, with a dharmas theory AND a transmigrating 'person' who is held to be inscrutable but not eternal, and who is extinguished in parinirvana; one might be a Sautrantika and conceive of dharmas as thing-events rather than things; one might take the Dhamma as a 'leap philosophy' in which all such conceivings are to be eschewed. dig>> There are many statements of this kind in the Suttas, but dig>> none that say, or even imply: "My teaching is all about dig>> ultimate and irreducible physical and psychical atoms." K> It's amazing that people can have such radically different K> views of the dhamma - ranging from "all about conditioned K> dhammas" to "nothing about conditioned dhammas." I think it comes partly from a tendency to recklessly venture opinions without having studied the teaching very much, and partly from a tendency to speak one-sidedly (eka.msavaadii) and to fail to make necessary distinctions and qualifications. In my post I mentioned the distinction between the three kinds of benefit that the Buddha taught. Another one is the distinction between the 'Dhamma teaching specific to Buddhas' (buddhaana.m saamukka.msikaa dhammadesanaa) -- meaning the four noble truths -- and then everything else that a Buddha happens to teach, but which unawakened persons might also be able to teach. When one considers the range of teachings that lie within each of these two categories, one ought to see that both of the claims you have cited above rather exceed what can be supported in the Suttas. dig>> The above Sutta is simply concerned with dig>> di.t.thadhammikattha, 'benefit to be obtained in the present dig>> life'. It comprises four common-sense prudential maxims for dig>> householders who desire their families and family property dig>> to be stable and long-lasting. Nothing more. K> Do you ever wonder why the Bodhisattva wandered samsara for K> countless aeons developing a simplistic, introductory lesson K> in home economics? No, it isn't a subject I wonder about. Should I? K> What is the meaning of "they" "things" and "a man or a K> woman" in: K> "They look for things they have lost. K> They repair things that are old. K> They eat and drink moderately. K> They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of K> virtue." Really Ken, at your age you shouldn't expect other people to fill in ALL the gaps in your knowledge. And these are simple words that you should already know by now. I suggest you try and get your mummy to buy you a picture dictionary in time for your twelfth birthday. Okay, here goes:- "They" is a pronoun standing for a plurality of items or persons. Like all pronouns it's an indexical term, which means that it takes its meaning from the context in which it is spoken. So, in this case it refers to families whose conduct will conduce to their long-lastingness. "Things" could mean any items that a householder might conceivably mislay. So, in your case it might include your lunchbox, satchel, teddybear, tricycle, surfboard, toothbrush, plastic duck etc. etc.; or anything you own that might go astray: dogs, rabbits, cats, guinea pigs, inflatable ostriches etc. etc. "A man or a woman" means an adult male or female human. In this context it refers to those male or female humans who might be appointed to some position of stewardship or governorship. In your case it would mean your mother should not employ as a nanny some wanton wench who is likely to lead you into bad habits. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37731 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:46am Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Dear Dighanakha, Howard, Nina, Robert k, Mike Nease, Chris, Andrew T, Phil and all How are you? Dighanakha, thank you for your considered reply to my challenge, and for providing materials on the issue from other sources as well. This post is to only acknowledge that I have read your reply. I won't be writing a rebuttal now. You still have time to reform, though. That is to say, you still have time to read carefully the Suttams under consideration and discover how they support Abhidhamma, Atthasalinii and other Standard Pali commentaries on the issue. When I write my critical arguments against your Sautrantika views on the issue and for upholding the views of Abhidhamma, Atthasalinii and Standard Pali commentaries, I will show how the Suttams support the latter. You wrote: "I suggest a better course would be for you to trust that however misguided you think I am, I am nevertheless putting forward my understanding in good faith and not with the aim of harming the Saasanaa. I trust likewise that this is the case with you. Then, instead of appealing to the authority of tradition ("generations after generations"), hearsay or faith ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all arahants"), you should just stick to discussing what the texts are saying, relying on reason and evidence rather than argumenta ad hominem and ad antiquitatem." I agree with what you wrote in the above paragraph. Our main objective in our discussion, even if in the form of debating, should be to find out the truth by relying on reason and evidence. I am glad to hear that you are putting forward your understanding in good faith as best you can. I can assure you that I have the same sentiments. So we will proceed from here with the mutual aim of upholding Buddha Saasana. With kind regards, Suan PS.. I have successfully experimented a discussion forum on the bodhiology website where Pali fonts can appear and there are no ads. When I have spare time, I will open the discussion forum where you can unleash your scholarship and academic prowess without constraints and conditions. When it is ready, I will let you and others know who might be interested in specialist issues in Pali Buddhism. Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: Hello Suan. S> I got the impression that Howard and you were unhappy about S> Aacariya Buddhagosa and other Theravaada commentators S> treating phasso as a paramattha dhamma (as one of the S> ultimate realities) - by the strength of the formula S> S> "Cakkhu~ncaavuso, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". S> S> Was my impression correct? No, I'm afraid not. The discussion was about whether the thing called contact in the Suttas is the same as the thing called contact in the Atthasaalinii. Or to be more precise, it was about whether the descriptions attached to the term 'contact' in these two texts are sufficiently close and compatible to count as descriptions of the same referent. At the end of my last post you will see that I included Howard's summary of where the Suttas and Atthasaalinii appear to differ. Neither of us has raised the question of phassa being or not being an ultimate reality. But now that you've brought the matter up, I suppose we could add "being an ultimate reality" to the list of attributes predicated of phassa in the Commentaries, but not mentioned by the Buddha in the Suttas. As to whether I'm unhappy about Buddhaghosa's description of phassa, I would have to say no. I believe he is wrong, but this doesn't cause me unhappiness. We are, after all, dealing with a man who believed the sun and moon are only 8 km apart, and who thought feral children would grow up speaking Pali, so we shouldn't be surprised or upset if he blunders when dealing with more subtle matters known only to Buddhas and noble disciples. A man with such a tenuous grasp of ordinary reality is unlikely to get it right about ultimate reality. S> The way Aacariya Buddhaghosa understood phasso is in line S> with what Gotama the Buddha taught phasso in S> Dhammasa`nganii. S> For example, S> "2. Katamo tasmim samaye phasso hoti? Yo tasmim samaye S> phasso phusanaa samphusanaa samphusitattam: ayam tasmim S> samaye phasso hoti." Translation: "What, on that occasion, is contact? Anything which on that occasion is contact, contacting, way of contacting, the state of contacting: this, on that occasion, is called contact." In future I should appreciate it if you would supply your own translations when you post Pali quotes. Although most of the dsg members seem to have a large vocabulary of Pali technical terms, I don't think there are many who can actually read the language. It would also be helpful if you would add some words of explanation, clarifying how you understand the passage and how you think it supports your point, rather than just assuming that this will be obvious to everyone. Regarding the quote from the Dhs. it seems to me that though it is different from the description in the Madhupi.n.dika and Dutiyadvaya Suttas, it does not unambiguously show contact to be something distinct from the coming together of the internal and external aayatanas and consciousness (as maintained by Buddhaghosa). I would be tentatively inclined to take it as a definition of the term rather than a description of its referent. But I look forward to further exegesis from you. dig>> If you believe us to be mistaken and would like to show us dig>> the error of our ways, you will need to do more than merely dig>> assert this to be the case and then tell us we are wasting dig>> our time by disagreeing. S> I would not merely assert that you and Howard were S> mistaken, But you did. All the same, I'm thankful that you undertake not to do it again. S> but I will note that you both seemed to be suffering from S> short-sightedness due to anti-Abhidhamma and anti-Commentary S> preconceptions and influences (wrong schooling and reading S> the wrong books by speculative academics such as David S> Kalupahana and the like?) Like the sort of short-sightedness that led SE Asia's foremost abhidhammikas to be still insisting on the truth of the flat earth Sineru cosmology well into the 20th century? In fact my view of the Commentaries is not a preconception, but a judgement I arrived at *after* studying them under the guidance of teachers trained in the Theravaada tradition. So it's a postconception, if there is such a word. As for Kalupahana, he hasn't been an important influence on me at all. On those points where I agree with him I had already formed my own judgement before I had read a single word by him. Staying on the subject of Kalupahana, I am intrigued to see him described as 'speculative'. Those buddhologists who criticize him and his mentor, Dr. Jayatilleke, usually allege that they go overboard in trying to make Buddhism seem more empirical and scientific than it really is, and downplay the role of saddhaa (cf. Jan Ergardt, "Faith & Knowledge in Early Buddhism"; Frank Hoffman, "Rationality & Mind in Early Buddhism"; and Rupert Gethin's book on the enlightenment factors). Nevertheless, Kalupahana is very careful to back up his arguments, point by point, by appeal to the texts, so it's strange to hear him being called 'speculative'. May I ask which of his books has led you to this conclusion? Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by 'speculative' -- it's an adjective you seem to apply rather liberally to people you disagree with. S> As you insisted that I will need to do more than merely S> assert your disagreement with Abhidhamma to be a mistake, I S> looked at the treatment of phasso in Atthasalini again. I didn't insist that you do anything. I simply offered what Kantians would call a hypothetical imperative: "IF you wish to persuade me .... then you will need to ...." S> We read the following statement: S> "Tikasannipaatasa`nkhaatassa pana attano kaara.nassa vasena S> paveditattaa sannipaatapaccupa.t.thaano. Aya~nhi tattha S> tattha "ti.n.nam sa`ngati phasso"ti evam kaara.nassa vasena S> paveditoti. Imassa ca suttapadassa ti.n.nam sa`ngatiyaa phassoti S> ayamattho; na sa`ngatimattameva phassoti." S> The above statement does take into account the Suttam S> folmula ""Cakkhu~nca, pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati S> cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam, ti.n.nam sa'ngati phasso,". S> Aacariya Buddhaghosa clearly explained the word "sa`ngati" S> to be understood as "san`ngatiyaa". [For non-Pali readers: sangati means 'the coming together' and is in the nominative case, meaning that it's the subject of a sentence. Sangatiyaa is the causal ablative case of the same word and means 'due to the coming together'. So Dr. Buddhaghosa is saying that the "coming together of eye, forms and eye-consciousness" really means "BECAUSE OF the coming together..."] He didn't "clearly explain it". He simply asserted that 'sangati' means 'sangatiyaa'. The problem with this is that no Sutta contains the form 'sangatiyaa' in this context. Do you think the Buddha was incapable of saying 'sangatiyaa' if that was what he meant? Or to put it another way, why did the Buddha choose to say 'sangati' if that wasn't what he really meant? This definition of phassa is given 33 times in the Suttas and in none of them does the Buddha say 'sangatiyaa' or add any other words implying 'sangatiyaa'. [As an aside, there is a Sarvaastivaadin Aagama Sutra that DOES contain the form sa.mgate.h (the Sanskrit equivalent of sangatiyaa) in this context. The Sarvaastivaadins used this to support their own conception of phassa, which is substantially the same as that of the Mahaavihaara monks. The Sautraantikas rejected it because their Sutras -- like the Pali Suttas -- did not contain this form. But I suppose that wouldn't really help your case, would it? I mean we don't want to go slumming with them Sarvaastivaadins. ;-) Still, for anyone interested I will give the passage in my postscript] S> For now, please kindly look at again the Pali passage quoted S> from Atthasalinii, and I am sure you are comfortable with S> the Pali, if not with the meaning of it. S> Now I asked you the following questions. S> 1. Do you understand the quoted Pali statement from S> Atthasanili? Yes. In fact I posted a translation of it last week. S> You may, of course, assure us of your understanding by S> translating it. See message 37623. S> 2. If so, do you agree with it? S> 3. If not, what are the reasons for your disagreement (apart S> from the apparent difference from the Suttam formula on S> phasso under discussion). In message 37623 you will see I have already stated my disagreement and the reasons for it. Its discrepancy with the Sutta description is the major reason and that alone would be a sufficient cause to reject it (cf. the four great standards of the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta). There are other reasons that lie outside the scope of dsg, since they would require introducing Sautraantika doctrines to the discussion. I would also note that the lateness of the Atthasalini's conception of phassa is evidenced by the fact that in the Kathavatthu's debates there is an implicit rejection of the view tena phassena ta.m phassa.m phusati (by that contact that contact contacts) in no fewer than three of the debates (see: Kvu. Part V: Pa.tuppanna~naa.nakathaa; Part XIII Samaapanno assaadetikathaa; and Part XVI Adhigayhamanasikaarakathaa). So it seems the Atthasaalinii's view of phassa as being in the nature of an agent rather than an event was not held by the Theravaadins at the time of the 3rd Council. S> I hope that I did not impose on you too much difficult S> questioning, but then again, you were challenging Abhidhamma S> Pitaka and Standard Pali Commentaries wittingly or S> unwittingly. S> As you read Pali, you need to take more responsibility when S> making statements that contradict Abhidhamma and Standard S> Pali Commentaries which have been being preserved and S> transmitted, with greatest reverence, by generations after S> generations of learned Theravaada ascetics in various S> countries. I suppose I could reply: "As you read Pali, you need to take more responsibility when making statements that contradict Suttas that were taught by the Buddha and preserved by arahants." But I won't. You would probably answer that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries were also taught by the Buddha and preserved by arahants. I would then deny this and we'd just end up going on a fruitless dance around the mulberry bush. I suggest a better course would be for you to trust that however misguided you think I am, I am nevertheless putting forward my understanding in good faith and not with the aim of harming the Saasanaa. I trust likewise that this is the case with you. Then, instead of appealing to the authority of tradition ("generations after generations"), hearsay or faith ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all arahants"), you should just stick to discussing what the texts are saying, relying on reason and evidence rather than argumenta ad hominem and ad antiquitatem. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ P.S. For anyone interested, I am appending a discussion of phassa from the Abhidharmakosabhasyam. This work is a commentary (bhaasyam) on a Sarvastivadin Abhidharma treatise (the Abhidharmakosa). Both the treatise and its commentary are by Vasubandhu who appears to favour the Sautraantika perspective (though unlike Buddhaghosa & Co., he does give a fair and sympathetic account of his opponents' views). As you will see, disagreement on the subject of phassa is nothing new. My notes are in square brackets. [To Sugeniuses: POTENTIAL HERESY COMING UP - DELETE THE POST NOW!] _____________________________ What is the nature of contact? The aacaaryas are not in agreement. The Sautraantikas say: "Contact is merely the coming together itself." They support this view citing the Sutra, "The coming together, the encounter, the meeting of these three dharmas is contact." The Sarvaastivaadins say: "Contact is a dharma associated with a citta, distinct from the coming together."* They support this view citing the Satsatka Sutra,** "The six internal bases [aayatanas, eye, ear etc.], the six external bases, the six consciousnesses, the six contacts, the six feelings, and the six cravings." The Sutra, they claim, knows of the six contacts, together with the six categories of internal bases, external bases, and the consciousnesses; thus the contacts are separate dharmas, for the Sutra does not contain any repetition or double usages. [* cf Atthasaalinii 109. ** the Sanskrit version of the Chachakka Sutta MN 148] The Sautraantikas reply, explaining this Sutra thus: "If the Sutra did not contain any repetition, it would follow that feelings and cravings would exist apart from the dharmas-base (dharmaayatana) which is the sixth external base, the object of the mind-base (manaayatana), since you can hold only that the first two categories (six organs and objects) refer to the organs and objects without any relation to the consciousnesses." A second Sautraantika reply, from Bhadanta Srilaabha: "Every eye and visible object is not the cause of a visual consciousness, as all visual consciousness is not the result of the eye and a visible thing. Thus what is defined as contact in the Satsatka Sutra is the eye, a visible thing, and the consciousness which are cause and effect." But how do the Sarvaastivaadins, who maintain that contact is something distinct from the coming together of an eye, visible object and consciousness, explain the Sutra passage, "The coming together, the encounter, the meeting of these three dharmas is contact" ? They do not read the Sutra in this form*; or rather, they say that the expression is metaphorical**: when the Sutra says "the coming together" they claim that it really means "the result of the coming together." [* their version is: ya e.saa.m dharmaa.na.m sa.mgate.h sa.mnipaataat samavaayaat sa spar"sa.h. ** cf. discussion of Dhp. 194 at Path of Purification XVII 16] But this discussion is taking us too far afield. (Abhidharmakosabhasya III 30b-d) An abrupt and disappointing end. Luckily Vasubandhu was a bit of an erratic writer and so a few pages later he changes his mind and resumes the discussion. If the moderators don't mind I will post the rest of it in future postscripts. 37732 From: Larry Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:52am Subject: Re: Details on Vedana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nori" wrote: > > Hi Dhamma Friends, > > I think it is a common misunderstanding, as expressed by some in the > past, that Vedana (feeling) is understood as being exclusively 'a > mind born emotional feeling' and excludes bodily sensation via > contact of body sense (organ). > snip Hi Nori, I was just thinking about feeling this morning. You bring up a good question: how do we feel? Specifically, what is bodily feeling and how can it be purely mental (nama)? I think the only way to find out is to look really carefully. I've been wrestling with a similar question. In abhidhamma tangible data is experienced with pleasant or unpleasant feeling while sound, flavor, odor, and light are experienced only with neutral feeling. How can this be? Flavor clearly is accompanied by a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. One thought that occurred is that possibly in the sensuous plane all sense door experience is intimately associated with the body door. A pleasant taste can be located in the body. Even a pleasant visual experience is "easy on the eyes". So perhaps we can say a flavor is tasted with neutral feeling but it is also experienced through the body door in the tongue area with pleasant or unpleasant feeling. However, a pleasant taste is unique to taste and different from pleasant touch. Now the question arises, is pleasant feeling ever really tangible? Does it have a texture? No. It's easy to say that but I think we have to look and see, particularly with regard to painful feeling. Btw, you might be interested in the Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta at Access to Insight, translated by Soma Thera. Larry 37733 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:08am Subject: Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi DN Sorry for the delay, family duties call for attention :). Lets talk about exhortataion of purposive actions. So does action spring out from the mind? Do you without panna, are in any chance for us to use such descriptive behaviour as said in the sutta. If panna does not conditon us to see the unwholesome of behaviour and initate the ability to clench our teeths, I dont think we are able to do it in the first instance. If panna is anatta, so how does purposely action come from :). There are always in the sutta description of purposely actions but we must first examine, the basis of conditions which arise without an agent. Then we would know whether is there a called for purposedly actions or such actions are conditioned from panna. Ken O 37734 From: Larry Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:19am Subject: Contact Hi all, I have a few thoughts to add to the great debate. First, I must say I know nothing about the Atthasalani so I am taking my abhidhamma views from the Visuddhimagga. It seems to me that the Honeyball Sutta doesn't say much about the nature of contact so for those who prefer a minimal pointer I suppose that is all one needs. Mn.18, par.17. "When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact." The Visuddhimagga adds a little more detail but I think we can go beyond that. Vism.XIV,134: "Herein, (i) it touches (phusati), thus it is 'contact' (phassa). This has the characteristic of touching. Its function is the act of impingement. It is manifested as concurrence. Its proximate cause is an objective field that has come into focus." It seems to me that as a cetasika contact is something consciousness does. It is a verb and is practically synonymous with "cognize". To locate it as an object of satipatthana I think we have to look at "touch", "taste", "smell", "hear", "see", and "think". If we can see a difference between touch and hardness, taste and flavor, smell and odor, hear and sound, see and light, think and idea, then that is where we will find contact. Larry 37735 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi DN Sorry for the late reply as I was held up by family duties :). > Are you saying that an event (e.g. a coming together) cannot > be a condition (paccaya)? If so, I can show you lots of examples > from the Suttas where events are so described. k: Coming together cannot not be a condition unless they interact with each other. A lof of people come together in this DSG email list, but few of us contact each other :). > By virtue of the fact that an event can serve as a paccaya. > What do you see as problematic about this equation: "With > contact as condition there arises feeling" = "With the > coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness as > condition there arises feeling" ? > > I see no problem at all. k: There is a problem because we must remember contact is clearly stated in the dependent origination before feelings. We can debate logic but I think such logic should adhere to Buddhist terms, just like you like to debate on sutta terms ;) . So the mere coming together is not contact, only when contact is manifested by the mere coming together, then that is contact. This can be seen in MN18 (contact is after the mere coming together). The mere coming is just describing the meeting of the bases, sense mediums and sense consciouness. It is the percursor of contact and not contact itself. k: Yet again, I requote what Nina wrote <> Ken O 37736 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Ken O (and DN, and Ken H) - In a message dated 10/24/04 12:08:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi DN > > Sorry for the delay, family duties call for attention :). > > Lets talk about exhortataion of purposive actions. So does action > spring out from the mind? Do you without panna, are in any chance > for us to use such descriptive behaviour as said in the sutta. If > panna does not conditon us to see the unwholesome of behaviour and > initate the ability to clench our teeths, I dont think we are able > to do it in the first instance. If panna is anatta, so how does > purposely action come from :). > > There are always in the sutta description of purposely actions but > we must first examine, the basis of conditions which arise without > an agent. Then we would know whether is there a called for > purposedly actions or such actions are conditioned from panna. > > > Ken O ======================= Dear Ken and Ken ;-) Is cetana a cetasika-in-exile? Have you and some others banished it to the land of the not-to-be-mentioned? You remember cetana, don't you? The Buddha called it "kamma" at times! ;-) Look, guys, ordinary speech involves people willfully doing things, exerting effort, and even clenching their teeth. None of that is meaningless. It is just ordinary speech. (You know, like the Buddha used!) What makes it meaningful is that there are actual events underlying that level of speech, events that really occur and that are indirectly pointed to by such speech. If every time one speaks in an ordinary manner one has to stop to attempt to reformulate it in a closer to literal fashion, no communication will ever occur. BTW, Ken O, I don't get what you mean by your rhetorical question "If panna is anatta, so how does purposely action come from." Pa~n~na *is*, of course, anatta, and so is cetana, and so is everything else. What of it? Purposeful action is action motivated by intention and (usually) craving. That's what it is. When I speak of action or acting I don't presume an agent for such. I don't presume an actor. Do you? If not, then where is there a problem with the idea of purposeful action? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37737 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contact Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/24/04 12:22:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi all, > > I have a few thoughts to add to the great debate. First, I must say I > know nothing about the Atthasalani so I am taking my abhidhamma views > from the Visuddhimagga. > > It seems to me that the Honeyball Sutta doesn't say much about the > nature of contact so for those who prefer a minimal pointer I suppose > that is all one needs. > > Mn.18, par.17. "When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, > it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact." > > =========================== On ATI, Thanissaro Bhikkhu renders this by the following, which involves 'delineation' instead of 'manifestation'. (And a version on a different web site uses the wording 'the notion of'.) __________________________ Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact.[1] When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of complication. 1. The artificiality of this phrase -- "delineate a delineation" -- seems intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete things. ------------------------------------------------ /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37738 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 0:21pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Connie, Thanks for your reply to Dhamma Thread. You said these three dhamma are papanca dhamma. Yes, these three dhamma tanha, mana, and ditthi are papanca dhamma. You said they extend the round of birth and so on. I would choose the word 'expand'. Papanca dhamma are dhamma that expand the samsara. I do not know which word you prefer. Is there any difference between extend and expand? With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > > Hi, Htoo (and Herman), > Thanks for king lobha and the two queens, Htoo. > Just reading Dr. Mehm Tin Mon's Ultimate Science - THE ESSENCE OF BUDDHA > ABHIDHAMMA and he writes: Lobha, together with its two great followers, > i.e., di.t.thi (wrong view) and maana (conceit), is responsible for > extending the life cycle or the round of rebirth that is known as > sa.msaara. On account of this fact, lobha, di.t.thi and maana are > collectively called 'papa~nca dhamma'. > peace, > connie 37739 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 0:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Mike, Thanks for your reply to Dhamma Thread. Papanca dhamma are those dhamma that expand the samsara. I have replied to Connie that I prefer expand rather than extend. I think 'extend' has only one direction while 'expand' comprises from a point to all directions that is 360 degrees. These papanca dhamma are tanha, mana and ditthi. The second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering which is craving. And it is lobha cetasika which is also known as tanha. There are 5 khandhas. All conditioned dhammas are finally these 5 khandhas. All these 5 khandhas are suffering or dukkha. These 5 khandhas which are suffering have a cause and The Buddha preached as Samudaya Sacca and it is lobha cetasika or tanha. So tanha is the chief cause of 5 khandhas, which is the samsara. As long as tanha is there samsara is endless and it is said that tanha expand the samsara. So tanha is one of papanca dhamma. Whenever tanha arises, the tanha king takes one of his companion queens. As mana and ditthi are companions of tanha or lobha cetasika, these two queens are also papanca dhamma. So all these three dhamma namely tanha or lobha, mana, and ditthi are collectively known as papanca dhamma. That is they expand 'the samsara'. They create 'the five khandhas'. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Connie and Htoo, > > Many thanks Htoo for the Queens--interesting, Connie--I don't recall hearing > of this connection between papa~nca, maana and di.t.thi before. All very > useful I think--if one thinks that concepts can be useful (and of course I > do). > > mike 37740 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:32pm Subject: Concepts as condition beyond our control (was Re: [dsg] Re: killing in a dream) Dear Phil, More discussion here. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: I know 'master of the day' should be a tile for ?? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: Hello Htoo and all Thank you for your feedback, Htoo. Ph: But cannot concepts also act as conditioning factors? I quote from Nina's "Conditions": "Not only realities but also concepts can be a natural decisive support-condition for phenomena. (snip) The concept of a person can then be a natural decisive support- condition for attachment or loving-kindness. (snip) We need to think of concepts in order to take care of ourselves or in order to understand the Dhmma, and thus, time and again in our daily life concepts condition different types of citta by way of natural decisive support-conditioning." (end quote) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree Nina and your quote here. Patthana is complicated and complex dhamma. I have started writing on 'Patthana Dhamma' and it is still at 'arammana paccaya'. You can view it at http://www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana1.html Citta, cetasika, rupa, nibbana, pannatti and their interconnection can be studied in patthana. Upanissaya paccaya is a condition that deals with many dhammas. But I would suggest you not to be led by your dreams. Dreams are your thought and you just felt during dreaming. In manodvara vithi there is no pancavinnana cittas. Manovinnana vithi starts with manodvaravajjana citta which is a kiriya citta. And if the dream is very clear then there are tadarammana cittas which are all vipaka cittas. If the dreams are not very clear then there may not be vipaka cittas and you may not remember them at all. It is vipakas which link javana cittas who create new and new kamma. Example in pancadvara vithi cittas pancadvaravajjana citta just arises because of conditions. This is followed by different vipaka cittas until arising of manodvaravajjana citta who is a kiriya citta determining what cittas should follow. So in pancadvara vithi there are 2 gates who screen the messages. The first is pancadvaravajjana citta and the 2nd is manodvaravajjana citta. Between these 2 gates are all vipaka cittas. They are pancavinnana citta, sampaticchana citta, santirana citta. After manodvaravajjana citta who works as a votthapana citta there follow 7 javana cittas. All these are kamma-generating as long as these javanas are not of arahats. So there is a link between vipaka and javana. There is a long block of vipaka ( bhavanga cittas ) before pancadvaravajjana citta. After javanas if there are 2 tadarammana, they follow javana and then a long block of vipaka follow again. Main link is between 3 vipakas and 7 javana cittas. in the middle is a kiriya citta. All foregoing conditions incoming cittas. In case of manodvara vithi, there are only 3 dhammas. They are manodvaravajjana which is abyakata dhamma of kiriya, 7 javana cittas which may be akusala or kusala dhamma in case of dreams. And if the dreams are clear 2 vipakas follow. The clarity is because of tadarammana and they are vipaka. Pannatti does not arise and does not falls away. But it does condition dhamma that follow it with upanissaya paccaya. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: If a powerfully vivid concept arises in a dream, I would think it could condition cittas in the same way as if it were a concept fabricated in waking life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Vividness is because of arising of vipaka cittas ( tadarammana cittas ). But I would suggest you not let the dreams lead you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: It would seem to me that this can be confirmed by experience. I mean, if I have a horrible dream, and feel aversion the next day, that dosa was conditioned by the dream, surely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I dream less and less. I do not know why. I think because I am almost always thinking dhamma. Whenever I dream, I just view them as they are and then I am at my present. I do not let them lead my day. Because I am the 'master of the day' :-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: I must say this puzzles me a bit, Htoo. There are conditions at work. There is the potential for right understanding in me that may gradually eradicate defilements, but the "power is in you" sounds like something I can grab hold on to at will, and I don't think that's right. It could be a matter of wording. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Well! It might be. I know there is no control. When Sukin controls his car steering wheel and when Sarah controls her arms, hands, thighs, calves and feet, there is no one actually controlling. Because there is no Sukin, no Sarah, no car, no steering wheel, no arm, no hand, no thigh, no calf, and no foot at all. So does 'you' here. So, you may assume it as 'wording'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: The power is the potential to have right understanding of the dosa that arises because of the dream, to understand that the dosa is conditioned, and not-self, to see that and be detached from it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: But the condition is still there at work, surely. I mean, if I feel aversion because of the dream, what else could it be except a condition at work? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This will depend on your practice of dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: Again, I'm just beginning to learn about conditons. > Htoo > Here, there is no you but the power is inside of you. You are the > > master of your kamma even though there have never been you there. So > > the dream should not at any moment lead you the whole day. Phil: Should not, ideally, if I have the right understanding to see the dosa for what it is. But that right understanding is not-self, not within my immediate control. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo> It has been far away to condition thinking as the dream has passed > > away when you wake up. But what conditions your thinking is that your > > thinking itself. This again is directed by yourself. Actually you are > > the master of the day and the master is not the dream. Phil: Htoo! "Master of the day?!?" That sounds like a action movie title,not anatta! Have you been taking Dhamma steroids! (joke) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I used to give many titles to different writings. 'Tracing the mind track' is another action movies coming soon. Intro have been started. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > This is cognition of vedana which is a reality. If this is done > properly, this is kusala citta and this will finally lead you to > enlightenment. Ph: Ah yes, as I learned from Nina, if there is dosa or lobha and I am mindful of it as anatta, the citta will then be kusala. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Isn't that a good point?. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > Interesting. But it is not the only condition for the whole day. If > this is so, you have surrendered the mastery through out the day. > Should this happen? No. I would not allow such matter. Ph: I'm still interested in this. The way the thought stands out so clearly, sometimes, when we wake. But Htoo, how can you demand mastery when each lifetime is conditioned in an irreversible way by the patisandhi citta (spelling?) There is only so much we should expect to control. Yes, there is always the opportunity to have right understanding of realities, thus liberating us from creating fresh akusala kamma, but I think "surrendering the mastery" is part and parcel of the renunciation that is one of the Paramis. Of course it is all very subtle. We see that in the "crossing the flood" sutta. We don't press ahead too hard, but we don't stand still either. Thank you, Htoo. I teased you in a friendly way about "master of the day" but truly it is good to read stirring encouragement like that. I talk of having no control over things, but there *is* control arising, of course, thanks to wisdom we gain from the Buddha's teaching, and examination of our experience, and Dhamma discussion with good Dhamma friends. But it is control that we should be very wary of thinking we can exercise at will just because a friend tells us we can. It has to arise,or not arise, in a conditioned way, I think. Otherwise it can turn into a self-preservation exercise, especially for beginners like me. Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Phil, there does exist control. I do not mean Atta. That control is conventional one. If there is no control, how can siila be practised? Control does exist. The Buddha encouraged to control strayed thought not to arise. The Buddha encourage people to control wanting to kill someone, to control wanting to steal things, to control wanting to have sex with other people's wives, to control wanting to self intoxication with alcohol or addictives. This is conventional control. As I said above, Sukin is controlling his car's steering wheel, Sarah is controlling her limbs while she is swimming. But all are anatta and there is in essence no control at all. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37741 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:39pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 096 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the kingdom of lobha cittas, the king is lobha cetasika or tanha. This king has two queens. But he never appears on the throne with two queens as the throne has just a room for 2 people. When the king lobha takes the queen ditthi, queen mana has to stay back in her room in the palace. Ditthi is a cetasika. It advises the citta to see things in the wrong way and it also advises other cetasikas to do so in the same way as the leader citta would do. It is a wrong assumption. It is a wrong conclusion. Ditthi represents the wrong picture to the leader citta. And the leader of all mental faculties then assumes in the wrong way. Queen ditthi also advises the king lobha to assume in the wrong way. Again the king lobha also leads the queen ditthi in order to achieve what he wants. The characeter of lobha is wanting to take everything and will never surrender its will. While the king lobha advises the queen to be greedy, the queen ditthi supports the king lobha to view in the wrong way and they are actually mutually boostering their akusala effect. As long as the queen ditthi is there, the king lobha will look for what he wants and all he wants is all the wrong things because he has been advised by the queen ditthi to view in the wrong way. There are 5 khandhas. But these 5 khandhas are not seen as khandhas because the great akusala king moha covers with its darkness. With the aids of this great king's generals ahirika or shameless and anottappa or fearlessness and the secretary of that great king uddhacca, lobha the subsidized king dare do its job of wanting cravingly. This craving or tanha or the king lobha is lobha cetasika is it is always referred to as samudaya sacca or the 2nd truth of 4 ariyas' sacca or 4 Noble Truths. This lobha is the leader of papanca dhamma. Papanca dhamma are dhamma that expand the samsara. This means that lobha is creating kamma and this again causes arising of 5 upadanakkhandhas. This small king lobha creates kamma and 5 upadanakkhandhas because of his queen ditthi. The function of this queen ditthi is to suggest viewing in the wrong way. This post is for ditthi and this simile is like the king lobha when he sits with the queen ditthi on the throne in their palace. In lobha cittas, there are 8 lobha mula cittas. Ditthi gata sampayutta cittas are all associated with ditthi cetasika. There are 4 ditthi cittas. Or there are 4 lobha cittas with ditthi cetasikas. All these 4 ditthi gata sampayutta cittas are led by the great akusala king moha. Moha is darkness. It covers the light. The light of seeing dukkha as dukkha. As there is no light, dukkha is not seen. Moreover, ahirika and anottappa also support these 4 lobha cittas. Uddhacca also supports the group. Overall, all these 4 lobha cittas have a citta as the greatest king. This greatest king is regularly supported by great akusala king moha and in the akusala kingdom small king lobha supports the greatest king citta. While lobha is contributing to the greatest king citta, queen ditthi also contributes. Citta has distinctive character and so do other nama dhamma such as moha, ahirika, anottappa, uddhacca, lobha, and ditthi. 13 annasamana cetasikas that is 7 permanent ministers and 6 flexible ministers also join in and there are 19 cetasikas in 4 lobha cittas roughly. If lobha citta does not have somanassa there is no piti arise and there will be 18 cetasikas. Still this has to be modified. But at this stage, these matters will be left alone. When citta, and 19 distinctive and separate cetasikas are working, there is no person at all. They are anatta. They do not last long and they just last for a cittakkhana or they just last a khana or moment when a citta exists. They all are anicca or impermanent. They all are nothing but they are suffering and dukkha. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37742 From: connieparker Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Htoo and Mike, The way you explained it to Mike (I think 'extend' has only one direction while 'expand' comprises from a point to all directions that is 360 degrees) sounds right to me and I personally wouldn't have any problem saying either - that papanca extends or expands samsara. In the original quote, though, Dr. Tin Mon wrote that papanca "is responsible for extending the life cycle or the round of rebirth that is known as samsara". Somehow, 'expanding the life-cycle' doesn't sound quite right but does have a tempting "more panca-upadana-khanda is better/more fullfilling" flavour to it. 'Life-cycle' would be extended in duration or throughout ever more and more cycles. Still, our lifetimes also expand into other bhumis than just this rare and current human one. A little later, Dr. Tin Mon touches on another aspect of papanca: "...moha clouds the mind and blinds the eye not to see things as they really are. It makes one see things as nicca (permanent), sukha (pleasant), atta (self or person) and subha (beautiful). Because of this wrong vision, lobha clings or attaches to this ‘self or person’ and di.t.thi takes the wrong view that ‘self’ and ‘person’ really exist. The most basic and universal wrong view is the ‘personality-belief’ (sakkaaya-di.t.thi) or ‘ego-illusion’ (atta-di.t.thi). Sakkaaya-di.t.thi believes that this combination of mind and body is ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘person’, etc. Atta-di.t.thi believes in the existence of an ‘atta or soul’ or ‘ego’ or ‘life-entity’ in the body. ***From this sakkaaya-di.t.thi or atta-di.t.thi as well as from the ignorance due to moha there spring up thousands of wrong views.***" abhidhaultsci.pdf eBUDDHANET'S BOOK LIBRARY www.buddhanet.net peace, con-cept 37743 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:35pm Subject: [dsg] Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi Howard and Ken O, Firstly, Howard, thank you for your well wishes regarding my parents' health. Dad has gone into hospital for a few days, so I have returned home until they need me again. You mention cetana (champion it, even) as if Ken O and I have forgotten it exists. But no, we are both aware of cetana: it is an absolute reality that can be correctly described only by a Buddha. If that description has been heard and wisely considered, conditions will be in place for cetana to be directly understood. -------------- H: > When I speak of action or acting I don't presume an agent for such. I don't presume an actor. Do you? > ------------ In theory, no, but in practice, probably yes. When I desire to walk from here to the door, I probably have an idea of an enduring entity that will leave one place and arrive at the other. ------------- H: > If not, then where is there a problem with the idea of purposeful action? > --------------- Either way, there is no problem: ultimately, purposeful action is cetana, and that is how it is to be understood. For the purposes of satipatthana, there is no value in understanding action as the movements of a human frame through time and space. Kind regards, Ken H 37744 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/24/04 7:38:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Either way, there is no problem: ultimately, purposeful action is > cetana, and that is how it is to be understood. For the purposes of > satipatthana, there is no value in understanding action as the > movements of a human frame through time and space. > > ======================== Hey! We agree!!! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37745 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Hi Dighanakha, You wrote:"...Then, instead of appealing to the authority of tradition ("generations after generations"), hearsay or faith ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all arahants"), you should just stick to discussing what the texts are saying, relying on reason and evidence rather than argumenta ad hominem and ad antiquitatem." L: You could apply the same standard to the suttas. There are many things in the suttas that won't pass scientific scrutiny, conversations with devas for example. So what? This doesn't bother me in the least. As I see it, our task is to use what is written to help us understand experience. What is useful to a particular person is a matter of accumulations which, in turn, can be a matter of patience. Things gradually start to make sense. Additionally, I'm having trouble following your argument. Are you saying the standard sutta dependent arising formula is different from Buddhaghosa's commentaries therefore the commentaries are wrong? Or are you saying the commentaries are wrong because they don't accord with some other commentaries or don't accord with your experience or understanding? It seems to me that given the creative nature of conceptualization any two sentences about anything can agree or disagree with one another in one way or another. [Sorry, been thinking about Derrida lately :-))] Anyway, thanks for posting from the Abhidharmakosa Bhasyam. I'd like to see the rest if it's not too much trouble. One thing I've never understood is where Theravada (aka Buddhaghosa) fits into discussions of Sautrantika and Sarvastivada. Would it be possible to get a basic skeletal outline of important differences between Theravada and the other two? thanks, Larry 37746 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Vism.XIV,110 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 110. So the 21 kinds of profitable, the 12 kinds of unprofitable, the 36 kinds of resultant, and the 20 kinds of functional, amount in all to 89 kinds of consciousness. And these occur in the fourteen modes of (a) rebirth-linking, (b) life-continuum, (c) adverting, (d) seeing, (e) hearing, (f) smelling, (g) tasting, (h) touching, (i) receiving, (j) investigating, (k) determining, (l) impulsion, (m) registration, and (n) death. 37747 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:01pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Dear DN Another fascinating post. Thank you. A question below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: [snip] Then, instead of appealing to the authority > of tradition ("generations after generations"), hearsay or > faith ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all > arahants"), you should just stick to discussing what the > texts are saying, relying on reason and evidence rather than > argumenta ad hominem and ad antiquitatem. You rule out *appealing to* faith, but Saddha isn't explicitly included in the above formula on the positive side and I'm wondering why not? If we are only to discuss texts, reason and evidence, how do we deal with the anger-eating yakkhas spoken of by the Buddha in the Suttas? We can't say "just have faith" because that offends against the formula. Do we just not discuss them at all? Surely that would be a case of selective blindness, though. What do you think? Best wishes Andrew T 37748 From: nori Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:46pm Subject: Re: Details on Vedana Hi Larry, I believe, all feeling, whether originating from the body senses or any other senses (and of course, feelings originating in the mind), all take place in the mind. The body cannot feel; the mind feels. I posted an article in the past, about people with amputated arms who still feel 'sensation' in their amputated arm as if it exists. And where do they feel this sensation ? ... on the arm. But its not there. And so, no sensation could be taking place in the arm, it takes place in the mind. --- And I think you are right, sensations are neutral, it is our reactions to the sensations that are painful, pleasent, or neither-... But our reaction to the sensations are conditioned by formations in the mind and body. with metta, nori --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nori" > wrote: > > > > Hi Dhamma Friends, > > > > I think it is a common misunderstanding, as expressed by some in > the > > past, that Vedana (feeling) is understood as being exclusively 'a > > mind born emotional feeling' and excludes bodily sensation via > > contact of body sense (organ). > > > snip > > Hi Nori, > > I was just thinking about feeling this morning. You bring up a good > question: how do we feel? Specifically, what is bodily feeling and > how can it be purely mental (nama)? I think the only way to find out > is to look really carefully. > > I've been wrestling with a similar question. In abhidhamma tangible > data is experienced with pleasant or unpleasant feeling while sound, > flavor, odor, and light are experienced only with neutral feeling. > How can this be? Flavor clearly is accompanied by a pleasant or > unpleasant feeling. One thought that occurred is that possibly in the > sensuous plane all sense door experience is intimately associated > with the body door. A pleasant taste can be located in the body. Even > a pleasant visual experience is "easy on the eyes". So perhaps we can > say a flavor is tasted with neutral feeling but it is also > experienced through the body door in the tongue area with pleasant or > unpleasant feeling. However, a pleasant taste is unique to taste and > different from pleasant touch. > > Now the question arises, is pleasant feeling ever really tangible? > Does it have a texture? No. It's easy to say that but I think we have > to look and see, particularly with regard to painful feeling. > > Btw, you might be interested in the Commentary to the Satipatthana > Sutta at Access to Insight, translated by Soma Thera. > > Larry 37749 From: Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Details on Vedana Nori: "I believe, all feeling, whether originating from the body senses or any other senses (and of course, feelings originating in the mind), all take place in the mind." Hi Nori, I agree but I think it is difficult to really see that. The example of the amputated arm that was still felt is a good one. The feeling _seemed_ to be in an arm that wasn't there. When I do something I don't want to do or avoid doing something I don't want to do there is often a painful bodily feeling involved and I unconsciously rationalize that performing this activity is painful to the body but in reality it isn't the least bit harmful to the body. Also I attach pleasant and unpleasant feelings to physical objects thereby giving them the appearance of having inherent value. Even when pleasant or unpleasant feeling is intimately associated with like or dislike, feeling is one thing and like or dislike is another. Feeling is a very interesting phenomenon. We should identify it often. Larry 37750 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Details on Vedana Hi Nori and Larry As we know there are five types of feelings generally described in the suttas which inlcudes the bodily feelings. It is also clear in the suttas where each sensory rupas is felt by the respective sensory cittas. So what is felt in the body sensation only belongs to the body citta that arisen to cognise the bodily rupas. Hence technicaly speaking it is not right to say that bodily sensation is felt by the mind cittas. Larry brings up an interesting point. << Even when pleasant or unpleasant feeling is intimately associated with like or dislike, feeling is one thing and like or dislike is another. Feeling is a very interesting phenomenon. We should identify it often>> This experience has been discussed in the DART Sutta Ken O 37751 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:34pm Subject: Ultimate Reality Hi All Just a thought that I would like to share. How do we differentiate ultimate reality and conventional reality. I feel the difference is whether we experience it. We can know to feel but we cannot know a concept like a table only through a mind construct. I think I like to say that there is no direct knowing of the object. Another question is that is citta really that fast? I was wondering if citta is not fast, how do we see light in a continuous stream without a breakage. It must be fast enough to take it as an object. Thats just my thoughts Ken O 37752 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Teeth-clenching was: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi Howard Definitely cetana is around all the while :). I not saying something new. I am prostulating that the behaviour we have depends largely on the roots. How we react on a situation depends largely on the root that cause these behaviour. Just like our lobha mula cittas will conditioned the believe of a self, to me that is how we think that an I is doing something. Hence to get rid of the lobha mula citta does not embrace another I to get rid of it because that will only increase the tendency for an I to arise. I think it should be using panna to unroot the I root but panna does not appear when I appears as they are exlusive. In the same way, we have to realise whether such a purposely led action rooted in and whether a purposedly led action will condition panna to arise. Energy to strive for the wholesome have to be rise in conjuction with panna in order for it to be wholesome. But we think we should do something to get rid of an I with an initial rooted believe that is an I doing something, then the inital ground is already unwholesome. As we all know, see things directly, this means that is no I that prostulate an action, it just noticing, investigation or reflecting or mindfully as thing they really are. Events or objects arise on their own whether we are doing wholesome or unwholesome, it is beyond an agent. So can we used an agent to get rid of an agent since the arisen of the agent is already rooted in lobha mula citta. Basically to me actions arisen out of wholesome roots must be due to panna which is grown through considerations, reflection, listening, investigation and not out of an I action which is rooted in lobha mula cittas. Sometimes to me, it is diffcult to explain that purposedly led action could be rooted in lobha mula cittas. I think the Relay Chariot Sutta is the closest sutta I think prostulating such a behaviour. I think it is nowadays hard to believe that just by considering and listening and investigating, panna will grow. As usual, I would say the practise of satipatthana is every moment as we cannot escape from sense objects and not any kind of purposedly led action could be rooted in lobha mula. Again, to me the that is the danger in purposedly led action. However, it is still up to each individual underlying tendecies to do what they think is right because Buddhism is build upon our individual accumulations. Ken O 37753 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:03pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Hello Andrew. dig>> Then, instead of appealing to the authority of tradition dig>> ("generations after generations"), hearsay or faith dig>> ("Buddhaghosa and the commentators were all arahants"), you dig>> should just stick to discussing what the texts are saying, dig>> relying on reason and evidence rather than argumenta ad dig>> hominem and ad antiquitatem. A> You rule out *appealing to* faith, but Saddha isn't A> explicitly included in the above formula on the positive A> side and I'm wondering why not? My statement was context-specific. It was only aimed at setting the parameters for a reasonable discussion of canonical and commentarial treatment of phassa, not at telling people the grounds on which they should personally arrive at a decision. If someone prompted by faith takes the line "If Buddhaghosa says sangati means sangatiyaa, then sangatiyaa it is!" then that's their business. But for a reasonable discussion between people of dissenting views, such a line of 'argument' must from the outset be ruled inadmissible. I wanted to make this clear at the beginning because it's tiresome to go to all the trouble of checking one's sources, translating relevant passages etc., only to have some drivelling faith-head countering with "But the Standard Commentaries were written by arahants!" as if this faith claim were some kind of trump card that settled everything. A> If we are only to discuss texts, reason and evidence, how do A> we deal with the anger-eating yakkhas spoken of by the A> Buddha in the Suttas? We can't say "just have faith" because A> that offends against the formula. Do we just not discuss A> them at all? Surely that would be a case of selective A> blindness, though. What do you think? I suppose if someone with a fervent faith in anger-eating yakkhas met someone who strongly disbelieved in them, it would be up to the two of them to determine what sort of parameters their debate should have. But this is a quite different kettle of fish to a discussion of the meaning of phassa in early and late Buddhist texts. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37754 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:57pm Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken O. dig>> Are you saying that an event (e.g. a coming together) cannot dig>> be a condition (paccaya)? If so, I can show you lots of dig>> examples from the Suttas where events are so described. K> Coming together cannot be a condition unless they K> interact with each other. Yes it can. Strangers on buses in England normally don't interract with each other, but their coming together is a condition for the bus to use more diesel fuel than it would if there had been no coming together. Not that such an analogy is required to prove the point: the very fact that the third factor is sensory-*consciousness* tells us that the three factors ARE interracting. The very fact that consciousness is there tells us that there is an *effectual* coming together that will produce vedanaa. dig>> What do you see as problematic about this equation: "With dig>> contact as condition there arises feeling" = "With the dig>> coming together of eye, forms and eye consciousness as dig>> condition there arises feeling" ? K> There is a problem because we must remember contact is K> clearly stated in the dependent origination before feelings. I know. I had said as much in the passage above. K> We can debate logic but I think such logic should adhere to K> Buddhist terms, just like you like to debate on sutta terms K> ;) . So the mere coming together is not contact, only when K> contact is manifested by the mere coming together, then that K> is contact. This can be seen in MN18 (contact is after the K> mere coming together). The mere coming is just describing K> the meeting of the bases, sense mediums and sense K> consciouness. It is the percursor of contact and not contact K> itself. Ken, MN18 (the Honeyball Sutta) does not say that. It is the Atthasaalinii that gives that explanation. The Sutta says: "Dependent on the eye and forms eye-consciousness arises. The coming together of the three IS contact." It does not say that these three are a precursor to contact. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37755 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi DN Hi DN > Ken, MN18 (the Honeyball Sutta) does not say that. It is the > Atthasaalinii that gives that explanation. The Sutta says: > > "Dependent on the eye and forms eye-consciousness arises. > The coming together of the three IS contact." > > It does not say that these three are a precursor to contact. > If it does not say it is a percusor then why in the next statement it said, <> As I say, we should look at the logic of Buddhism dhamma. Yes it said that the coming together of the three IS contact but it emphasis with contact as condition in the next statement. Remember Abhidhamma say that contact can only be show or manifested by the coming together and not the coming together is contact and this is supported by your translation below. Abhidhamma method of saying that condition arise concurrently with contact but remember it does not say that it will manifested itself before the three coming together. This is only possible when the three came together, then contact will be known but the mere coming together is not contact - this to make clear that contact itself is an event that has arise from the coming together. <<"... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to the monks concerning contact: This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory impingement (phassa)... ' ">> - this is a clear indication of an event when there is a visual citta, then phassa will be manifested. I do not discuss for the sake of winning any point of view, we will have to argue as I said based on dhamma logic. Contact is clearly an event after the coming together, as I said earlier if you see Dependent Origination. Ken o 37756 From: dighanakha Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:39am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken O. dig>> Ken, MN18 (the Honeyball Sutta) does not say that. It is the dig>> Atthasaalinii that gives that explanation. The Sutta says: dig>> "Dependent on the eye and forms eye-consciousness arises. dig>> The coming together of the three IS contact." dig>> It does not say that these three are a precursor to contact. K> If it does not say it is a percusor then why in the next K> statement it said, < arise....>> What does that have to do with anything? The statement you refer to is talking about something different: about what phassa gives rise to, not about what phassa is, nor about what the 'coming together' is. A precursor precedes something. Contact is a precursor of feeling because feeling arises with contact as condition. Contact comes first, then comes feeling. If the Buddha had wanted to say that first there's the 'coming together', then contact arises, then he had plenty of ways of saying it. All he needed to do was add one syllable to 'sangati'. Why didn't he? I would say it's because that was *not* what he meant. It was the identity of phassa with the coming together that he was teaching. K> As I say, we should look at the logic of Buddhism dhamma. In fact in the next parts of your post you have not looked at "the logic of Buddhism dhamma" nor any other sort of logic, but have simply buttressed your claim with yet another Commentary-derived notion. This is hardly admissible in a discussion where the Commentaries' fidelity to the Suttas is the very thing in question. K> Yes it said that the coming together of the three IS contact K> but it emphasis with contact as condition in the next K> statement. Yes, in the NEXT statement. But the next statement is dealing with something different. K> Remember Abhidhamma say that contact can only be show or K> manifested by the coming together and not the coming K> together is contact and this is supported by your K> translation below. I know the Atthasalini says this, but do the Suttas support this commentarial notion? If so, where? (N.B. The manifestation passage in the Madhupindika Sutta does not constitute a denial of the identity of the 'coming together' with phassa, in contrast to what 'manifestation' means in the Atthasalini). K> Abhidhamma method of saying that condition arise K> concurrently with contact but remember it does not say that K> it will manifested itself before the three coming together. K> This is only possible when the three came together, then K> contact will be known but the mere coming together is not K> contact - this to make clear that contact itself is an event K> that has arise from the coming together. Here too for the umpteenth time you have merely reiterated how the Commentaries define phassa. But no matter how many times you do this, it won't bring you a jot closer to showing that this is what the Buddha of the Suttas meant by the term. K> <<"... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle K> Length Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to K> the monks concerning contact: K> This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your K> reverences, when there is visible object, when there is K> visual consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation K> of sensory impingement (phassa)... ' ">> - this is a clear K> indication of an event when there is a visual citta, then K> phassa will be manifested. I'm not sure if I understand you. By "then" do you mean "afterwards" or "as a result" or both? If you mean "as a result" then do you mean a result that is simultaneous with the coming together? Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) P.S. To Larry (and anyone interested) I will continue with extracts from the Bhasyam. Today's passage is actually the very beginning of the discussion of sparsa (phassa), that immediately precedes the part I posted last time. It consists of the initial Sarvastivadin thesis from the Kosa itself, then Vasubandhu's commentary (writing as if he were a Sarvastivadin). No kick-ass Sautrantika stuff today. Kosa: There are six contacts. They arise from encounter.[*] Bhasyam: The first is the contact of the eye, and the sixth is the contact of mind (manas). They arise from the coming together of three things, an organ, its object, and a consciousness. One can see indeed that there can be a coming together of the five material organs, with their objects and their corresponding consciousnesses, for the three are simultaneous. But the mental organ or mind-element (manodhaatu) is destroyed when a mental consciousness (manovij~naana) arises; and the object (i.e. dharmas) of this consciousness can be future: so how can there be a coming together of the three? There is a coming together because the organ (manas) and the object (the dharmas) are the causal conditions of the mental consciousness; or rather because the organ, the object and the consciousness produce the same single effect, namely the contact. 37757 From: ashkenn2k Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi DN Precisely that what Buddha trying to say, first the coming together then contact could be known or manifested. If not why did Maha Kaccana describe sense impingement in details << This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory impingement (phassa)... ' ">> . When there is eye, visible objects and visual consciouness, one will recognise the manifestation of phassa. <> Here the coming together ryhmes with the above, when there is eye.... till visual citta. I dont see any digress because to me, linking them, <> Ken o 37758 From: Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken (and DN) - In a message dated 10/25/04 5:09:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi DN > > >Ken, MN18 (the Honeyball Sutta) does not say that. It is the > >Atthasaalinii that gives that explanation. The Sutta says: > > > >"Dependent on the eye and forms eye-consciousness arises. > >The coming together of the three IS contact." > > > >It does not say that these three are a precursor to contact. > > > > If it does not say it is a percusor then why in the next statement it > said, <> > > As I say, we should look at the logic of Buddhism dhamma. Yes it > said that the coming together of the three IS contact but it emphasis > with contact as condition in the next statement. Remember Abhidhamma > say that contact can only be show or manifested by the coming > together and not the coming together is contact and this is supported > by your translation below. Abhidhamma method of saying that > condition arise concurrently with contact but remember it does not > say that it will manifested itself before the three coming together. > This is only possible when the three came together, then contact will > be known but the mere coming together is not contact - this to make > clear that contact itself is an event that has arise from the coming > together. > > <<"... We read in the 'Discourse of the Honey-ball' (Middle Length > Sayings I, no. 18) that Mahaa-Kaccaana explained to the monks > concerning contact: > > This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your > reverences, when there is visible object, when there is visual > consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation of sensory > impingement (phassa)... ' ">> - this is a clear indication of an > event when there is a visual citta, then phassa will be manifested. > I do not discuss for the sake of winning any point of view, we will > have to argue as I said based on dhamma logic. Contact is clearly an > event after the coming together, as I said earlier if you see > Dependent Origination. > > > Ken o > > ============================ Ken, I think you should look a bit more carefully at this matter. You are mixing "before" and "after", and you are mixing "cause" and "effect", and not discerning what conditions are causes for what effects. Sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness are, of course conditions for their coming together. It is said in the sutta that their coming together is exactly what contact is, and that, in turn, is a condition for the arising of feeling. Thus, what we have is as in the following diagram, where the arrows represent conditionality: sense object --------> sense door --------> contact ---------> Feeling sense consciousness --------> (Convergence) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37759 From: Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 10/25/04 10:17:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > sense object --------> > sense door --------> contact ---------> > Feeling > sense consciousness --------> > (Convergence) > > ========================= The arrows went awry in the course of mailing the post. The word 'Feeling' should be on the line above it, to the right of the arrow following 'contact', and the "sense consciousness" and "convergence" lines should corresponding be one line higher. Also, the first group of three arrows should be lined up, pointing towards 'contact', and the parenthesized word 'convergence' should be further right, directly under the word 'contact'. Sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37760 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:09am Subject: Historical origins dharma/dhamma-lists Hallo all A quote from 'On being mindless' by Paul Griffiths It's made in the chapter about the Vaibhasika, but can be seen as a general remark on the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma's. To me the elegance of the reasoning makes it likely that he is right. All the tenths of dhamm's are not a kind of revelation but the empirical result of introspection of (wise but perhaps not faultless) human beings. I only don't like his use of the term 'metaphysics' as a translation of 'Abhidharma; most times 'metaphysics' means a philosophy that assumes an ultimate truth that cannot be experienced with our empirical senses). Metta Joop "The relative weighting of the dharma-lists between the mental and the physical shows where the major interests of the architects of this metaphysical system lay and, I think, suggests something about the historical origins of the entire system. It is arguable, though by no means certain, that the abhidharmic taxonomic enterprise had its origins in the practice of certain types of introspective analytical meditation which where highly valued in the early Buddhist tradition and which essentially require the practioner to deconstruct the gestalt of everyday experience into its component parts and to learn to label and identify the separate and transient mental events from which Buddhist theory links the continuities of everyday experience are constructed. Once the importance of such meditational practices was assumed by the tradition, a corresponding significance was granted to the intellectual enterprise of developing a systematic metaphysic which was adequate to the task of classifying the mental events perceived by introspection. This historical explanation goes some way to explaining the greater interest of the systems in mental events than in the nature of the physical universe." 37761 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45pm Subject: Re: Ultimate Reality Hey Ken O, > Just a thought that I would like to share. > > How do we differentiate ultimate reality and conventional reality. By conventional reality only. I > feel the difference is whether we experience it. We can know to feel > but we cannot know a concept like a table only through a mind > construct. I think I like to say that there is no direct knowing of > the object. What is an object? > Another question is that is citta really that fast? I was wondering > if citta is not fast, how do we see light in a continuous stream > without a breakage. It must be fast enough to take it as an object. Do you see a light stream or color? Do you hear a dog bark or sound? PEACE E 37762 From: nori Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:50pm Subject: The Buddha's "Meditative Technique" (Ven. Bhante Vimalaramsi) Hi Dhamma friends, I just wanted to share this dialog which was posted in another group which might be helpful to some here regrding specific meditation technique. --- From: "nori" Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:41 pm Subject: Question for Bhante Vimalaramsi (re: detail on attention to breath) Hi Bhante, I would be greatful if you answered me this question. --- How do you watch your breath during sitting meditation ? Is the center of your attention upon the *sensations* of the breath at the region of the nose, or is it upon its *motion* (through the entirety of the senses) ? Thank you in advance. metta, nori --- From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [Triplegem] Re:The Buddha's "Meditative Technique" Dhamma Greetings Nori, I have written the Buddha's instructions (from this sutta) a few times on this group, but I will attempt again. Please note that I know how strong attachments about this can be, and if it is looked at through beginner's eyes it may be helpful. I will show where the sutta is written and where my comments are; Please note that I am commenting on the sutta and it is not my opinion but an attempt to show you what these instruction say and mean. In the Anapanasati sutta (#118 MN. starting at section #16 )it says: 16] "And how, bhikkhus, is mindfulness of breathing developed and cultivated, so that it is of great fruit and great benefit? 17] "Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree or an empty hut, sits down; having crossed his legs crosswise, with his body erect, and establishes mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out.. 18] "Breathing in long, he understands: 'I breathe in long'; or breathing out long, he understands, 'I breathe out long; Breathing in short, he understands, 'I breathe in short'; or breathing out short, he understands, 'I breathe out short'. ************ Comment: So far in these instructions have you run across the words nose, nostril tip, abdomen, or breath sensation at any of these places? No? WHY? Because the Anapanasati sutta, the Satipatthana Sutta, the Kayagatasati Sutta, or any other sutta instructions (Not my opinion) don't use these words, these ideas about the nose, nostril tip, abdomen and sensation that arises at these places are the opinion of the commentaries and sub-commentaries. The reason that I say this is because you don't see them mentioned at all in these suttas. So what do these instruction say and mean? It says he understands when he has taken a long or short breath. Please notice that it hasn't mentioned concentrating on the breath but he simply understands what the breath is doing in the present moment without mentioning a specific place to watch it. I personally (this is my opinion) take this to mean that the meditator also knows when they are breathing fast or slow, or when the breath is coarse or fine. But again it does not say to "Keep" one's focus only on the breath and deeply concentrate on it to the exclusion of everything else (not my opinion). Nor does it say that this is the only object of meditation to observe (again not my opinion). It just uses the word understands which to me says that the meditator knows what the breath is doing in the present moment but to not over-focus on it. ********* Sutta: Next it says: he trains thus: 'I shall breathe in experiencing the entire body; He trains thus: 'I shall breathe out experiencing the entire body" ******* Comment: Please notice that now instead of using the words he understands it has changed to He trains thus. So the first two lines of the meditation instruction say to understand or know what the breath is doing in a more general way and now the instructions are saying to use the breath in a more specific way, as a reminder to help the meditator to experience the entire body on the in and out breath. So now the breath is used not as a focus point but a reminder to notice and experience the entire body. In this way the breath although it is important is not the main focus of the meditation. The experiencing the entire body on the in breath and out breath is just as important as the breath itself. Again this is not my opinion, but is straight from the sutta. The breath is used in conjunction with other things. ******* Sutta: Next the sutta says: "He trains thus: 'I shall breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation: He trains thus: 'I shall breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation". ******* Comment: Now we get to the crux of the instructions given in this sutta. It says to tranquilize (relax) the bodily formation on the in and out breath (Not my opinion). In this way if these instructions are followed, the meditator will experience a different type of awareness than when they focus only on the breath itself. As a result, the insights into the way dependent origination works becomes a real observation (not a philosophy to be debated). One of the things that I have noticed is that these instructions say to tranquilize the bodily formation whether there is any noticeable tightness or not. Also, in America the bodily formation seems to mean to most people to be from the neck down. But the body includes the head, too. And this seems to me from direct observation to be a very important place to tranquilize (relax). When I first started going through the suttas and realized just how important following them closely was. I decided to take two weeks and do a self-retreat only following these instructions. I went so much deeper with better understanding in such a short time. And the meditation was so interesting that I actually spent 3 months in retreat. That is one of the advantages of being a monk, one can take the time to deeply explore dhamma without feeling they have to go do something else. Anyway, I saw directly the advantages of practicing the meditation in this way. Anytime mind becomes distracted (pulled away from the breath and relaxing) then the meditator looks at this distraction not as a problem to be forced away, but an opportunity to see how this process of Dependent Origination (D.O.) actually works. First the meditator notices that their mind is not on the breath and relaxing. Next, they see that mind is thinking thoughts(clinging), so they let go of the thoughts (by not paying attention to them any more), now they notice that when mind is pulled away from the breath and relaxing (feeling) there is a tightness or tension (craving) that accompanies that distraction, it is somewhere in the body and especially in the head. So the meditator relaxes that tension (relaxes the craving) and then they will feel an expansion or openness and then mind becomes very calm, alert and there are no thoughts (at that time). Next the meditator will notice that there is a tight mental fist wrapped around the feeling that arose with the distraction and they will then relax that tight mental fist (the tight mental fist is aversion and the wrong idea that these thoughts, opinions and concepts are ours personally). Next the meditator can, if they are attentive, notice that there is a subtle tightness in the head (craving) and they relax again. Now mind feels that expansion that was talked about earlier, their mind is very calm, alert, and peaceful. Next, and this is the twist that I have talked about in a previous post, is where I tell the meditator to smile ( again, the reason that I put this twist into the meditation is because when the meditator smiles their mind becomes even more open and they are able to bring this clear mind back to the meditation object, that is, the breath and relaxing on the in and out breath, very easily) then softly re direct their attention back to the breath and relaxing. And continue doing this until mind becomes distracted again. This is especially important to do this when a hindrance arises, because the hindrance is where our true attachments are and letting them go in a light way helps the meditator to see exactly "HOW" this process works (again, not my opinion). Investigation into one's experience when seen this way is practicing the enlightenment factor and this is a very important part of the practice. The more interested one is in HOW this process works, the deeper their understanding becomes and the clearer D.O. appears. If you want more information please go to our website at www.dhammasukha.org I have written a book called "The Anapanasati Sutta" A Practical Guide to Mindfulness of Breathing and Tranquil Wisdom Meditation. You can click on this and the entire book has been printed out by a few different people. You can down load it if you are really interested. I sincerely hope that this has been a help to you. Thank you for asking. Maha-Metta Always, Bhante Vimalaramsi 37763 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:34pm Subject: Re: Help with clarification of "control" Hi Dave and TG, Dave wrote: -------------------------- > But still, there seems to be nama and rupa that CAN be controlled, and nama and rupa that can not. > -------------------------- KH: To solve the problem, you need to learn the difference between concept and reality. The so-called namas and rupas that seem to be controlled are concepts. The actual namas and rupas that are clearly not controlled are realities. ------------- D: > And maybe it's that aspect that we think,well, I can walk, drive, fly where I want I can say what I want, etc.etc. that keeps us believing that there MUST be a "self", "soul", whatever. > -------------- KH: 'I' 'walk' 'drive' 'fly' and 'spoken words' are all concepts. They are useful but not real. It is when we believe they are real that they (as you say) "keep us believing there must be a "self."" TG, I may have misunderstood your answer to Dave's post, in which case I apologise, but it seems that you believe concepts are real. You wrote: ----------- > You can walk because there is an Earth, gravity, sun, plants (sustenance) etc. You can drive because of millions of "man hours" of technology, The point is, all of these things arise due to conditions. > ----------- KH: Actually, concepts do not arise and fall. Only conditioned paramattha dhammas arise and fall. Back again to your post,Dave. You continued: ------------- > To me, that's the hurdle I can't, as yet, jump. > ------------- KH: Study the Abhidhamma with DSG (especially when the India travellers return). You will learn about ultimate realities, which are worthless, momentary, phenomena, and patently not you or I. They (not the concepts of 'walking' and 'flying' etc.,) are the realities discovered and described by the Buddha. Only they bear the characteristics; anicca, dukkha and anatta. --------------------------- D: > And then again, there is always the conundrum that, even when we start to observe what is going on, I think, OK, who is doing the observing? Get's to be an iterative process... > ---------------------------- KH: When there is a concept of an 'observer of realities' the "self or soul" you mentioned keeps coming back. So, forget about trying to observe realities: understanding is the key. Kind regards, Ken H 37764 From: Andrew Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Dear DN Sorry if I took your words out of context. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It's just that, at the moment, I am very interested in reflecting upon the place of saddha in Dhamma practice. In your post, you wrote: "some drivelling faith-head". As one Dhamma practitioner to another, do you have a sutta reference for this term or the use of this kind of language? (-: Like Howard, Pali is all Swahili to me so I'll butt out of the discussion here and leave you to it. But it remains a very interesting thread ... Best wishes Andrew T 37765 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:18pm Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hi DN, ---------------------- DN: > In your original post you had interpreted an exhortation ("he SHOULD beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind") as if it were merely a narration or description of certain things that might happen. This is an abuse of language and does violence to the meaning and purpose of the passage. <. . .> By "something more proactive" I meant that the Buddha in this passage is giving an instruction relating to mind development that a bhikkhu should deliberately undertake. There is no suggestion that the bhikkhu just passively waits for "teeth-clenching" and "constraining mind by mind" to occur by itself. > ---------------------- You will be aware of a number of suttas in which the Buddha says the Middle Way is travelled (or the flood is crossed) 'not by striving and not by standing still.' There is no 'controlling entity' and there is no entity that is 'out of control.' There are only conditioned mental and physical phenomena. ------------------------------ DN: > Now *maybe* it would be possible to use another mode of discourse in which one narrates what is going on when the bhikkhu clenches his teeth and endeavours to constrain mind with mind, e.g. an explication in terms of supposed paramattha dhammas. But even if this explication were an accurate one it would nonetheless be false to claim that this was what the Buddha *really meant* or that this would be an equivalent statement. No 'ought' statement can be the equivalent of an 'is' statement. The two are just not commensurate. The Buddha's mode of discourse in the Vitakkasanthana Sutta is advisory or homiletic and to convert this into a descriptive mode of discourse would be to eviscerate it. <. . .> The full meaning and function of an utterance lies not only in its propositional content, but also in the outcome that the speaker anticipates his words will have. An utterance that is an incitant to a certain course of action is just not the same as a description of what will be going on if/when the listener undertakes that course of action. Am I making myself clear? > ------------------------------- I think I know what you mean, and I think you are missing the middle way. You reject the teaching of momentary, unsatisfactory impersonal nama and rupa (paramattha dhammas). To me, that suggests you can't possibly understand how the flood was crossed 'not by striving and not by standing still.' Thank you for your appraisal of Bhikkhu Thanissaro's teaching. I can't see why you think it is not eternalist, but that is not important. It is important that AccessToInsight readers be aware of what you write below: ---------------- DN > His take on anattaa is idiosyncratic and not how this doctrine was understood by any of the Indian aacaariyas, but nevertheless it's quite distinct from both the Vedantic interpretation of Mrs Rhys Davids (and numerous others) and the neo-Pudgalavaadin interpretation of George Grimm and A.P. Buddhadatta. I think Thanissaro might well be convicted on a charge of eel-wriggling, but not eternalism. His 'strategic interpretation' is in essence a dumbed down version of a thesis first proposed by the Austrian scholar Erich Frauwallner in the late 1950's. Frauwallner was famous for his skill in propounding eccentric theories plausibly enough for them to be taken seriously for a year or so, before he himself would disown them. His most famous and long-lasting one was the "Two Vasubandhus Theory" which was taken seriously for nearly two decades. As for the "Strategic Anatta Theory", this was shot down by buddhologists from all sides, disowned by Frauwallner himself within a year of it being published, and would have been all but forgotten were it not for Thanissaro. I suspect it may also be from Frauwallner that Thanissaro picked up his curious ideas on what Indians thought about extinguished fires. > ---------------- Yes, apparently the fire doesn't really go out - something 'continues on.' Sounds like eternalism to me! ---------- K> They [ATI] share your aversion to a teaching of ultimate reality K> because that teaching makes no allowance for a possible K> "something more." It teaches there are only dhammas and that K> all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta while K> the one unconditioned dhamma is anatta. (No scope for a K> "something more.") DN: > I am very unmystical and not at all a 'something more' enthusiast. But if you are trying to imply that the only possibilities are being a believer in physical and psychical atoms or being an eternalist, then I must be the latter, then I'd say you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation, > --------- I thought you might secretly believe in a self, and so I asked you. Glad to know I was wrong! By the way, didn't the Buddha regard any view that is not the Middle Way as either eternalism or annihilationism? Is that "bifurcation?" ------------------------ DN: > and that if I'm not the former for there are plenty of other possibilities besides these two. One might, for example, accept that there are only dhammas, but not go along with how this or that Abhidharma tradition conceives dhammas. > ------------------------ There can be only one true Dhamma. If we have understood a wrong one, we are stuck with the two extremes. -------------- DN: > One might be a Puggalavaadin, with a dharmas theory AND a transmigrating 'person' who is held to be inscrutable but not eternal, and who is extinguished in parinirvana; > -------------- How is that different from annhilationism? ------------- DN: > one might be a Sautrantika and conceive of dharmas as thing- events rather than things; > ------------- Sounds like the wrong view: "the world does not really exist" (annihilationism?). ---------- DN: > one might take the Dhamma as a 'leap philosophy' in which all such conceivings are to be eschewed. > ---------- Sounds like Ven. Thanissaro's eternalist teaching; "anatta is just a strategy." ------------- DN: > In my post I mentioned the distinction between the three kinds of benefit that the Buddha taught. Another one is the distinction between the 'Dhamma teaching specific to Buddhas' (buddhaana.m saamukka.msikaa dhammadesanaa) -- meaning the four noble truths -- and then everything else that a Buddha happens to teach, but which unawakened persons might also be able to teach. When one considers the range of teachings that lie within each of these two categories, one ought to see that both of the claims you have cited above rather exceed what can be supported in the Suttas. > ------------- Is there anything in this latter (unawakened) category that could not be taught far better by unawakened experts? The Pali Canon contains descriptions of jhana, for example, but not the step-by- step instruction needed by a beginner. Also, the Kula Sutta's home economics lecture was pretty basic, don't you think? It certainly wouldn't get your daughter through her exams. -------------- dig>> The above Sutta is simply concerned with dig>> di.t.thadhammikattha, 'benefit to be obtained in the present dig>> life'. It comprises four common-sense prudential maxims for dig>> householders who desire their families and family property dig>> to be stable and long-lasting. Nothing more. K> Do you ever wonder why the Bodhisattva wandered samsara for K> countless aeons developing a simplistic, introductory lesson K> in home economics? DN: > No, it isn't a subject I wonder about. Should I? > -------------- Fair enough - silly question! But do you get my point? Home Economics is not the teaching of a Buddha. At a very superficial level, it might look as though the Kula Sutta teaches home economics, but that would be a terrible underrating of a Buddha's Dhamma. The Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana. That is why I asked the following question: ------------- K> What is the meaning of "they" "things" and "a man or a K> woman" in: K> "They look for things they have lost. K> They repair things that are old. K> They eat and drink moderately. K> They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of K> virtue." -------------- I don't think that deserved the infantile response it received: -------------------- DN: > Really Ken, at your age you shouldn't expect other people to fill in ALL the gaps in your knowledge. And these are simple words that you should already know by now. I suggest you try and get your mummy to buy you a picture dictionary in time for your twelfth birthday. Okay, here goes:- "They" is a pronoun standing for a plurality of items or persons. Like all pronouns it's an indexical term, which --------------------- You know the texts far better than I do: the Buddha said he used conventional language without being "caught-up" by it. Whenever he spoke of a man or woman he was referring to the five khandhas (nama and rupa, paramattha dhammas). Kind regards, Ken H 37766 From: Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:37:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: KH: 'I' 'walk' 'drive' 'fly' and 'spoken words' are all concepts. They are useful but not real. It is when we believe they are real that they (as you say) "keep us believing there must be a "self."" TG, I may have misunderstood your answer to Dave's post, in which case I apologise, but it seems that you believe concepts are real. You wrote: Hi Ken H Yea, I think you did mis-understand my post. My post had nothing to do with topic of concepts. My post was in regards to the topic of "control." However, since you mention it, yes I do believe concepts are real. Concepts arise and cease due to conditions and are part of the Mental Formation and Consciousness aggregates. They are part of the Consciousness aggregate because they are supported and bound with Consciousness/awareness. As a Mental Formation they are classifiable as: -- Perception, Delusion, Wrong View, and perhaps in a subtle way Conceit. It should be clear, however, that the "referent" that the concept refers to is merely an imagination. That "referent" does not arise or cease at all. Even the so-called "ultimate realities" when classified through concepts are mere imagination. Even according to abhidhamma analysis... the rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and death (consciousness) may take a concept as an object for consciousness and refer to that concept during one's entire life during the "process-freed life continuum" consciousness. Sounds like something that REALLY arsies and ceases due to conditions. Once again, the referent doesn't arise and cease, but the concept does. TG 37767 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Unwavering Bliss ... Friends: Neither Pushed nor Pulled: Therefore, friend Channa, this instruction by the Blessed One should be given continuous attention: There is Wavering in one who is Dependent ! There is no wavering in one who is Independent ! When wavering is absent, there is Tranquillity.. When Stilled & Tranquil, there is no drifting.. When not drifting anywhere, there is no coming nor going.. When there is neither coming nor going, there is no passing away nor reappearing. When there is neither passing away nor reappearing, there is no here nor beyond nor in between ...! This -itself- is the very End of all Suffering ... Source: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 144 [iii 266] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37768 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:54pm Subject: Refined Equanimity ... Friends: Supreme Ability at first Stance: Now, Ananda, what is the Supreme Noble Refinement of the Sense Abilities ? When one Sees a Form with the Eye; When one Hears a Sound with the Ear; When one Smells an Odour with the Nose; When one Tastes a Flavour with the Tongue; When one Touches a Tangible with the Body; When one Thinks an Idea with the Mind; there emerge in one, what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, and what is both agreeable & disagreeable... This one Understands thus: This agreeable, disagreeable, & both agreeable & disagreeable is a constructed, conditioned, transient, gross, dependently arisen, & disgusting noise... While that indeed is Peaceful, that is Sublime, that is Stilled & Stable Equanimity... Just as quickly as a man can shut his eyes, or stretch out his arm, even just as quickly, rapidly, & easily can such silenced & salient Equanimity be established !!! ----- Such Nobly trained Friend, Ananda, can freely choose between: May I experience whatever is repulsive, as only pleasant... May I experience whatever is attractive, as only repulsive... May I experience only Equanimity in both the attractive & the repulsive... ----- There are here these roots of trees, these empty huts. Meditate, Ananda, do not delay or else you will indeed regret it later! This is your instruction to you... ----- Therefore: Initiating & maintaining local meditation societies is of great merit !!! Source: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 152 [iii 300] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma http://uk.geocities.com/bhikkhu_samahita http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome. 37769 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Oct 24, 2004 0:30am Subject: Final Fundamental Freedom ... !!! Friends: Complete Detachment by Relinquishing of all Clinging: Friends, you should Train yourself in this Way: I will not cling to neither the eye, the ear, the nose the tongue, the body, nor the mind... Thus will my consciousness depend neither on any awareness of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches nor any mental states... Thus will my consciousness depend neither on any visual contact, auditory contact, olfactory contact, gustatory contact, tactile contact, nor any mental contact... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any feeling aroused from these visual, auditory, or ... mental contacts... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any form, emotion, perception, mental construction, nor on any bare awareness itself... Thus will my consciousness depend neither on any solidity, fluidity, heat, motion, space nor on any sort of subtle mentality... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on any infinitude of space, any infinitude of consciousness, any sphere of nothingness, any sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... Thus will my consciousness neither depend on anything at all in this world nor on anything at all in any other world beyond that. Thus will my consciousness be independent of what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, searched and examined by the mind... This -only this- itself leads to the final fundamental freedom !!! Source: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya MN 143 [iii 258-261] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma http://uk.geocities.com/bhikkhu_samahita http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome. 37770 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:06pm Subject: India5 Dear Friends, India 3 & 4 to come when we can download - m'while v.unstable connection in Patna - first internet connection for several days after a few nts in Kushinara and Savatthi, really off the beaten tRACK. aZITA says to say the road from Kushinara to Patna yest (over 10hrs with just one short Indian wayside tea stop, real bumpty, dusty dirt roads etc) give her an idea of what the hell realms must be like . Nina sends lots of best wishes and to say she's thinking of everyone a lot and has many new ideas. Savatthi - large open green gardens at Jetavana with the ruins of the kutis of the Buddha and the great arahants remaining - Quite incredible. lots of monkeys and very beautifully kept compared to my last visit....lots of dh discussions when not on the road and for some on the road from behind masks, now a common sight in the group. Yest, leaving Kushinara, retracing the last steps of the Buddha before his parinibbana and stopping to visit the site on the hillside of Cunda's house where the Buddha was given the last controversial meal, well discussed on DSG. Lots of good cheer in the group - this morning they've gone out to Vaisali and the sites of the 2nd and 3rd councils while Jon and I are running round town trying to connect with you all. Way behind with reading - hope to catch up today and check all is in order;-). We think of our DSg friends a lot and many of our live discussions are centred round points and qus that come up on list. Must go bef I push my luck with the latest connection any more. Metta, Sarah (Jon & All) ==================== 37771 From: plnao Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: Concepts as condition beyond our control (was Re: [dsg] Re: killing in a dream) Hello Htoo Thank you for your long post. I really sense that you have a lot of enthusiasm about helping people to understand Dhamma. As for dreams - don't worry, I don't let them control me. Actually, like you, I rarely dream anymore. Or should I say I rarely remember my dreams. I've wondered about why. I think it could be that even basic right understanding of the truth revealed through the Buddha's teaching has lessened some of the strife at work in my mind. I don't know. In any case, I am more interested about how one concept can condition the arising of many factors, whether it's a concept in a dream or waking. I think metta meditation the way it is usually practiced is a method of generating a concept in the hope of conditioning wholesomeness. I know my opinion goes against the grain of the way most Buddhist practice metta, but I do not believe it is good practice to intentionally think of metta, because metta should arise, or not arise, due to conditions. I've stopped thinking about metta when I have my contemplation of the Noble Truths in the morning, but I am aware of metta when it arises in my busy day, as I'm aware when irritation or joy or restlessness or any other mental factors arise beyond my control. Htoo>>> there does exist control. I do not mean Atta. That control is conventional one. If there is no control, how can siila be practised? Control does exist. The Buddha encouraged to control strayed thought not to arise. The Buddha encourage people to control wanting to kill someone, to control wanting to steal things, to control wanting to have sex with other people's wives, to control wanting to self intoxication with alcohol or addictives. This is conventional control. Phil>>> "The Buddha encouraged people to control wanting to kill someone" etc. When I read the suttas in which the Buddha encourages people to tame the mind, such as in the Dhammapada when we read about mind flipping and flopping around like a fish, I wonder if there are not many people who might be led astray by such teaching, or should I say such translation. How on earth can we control the mind that is flipping and flopping. Isn't it better to watch it, and see where it goes, and know that the wholesomeness of moments in which we know these mental formations as anatta, annica and dukkha will condition less akusala and more akusala. Isn't that enough? Why do we need to wrest control of the mind now. If we try to control the mind we are setting ourselves up for great dissatisfaction when we learn that we *can't* control the mind. It's like when we try to control our physical health by eating well and exercising, and come to count on physical health, and then have to go through great dissatisfaction when we are reminded that there is no way around sickness, old age, and death. Of course eating well and exercising is good, but not if we do so in the expectation that we will always be healthy. Studying the workings of the mind is good, and trying to patiently cultivate ,mental wholesomeness, but not in the expectation that we will ever be able to prevent unwholesome factors from arising beyond our control. We can decrease the likelihood of transgressions, but I don't think we can say that they will never happen because of mental will power. You know, Htoo, I am the kind of person who has always written a long list of New Year's resolutions every year. In fact, in recent years, this process has taken up about a week, re-reading my journal for the year, examining the experience recorded there, and then drawing up a list of resolutions about how to be a better, more peaceful and productive person. Of course, these resolutions have always failed, because there has always been a complete lack of right understanding of the way things work. There has always been self at the center of the enterprise, trying to build an ideal character in which to hold reign. Now, since coming across Abhidhamma through Nina's books, there are no more resolutions. There is simply examination - at a very crude level - of what is rising and falling away in moments. And a lot of repeated reading and reflection and discussion. I *do* sense that I am far less prone to commit transgressions than I ever have been before, even though I am no longer making resolutions. But I somehow can't call it control. Panna controls what is going on, in some way, yes. I can sense that. Howard questions the idea of "panna" being some kind of autonomous force or energy, like a god figure. (Sorry if I've incorrectly paraphrased you there, Howard.) As always, I see why he doth protest. Who am I, as a mere beginner in Dhamma, to talk about "panna" doing anything in my life. And yet, and yet.... So, for me, the conventional control, the will power, the reading about a precept and vowing to follow it has never worked. Now I sense the control is far subtler than that, but more deeply effective. It makes me feel very grateful to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. I'm not writing anything here that anyone hasn't read a thousand times before, of course. Thank you again, Htoo. Now I'm going to go and collect your Dhamma threads to study them and ask questions. Metta, Phil 37772 From: Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi, TG & Ken - I'll add some comments at various spots in the following: In a message dated 10/25/04 11:02:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:37:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > KH: 'I' 'walk' 'drive' 'fly' and 'spoken words' are all concepts. > They are useful but not real. It is when we believe they are real > that they (as you say) "keep us believing there must be a "self."" > > TG, I may have misunderstood your answer to Dave's post, in which > case I apologise, but it seems that you believe concepts are real. > You wrote: > Hi Ken H > > Yea, I think you did mis-understand my post. My post had nothing to do with > > topic of concepts. My post was in regards to the topic of "control." > > However, since you mention it, yes I do believe concepts are real. Concepts > > arise and cease due to conditions and are part of the Mental Formation and > Consciousness aggregates. They are part of the Consciousness aggregate > because > they are supported and bound with Consciousness/awareness. As a Mental > Formation they are classifiable as: -- Perception, Delusion, Wrong View, and > perhaps > in a subtle way Conceit. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here, you, TG, do exactly what I do, namely distinguish between concepts as ideas, as thoughts that are formational constructs produced by mental processing and then arising as mind-door objects (or content), as opposed to the conventional objects that are their intended referents. Those intended referents, even in the case of "paramatthic concepts", are merely mentally projected or imagined, and are not directly experienced (as opposed to the ideas, which *are*). --------------------------------------------------- > > It should be clear, however, that the "referent" that the concept refers to > is merely an imagination. That "referent" does not arise or cease at all. > Even the so-called "ultimate realities" when classified through concepts are > mere > imagination. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Here, TG, in a sense we agree, and in a sense we disagree. We agree in that, for example, the mentally considered extreme heat of a touched stove is the referent of a concept, and it is a nonexistent shadow that differs from actually felt burning heat. The actually felt burning heat is a body-door phenomenon, a paramattha dhamma, a direct experiential content, and not the referent of an idea, though intended to be. One more nuance that I would add about the ideas themselves, not their referents, that you and I both consider to lie within the category of sankhara: Most of the alleged concept-ideas that we think arise in the mind are themselves not paramattha dhammas, but are themselves conventional (mental) objects that are complexes of directly apprehended sankhata that the mind treats as if they were single ideas. My point here is hard to grasp, and I find that I keep on losing my grasp of it even as I write about it. What I'm saying here is that most of our seemingly unitary "thoughts" don't really exist, but are merely complexes or structured sequences of unitary thoughts. Thus, there are levels beyond levels of unreality to our world of concept. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Even according to abhidhamma analysis... the rebirth-linking, > life-continuum, > and death (consciousness) may take a concept as an object for consciousness > and refer to that concept during one's entire life during the "process-freed > > life continuum" consciousness. Sounds like something that REALLY arsies and > > ceases due to conditions. Once again, the referent doesn't arise and cease, > but > the concept does. > > TG > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37773 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:16am Subject: Buddhaghosa on the names of dhammas was: Last minute thoughts to Dighanakha Hello Sarah (and all). I hope you are enjoying your pilgrimage. I will now begin replying to the posts you and Jon sent before departing, as I expect you will be back soon. S> Texts on Magadhan/Pali Ð Thx for the passage from the Vism. S> We discussed this and the Tiika before. It's not easy I S> agree, (see U.P. Ð Patisambhida). I've already given a brief S> summary of my understanding and look forward to further S> discussion on this. I'd be very interested to see any S> translation you give of those passages not already S> translated, esp Vibhanga Ðtiika, sutta commentaries etc. As S> I've said, I think in this case you're taking a very literal S> approach. I don't think so. Consider this: "In the naama-&-ruupa dyad, naama means name-creating (naamakara.na), shaping (namana), and causing to be shaped (naamana). Herein, four aggregates are naama with the meaning of 'name-creating'. "Though King Mahaasammata was named 'Mahaasammata' by the agreement (sammata) of the general population, or parents give their children names by announcing, "Let his name be 'Tissa', let his name be 'Phussa'!", or the name comes about by way of some quality, such as 'preacher of Dhamma' or 'memorizer of Vinaya', this is not the case with names [of dhammas] starting with 'vedanaa'. "The [naama-dhammas] starting with 'vedanaa' and [the elements] starting with 'great earth' arise *creating their own names* (attano naama.m karontaava uppajjanti). Their names just arise as they [the dhammas] arise. "Because at the arising of vedanaa, no one says, "Let your name be 'vedanaa'!" and there is no function of name-acquiring (na naama-gaha.na-kicca.m atthi). "As when earth has arisen, there is no function of name-acquiring: "Let your name be earth!" and likewise with the arising of a world system, Mt. Sineru, the moon, the sun, and the stars, there is no function of name-acquiring: "Let your name be 'world-system!' Let your name be 'star'!" The names just arise, as their spontaneously produced designations (opapaatika pa~n~natti) fall into place; so likewise with the arising of vedanaa, there is no function of name-acquiring: "Let your name be 'vedanaa'!" But the name 'vedanaa' just arises with the arising of vedanaa. Its spontaneously produced designation falls into place. "And the very same principle applies to [the other dhammas] starting with 'perception', sankhaaras etc.. [repeat the same for past vedanaa, future vedanaa, past sa~n~naa, future sa~n~naa ... etc.] (DhsA 1303, Suttantikadukanikkhepakathaa) "Dhammas arise creating their own names" ?? Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37774 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:34 PM Subject: [dsg] Ultimate Reality > > Hi All > > Just a thought that I would like to share. > > How do we differentiate ultimate reality and conventional reality. I > feel the difference is whether we experience it. We can know to feel > but we cannot know a concept like a table only through a mind > construct. I think I like to say that there is no direct knowing of > the object. Feeling, if you mean vedanaa, also arises with cittas that take concepts as objects, doesn't it? > Another question is that is citta really that fast? I was wondering > if citta is not fast, how do we see light in a continuous stream > without a breakage. It must be fast enough to take it as an object. Citta only must to arise and subside more rapidly than does the subsequent conceptualization in order to make the conceptualization seem unbroken, I think--somewhat like the individual frames of a movie or pixels of a cathode ray tube seeming to make an unbroken moving picutre. > Thats just my thoughts Just mine too--mostly borrowed, actually... mike 37775 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:35am Subject: Re: India5 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > Hallo Sarah and other India pilgrims Nice to hear from you again. What interests me is how (perhaps later) are the results of your reflections on your tour ? Especially on the experiences in the multi-religious and more specific, the multi-buddhist culture in India. I mean: do you think now, more than living in a mono-Theravada culture that buddhist traditions can influence each other in a positive way? And do you think that more than till now Theravada and Mahayana buddhists can have fruitful discussions with each other? Metta Joop 37776 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:28am Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hello Ken H. dig>> By "something more proactive" I meant that the Buddha in dig>> this passage is giving an instruction relating to mind dig>> development that a bhikkhu should deliberately undertake. dig>> There is no suggestion that the bhikkhu just passively waits dig>> for "teeth-clenching" and "constraining mind by mind" to dig>> occur by itself. K> You will be aware of a number of suttas in which the Buddha K> says the Middle Way is travelled (or the flood is crossed) K> 'not by striving and not by standing still.' There is no K> 'controlling entity' and there is no entity that is 'out of K> control.' There are only conditioned mental and physical K> phenomena. There is actually only one Sutta that says this, the Oghatara.na (SN i 1). I don't interpret it as you do, and for that matter neither does the Samyutta Atthakathaa or Tiikaa. 'Striving' (paggaha, viriya) is an *essential* part of the middle way. What the Buddha says he avoided is 'over-straining' (aayuuhana.m), which the .Tiikaa equates with micchaa-vayaama, or wrong effort, like that of Sona who did walking meditation until his feet were worn to shreds. dig>> The full meaning and function of an utterance lies not only dig>> in its propositional content, but also in the outcome that dig>> the speaker anticipates his words will have. An utterance dig>> that is an incitant to a certain course of action is just dig>> not the same as a description of what will be going on dig>> if/when the listener undertakes that course of action. dig>> Am I making myself clear? K> I think I know what you mean, and I think you are missing K> the middle way. You reject the teaching of momentary, K> unsatisfactory impersonal nama and rupa (paramattha K> dhammas). In commenting on your interpretation of the teeth-clenching passage I saw no need to bring up momentary dhammas, either to affirm them or reject them. My view is that the existence or non-existence of such things has no bearing on the Buddha's instruction to a bhikkhu to clench his teeth and constrain mind with mind after all the previous methods have failed. It's simply an irrelevant consideration. It's as if a lumberjack is teaching someone how to saw a log in half and then you come along and tell him he can't possibly cut a log in half until he's been taught about the molecular changes that will take place in the log's hydro-carbons as it's being cut. K> By the way, didn't the Buddha regard any view that is not K> the Middle Way as either eternalism or annihilationism? It would be more accurate to say that he taught dependent arising as the middle way that avoids the extremes of "all exists" (sabba.m atthi) and "all does not exist" (sabba.m natthi), or between 'there-is-ness' (atthitaa) and 'there-is-not-ness' (natthitaa). The Commentaries later equated these terms with sassatavaada and ucchedavaada. K> Is that "bifurcation?" No. Bifurcation involves insisting on an either/or choice, when there are in fact more than two possibilities, or a possible both/and overlap between the two alteratives. The commonest form is when you give your opponent an absurd alternative to the view you want him to accept, try to convince him these are the only possibilities and then require him to choose between them. The bifurcation fallacy is what Robert K. and Sarah commit every time they invite us to choose between accepting the commentators' account of the origin of the Abhidhamma or else positing a huge monkish conspiracy to deceive people. dig>> One might, for example, accept that there are only dhammas, dig>> but not go along with how this or that Abhidharma tradition dig>> conceives dhammas. K> There can be only one true Dhamma. And 84,000 ways of formulating it. K> If we have understood a wrong one, we are stuck with the two K> extremes. If you read the Kaccaanagottasutta -- the only Sutta that deals with the teaching you are alluding to -- you will see that what lies between the two extremes is simply the dependent arising, "With ignorance as condition, sankhaaras; with sankhaaras as condition, consciousness ...etc." Accepting this as the middle way does not oblige one to embrace this Abhidharma tradition rather than that one, or indeed any one. dig>> One might be a Puggalavaadin, with a dharmas theory AND a dig>> transmigrating 'person' who is held to be inscrutable but dig>> not eternal, and who is extinguished in parinirvana; K> How is that different from annhilationism? Sorry, I should have written "a transmigrating 'person' who is held to be inscrutable but not eternal, but who is nonetheless *not* said to be extinguished in parinirvana." I suppose then your question would be, "How is that different from eternalism?" The Pudgalavaadin would reply by quoting the passage that rejects all four of the possibilities of what happens to an arahant after death and would then accuse you of annihilationism. The two of you would then have a jolly debate over what exactly this passage means. dig>> one might be a Sautrantika and conceive of dharmas as thing- dig>> events rather than things; K> Sounds like the wrong view: "the world does not really exist" K> (annihilationism?). Only for one committed to the view that a dhamma has to have a moment of stasis (thiti) in order to count as 'existing'. The Sautrantikas held that such a stasis would violate the teaching on impermanence. dig>> one might take the Dhamma as a 'leap philosophy' in which dig>> all such conceivings are to be eschewed. K> Sounds like Ven. Thanissaro's eternalist teaching; "anatta K> is just a strategy." Thanissaro's teaching is that anattaa is a strategy, not *just* a strategy. That is to say, he accepts that the teaching is also a statement about how things really are. But it's nothing like a 'leap' interpretation. The venerable is too much inclined to painting legs on snakes to make a good leaper. A 'leap' interpretation would rest on passages like the well-known instructions to Baahiya the Bark-clad, or those where the teaching is expressed in two or three word admonitions like "Pa.thavi.m maa ma~n~nii!" "Don't conceive earth!" dig>> In my post I mentioned the distinction between the three dig>> kinds of benefit that the Buddha taught. Another one is the dig>> distinction between the 'Dhamma teaching specific to dig>> Buddhas' (buddhaana.m saamukka.msikaa dhammadesanaa) -- dig>> meaning the four noble truths -- and then everything else dig>> that a Buddha happens to teach, but which unawakened persons dig>> might also be able to teach. When one considers the range of dig>> teachings that lie within each of these two categories, one dig>> ought to see that both of the claims you have cited above dig>> rather exceed what can be supported in the Suttas. K> Is there anything in this latter (unawakened) category that K> could not be taught far better by unawakened experts? I don't think one can really know how effective such teachings would have been for his listeners, as we only have them only in the compressed artificial form suited for an oral transmission. Still, if he had anything like the sort of powers that the Suttas attribute to him, then I imagine he would have acquitted himself pretty well. K> The Pali Canon contains descriptions of jhana, for example, K> but not the step-by- step instruction needed by a beginner. Here too there is obviously a difference between the teaching as the Buddha's listeners heard it and the form in which it was finally preserved. K>>> Do you ever wonder why the Bodhisattva wandered samsara for K>>> countless aeons developing a simplistic, introductory lesson K>>> in home economics? dig>> No, it isn't a subject I wonder about. Should I? K> Fair enough - silly question! But do you get my point? Home K> Economics is not the teaching of a Buddha. Do you mean you don't believe the Buddha taught the Kula Sutta? If you believe he did, then how can you deny that his teaching was *in part* aimed at promoting present-life welfare by giving guidance on everyday matters? K> At a very superficial level, "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances." -- Oscar Wilde. :-) K> it might look as though the Kula Sutta teaches home K> economics, but that would be a terrible underrating of a K> Buddha's Dhamma. Rubbish. It's a testimony to his range and versatility as a teacher. K> The Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his K> teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana. Poppycock. Back up your claim with a citation from the Suttas. K> That is why I asked the following question: K>> What is the meaning of "they" "things" and "a man or a woman" in: K>> "They look for things they have lost. K>> They repair things that are old. K>> They eat and drink moderately. K>> They place in authority a man or a woman possessed of K>> virtue." Yes, I suspected that was why you asked the question, but you see, Ken, I take my Dhamma from the Suttas and that means I don't share your view that satipa.t.thaana is the whole of the Buddha's teaching, nor that satipa.t.thaana has anything to do with discerning psychical and physical atoms. K> I don't think that deserved the infantile response it K> received: Then you're probably taking your abhidhammic glass bead game much too seriously. Listen for a moment to Lance Cousins -- perhaps the wisest abhidhammika the west has yet produced: "The aim of this abhidhammic analysis is not really theoretical; it is related to insight meditation and offers a world-view based upon process in order to facilitate insight into change and no-self *so as to undermine mental rigidity*" dig>> "They" is a pronoun standing for a plurality of items or dig>> persons. K> You know the texts far better than I do: the Buddha said he K> used conventional language without being "caught-up" by it. K> Whenever he spoke of a man or woman he was referring to the K> five khandhas (nama and rupa, paramattha dhammas). Your first statement is correct. But he only said it once in one single Sutta, so it's not exactly the leitmotif of his teaching. And to construct one's entire hermeneutic around this one utterance is bizarre in the extreme. More to the point, to infer from this utterance what you say in your second sentence requires a GIGANTIC leap in my opinion. Here's the passage you're referring to, from the Po.t.thapada Sutta: "Citta, just as from a cow comes milk, from milk comes curds, from the curds comes butter, from the butter comes ghee, and from the ghee comes cream of ghee; and on any occasion when there is milk, then at that time milk enters consideration, and curds, butter, ghee or cream of ghee do not enter consideration; on any occasion when there are curds, then at that time curds enter consideration, and milk, butter, ghee and cream of ghee do not enter consideration...etc. "...Even so, Citta, on any occasion when a coarse acquired- self (o.laarika atta-pa.tilaabha) is present, then at that time a coarse acquired-self enters consideration, and a mind-made acquired-self (manomaya atta-pa.tilaabha) and a formless acquired self (aruupa atta-pa.tilaabha) do not enter consideration. "On any occasion when a mind-made acquired-self is present, then at that time a mind-made acquired-self enters consideration, and a coarse acquired-self and a formless acquired self do not enter consideration. "On any occasion when a formless acquired-self is present, then at that time a formless acquired-self enters consideration and a coarse acquired-self and a mind-made acquired self do not enter consideration. "These then, Citta, are the agreed conventions of the world (loka-sama~n~na), idioms of the world (loka-nirutti), usages of the world (loka-vohaara), designations of the world (loka-pa~n~natti), with which the Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them (voharati aparaamasa.m). Note: 1) It is only the three kinds of 'acquired self' that are designated as 'agreed conventions of the world...etc.' Attapa.tilaabha is a highly unusual term found nowhere else in the Tipitaka. It is not inconceivable that the Buddha intended his statement to apply only to the three kinds of attapa.tilaabha and nothing else. 3) He makes no mention of having something else more real at the back of his mind. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37777 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:38am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 095 ) Dear Connie, Thanks for your reply. What we need is to understand papanca. And that is that. I just contemplate on words. Dr Mehn Tin Mon is a retired professor of chemistry and wrote many books in Myanmar. There are a few translation. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > > Dear Htoo and Mike, > > The way you explained it to Mike (I think 'extend' has only one direction > while 'expand' comprises from a point to all directions that is 360 > degrees) sounds right to me and I personally wouldn't have any problem > saying either - that papanca extends or expands samsara. In the original > quote, though, Dr. Tin Mon wrote that papanca "is responsible for > extending the life cycle or the round of rebirth that is known as > samsara". Somehow, 'expanding the life-cycle' doesn't sound quite right > but does have a tempting "more panca-upadana-khanda is better/more > fullfilling" flavour to it. 'Life-cycle' would be extended in duration or > throughout ever more and more cycles. Still, our lifetimes also expand > into other bhumis than just this rare and current human one. > > A little later, Dr. Tin Mon touches on another aspect of papanca: "...moha > clouds the mind and blinds the eye not to see things as they really are. > It makes one see things as nicca (permanent), sukha (pleasant), atta (self > or person) and subha (beautiful). Because of this wrong vision, lobha > clings or attaches to this ‘self or person’ and di.t.thi takes the wrong > view that ‘self’ and ‘person’ really exist. > The most basic and universal wrong view is the ‘personality- belief’ > (sakkaaya-di.t.thi) or ‘ego-illusion’ (atta-di.t.thi). Sakkaaya- di.t.thi > believes that this combination of mind and body is ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘he’, > ‘she’, ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘person’, etc. Atta-di.t.thi believes in the > existence of an ‘atta or soul’ or ‘ego’ or ‘life- entity’ in the body. > ***From this sakkaaya-di.t.thi or atta-di.t.thi as well as from the > ignorance due to moha there spring up thousands of wrong views.***" > > abhidhaultsci.pdf > eBUDDHANET'S BOOK LIBRARY > www.buddhanet.net > > peace, > con-cept 37778 From: nori Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Details on Vedana Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Nori and Larry > > As we know there are five types of feelings generally described in > the suttas which inlcudes the bodily feelings. It is also clear in > the suttas where each sensory rupas is felt by the respective sensory > cittas. So what is felt in the body sensation only belongs to the > body citta that arisen to cognise the bodily rupas. Hence > technicaly speaking it is not right to say that bodily sensation is > felt by the mind cittas. > When I speak of mind, I am speaking only through my current understanding of conventional (material) reality since this what I observe and know at this point. I meant the physical, mind - brain. If it is the case that cittas is dependant upon this material mind/brain then all the sensory cittas would also exist within/with it. ... but what do I know. Thanks for the reply. with metta, nori 37779 From: plnao Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:32pm Subject: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hello all Reading SN XXII 122 this morning came across this key sentence: "A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self." I wondered why we would attend to khandas as a disease, or alien (if they are alien, alien to what?) when it seems that by going straight to an understanding of khandas as dissolution, or emptiness, or anatta, we can get to a kind of liberation more directly, even if our understanding is basic. Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can get straight to dissolution? After all, in another sutta (SN XXII 36) the Buddha says that "if one stays obsessed with form (and the other khandas) that's what one is measured by. What one is measured by, that's how one is classified." I also thought this when reading the series on removing distracting thoughts that Nina posted. Why reflect on foulness when going straight to elements (I would say understanding elements leads directly to understanding their dissolution) seems much more immediately effective? I guess it has to do with accumulations which way of understanding is most effective for a person, and at different times. Concepts are helpful because we have not developed insight to the point where we can have direct understanding of elements. And of course, the degree of insight into elements that I'm able capable of is still conceptual. I would also guess that people who have an appreciation of Abhidhamma are able to move more directly to "attending to" elements and dissolution of elements without getting caught up entirely in concepts such as disease or alien. Yet again, gratitude to the Buddha for his teaching of Abhidhamma and to Nina for her books that make the Buddha's teaching of Abhidhamma accessible for beginners like me. Metta, Phil Here's the sutta I was referring to: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-122.htm 37780 From: Larry Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Sarvastivada and Sautrantika Hi all, Here is a couple of sketches from "The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion": SARVASTIVADA Skt., roughly "the teaching that says that everything *is*"; school of the Hinayana that split off from the Sthaviras under the reign of King Ashoka. The name of this school comes from its basic premise that everything--past, present, and future--exists simultaneously. The Sarvastivadin school prevailed primarily in Kashmir and Gandhara. It constitutes a transitional stage between the Hinayana and the Mahayana. The Sarvastivadins possessed their own cannon, composed in Sanskrit, which is partially preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translation. The most important works of this school are the "Mahavibasha" (Great Exegesis), which was composed under the supervision of Vasumitra at the council of Kashmir and to which the school owes the name "Vaibhashika", by which it is also known. The "Mahavibhasha" is a summary of the Sarvastivada teaching and is the latest of the seven works of the Abhidharma-pitaka. Another important work is the "Abhidharma-hridaya", the "Heart of Abhidharma" in ten chapters. The "Vibasha" by Katyayaniputra is also a summary of the doctrine. The "Lokaprajnapti" gives a description of the mythical universe of Buddhism. On matters of discipline, only the "Vinaya-vibhasha" is extant. The teaching of the Sarvastivada is a radical pluralism based on denial of the reality of a self as a substance or soul (anatman) and the affirmation of the existence of momentary entities, the so-called dharmas. The Sarvastivadins postulate seventy-five different dharmas, which (like the ancient notion of atoms) represent final, indivisible units, viewed as real. They distinguished conditioned (samskrita) and unconditioned (asamskrita) dharmas. Among the latter are space (akasha) apratishthita-nirvana, and pratishthita-nirvana [active and static nirvana]. The conditioned dharmas are divided into four categories: form or matter (rupa); consciousness (vijnana); mental factors (chetasika), meaning all psychological processes; and dharmas, which are neither form nor consciousness, and include, for example, old age, vitality, attainment, nonattainment, impermanence, and so on. According to the Sarvastivadins, these conditioned dharmas do not come into being but rather exist from beginningless time and only change from a latent to a manifest state. From this view results that "everything is", and that past, present, and future exist simultaneously in a single dharma. In addition, one finds in the Sarvastivada an early form of the Mahayana teaching of the trikaya and the belief, which continues to grow in importance , in the future buddha Maitreya. SAUTRANTIKA Skt.; Hinayana school that developed out of the Sarvastivada around 150 C.E. As its name indicates, the followers of this school draw their support only from the Sutra-pitaka and reject the Abhidharma-pitaka of the Sarvastivada as well as its "everything is" theory. The Sautrantiklas posit the existence of a refined consciousness that constitutes the basis of human life and that persists from one rebirth to the next. In contrast to the Vatsiputriyas, who postulate the existence of an entire "person" that persists from one life to the next, the Sautrantikas see the consciousness as no more than the bearer of the cycle of existence (samsara). Into this consciousness the remaining four skandhas are absorbed at the time of death. This notion of a continuously existing consciousness had a strong influence on the Yogachara school. The theory of the instantaneity of everything existing is very pronounced in the Sautrantika school. It sees in each existent nothing more than an uninterrupted succession of moments. Nirvana for the Sautrantikas is a purely negative spiritual event--it is nonbeing. He who has attained release is annihilated. --------------------- Larry 37781 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi TG, You wrote: -------------------------- > Yea, I think you did mis-understand my post. My post had nothing to do with topic of concepts. My post was in regards to the topic of "control." > -------------------------- Point taken; and I agreed with what you wrote. But it is confusing to talk about anatta and "no control" in terms of concepts. For example, it would be confusing to talk about no control over a motor vehicle or no control over our arms and legs. And it would be confusing to suggest that motor vehicles are non-existent on our roads or that you and I have no arms or legs. -------------------- TG: > However, since you mention it, yes I do believe concepts are real. Concepts arise and cease due to conditions and are part of the Mental Formation and Consciousness aggregates. > ------------------- Our disagreement is partly over terminology and partly over the Dhamma. When you say concepts are real, you don't mean their referents are real (as you explain later in your post). So there is no great disagreement there. However, you do think there is a reality called a concept. This is a common mistake that can be cleared up very easily. It is due largely to some influential modern writers, some of whom have made a simple mistake, others of whom have deliberately undermined the teaching of paramattha dhammas. There are only dhammas, but some dhammas are 'thinking dhammas' and they create concepts. So, as the Urga Sutta tells us, there is an unreal aspect to the world: "9. He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," 10. greedless he knows: "This is all unreal," 11. lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal," 12. hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal," 13. delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal," -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." In an article,"The Worn out Skin," Nyanaponika Thera explains those lines from the Urga Sutta as follows: "The world is unreal in the sense of presenting a deceptive appearance, being quite different in actuality from the way it appears to a greedy, lustful, hating and ignorant mind. The Pali word vitatha, here rendered by "unreal," has both in Pali and Sanskrit the meaning of "untrue" or "false." These verses, however, are not meant to convey the idea that the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What underlies its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical processes, is real enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. The unreality lies in what we attribute to the world, and not in the world itself." end quote The writer accepts there is a world that is real but deceptive. As you and I agree, there are ultimately no referents-of-concepts (trees, cars, men and women). The next question is; does that real world include something that might be called a "concept" as opposed to the referent of a concept? The article continues: "What, now, is this "world" (loka) and this "all" (sabba), which should be seen as unreal, in the sense of being deceptive? When the Enlightened One was questioned about these two words, he gave the same answer for both: 1. "One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there a world or the designation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; when there is the ear and sounds... ; nose and smells... ; tongue and flavors... ; body and tangibles... ; mind and ideas, mind-consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness -- then there is a world and the designation 'world'. Samyutta Nikaya, 35:68" End quote The group we have to examine is the last one:" things cognisable by mind-consciousness." (I gather the Pali is dhammayatana.) Remember; "things" refers here to things that are absolutely real. We all know the mind can cognise objects that are mind-made illusions (pannatti), are they somehow included in this group? I will cut and paste from DSG message # 33803, written by Sarah to Bhikkhu Bodhi (author of the guide to CMA): ---------------- S: > From CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: "the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends only to ultimate realities, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana." --------------- So it is clear isn't it? But there is a problem, and you, like many others, have been misled by it. Sarah continues: --------------------- > I agree with the Guide to #36 and I think it's important because of the (rather serious) error in Nyantiloka's dict -- which we all use so much on the discussion list-- which says the opposite to the point about dhammaayatana exluding pa~n~natti and not being synonymous with dhammaaramma.na. Modern commentators often suggest they are synonymous which leads to serious errors. (Your comments are also clearly confirmed in the comy and also in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhangaand Sammohavinodani.) > -------------------- So concepts are not real, and we are not required to look for them among the five khandhas. Your valiant efforts to describe certain cittas and cetasikas as concept were not required. :-) -------------------- TG: > Even according to abhidhamma analysis... the rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and death (consciousness) may take a concept as an object for consciousness and refer to that concept during one's entire life during the "process-freed life continuum" consciousness. Sounds like something that REALLY arsies and ceases due to conditions. Once again, the referent doesn't arise and cease, but the concept does. > --------------------- Yes, mind-door consciousness can take a concept as its object (dhammaarammana), but at that time there is no real object (dhammaayatana), just the illusion of an object. Kind regards, Ken H 37782 From: Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi Ken H It seemed at some point during your reply you were clear on what I meant between a "referent of a concept" and the mental act of conceptualization. Then later I wasn't so sure. Didn't really follow the arguement against what I presented. Let me try once again. The mental act of conceptualizing is real. The referent of that conceptualization is mere imagination. That imagination might be right or wrong, but it is never real. The easiest way to determine whether conceptualization is a process that arises and ceases due to conditions; is to be minful of thought processes. If the mind is being mindful of thought processes, the mind can pretty easily see that one thought leads to another related thought and so on and so on. It seems to be a clear indication of a series of states that are arising and ceasing in a conditionally related manner. One question... When you say at the end of the previous post (seen below), that during life-continuum-consciousness, where consciousness can take a "concept" as its object, are you saying that -- consciousness can be structured based on an object that isn't real? Based on my understanding of the Buddha's teaching, that would be impossible. TG In a message dated 10/26/2004 5:40:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: Hi TG, You wrote: -------------------------- > Yea, I think you did mis-understand my post. My post had nothing to do with topic of concepts. My post was in regards to the topic of "control." > -------------------------- Point taken; and I agreed with what you wrote. But it is confusing to talk about anatta and "no control" in terms of concepts. For example, it would be confusing to talk about no control over a motor vehicle or no control over our arms and legs. And it would be confusing to suggest that motor vehicles are non-existent on our roads or that you and I have no arms or legs. -------------------- TG: > However, since you mention it, yes I do believe concepts are real. Concepts arise and cease due to conditions and are part of the Mental Formation and Consciousness aggregates. > ------------------- Our disagreement is partly over terminology and partly over the Dhamma. When you say concepts are real, you don't mean their referents are real (as you explain later in your post). So there is no great disagreement there. However, you do think there is a reality called a concept. This is a common mistake that can be cleared up very easily. It is due largely to some influential modern writers, some of whom have made a simple mistake, others of whom have deliberately undermined the teaching of paramattha dhammas. There are only dhammas, but some dhammas are 'thinking dhammas' and they create concepts. So, as the Urga Sutta tells us, there is an unreal aspect to the world: "9. He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," 10. greedless he knows: "This is all unreal," 11. lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal," 12. hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal," 13. delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal," -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." In an article,"The Worn out Skin," Nyanaponika Thera explains those lines from the Urga Sutta as follows: "The world is unreal in the sense of presenting a deceptive appearance, being quite different in actuality from the way it appears to a greedy, lustful, hating and ignorant mind. The Pali word vitatha, here rendered by "unreal," has both in Pali and Sanskrit the meaning of "untrue" or "false." These verses, however, are not meant to convey the idea that the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What underlies its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical processes, is real enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. The unreality lies in what we attribute to the world, and not in the world itself." end quote The writer accepts there is a world that is real but deceptive. As you and I agree, there are ultimately no referents-of-concepts (trees, cars, men and women). The next question is; does that real world include something that might be called a "concept" as opposed to the referent of a concept? The article continues: "What, now, is this "world" (loka) and this "all" (sabba), which should be seen as unreal, in the sense of being deceptive? When the Enlightened One was questioned about these two words, he gave the same answer for both: 1. "One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there a world or the desiwnation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; when there is the ear and sounds... ; nose and smells... ; tongue and flavors... ; body and tangibles... ; mind and ideas, mind-consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness -- then there is a world and the designation 'world'. Samyutta Nikaya, 35:68" End quote The group we have to examine is the last one:" things cognisable by mind-consciousness." (I gather the Pali is dhammayatana.) Remember; "things" refers here to things that are absolutely real. We all know the mind can cognise objects that are mind-made illusions (pannatti), are they somehow included in this group? I will cut and paste from DSG message # 33803, written by Sarah to Bhikkhu Bodhi (author of the guide to CMA): ---------------- S: > From CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: "the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends only to ultimate realities, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana." --------------- So it is clear isn't it? But there is a problem, and you, like many others, have been misled by it. Sarah continues: --------------------- > I agree with the Guide to #36 and I think it's important because of the (rather serious) error in Nyantiloka's dict -- which we all use so much on the discussion list-- which says the opposite to the point about dhammaayatana exluding pa~n~natti and not being synonymous with dhammaaramma.na. Modern commentators often suggest they are synonymous which leads to serious errors. (Your comments are also clearly confirmed in the comy and also in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhangaand Sammohavinodani.) > -------------------- So concepts are not real, and we are not required to look for them among the five khandhas. Your valiant efforts to describe certain cittas and cetasikas as concept were not required. :-) -------------------- TG: > Even according to abhidhamma analysis... the rebirth-linking, life-continuum, and death (consciousness) may take a concept as an object for consciousness and refer to that concept during one's entire life during the "process-freed life continuum" consciousness. Sounds like something that REALLY arsies and ceases due to conditions. Once again, the referent doesn't arise and cease, but the concept does. > --------------------- Yes, mind-door consciousness can take a concept as its object (dhammaarammana), but at that time there is no real object (dhammaayatana), just the illusion of an object. Kind regards, Ken H 37783 From: Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi Phil This goes to show that the Buddha didn't view concepts with the same disdain that later types of Buddhist analysis do. The Buddha used the concepts below to point out -- impermanence, suffering, and no-self. This is the heart of the Buddha's teaching and method. The point of the Buddha's teaching has nothing to do with pointing out "ultimate realities." It has to do with overcoming suffering and the only way to do that is to be acutely aware of suffering. Even monks of highest standing in the Buddha's time would use this "conceptually riddled" type of teaching in order to attain arahatship. In fact, Ven. Sariputta was enlightened by a Sutta that contained virtually the same passage you pointed out. Majjhima Nikaya # 74. It is very important to understand what is real. But it is also important to understand that Insight develops from a combination of direct knowledge and conceptual knowledge. As for the Buddha being the teacher of Abhidhamma ... I personally doubt it based on the style and content disparity between Sutta/Vinaya and Abhidhamma. Can I say for sure that the Buddha didn't teach Abhidhamma? No. But anyone who says that he did teach Abhidhamma for sure isn't really being honest IMO. Its merely their opinion and probably based on religious fervor. TG In a message dated 10/26/2004 3:39:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: Hello all Reading SN XXII 122 this morning came across this key sentence: "A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self." I wondered why we would attend to khandas as a disease, or alien (if they are alien, alien to what?) when it seems that by going straight to an understanding of khandas as dissolution, or emptiness, or anatta, we can get to a kind of liberation more directly, even if our understanding is basic. Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can get straight to dissolution? After all, in another sutta (SN XXII 36) the Buddha says that "if one stays obsessed with form (and the other khandas) that's what one is measured by. What one is measured by, that's how one is classified." I also thought this when reading the series on removing distracting thoughts that Nina posted. Why reflect on foulness when going straight to elements (I would say understanding elements leads directly to understanding their dissolution) seems much more immediately effective? I guess it has to do with accumulations which way of understanding is most effective for a person, and at different times. Concepts are helpful because we have not developed insight to the point where we can have direct understanding of elements. And of course, the degree of insight into elements that I'm able capable of is still conceptual. I would also guess that people who have an appreciation of Abhidhamma are able to move more directly to "attending to" elements and dissolution of elements without getting caught up entirely in concepts such as disease or alien. Yet again, gratitude to the Buddha for his teaching of Abhidhamma and to Nina for her books that make the Buddha's teaching of Abhidhamma accessible for beginners like me. Metta, Phil 37784 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality Hi Eric k: I think there is no doubt there is a lot of conventional reality in the sutta. As to me, when Buddha talks about khandhas, bases, elements and sense it is ultimate reality. Conventional reality in my opninion touches on things like table, 'I' etc. When Buddha talks about form in khandhas, it is talking about the elements. Form is to me a very bad translation of the rupa khandha. Just my opinion :). > What is an object? k: Got to apologise my poor description of ultimate reality. I am still grappling to describe what I think to differentiate ultimate reality. Maybe I write it again, ultimate reality is something we can experience directly while things like table and chair we cannot actually experience directly, it is only through a mind construct then we are able to understand what is a table. Maybe a very crude example I can think of (just couldnt think of a good one), a tribal person who is out of the world for years, suddenly if you tell you about a table, the tribal fellow may not understand until he sees one but if you tell him about anger, joy, he may have experience it. Just my thoughts :). What is an object in terms of Abhidhamma? - see the Useful posts > > Another question is that is citta really that fast? I was > wondering > > if citta is not fast, how do we see light in a continuous stream > > without a breakage. It must be fast enough to take it as an > object. > > Do you see a light stream or color? Do you hear > a dog bark or sound? k: Again I am not saying this clearly. In order for a citta to contact an object, it has to be fast enough or not we will not see as continuous, if it is not fast enough, there will be like a "jaggle" kind of light. In the same way, if citta is not fast enough to hear a dog bark, when the dog bark, it may 1 -2 seconds later for us to listen just like listening to a jet boom from a fighter aircraft or a thunder cracking. Just my thoughts again :) regards Ken 37785 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Details on Vedana Hi Nori > I meant the physical, mind - brain. > > If it is the case that cittas is dependant upon this material > mind/brain then all the sensory cittas would also exist within/with > it. Technically speaking no. Sensory citta arise on sensory bases which are not located in the brain. To me, sensory citta are very refine and subtle so it is difficult to notice on my level. An easy task will be when these sensory signals have been transmitted to the mind cittas, we will know it. As all sensory citta is followed by a immaterial mind proccess (have to qualify to say this is Abhidhamma), we felt senses coming from mind itself. Ken O 37786 From: plnao Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi TG > Hi Phil > > This goes to show that the Buddha didn't view concepts with the same disdain > that later types of Buddhist analysis do. The Buddha used the concepts below > to point out -- impermanence, suffering, and no-self. This is the heart of > the Buddha's teaching and method. Certainly he knew that different people had different accumulations, and different degrees of insight. In my opinion - a beginner's opinion - that is why he used conventional similes to teach in the Suttanta. The danger is if we cling to these similes, especially in the internet age when most Western Buddhists approach the Suttanta without the assistance of a teacher, and in translation. But, as I've learned from Nina, we should refer to these similes if and when they're helpful. Yes, indeed, you have correctly identified the heart of the Buddha's teaching. Personally speaking, anatta, annica and dukkha were just cool sounding Pali terms until I came across Abhidhamma - that's when I began to see into them more deeply. Now when I come back to the Suttanta, the suttas can be appreciated at a deeper level (still not very deep) than when I first came across them. The metaphor I have used here before still stands soundly in my view - studying suttas without having studied Abhidhamma is like studying medical case studies without having studied an anatomy text book. > The point of the Buddha's teaching has nothing to do with pointing out > "ultimate realities." Ph: Call them what you will. The point of seeing ultimate realities is to better understand anatta, annica and dukkha. If this practice is not helpful towards udnerstanding the three characteristics, it will be discarded by a discerning mind. If it is helpful, the discerning mind will know. It has to be left up to one's examined experience. In my case, it is. Seeing the way nama and rupa rises and falls, even at the crude level to which I am capable of doing so, has been greatly liberating, particularly with respect to anger and sensual lust. And the Buddha did teach "ultimate realites." Read the Samyutta Nikaya. The vaggas (sp?) on the aggregates, the six senses, feelings - they are all related to better understanding nama and rupa. You will say that the word "nama" isn't used. It doesn't matter. The khandas are nama and rupa. That's clear through basic insight. (snip) > It is very important to understand what is real. But it is also important to > understand that Insight develops from a combination of direct knowledge and > conceptual knowledge. Very true. > As for the Buddha being the teacher of Abhidhamma ... I personally doubt it > based on the style and content disparity between Sutta/Vinaya and Abhidhamma. > Can I say for sure that the Buddha didn't teach Abhidhamma? No. But anyone > who says that he did teach Abhidhamma for sure isn't really being honest IMO. > Its merely their opinion and probably based on religious fervor. You can call it religious fervour. (Though I would say that referring to one of the three baskets in that way is a bit naughty.) I call it confidence based on what I have experienced in daily life, not my opinion. It's true that there was a kind of fervour when I first came across Abhidhamma through Nina's books. It just felt so right, so true. Some sleepless nights in fact, as I read and read. (and promptly forgot and forgot what I'd read and read.) But that fervour has been replaced by something calmer and more confident. Again, that is based on experience, not theory. But not to worry. If you can gain the insight that leads to detachment without Abhidhamma, I'm happy for you. There are many ways to gain insight. Let's respect each other and try not to use pejorative terms such as "religious fervour" or worse. (I think of Dig the Nutcracker's "drivelling faith-heads". What kind of appreciation of the essence of the Buddha's teaching does that demonstrate?) Manners, please. Remember that dsg was established several decades ago in the light of K Sujin's teaching, and those who don't respond to her teaching are guests here and should behave with the same manners that they would (presumably) if they attended one of her Dhamma talks. I sometimes think the moderators could be a little stricter about reminding people of this. There are so many internet groups out there! If one doesn't respond to and respect K Sujin's teaching, and if one doesn't believe Abhidhamma is the Buddha's teaching, wouldn't it be gracious (and sensible) to go elsewhere? That's my personal opinion. I'm a beginner and am easily distracted from what is important for me here and now. For others who are less restless and more knowledgeable of doctrinary issues, there is understanding to be gained from and/or confirmed by defending Abhdihamma and the ancient commentaries. Metta, Phil 37787 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:59pm Subject: Re: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Dear Phil, In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello all > > Reading SN XXII 122 this morning came across this key sentence: > > "A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five > clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, > painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not- self." > > I wondered why we would attend to khandas as a disease, or alien (if they > are alien, alien to what?) when it seems that by going straight to an > understanding of khandas as dissolution, or emptiness, or anatta, we can get > to a kind of liberation more directly, even if our understanding is basic. > Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can get > straight to dissolution? ================ Dear Phil, Any words used to decribe paramattha dhammas (the five aggregates) must be a concept. Even anatta and anicca are purely conceptual as terms . Howeever these concepts are also so accurate as to what the really khandhas are. And surely they are a disease- that is what the whole paticasamupaadda shows. An ugly, chronic illness I would say. Alien is my favourite, I used to write posts about it in the early days of dsg. I forget the pali term now, but the English translation cpatures it well. There is nothing about any of the five khandhas (paramattha dhammas) that is me or mine, they are dangerous, vile and alien . It shows how deluded we are that we can think of them as being good at times! It is true that direct insight doesn't need to use any words but then when you consider the khandhas how else can you think about them except in words and these are the best terms to use. Robertk 37788 From: dighanakha Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Hello Andrew. A> Sorry if I took your words out of context. I didn't mean to A> misrepresent you. It's just that, at the moment, I am very A> interested in reflecting upon the place of saddha in Dhamma A> practice. No problem. I didn't suspect you had purposely misread me. A> In your post, you wrote: "some drivelling faith-head". A> As one Dhamma practitioner to another, do you have a sutta A> reference for this term or the use of this kind of language? (-: You mean you thought it was a bit too euphemistic? Okay, I take your point. You've probably noticed that I tend to be squeamishly tactful and diplomatic, but I just can't help myself. I don't know of a Sutta term corresponding to "faith-head", but possibly we could take the term "groundless faith" (amuulika saddhaa) and refer to those whose faith is of this sort as "faith-heads". Those with amuulika saddhaa, you may recall, were compared to builders who build a staircase leading up to a mansion that doesn't exist; or to a man who announces that he is looking for the fairest belle in the land, but cannot say who she is, whether she is tall or short, dark or fair, of which caste etc. Richard Dawkins used "faith-head" in a controversial article, "Religion's Misguided Missiles", that he wrote in the aftermath of 9/11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html I had never heard the term before I read this article, so possibly it is his own coinage. In Dawkinsian usage 'faith-head' means anyone who has any kind of amuulika saddhaa. In Nutcrackerian usage it is confined to those who go against the Canki Sutta by presenting unsupported faith claims as if they were matters of certainty, or else pretend that there is room for doubt in matters where there is none, or else whose faith-based intransigence compels them to resort to ungentlemanly conduct when discussing issues with dissenters. As for "drivellers", this is the Rhys Davids and I.B. Horner translation of the Pali 'e.lamuuga'. It's an obscure term which literally means something like 'one who is goat-dumb' or perhaps 'dribbling like a goat'. Some recensions have the form 'e.lamukha' which means 'goat-faced'. Being goat-dumb, goat-faced or goat-dribbling seems to mean being struthious or timorous, and is one of the vices that makes a bhikkhu unfit for life in the forest. See, for example, the Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4). A> Like Howard, Pali is all Swahili to me so I'll butt out of A> the discussion here and leave you to it. But it remains a A> very interesting thread ... You needn't feel obliged to butt out on that account. A knowledge of Pali is not really needed to understand the issues. As long as those who do read Pali are considerate enough to post translations, anyone should be able to participate. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37789 From: robmoult Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: Rupa Hi Joop, Sorry for the delay in responding (between missing the orginal message and being very busy with work). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > >> Hi All, > > I have uploaded this new section (only 6 pages) to the files > section > > (there are a number of diagrams). I will leave it there for a > couple > > of weeks. > > > Dear Rob M, > > After the comments I had on your first draft i~ august I will react > again on this new chapter (or paragraph?) > It's much better than the old one! > I will say that not because I'm an expert like Htoo Naing but as a > scientific thinking westerner who had to reduce the cognitive > dissonance between natural science and the rupa-aspect of nama- rupa > (and who wants to reduce because of my love for and faith in the > teachings of the Buddha) > > Of page 63 and 64 I can just say: good > > Page 65: very good, makes me enthousiastic. For me the drawing of the > circle has a soteriological meaning too: result of my (vipassana- > insight) meditation is making that circle smaller, till the radius is > zero; is that correct? ===== Precisely. The mind cannot be controlled (there is no "controller"), but it is trainable. The radius can never be zero; the smallest it can become is equal to the initial sensory input. This would be equivalent to having a mind trained to "see things as they truly are" with no mental proliferation (papanca). The Mulapiriyaya Sutta (Mn 1) explains what we do as "perceiving" whereas a trainee "directly knows". I find this diagram useful to explain to people how our mind adds layer upon layer of distortion onto what comes in through the senses to create our own reality. The commentary explains the nature of papanca as like layers of clounds obscuring the moon so that one only sees a fuzzy outline of the true object. ===== > > Page 66: I have big problems in understanding your explanation > - "The commentary uses this delineation to explain why eye-, ear-, > nose- and tong-sensitivity …" I don't see any explanation in the > metaphore of the hammer and the cotton-ball and I don't understand > body-sensitivity works on another way as eye-, ear, nose- and tongue- > sensitivity. And I don't see what is the role of the derivation of > the derived rupa from the great essentials in this explanation ===== Good point, I need to improve that section of the text (or take it out entirely because it disrupts the flow). The question that is answered by the commentary is "Why is it that bodily contact produces feeling (either pleasant or unpleasant) whereas all other forms of sense contact (eye-, ear-, nose- and tongue- ) do not produce feeling?" The answer to this question is that the natures of the sense-objects are inherently different. For body-sensitivity, the sense object is a great essential (solidity, temperature, pressure) whereas for other senses (seeing, hearing, smelling and tasing), the sense- object is a derived rupa (dependent upon the great essentials, but not great essentials themselves). To clarify this explanation, the commentary uses the analogy of the anvil, cotton and the hammer. The anvil and the hammer are the great essentials whereas the cotton is the derived rupa. A group of rupas with ear-sensitivity (and all of the other sensitivities, including body-sensitivity) starts with a base of the great essentials (the anvil) and then adds derived rupas (eye-sensitivity is a derived rupa). In the analogy, this is the anvil covered with cotton. When another derived rupa acts as the sense object it is like a cotton ball striking the cotton-covered anvil in the case of seeing / hearing / smelling / tasting, but it is like a hammer (a great essential) hitting the cotton-covered anvil in the case of body sensation. In hind-sight, it is probably better to exclude this explanation from my notes. ===== > > - A smaller problem is the use of the word 'things' in the second > half of this page: it is a not-elegant (a silly) word; I don't know a > better one: 'compound entities' is perhaps too formal. ===== Let me try to come up with a better term... ===== > - "Body-sensitivity": you don't mention that is a later invention of > a commentary, not used in the Dhamma-sangani. ===== Body-sensitivity is described in the Dhamma-sangani; it is "heart base" which was the later invention. ===== > > Page 67: Two (minor) problems: > - I don't understand the phrase "groups of rupas have the following > rupas", all rupas 'exist' in groups, isn't it? ===== Yes, all rupas exist in groups. Let me think about how to use less awkward wording. ===== > - The differences between 'decay', 'impermance' (of a collection of > rupas) and ''falling away' of an individual rupa is not clear. The > time-scales of these three are different (decades of years, seconds > (?) and billionths part of a second) but is that a real fundamental > difference; are all three chraracteristics on a ultimate level? ===== They are quite different. Anicca is a characteristic of all ultimate realities except Nibbana. Mental states arise and fall away instantaneously. Rupas arise and fall away instantaneously. The rupa that is the piece of paper that I am looking at has the four essentials, space, taste, visible object, flavour and nutritional essence. For a moment, I looked away from the paper and then looked back. When I looked back, it was not the same rupa as I saw earlier. In a conventional sense, it looks the same (same scribble, etc.), but if I were to leave the paper for a longer time (a year or a decade, I would be able to see the difference; it would be slightly discoloured. This happens because a rupa is subject to decay. In the commentary, they talk about decay using examples of wrinkles and gray hair. ===== > > Page 68: Two (minor) questions: > - 'Temperature' and 'Nutrition' are rupas themselves ànd causes rupa. > But isn't that an example of rupa interacting with other rupa of > which you say on page 65 that is in the domain of science and not in > the domain of the Buddha's focus? ===== Touche!! My sweeping generalities come back to bite me once again :-) I need to do some research on the origin of the description of formation of temperature-formed rupa and nutrition-formed rupa. I will consult Y Karunadasa's "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" at the temple library on Sunday. I hope that I find that this aspect was only added later (my gut feeling is that it probably arose together with the theory of moments about the time of the Abhidhammatthasangaha). ===== > - I will not call the last part 'Summary' but 'Conclusion' because > a 'Summary' should not contain new statement. > Or do you think the introduction of the relation between 'rupa' > and 'right understanding' is not new in this paragraph? ===== I have changed the text to read "Right Understanding" ===== > > ============================================ > > I will use this message to express my surpise when I this week for > the first time could read the Dhamma-sangani itself (translation of > C.A.F. Rhys Davids) and COULD HARDLY FIND THE FOUR MAHABHUTA in it. > > One point of our discussion a month ago, about the difference between > an ontological and a phenomenological view on the dhamma's (of which > Bhikku Bodhi and you say these two views are nearly the same and of > which Ven. Nyanaponika and I say they are fundamental different). > I think it's funny mrs Rhys Davids doesn't use the > term "phenomenology" but "Sensationalism"! (Introductory Essay, page > lv) what is not exact the same but is very near ! > > Book II of the Dhamma-Sangani is about Material Form (rupakandham). > After a short Introduction > Chapter I is about 'Exposition of [Material] Form under Single > Concepts > Chapter II: The category of [Material] Form considered by way of > dual attributes; in this chapter the derived forms are decribed > Chapter III … under Triple Aspects > Chapter IV … under Fourfold Aspects > … etc. till: > Chapter XI … under Elevenfold Aspect > > In Chapter V - nearly hided - the four not derived forms are > mentioned: earth-element, fluid-element, heat-element and air- element. > I thought till now these four 'elements' are the fundamental building > block of rupa and an exposition should start with it and then derive > the other 22 or 23 from them. Nina in her ebook, the Visuddhimagga > (very short) and the Abhidhammattha start with the Four; you did not. > Why? ===== In many parts of my book, I chose a non-conventional order in which to present things. I want to get away from the idea of rupa as building blocks (this is one of the reasons that I replaced my earlier writing on rupa which showed molecule-like structures). I see rupas as attributes of objects rather than building blocks. If I take this piece of paper (which as a whole has the rupas of earth, water, wind, fire, visible object, flavour, odour, nutrition and space) and tear it into a thousand pieces, I now have a thousand objects all with attributes of earth, water, wind, fire, visible object, flavour, odour, nutrition and space. As you probably know, I am drifting toward a position that the Suttas and the original six books of the Abhidhamma (not including the Kathavatthu) are not about "ultimate realities" and that the theme of "ultimate realities" was added later and eventually became the central part of the Abhidhammatthasangaha. The fact that the Dhammasangani treats earth, water, wind and fire as ways of experiencing an object (under the fourfold aspects) and NOT as a fundamental building block (ultimate reality approach) could be interpreted as supporting my position. Metta, Rob M :-) 37790 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 0:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Future Potential of Sense-objects Dear Howard, Rob K and all, Is it OK to say that visible objects can be *relatively* permanent? Common sense (which isn't always right view) says that some objects are more permanent than others. Thanks / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Antony - > > In a message dated 10/23/04 9:30:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > antony272b@h... writes: > > > Do you think that the resistance to the perception of things breaking > > up is the "deja vu" effect where we believe that we have experienced > > the arising objects before in a reliable state? > > > ======================= > I think that the resistance to the perception of things breaking up is > due to our desire for stability - for an anchor, and to our fear of shifting > sands and the world's slipping out from under our feet as in an earthquake. > The irony is that the sands *are* shifting, there *is* no firm footing, and the > only real stability obtainable is obtained by letting go. > > With metta, > Howard > 37791 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hi DN, Our posts on this thread are getting longer and longer. I'll try to sum up your latest contribution: It seems you want to deny any profundity in the Dhamma: It has no deep meaning that would distinguish the conventional reality we are all familiar with, from an absolute reality known only to the wise. You say that the Oghatana Sutta teaches plain, ordinary moderation - not too much straining, not too much standing still. You think right effort is as simple as walking for a moderate period of time. Suppressing the hindrances comes down to teeth clenching and 'right positioning' of the tongue. Just as log sawing requires no training in nuclear physics, so too enlightenment requires no training in Abhidhamma. The middle way between 'all exists' and 'all does not exist' (I suppose you are saying) is 'half of all exists, the other half does not exist.' Dependent Origination is a straightforward teaching that requires no knowledge of Abhidhamma. Nothing can exist, however briefly, without being permanent; therefore, impermanence means there can only be events, no paramattha dhammas. Ven. Thanissaro is not an eternalist. The Buddha was a glorified Home Economics teacher. That brings us to my statement: > > The Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana. > > To which you replied: > Poppycock. Back up your claim with a citation from the Suttas. > There you have me - I don't know many citations. Somewhere, the Buddha said he taught only two things, "dukkha and release from dukkha." Would you agree that satipatthana is right understanding of 'dukkha' and that only satipatthana leads to 'release from dukkha?' Is there any point in continuing further? I think you have proved that, without the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries, the suttas can be interpreted, quite plausibly, as meaningless mush. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37792 From: dighanakha Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:08am Subject: Re: Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hello Ken O. K> Precisely that what Buddha trying to say, first the coming K> together then contact could be known or manifested. If he was "trying to say" that the manifestation occurs after the coming together then he would have said that. As I said in my last post, he only needed to add one syllable -- 'yaa' -- to the word sangati and the text would mean exactly what you and the commentators want it to. But he didn't. K> If not why did Maha Kaccana describe sense impingement in K> details I have no idea what your question is aiming at. Kaccaana's account is just the same as the Buddha himself gave in many other Suttas. Phassa is most often given in detail. K> << This situation occurs: that when there is eye, your K> reverences, when there is visible object, when there is K> visual consciousness, one will recognise the manifestation K> of sensory impingement (phassa)... ' ">> . When there is K> eye, visible objects and visual consciouness, one will K> recognise the manifestation of phassa. K> <> Here the K> coming together ryhmes with the above, when there is eye.... K> till visual citta. K> I dont see any digress because to me, linking them, < coming together, one will recognise the manifestation of K> sensory impingement>> Sure. One will recognize contact when there's a coming together, because that's what contact is. But I think we are just going around in circles now. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37793 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:01am Subject: Re: Rupa The art of ending a discussion --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: (snip) Dear Rob Thanks for your answers. Discussions like ours, and other ones in this DSG, in fact are never really finished. But still they must end, if possible in a polite way; in an agreement, maybe 'agree to disagree'. It's my impression that some discussions continue to long. I think this is the right moment for ending our discussion about rupa. Metta Joop 37794 From: robmoult Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:13am Subject: Re: Rupa The art of ending a discussion Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > (snip) > > > Dear Rob > > Thanks for your answers. > Discussions like ours, and other ones in this DSG, in fact are never > really finished. > But still they must end, if possible in a polite way; in an > agreement, maybe 'agree to disagree'. > It's my impression that some discussions continue to long. > I think this is the right moment for ending our discussion about rupa. ===== I am still going to look into the origin of the utuja and aharaja rupas (suttas, original abhidhamma texts, commentaries or later additions). I really appreciate your input and I apologize again for destroying the momentum of the discussion by not responding in a timely manner. Metta, Rob M :-) 37795 From: dighanakha Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:17am Subject: Re: Teeth Clenching Hello Ken H. K> Our posts on this thread are getting longer and longer. I'll K> try to sum up your latest contribution. Thanks for the attempt. But your summary seems to owe far more to your imagination or perversity or obtuseness, than to anything I actually wrote. You have "summarized" my post in eleven clauses, of which only one is correct. K> It seems you want to deny any profundity in the Dhamma. Not at all. Where I think we differ is that I look for profundity in those of his teachings that the Buddha explicitly singled out as being profound. Some questions for you -- they're just for you to ask yourself, no need to reply: Without looking it up, do you know which of his teachings the Buddha singled out as being profound? If you don't know, which teachings would you guess them to be? On what basis do you suppose them to be profound? Do you know if they are actually from the Tipitaka or from Buddhaghosa's teaching? If they are from Buddhaghosa, would you in principle be prepared to reject them if they were contradicted by the Suttas (as the Mahaparinibbaana Sutta would require them to be)? K> It has no deep meaning that would distinguish the K> conventional reality we are all familiar with, from an K> absolute reality known only to the wise. Not at all. Where we differ is that I derive my understanding of what is paramattha from the Tipitaka, not from a 5th century CE sect of atomist philosophers. K> You say that the Oghatana Sutta teaches plain, ordinary K> moderation - not too much straining, not too much standing K> still. No, I did not say what *I* thought about the Sutta's meaning. I didn't think you would be interested in that, so I merely repeated what the Sub-commentary says. And you don't seem to have even read that accurately. K> You think right effort is as simple as walking for a K> moderate period of time. No, I didn't say anything at all about what right effort is. I merely gave the exertions of the monk Sona as one illustration of wrong effort. It is, after all, the most famous illustration, since it was with regard to Sona that the Buddha taught the simile of the lute. K> Suppressing the hindrances comes down to teeth clenching and K> 'right positioning' of the tongue. Not at all. I explicitly stated that this was the last step that one resorts to if the four preceding ones have failed. This is exactly what the Vitakkasanthana Sutta teaches. I think for most meditators, for most of the time, the first four steps will suffice. On those occasions when they don't, then it's time for the teeth-clenching this-town-ain't-big-enough-for-the-two-of-us kind of approach. K> Just as log sawing requires no training in nuclear physics, K> so too enlightenment requires no training in Abhidhamma. Not at all. I said nothing about Abhidhamma in relation to enlightenment. I merely pointed out the unsuitability of bringing Abhidhammic considerations to bear upon each and every one of the Buddha's teachings. K> The middle way between 'all exists' and 'all does not exist' K> (I suppose you are saying) is 'half of all exists, the other K> half does not exist.' No, I explicitly stated that it was dependent arising that avoids these extremes, and I gave you the source for this claim in the Suttas. K> Dependent Origination is a straightforward teaching that K> requires no knowledge of Abhidhamma. No, I said nothing at all about whether dependent arising was straightforward or difficult. But now that you've raised the matter, I would say that it's difficult. The Buddha in fact called it duddassa, "difficult to see". But its being difficult to see does not necessarily mean that one must leap on one or another of the competing sectarian Abhidharmas in the hope that this will make it easier to see. On the contrary, the reason given for it being difficult to see is not because people haven't studied Abhidharma, but because they are "enmeshed by the five hindrances which prevent calm and weaken wisdom." K> Nothing can exist, however briefly, without being permanent; K> therefore, impermanence means there can only be events, no K> paramattha dhammas. Not at all. It means that paramattha dhammas are viewed as events rather than atoms. K> Ven. Thanissaro is not an eternalist. You got one right at last! I have not read anything by Thanissaro that conformed to any of the 8 kinds of eternalism or partial-eternalism. Until I do, I'm not going to go slapping that label on him merely on your say-so. If your reading of Thanissaro is as careless as your reading of my posts, then I reckon the likelihood of you being correct is close to nil. K> The Buddha was a glorified Home Economics teacher. Not at all. I said that his teachings *included* guidance on everyday domestic concerns. In other words, this was *part* of of his teaching. In taking this to mean it was the whole of his teaching, you commit the fallacy of composition -- of taking a predicate of a part and treating it as if it were a predicate of the whole. K> That brings us to my statement: K>>> The Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his K>>> teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana. K> To which you replied: dig>> Poppycock. Back up your claim with a citation from the dig>> Suttas. K> There you have me - I don't know many citations. Somewhere, K> the Buddha said he taught only two things, "dukkha and K> release from dukkha." Would you agree that satipatthana is K> right understanding of 'dukkha' No. The teaching is that right view is the knowledge of dukkha (and the other 4NTs). See the Saccavibhanga Sutta (MN 141) K> and that only satipatthana leads to 'release from K> dukkha?' No. The teaching is that only the Eight-factored Path -- of which sammaasati is only one factor -- leads to release from dukkha. See the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta (DN 16). K> Is there any point in continuing further? Not from my side. If you think that *you* may benefit from further discussion, then out of compassion I may continue. ;-) Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37796 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:39am Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi, Ken (and Eric) - In a message dated 10/27/04 12:56:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: Again I am not saying this clearly. In order for a citta to > contact an object, it has to be fast enough or not we will not see as > continuous, if it is not fast enough, there will be like a "jaggle" > kind of light. In the same way, if citta is not fast enough to hear > a dog bark, when the dog bark, it may 1 -2 seconds later for us to > listen just like listening to a jet boom from a fighter aircraft or a > thunder cracking. Just my thoughts again :) > > =========================== I have a slightly different view. In terms of experience, which, in fact, is all we ever know - we don't experience the unexperienced, consciousness is the presence of content, and there is no option other than their co-occurring. The matter of continuity is something else, I believe. There are no gaps between mindstates, at least that is the claim that Theravadin Abhidhamma makes. So there, already, is a *sort* of continuity. (That, however, is not the experienced continuity we are speaking of.) Speed of cittas doesn't enter into this at all, as far as I can see. When one talks of speed of cittas, the question is "In comparison to what?" After all, there is nothing that is knowable, nothing that can be experienced for comparison purposes, that does not occur as an aspect of a mindstate. There is no question of "keeping up". A matter that seems to be relevant to this issue is what the mind actually *registers* as opposed to merely experiences. It seems to me that a large part of what is experienced does not consciously register. What I would bet happens is that as part of our experience, there are constructed, from time to time, mindstates that are "reviewing states" that so-to-speak "sum up" the recent history of largely unregistered experience, and these states, which *do* register clearly, present an apparent continuity. So, what I'm saying is that our experience of continuity is a constructed one [created by sankharic, constructive processes], and has nothing to do with speed. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37797 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:13am Subject: Re: Rupa The art of ending a discussion Hi, Rob M, Joop, Not to confuse nama and rupa, but I like this from Narada's Manual of Abhidhamma: < Inseparably connected with heat is vaayo, the element of motion. Movements are caused by this element. Motion is regarded as the force or the generator of heat. "Motion and heat in the material realm correspond respectively to consciousness and Kamma in the mental." > peace, connie 37798 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:13am Subject: Re: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi, Phil, Some alien posts: 33105, 12481, 11944, 11609, 8415, 7841, 6715, 3543, 1517, 610, 591. peace, connie 37799 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:15pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 097 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, If there is lobha cittas kingdom is ready to arise and there are no conditions for ditthi cetasika to arise, then mana has a place to throne along with the king lobha or tanha. In lobha mula cittas, lobha always arises with one of his queens ditthi and mana. But ditthi and mana never arise together in a single citta as the king lobha will not follow the wish of both queens. This happen because they both have a similar character but not exactly and as they are different, they are counted as separate cetasikas. Mana is a mental factor that arises with lobha cittas. When it arises with lobha citta, it advises the leader of all mental faculties, the citta to be lofty. Mana also helps other associated cetasikas to be in line with citta and then all become lofty. Mana cetasika has the qualities of proud, conceit, loftiness, haughtiness ( flaunting a flag ). Mana can sometimes be recognized easily. But as there are different forms of mana, some forms will not be easily recognized. Mana in the form of anusaya or subtle forms are eradicated only by arahatta magga nana. So whenever lobha citta arise, there will also be ditthi or mana. If ditthi is eradicated by sotapatti magga nana, then all lobha cittas in sotapams, sakadagams, and anagams will be accompanied by mana. There are many different things that mana possibly bases. For example, if someone is born a prince he will at a time have lobha citta with mana if he considers his princely birth. By birth, some breed mana or conceit in connection with their birth origin. Some think that their racial origin or clan or tribal qualities excel other and they will feel lofty in connection with their nationality. If someone who is not of their nationality speaks their language, the native speakers who hear foreigners' speech may have some mana if lobha citta with mana arises in connection with nationality. In each society, there are different families. There are families of which the members are all decent, educated, polite, rich on their own, etc etc and there are families the members of which may or may not have all the good qualities that the society has defined. If families are good as they would think, then they may become lofty in connection with their family and their membership in those families. Every being has body components when in pancavokara bhumis that is all will have physical body when they are in kama bhumis and rupa bhumis. There may be slight difference or marked difference between each other in these realms. Some are cling to body parts like beautiful face, beautiful body posture, beautiful hands, fingers, thighs, legs etc etc. These body parts may well be a source of mana. Some may cling to their voice quality. When they think that their voice is good and better than others' voice, this again may also be a source of mana. Especially when someone with croaky voice talks to them, they may hear such voice and may compare with their beautiful voice and then mana may arise. Aavasa or home or dwelling may also be a source of mana. This may happen when someone who has a good house visits other's house and finds unsighty, then mana possibly arises in him that his house is much better than the house he visits. Wealth is also a good source for mana to arise if there is clinging to their wealth. Someone who is a rich man will feel uneasy to travel in general public using the public transport. At that time, he may breed mana and he would think he otherwise use his own chopper next time. Someone who has studied a lot and well educated may cling to their education and knowledge. This clinging may bring up mana along with clinging. If someone who does not know nothing argues with him, he may breed mana at that time as he is well educated and well learned. Still there are many sources for mana to arise. They are status at work, type of job, craft works like sculpture, specific branch of science, intelligence, friends, wife, son, daughter, teacher, religin, and endless. Even though mana is mostly described as loftiness, this does not mean mana always arises in those who have better things or who are at better side. Mana can arise in all sorts of setting while comparison has been made. The comparison may be 'better' or 'equal' or 'inferior'. As an example, let us take 'wealth' as a source. The rich man may have mana when he thinks himself richer than others. Again when he realises that someone has almost the same amount of wealth, mana can still arise thinking he is equal to another rich man. This comparison may continue even when he meets people who are richer than he is. They have such amount of wealth. And I have my own wealth of such amount. I do not need to care about whatever they own. Mana can still arise when he compares with others'. As in case of wealth, all other sources may take the same implication as in case of wealth. One may breed mana when they are in better position and others are not, breed mana when they are the same position with others, breed mana when they are inferior to others'. In any case, mana is not a good cetasika. Initially even though lobha cittas arise, later other akusala cittas like dosa cittas may also arise. While pure moha cittas do not do any apparent akusala physically, lobha and dosa cittas may commit the wickest akusala. It is lobha and dosa who commit 5 precepts and more than 5 precepts. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 2.I acknowledge that Robert K has contributed a lot to 'mana' topic about 18 months ago. I would like to thank Ken O for his recent post on 'mana'. 37800 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:55pm Subject: Abhidhamma Day 28.10.04 Dear Dhamma Friends, 28.10.04 is full moon day. The Buddha Gotama preached Abhidhamma at Tavatimsa started from full moon day of the 4th month of solar calendar of 12 signs starts with Aries. The start of Abhidhamma preaching is called Dhammacakkappavattana Day. From the 4th month till the 7th month, The Buddha preached Abhidhamma for 3 successive months without any interruption. Tomorrow (28.10.04) is the full moon day when The Buddha finished preaching Abhidhamma at Deva realm and came down to manussa bhumi or human realm. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37801 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:08pm Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Friend Howard, Howard: The matter of continuity is something else, I believe. There are no gaps between mindstates, at least that is the claim that Theravadin Abhidhamma makes. So there, already, is a *sort* of continuity. (That, however, is not the experienced continuity we are speaking of.) James: I am not sure if we discussed this before or not but how could there possibly be no gaps between mindstates? The Buddha taught that dhammas arise, persist, and fall away. If there were no gaps there would never be the point when a mind state had fallen away, it would just keep persisting forever. Right? Metta, James 37802 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi Robert, Connie and all Phil > > I wondered why we would attend to khandas as a disease, or > alien (if they > > are alien, alien to what?) when it seems that by going straight to > an > > understanding of khandas as dissolution, or emptiness, or anatta, > we can get > > to a kind of liberation more directly, even if our understanding > is basic. > > Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can > get > > straight to dissolution? > ================ > Dear Phil, > Any words used to decribe paramattha dhammas (the five aggregates) > must be a concept. Even anatta and anicca are purely conceptual as > terms . Ph: Yes, thanks for reminding me of this. > Howeever these concepts are also so accurate as to what the > really khandhas are. And surely they are a disease- that is what the > whole paticasamupaadda shows. Ph: What is paticasamupaadda. The survey of paramattha dhammas? >An ugly, chronic illness I would say. > Alien is my favourite, I used to write posts about it in the early > days of dsg. Ph: I look forward to reading them. I assume that they are included in the posts that Connie kindly provided #s for. Unfortunately, I'm not able to access Yahoo because of internet problems and am only reading e-mail. If you wouldn't mind, could you send along (either on-list or off) one or several of these posts? The reason I have trouble relating to "alien" is that it seems that "alien" must be alien to something - and if there is dissolution of the khandas, as there is in every moment, what are they alien to? There is no self to be alient to, it seems to me. Yes, an ugly chronic illness. I can see that. And it's confirmed in Dhammapada: "There's no ill like the aggregates of existence." (Dh. 15-202) And yet, when we talk of illness, we are assuming a contrast to healthiness. That duality is implied. What is healthiness in Dhamma terms? Right understanding of realities. Panna at work, I guess. And when panna is being culitvated, the aggregates are seen for what they are. I still tend to think that if it arises, understanding of aggregates as a dissolution seems best. But that's a big "if" because it implies direct understanding that very few of us are capable of, and very rarely at that. Rob>I forget the pali term now, but the English translation > cpatures it well. There is nothing about any of the five khandhas > (paramattha dhammas) that is me or mine, they are dangerous, vile > and alien . It shows how deluded we are that we can think of them as > being good at times! Ph: Yes. Deluded. With every akusala citta there is moha, blindness to paramattha dhammas. > It is true that direct insight doesn't need to use any words but > then when you consider the khandhas how else can you think about > them except in words and these are the best terms to use. Ph Yes, I do agree, of course. I think I was sensing a movement towards a purer, directer understanding, but that is for lifetimes to come. SN XXII 79 talks about the instructed disciple who "tears down and does not build up" the khandas It would seem to me that this "tearing down" means getting at something more direct. I remember when we met for a talk, Rob, we agreed that Zen has a certain affinity with Abhihdhamma. I think we said that. Certainly, Abhidhamma has increased my appreciation for Zen. This would surprise people who misunderstand Abhidhamma and think it to be all theory, all Pali terminology. In fact, all the terminology just points towards direct understanding of the realities, free of names, free of concepts. And I guess (only guess) that the way the descriptions of khandas in the sutta I referred to progress from disease to dissolution might hint at direct understanding to come (or not come) in the very distant future. BTW Rob, I've often been thinking these days of the way you recommended Samyutta Nikaya to me that day by saying "very deep Dhamma, very deep Dhamma" in a kind of mysterious way. That caught my interest, I guess, because I'm quite absorbed in SN these days! :) Metta Phil 37803 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Day 28.10.04 Thank you Htoo! I had no idea about this day. A day to feel great gratitude, for sure. Metta, Phil > Tomorrow (28.10.04) is the full moon day when The Buddha finished > preaching Abhidhamma at Deva realm and came down to manussa bhumi or > human realm. > 37804 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:18pm Subject: Re: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi, Phil, "Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can get straight to dissolution?" Anicca, anatta and dukkha [birth, aging, disease, death; sorrow, lamentation, grief, pain, despair; union with the unpleasant, separation from the pleasant, not getting what we want (pleasure, wealth, fame, praise, health, etc.) ... the 5 aggregates of clinging]. Because sometimes when you're trying to break something it helps to look for more than one weak point. You know the deal - for some he taught this way and for for some another, but for me, he had to keep on and on and on and while there's no doubt that the fault is in the student rather than the teaching, I still haven't got it right. I'm not sure what the 'alien' word is, either, but wonder if it might not be 'external' since there are said to be 11 aspects of each khandha: past, present, future, internal (ajjhattika), external (bahiddha), inferior (hiina), superior (paniita), distant (dure), near (santike), gross (olaarika) and subtle (sukhuma). How we attend to anything is important because if there is a/yoniso manasikaara, the javanas are a/kusala. I guess we've all got our obsessions or 'delights in complication', all those knots we tie our ever so rich storylines together with like our real wealth is there instead of such things as the seven treasures of conviction, virtue, conscience, concern, listening, generosity and discernment. Still, given that papa~nca seems to be my word of the week, I thought the following in Wheel #90/92, Nyanaponika's "The Life of Sariputta", was a nice little gem: Anguttara Nikaya IV, 173: < Discussion with Maha Kotthita on the limits of the explainable. The Venerable Sariputta says: "As far, brother, as the six bases of sense-impression (phassayatana) reach, so far reaches the (explainable) world of diffuseness (papa~nca); and as far as the world of diffuseness reaches, so far reach the six bases of sense-impression. Through the entire fading away and cessation of the six bases of sense impression, the world of diffuseness ceases and is stilled." > I was looking there because I didn't know what the MN74 that TG mentioned was. Doh! Turns out it's the Dighanakha Sutta, "a discourse on the comprehension of feelings" and there was something funny ha-ha about that to me. Interestingly, "...Venerable Sariputta states that he attained to the four kinds of analytical knowledge (patisambhida) two weeks after his ordination, that is, on attaining Arahatship. This fact, and the extensive application of nirutti-patisambhida, "grammatical analysis," in the Niddesa, make it quite probable that he was actually the author of both the Niddesa and the Patisambhida Magga." Meanwhile, I was thinking I'd just foget about your "If one doesn't respond to and respect K Sujin's teaching, and if one doesn't believe Abhidhamma is the Buddha's teaching, wouldn't it be gracious (and sensible) to go elsewhere?" and my "How does anyone learn anything alien to their own way of thinking?", but then this same Wheel rolled on to AN V, 1 5: < Five reasons why people ask questions: through stupidity and foolishness; with evil intentions and through covetousness; with a desire to know; out of contempt; with the thought: "If he answers my question correctly, it is good; if not, then I shall give the correct answer". > What feelings influenced us to phrase the public portion our opinions as questions? ;) I'm sure we've all run across this treasure chest (and a lot of others on holding to any particular point of view as being the only right one) before: "Monks, if others were to speak against me, or against the Teaching, or against our monastic order, you need not on that account entertain thoughts of ill-will and spite, and be dissatisfied with them. If you do harbour hatred that will not only impede your mental development, but you will also fail to judge how far that speech is right or wrong. But also, monks, if others speak highly of me , highly of the Teaching and our monastic order, you need not on that account be elated; for that too will mar your inner development. You should acknowledge what is right and show the truth of what has been said." I am, at times, just a drivelling faith-head with a tendency to resent other people's opinions where my conviction and discernment are weak. There are times, too, when I don't like everything Buddha himself is to have said. As long as I don't have any great direct understanding of the 4 truths, and even then, as long as I'm going to be dealing with concepts anyway, I may as well remember that any idea of self is fertile ground for suffering and all the defilements. Also, that as long as there are selves, I should consider our long-term well-being and benefit/good as Rahula was reminded to reflect before, during and after any act... dana, precepts, all those perfections. All this rambling and I still don't remember something I heard about the measuring, classifying and defining/staying obsessed thingy. Evidently, sati or sa~n~na or both were too weak at the time. peace, connie 37807 From: robmoult Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: Rupa The art of ending a discussion Hi Connie and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Not to confuse nama and rupa, but I like this from Narada's Manual of > Abhidhamma: > < > Inseparably connected with heat is vaayo, the element of motion. Movements > are caused by this element. Motion is regarded as the force or the > generator of heat. "Motion and heat in the material realm correspond > respectively to consciousness and Kamma in the mental." > > I am confused by Ven. Narada's statement. My understanding is that the proximate cause of heat is the other three great essentials, not only motion. I know that Ven. Narada does not typically quote his sources; has anybody else read about this special relationship between heat and motion? Metta, Rob M :-) 37808 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:16pm Subject: saddha, Htoo Hi Htoo, Is saddha (faith, confidence) the kusala equivalent of ditthi (view)? Insofar as reasoning is belief, or at least believed, can we say all reasoning is either ditthi or saddha? Is saddha _conventional_ right view as opposed to panna which is ultimate right view? Larry 37809 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi TG, You are right; we have been talking on different wavelengths. Let's try again, as you say: ---------------------- TG: > Let me try once again. The mental act of conceptualizing is real. > ---------------------- The term 'mental act' is new to me. Is it a dhamma (citta, cetasika, rupa) or is it a concept (pannatti)? ---------------- TG: > The referent of that conceptualization is mere imagination. > ---------------- Interesting! As Howard explained, we normally say the referent can be real (paramattha dhamma) or imaginary (pannatti). If I imagine (have a concept of) what a cetasika might be like, the referent of my imagination is real. If I imagine a computer keyboard the referent is a concept (more imagination). ---------------- TG: > The easiest way to determine whether conceptualization is a process that arises and ceases due to conditions; is to be mindful of thought processes. If the mind is being mindful of thought processes, > ----------------- I'll interrupt you there on a technical point. Strictly speaking, it is the cetasika 'sati' that is mindful. Conditions being the way they are, sati does not often arise in ordinary folk. However, thinking is very common in ordinary folk. When we say our mind is 'being mindful of thought processes' we really mean the mind is thinking about thought processes. ------------------------------- TG: > If the mind is being mindful of thought processes, the mind can pretty easily see that one thought leads to another related thought and so on and so on. It seems to be a clear indication of a series of states that are arising and ceasing in a conditionally related manner. > ------------------------------- It does seem that way. A similar occurrence is observed when a moving billiard ball, sets another billiard ball in motion, and that in turn, sets another one in motion. But the conditionality observed there is not the conditionality taught by the Buddha. Seeing and visible object are conditioned dhammas. And thinking (about thought processes and billiard balls) is a conditioned dhamma. But the thoughts and the billiard balls are not conditioned dhammas. Nor do they arise and fall away in the same [real] way that seeing and thinking arise and fall away. ---------------- TG: > One question... When you say at the end of the previous post (seen below), that during life-continuum-consciousness, where consciousness can take a "concept" as its object, are you saying that -- consciousness can be structured based on an object that isn't real? > ----------------------------- Yes indeed. Consciousness can be supported by object condition (among other conditions) even when the object is imaginary. It is not the object itself, but the taking of an object, that provides object condition. --------------- TG: > Based on my understanding of the Buddha's teaching, that would be impossible. > -------------- I am assured it is all there (in the Pali Canon), but I couldn't tell you exactly where, sorry. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Ken H > > It seemed at some point during your reply you were clear on what I meant > between a "referent of a concept" and the mental act of conceptualization. Then > later I wasn't so sure. Didn't really follow the arguement against what I > presented. 37810 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > If I imagine > (have a concept of) what a cetasika might be like, the referent of > my imagination is real. If I imagine a computer keyboard the > referent is a concept (more imagination). > >=========== Dear Ken, In the example above the object in both cases is pannatti- concept. Not sure what a 'referent' is? Robertk 37811 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:08pm Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi, James - In a message dated 10/27/04 5:19:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Friend Howard, > > Howard: The matter of continuity is something else, I believe. There > are no gaps between mindstates, at least that is the claim that > Theravadin Abhidhamma makes. So there, already, is a *sort* of > continuity. (That, however, is not the experienced continuity we are > speaking of.) > > James: I am not sure if we discussed this before or not but how > could there possibly be no gaps between mindstates? The Buddha > taught that dhammas arise, persist, and fall away. If there were no > gaps there would never be the point when a mind state had fallen > away, it would just keep persisting forever. Right? > > Metta, James > ============================ The idea is of perfect contiguity, with no "nothingness breaks" separating mindstates, but, instead, the end of one state and the beginning of the next coinciding. I picture it like one sine wave after another after another after another ... With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37812 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/27/04 9:06:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > > >If I imagine > >(have a concept of) what a cetasika might be like, the referent of > >my imagination is real. If I imagine a computer keyboard the > >referent is a concept (more imagination). > > > >=========== > Dear Ken, > In the example above the object in both cases is pannatti- concept. > Not sure what a 'referent' is? > Robertk > ========================= There is no such thing, except in a manner of speaking, as a keyboard, is there? To say that a keyboard is an object of consciousness is not to speak a literal truth, is it? If we "think of a keyboard", does that mean there exists a keyboard that we think of? No. Thinking-of-a-keyboard is an activity, a constructed mental event, but there is no such thing as a keyboard to be thought of or not. It seems to me that there are no such things as pa~n~natti *if*, by the term 'pa~n~natti' one means imagined things, for, by definition, there do not exist imagined things! There are simply thoughts that refer to nothing in reality. There *are*, however, imaginings. They actually occur. They are idea-events. But *their* alleged objects, i.e., their intended referents, do not occur. If I think of a tree, that thought is a "tree idea", and it arises at the mind door, and it is the content of a mindstate. But it is an idea without actual referent. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37813 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) In a message dated 10/27/2004 5:30:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: TG: > If the mind is being mindful of thought processes, the mind can pretty easily see that one thought leads to another related thought and so on and so on. It seems to be a clear indication of a series of states that are arising and ceasing in a conditionally related manner. > ------------------------------- It does seem that way. A similar occurrence is observed when a moving billiard ball, sets another billiard ball in motion, and that in turn, sets another one in motion. But the conditionality observed there is not the conditionality taught by the Buddha. Seeing and visible object are conditioned dhammas. And thinking (about thought processes and billiard balls) is a conditioned dhamma. But the thoughts and the billiard balls are not conditioned dhammas. Nor do they arise and fall away in the same [real] way that seeing and thinking arise and fall away. Hi Ken H It seems that you have reached a conclusion about "conditionality principles" that are directly in contrast to the way I understand them. The Buddha's formula of dependent origination is... This being, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. This not beling, that is not. With the ceasing of this, that ceases. This formula encompasses every possible conditioned thing including billard balls and the motion of billard balls. The Buddha has, in the Suttas, used examples of mountains wearing away, cities wearing away, bodies wearing away, adze-handles wearing away and shows that these things are wearing away due to conditional interaction. He stresses over and over and over again in the Suttas how ALL conditioned things are impermanent. It is shown as a principle of nature. It just so happens that the subject of the Buddha's teaching teaching is "conditions involved with suffering" so the principle of conditionality finds a great deal of attention applied to the 12 Fold Chain of sufferings causes and effect cycle. This is a very important issue to be very clear about. The only 'thing' that the formula of Dependent Origination does not apply to is "non-conditioned." I.E., Nibbana. The billard balls are most certainly conditioned! TG 37814 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Howard: "It seems to me that there are no such things as pa~n~natti *if*, by the term 'pa~n~natti' one means imagined things, for, by definition, there do not exist imagined things!" Hi Howard, I think this is right. To bring the argument back to TG's point, there is no imagined keyboard and there is no imagined cetasika. However, if you imagine a feeling, the consciousness that imagines the feeling will nevertheless be accompanied by a feeling. So there will be an imaginary (nonexistent) feeling and a real feeling. Also, the imaginary feeling could prompt the arising of an identical, but real, feeling. Not sure what is happening when you type "feeling" with a keyboard. One wrinkle. TG identified perception as a concept maker. If that is the case doesn't that make all identities imaginary? Larry 37815 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi Robert, I hope all is well with you after the storms and earthquakes Japan has been having. -------------------- KH: > > If I imagine > (have a concept of) what a cetasika might be like, the referent of > my imagination is real. If I imagine a computer keyboard the > referent is a concept (more imagination). > > -------------------- RK: > In the example above the object in both cases is pannatti- concept. > --------------------- Yes. I made it more complicated than usual by incorporating TG's word "imagine." When I wrote "the referent of my imagination" I meant "the referent of the concept I am conscious of." My point was simply that some concepts (like the word 'cetasika' or like the 'idea' of a cetasika) refer to paramattha dhammas, while other concepts (like the word, or idea of, keyboard) refer to concepts. ----------------------- RK: > Not sure what a 'referent' is? > ----------------------- It has crept into DSG usage of late, but I don't think it adds any new meanings. I think, "What is referred to by the word 'rectangle?'" can be equally phrased as, "What is the referent of the word 'rectangle?'" In both cases it's 'a four-sided figure with opposite sides equal [and so on].' :-) Ken H 37816 From: Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/27/04 10:26:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Howard: "It seems to me that there are no such things as pa~n~natti > *if*, by the term 'pa~n~natti' one means imagined things, for, by > definition, there do not exist imagined things!" > > Hi Howard, > > I think this is right. To bring the argument back to TG's point, there > is no imagined keyboard and there is no imagined cetasika. However, if > you imagine a feeling, the consciousness that imagines the feeling will > nevertheless be accompanied by a feeling. So there will be an imaginary > (nonexistent) feeling and a real feeling. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. There is feeling-imagining, and there is a feeling, two totally different sorts of mental event. --------------------------------------------- Also, the imaginary feeling> > could prompt the arising of an identical, but real, feeling. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. Feeling-imagining can prompt the arising of a feeling. Likewise feeling-remembering can prompt the arising of a feeling. In each case, it amounts to one mind-door event (dhamma) conditioning the arising of another. ----------------------------------------- Not sure> > what is happening when you type "feeling" with a keyboard. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever it is, it is a complex sequence of actualities. -------------------------------------------- > > One wrinkle. TG identified perception as a concept maker. If that is the > case doesn't that make all identities imaginary? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I see perception (I would prefer "recognition" or "identification") as a first step in concept formation. But, yes, I think it is true that all identities are imaginary. When we recognize or identify hardness *as* hardness, we have already left experienced hardness and gone on to something imagined (i.e., image-ined), though at a step still close to the original direct experience. -------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37817 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > I hope all is well with you after the storms and earthquakes Japan > has been having. > > -------------------- Hi Ken, It was a little windy last week, but no problems personally. =========== > KH: > > If I imagine > > (have a concept of) what a cetasika might be like, the referent of > > my imagination is real. If I imagine a computer keyboard the > > referent is a concept (more imagination). > > > > -------------------- > RK: > In the example above the object in both cases is pannatti- > concept. > > --------------------- > > Yes. I made it more complicated than usual by incorporating TG's > word "imagine." When I wrote "the referent of my imagination" I > meant "the referent of the concept I am conscious of." My point was > simply that some concepts (like the word 'cetasika' or like > the 'idea' of a cetasika) refer to paramattha dhammas, while other > concepts (like the word, or idea of, keyboard) refer to concepts. > > ----------------------- > RK: > Not sure what a 'referent' is? > > ----------------------- > > It has crept into DSG usage of late, but I don't think it adds any > new meanings. I think, "What is referred to by the > word 'rectangle?'" can be equally phrased as, "What is the referent > of the word 'rectangle?'" In both cases it's 'a four-sided figure > with opposite sides equal [and so on].' ============ Ok I am lost. When the texts talk about the object of consciouness as either a concept (panatti) or an element (dhatu) how does this relate to referents and so on. I always like the way the Abhidhamma is so direct - it points to the present moment. It is very clear but when I read posts like this it is beyond my understanding, seems so philosophical. Sorry for being direct. Robertk 37818 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:44pm Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Friend Howard (and all), Howard: The idea is of perfect contiguity, with no "nothingness breaks" separating mindstates, but, instead, the end of one state and the beginning of the next coinciding. I picture it like one sine wave after another after another after another ... James: I still don't get it. If there were no gaps it would be impossible to differentiate one mind state from another. There would simply be `peaks' in one continuous mind stream. (I looked up `sine', to picture what you are referring to, and this is the definition I found: "The ordinate of the endpoint of an arc of a unit circle centered at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system, the arc being of length x and measured counterclockwise from the point (1, 0) if x is positive or clockwise if x is negative." Is this what you are referring to? If so, how can the arc of a circle relate to waves?) Metta, James 37819 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:15pm Subject: Re: Enter The Abhidhammika! Whereupon the Sautrantika grabbed him by the ears... Dear DN Thanks for your kind words. Over a number of posts, I have in my own coy and blushing way tried to get you to expand on the place of saddha in your own personal practice. Why? Because you are very widely read and have obviously put alot of effort into understanding the Dhamma and therefore, in my book, your views are worthy of serious consideration. I don't think you have yet given a frank answer but I won't go so far as to make an accusation of eel- wriggling. (-: My impression so far is that seemingly outlandish things in the suttas you overlook, but anything remotely outlandish in the commentaries is howled down as "twaddle". Why so? You wrote: Those with amuulika saddhaa, you may > recall, were compared to builders who build a staircase > leading up to a mansion that doesn't exist; Andrew: If a teacher tells you a mansion exists and you should build a staircase to it, must you verify the existence of the mansion first before starting work on the staircase? If not, at what point should you stop building and expect/demand verification? To put it another way, is saddha only to arise "after verification" ? If so, "faith" is a very bad translation, is it not? You have given me the impression to date that faith before verification is drivel. I note Frank Hoffman writes of saddha being important both before and after verification. Do you disagree with him? Sorry for labouring the point, but I am a particularly hard nut to crack in some respects. (-: Also, in a post to Ken H, you quoted from Lance Cousins. Could you please give the reference? I only have a 1996 article by him in JBE and I don't think that's the one you quoted. Best wishes Andrew T 37820 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandas as disease or dissolution? Hi Connie > "Why play around with concepts such as disease or alien when we can get > straight to dissolution?" Anicca, anatta and dukkha [birth, aging, > disease, death; sorrow, lamentation, grief, pain, despair; union with the > unpleasant, separation from the pleasant, not getting what we want > (pleasure, wealth, fame, praise, health, etc.) ... the 5 aggregates of > clinging]. Because sometimes when you're trying to break something it > helps to look for more than one weak point. You know the deal - for some > he taught this way and for for some another, but for me, he had to keep on > and on and on and while there's no doubt that the fault is in the student > rather than the teaching, I still haven't got it right. Phil: Well said. "when you're trying to break soemthing it helps to look for more than one weak point." The Buddha throws a lot of healing our way, and it lands at the points where our accumulations are rising to meet it. Well, "throw" sounds a bit disrespectful. But he certainly offers a wide range of remedies. There are times the concept of disease will be helpful, other times when a dissolution can be experienced kinda directly. Another one I came across today was a burden that we can lay down. All helpful. >I'm not sure what > the 'alien' word is, either, but wonder if it might not be 'external' > since there are said to be 11 aspects of each khandha: past, present, > future, internal (ajjhattika), external (bahiddha), inferior (hiina), > superior (paniita), distant (dure), near (santike), gross (olaarika) and > subtle (sukhuma). Phil: I'd taken that 'external' to mean that we can have unwise attention to the nama and rupa of others, for example the lovely form of others, or unpleasant forms that cause revulsion. But I probably misunderstood. That would only apply to rupa/form, I guess. >How we attend to anything is important because if there > is a/yoniso manasikaara, the javanas are a/kusala. Phil: You mention that papanca is your word of the week. For me, my word of the month is yoniso manasikara. I will want to be figuring out how panna, sati and yoniso manasikara are related. My sense now is that yoniso manasikara is like a hand that holds the object up, sati the faculty that notices that the hand is holding it up, and panna the vision that penetrates it, or illuminates it. I wonder if that's close at all? > Meanwhile, I was thinking I'd just foget about your "If one doesn't > respond to and respect K Sujin's teaching, and if one doesn't believe > Abhidhamma is the Buddha's teaching, wouldn't it be gracious (and > sensible) to go elsewhere?" and my "How does anyone learn anything alien > to their own way of thinking?", but then this same Wheel rolled on to AN > V, 1 5: < Five reasons why people ask questions: through stupidity and > foolishness; with evil intentions and through covetousness; with a desire > to know; out of contempt; with the thought: "If he answers my question > correctly, it is good; if not, then I shall give the correct answer". > Phil: I sometimes ask questions out of conceit - Look! I am clever enough to know that I don't know this. As for the question above, I think I was asking it out of a kind of greed. My bhavana would be much purer if only people who have taken refuge in the The Buddha, The Dhamma (including all three branches of the Buddha's teaching) and the Sangha (including the ancient commentators, who are not infallible but certainly had deeper insight than anyone tooling around on the internet) participated here. And also a kind of hiding from the dosa that arises when I read rude language in posts. Of course, this provides opportunities for panna to see the dosa as anatta, annica and dukkha, making the citta kusala but I get enough of that in my daily life. I don't have an opportunity to have Dhamma talks "in the flesh" so secretly (well, not so secretly) wish that posts could follow the same kind of right speech that I imagine rules at the talks going on right now in India. Yes, I still think that those who are unable or unwilling to discuss Dhamma in the gentle, courteous tones favoured by the Buddha and his disciples should piss off!!! Oops! I didn't mean to say that! See the conditioning effect rude speech has on this delicate, impressionable bundle of quivering rupa and nama? (snip > I am, at times, just > a drivelling faith-head with a tendency to resent other people's opinions > where my conviction and discernment are weak. There are times, too, when > I don't like everything Buddha himself is to have said. Phil: Me too. . But actually, the main reason I sometimes resent other people's opinions is that I suspect that some people with very good insight into Abhidhamma might possibly - stress on possibly - be discouraged from participating because of having become fed up at having to constantly deal with infidels! I learn a lot from people here, and I want to learn more. So it's more greed. Gaargh. Gotta run. I'll be rereading your post more carefully after i print it out. Metta Phil 37821 From: Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help with clarification of "control" (Concepts as Realities) Hi, Robert (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/27/04 11:47:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Ok I am lost. When the texts talk about the object of consciouness > as either a concept (panatti) or an element (dhatu) how does this > relate to referents and so on. I always like the way the Abhidhamma > is so direct - it points to the present moment. It is very clear but > when I read posts like this it is beyond my understanding, seems so > philosophical. Sorry for being direct. > Robertk > ========================= If I may, I'd like to explain what I mean, though it may well differ from what Ken means. I will explain by examples. i) When I remember an experienced hardness, the object of that mindstate is a mind-door object, specifically, a memory, and the referent of that memory is the previously perceived hardness. ii) When I perceive or recognize a currently experienced hardness (as such), the object of that mindstate is a mind-door object, a percept - the most elementary sort of concept, and the referent of that percept is the body-door object that is the actual hardness. iii) When I *think* of hardness, the object of the mindstate is a mind-door object, a concept/idea. The intended referent of that idea was never directly experienced through any sense door and is a merely imagined abstract entity called "hardness". An idea which seems to have a referent but does not is, of course, a delusive idea. However, this particular idea, while delusive and concept-only (i.e., having no true referent), is still well grounded in that there are many actual, mutually related experiences that could legitimately be called "instances" of that idea. iv) Ideas of "self" or of "righteous anger" or of "useful ignorance", however, are examples of fully delusive ideas, not even having any instances let alone actual referents. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37822 From: Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:59am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi James - In a message dated 10/28/04 12:47:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Friend Howard (and all), > > Howard: The idea is of perfect contiguity, with no "nothingness > breaks" separating mindstates, but, instead, the end of one state > and the beginning of the next coinciding. I picture it like one sine > wave after another after another after another ... > > James: I still don't get it. If there were no gaps it would be > impossible to differentiate one mind state from another. There > would simply be `peaks' in one continuous mind stream. (I looked > up `sine', to picture what you are referring to, and this is the > definition I found: "The ordinate of the endpoint of an arc of a > unit circle centered at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system, > the arc being of length x and measured counterclockwise from the > point (1, 0) if x is positive or clockwise if x is negative." Is > this what you are referring to? If so, how can the arc of a circle > relate to waves?) > > Metta, James > ================================= Well, maybe a sequence of cosine waves would give a simpler picture. Imagine a sequence of hills and valleys, one after the other. Starting at a valley there is a gradual sloping upwards to a rounded peak which gradually slopes downwards then to the next valley, and then upwards again ... . It's no different from ocean waves rolling in one after the other. Each trough is the ending of one mindstate and also the start of the next. The troughs (or valleys) themselves are low levels of consciousness, but they are not consciousness gaps. What one has is a continuity, and yet a distinguishing of hills of consciousness is possible. The mindstates, however, are not discretely separate from each other, but continuously flow one into the other. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37823 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:10am Subject: General request about redundancy Hallo all, It's my experience to it's much easier to read a message when it's not polluted with long quotes of the message to which it reacts. So my question is: avoid redundancy and only quote the central statement of the message on which you want to react, and delete the rest before pushing the button of "Send" With metta Joop 37824 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:25am Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Friend Howard, Howard: The troughs (or valleys)themselves are low levels of consciousness, but they are not consciousness gaps. What one has is a continuity, and yet a distinguishing of hills of consciousness is possible. James: Okay, I could accept that except then there won't be the `falling away' that the Buddha spoke of. I view this process you describe as `persisting' with no 'falling away'. One other question, and not to be discourteous, but has your meditation experience revealed to you this type of process? I have done insight meditation, focused on the `falling away' aspect of nama and rupa, and I could have sworn that I discerned gaps! Actually, it was somewhat unsettling. However, my concentration may not have been that strong and maybe what I discerned was actually something else entirely. I posted about this to dhamma-list before and Joyce (in her typical smart-alecky fashion ;-) had alluded that it was something else I experienced. Anyway, now I am rambling. Feel free to respond to this tread or we can just drop it. It isn't that important anyway. Metta, James 37825 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Day 28.10.04 Dear Phil, We all are indebted to our parents. We will never be able to repay in full back. The Buddha Gotama gave His gratitute back to His father. He helped His father attaining arahatship. As His father was alive, He could repaid His gratitute. But for His late mother, He could not do anything on this earth. But He ascended up to Tavatimsa to preach the most deepest Dhamma. Actually His late mother who was reborn in Deva realm was not in Tavatimsa. She was reborn as a Deva ( male celestial being ) called Samtussita Deva. That is the 4th Deva realm. Abhidhamma was preached at 2nd Deva realm. This is the place for all Devas. All Deva can attend if they wish. If Abhidhamma was preached where His late mother lives, then the first lower 3 Deva realms including Sakka or Indra or Magha or the king of Deva would not be able to attend. The Buddha finished Abhidhamma preaching on such day of full moon day ( 7th solar months based on 12 zodiac signs where Aries is the first month ). The Buddha came down to human realm. It is said that The Buddha descended in three special stairs. They are golden, silver, and ruby stairs. On the ground on the earth were kings, queens, and many people waiting to worship The Buddha. They were all lighting candles, torches, etc etc. In Myanmar, today is held as lighting festival. Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > Thank you Htoo! > I had no idea about this day. > A day to feel great gratitude, for sure. > > Metta, > Phil > > Tomorrow (28.10.04) is the full moon day when The Buddha finished > > preaching Abhidhamma at Deva realm and came down to manussa bhumi or > > human realm. > > 37826 From: connieparker Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:51am Subject: ps - Phil hiya, Phil, I forgot to answer about pa.ticcasamuppaada, dependent arising/origination [pa.ticca - because of, on account of. samuppaada - arising, origination] - the 12-links [ignorance, conditioning activities, (rebirth) consciousness, mind-and-matter, 6 sense bases, contact, feeling, grasping, becoming, birth, decay-death-sorrow-lamentation-pain-grief-and-despair]. The 'cause'/condition is the paccaya and the 'effect'/conditioned is the paccayuppanna although you're more likely to find those terms in explanations of the more complex method (naya/~naaya) for explaining the whole mess. That's pa.t.thaana, which uses 24 conditional relations: root, object, predominance, contiguity, immediacy, co-nascence, mutuality, dependence, sufficing dependence, antecedence, post-nascence, repetition, kamma, effect, nutriment, control, jhaana, path, association, dissociation, presence, absence, separation, non-separation. peace, connie 37827 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:50am Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Dear Dhamma Friends, May I join your discussion. Anantara paccaya indicates 'no gap' between mindstates. Antara means 'gap' 'interval' 'spacing'. Ana or 'A' means 'no' 'not' 'nothing'. Anantara means 'no interval' 'no gap'. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Friend Howard, > > Howard: The matter of continuity is something else, I believe. There > are no gaps between mindstates, at least that is the claim that > Theravadin Abhidhamma makes. So there, already, is a *sort* of > continuity. (That, however, is not the experienced continuity we are > speaking of.) > > James: I am not sure if we discussed this before or not but how > could there possibly be no gaps between mindstates? The Buddha > taught that dhammas arise, persist, and fall away. If there were no > gaps there would never be the point when a mind state had fallen > away, it would just keep persisting forever. Right? > > Metta, James 37828 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:04am Subject: Re: saddha, Htoo Larry wrote: Hi Htoo, Is saddha (faith, confidence) the kusala equivalent of ditthi (view)? Insofar as reasoning is belief, or at least believed, can we say all reasoning is either ditthi or saddha? Is saddha _conventional_ right view as opposed to panna which is ultimate right view? Larry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Larry, Thanks for your question. Actually your have a better knowledge than me in Abhidhamma. Even though it may be a kusala equivalent, they are not direct opposite. Absence of saddha does not always cause arising of ditthi. Absence of saddha may cause arising of other akusala such as lobha, mana. And absence of ditthi does not cause arising of saddha. I do not know how to put 'reasoning' under classification in terms of abhidhamma. Saddha is not still conventioanl right view [ my opinion ]. Right view means 'pannindriya cetasika' whatever it is conventional or ultimate. It is not saddha. Saddha is a cloud remover. Saddha is a silt-filter. Saddha is a depositor. Saddha does not have to do with right view even though saddha may be associated with right view. That is right view whether conventioal or ultimate is always associated with saddha. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37829 From: Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi, James - In a message dated 10/28/04 9:32:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Howard, > > Howard: The troughs (or valleys)themselves are low levels of > consciousness, but they are not consciousness gaps. What one has is > a continuity, and yet a distinguishing of hills of consciousness is > possible. > > James: Okay, I could accept that except then there won't be > the `falling away' that the Buddha spoke of. I view this process > you describe as `persisting' with no 'falling away'. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I see the going down a slope into a valley as the "falling away". ------------------------------------------- One other > > question, and not to be discourteous, but has your meditation > experience revealed to you this type of process? I have done > insight meditation, focused on the `falling away' aspect of nama and > rupa, and I could have sworn that I discerned gaps! Actually, it > was somewhat unsettling. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: When there is the discerning of a "gap", there is still a discerning. So where is the consciousness "gap" then? I believe the "gaps" are the valleys, and they are not a nothingness. As far as experiencing them - yes, I have. --------------------------------------------- However, my concentration may not have > > been that strong and maybe what I discerned was actually something > else entirely. I posted about this to dhamma-list before and Joyce > (in her typical smart-alecky fashion ;-) had alluded that it was > something else I experienced. Anyway, now I am rambling. Feel free > to respond to this tread or we can just drop it. It isn't that > important anyway. ----------------------------------- Howard: That's so - not really very important. What is important, as I see it, is that there is an unstoppable flux, with no aspect of it lasting or controllable or self-existent or substantial. ----------------------------------- > > Metta, James ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37830 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:23am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi Howard and James I hope this sutta quotes help in your dicussion Also SN ii.95 “Just as a monkey faring through the dense forest catches one bough, and, letting it go, catches another, and then another, even so bhikkhus, with what is called thought, or mind , or consciousness, by day as by night, one arises when another perishes.” Ken O 37831 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Future Potential of Sense-objects Hi Antony hmmm because we do not have a microsopic eyes, maybe we can see that elections, protons etc keep moving all the times :) just a thought Ken O 37832 From: Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:33am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/28/04 11:26:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard and James > > I hope this sutta quotes help in your dicussion > > > Also SN ii.95 > “Just as a monkey faring through the dense forest catches one bough, > and, letting it go, catches another, and then another, even so > bhikkhus, with what is called thought, or mind , or consciousness, by > day as by night, one arises when another perishes.â€? > > > Ken O > ========================== Thank you. Yes, I think this is perfect! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37833 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:39am Subject: Brief India update (Sikkim) Hello again We arrived at Gantok in this Himalayan state at 8:00PM (one hour ago) after another marathon day's travelling starting with a 4:00AM wake-up call at our hotel in Patna (Bihar state), a flight to Bagdogra and then a bus journey starting at 10:30AM with a stop for lunch along the way. Sikkim is a welcome change from the dry, dusty lowlands, and we are looking forward to a good day's rest tomorrow, before heading back to Bagdogra for the flight to Kolcatta (Calcutta). We are hoping to get some time tomorrow to catch up with reading all the recent posts. Will try and post some more soon. Cheers Jon 37834 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:41am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi Howard Just a Sutta quote SN II, 20:6 The Archers “Bhikkhus, as swift as the man is, still swifter are the sun and the moon. As swift as the man is, and as swift as are the sun and moon, and as swift as are the dieties that run before the sun and moon, the vital formations perish even more swiftly than that. Therefore, Bhikkhus, you should train yourself thus: “We will dwell diligently.” thus should you train yourselves." (vital formations = physical life faculty). Ken O 37835 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Brief India update (Sikkim) Hi Jon Take your time, no hurry :) Send my regards to A Sujin - wishes her good health, free of worries - tell her if kamma permits, we will meet again. Ken O 37836 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:59am Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hey Howard: H> That's so - not really very important. What is important, as I see it, is that there is an unstoppable flux, with no aspect of it lasting or controllable or self-existent or substantial. You of course know how to generate a (co)sine wave from a circle? The cycle of samsara is continuous till we stop the wheel and get off. PEACE E 37837 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:21am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 098 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 14 akusala cetasikas and they are destructive ministers of the king citta. We have discussed on 4 cetasikas led by moha cetasika, who is the king of akusala. After that we discussed on 3 cetasikas led by a small king lobha cetasika. There left another small king in akusala kingdom. He is dosa cetasika. In the kingdom of dosa or aversion or hatred, there are 4 cetasikas. They are 1.dosa or aversion, 2.issa or jealousy, 3.macchariya or stinginess, and 4.kukkucca or worry. Everyone in this world on this earth know dosa or aversion very well. As soon as people are born here as a human being, all have to cry out. This is because of dosa or aversion. Anagams are called non-returners. This means they never return to sensual sphere or they never return to kama bhumis that is they will never be reborn in kama bhumis. Because they do not have any dosa or aversion. They all have eradicated dosa or aversion at anagami magga kala. All human beings are born crying and those who do not have dosa or aversion will not be reborn as a human being. All Sammasambuddhas are born human beings. All paccekabuddhas are born human beings. But not all arahats are born human beings. We can observe dosa or aversion through out our life. Especially in these days, as there are much much more stress than ever before, dosa or aversion become part and parcel of daily life. Dosa is not a citta or consciousness. Dosa is a mental factor. It is a cetasika. It arises with a citta and it advises the king citta to get angry. Dosa advises not only the king citta but also all other associated cetasikas to follow the king and to behave angry. Dosa is a destructive minister of the king citta, who is the leader of all mental faculties. Dosa leads people to commit different kinds of akusala including the most wicked crimes. Killing is mostly committed by dosa. Pharussa vaca or harsh speech is also commited by dosa. Pisuna vaca or divisive speech that separates 2 beloved people to be apart is also committed by dosa. Words wars to weaponic wars, terrorists' attacks, assassinations, assaults, fightings etc etc are all led by dosa. Dosa is so strong that it has to be killed three times by three different weapons of magga nana. Only after the third attack, dosa is eradicated. Sotapatti magga nana kills vitikkama dosa and all sotapams will never kill any form of beings. That is why sotapams are not reborn in lower 4 realms of apaya namely niraya or hell, tiracchanna or animals, peta or hungry ghosts and asurakaya or demons. Sakadagami magga nana further thins out dosa and they have a maximum of further 2 lives to live their samsara before they do parinibbana. Only at anagami magga kala, all forms of dosa are eradicated and anagams are totally free of any dosa. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37838 From: Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:36am Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hi, Eric - In a message dated 10/28/04 12:00:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@y... writes: > You of course know how to generate a (co)sine wave > from a circle? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. Most easily from the unit circle. ------------------------------------------- The cycle of samsara is continuous> > till we stop the wheel and get off. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but the question remains: Does"the wheel" stop, or do we just let go of it and get off? And, in fact, does that getting off the wheel amount to an actual getting off, or is it more in the way of realizing that the wheel was never a real wheel, and there never was a person to get off that imagined wheel? Obviously, the form of the question already suggests my answer. ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37839 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:12pm Subject: Continuity and Speed (was Re: [dsg] Re: Ultimate Reality) Hey Howard, ------------------------------------------- E> The cycle of samsara is continuous> > till we stop the wheel and get off. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but the question remains: Does"the wheel" stop, or do we just let go of it and get off? And, in fact, does that getting off the wheel amount to an actual getting off, or is it more in the way of realizing that the wheel was never a real wheel, and there never was a person to get off that imagined wheel? Obviously, the form of the question already suggests my answer. Whatever imagery that helps is best. PEACE E 37840 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:11pm Subject: Tracing the mind's track ( 02 ) II. FORGOTTEN PAST LEFT THAT FAR We did have our past. At least we have the past in this life, if you do not believe many lives. Some may remember their past events vividly, mainly in the form of physical events something like movies playing back. Some,on the other hand, also remember mental feelings and reactions during their past events. These mental feelings and reactions in the mind were events in the mind in our past. There are different events. Events are nothing but things that happen or things that occur. The other way to describe what events are is that events are existences that arise, persist and vanish. Events may be our seeing. Or the sight that we had seen. They may be our hearing. Or the sounds that we had heard. They may be our smelling. Or the smell that we had smelled. They may be our tasting. Or the taste that we had tasted. They may be our touching. Or the touch that we had touched. Thinking is an activity. We are thinking. We are in activity. What we are thinking are our thoughts. Events may well be our thinking. Or the thoughts that we had thought in the past. Still there are non-events things. These do not arise. These do not exist at all and so these non-events do not fall away or vanish. Even though we are steadfastly proceeding forward in time panel, there does exist the past. These past events do leave their footprints in our mind. When we are all the time proceeding forward in temporal sense, we most of the time do not remember past events. Because they have left that far. However, whenever there are conditions, there events may arise again at least in our mind as the past events with the force of present representative events. This may have good or bad effect. If those past events are unwholesome events, then this sort of remembrance and re-feeling would create extra effect added to already existing bad potentials. That is why we all should stay the present. But learning always takes the lessons from the past or from the experiences. So, to learn our mind effectively, we need to know how our mind works, what it has done, what it did, what it does at the moment and we need to see our mind whatever it does. This is our beginning of tracing the mind track. The mind does leave its track. TRACING THE MIND'S TRACK BY HTOO NAING 37841 From: connieparker Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:22pm Subject: Re: Continuity and Speed Hi, Howard and James, I think that the 'consciousness gaps' might be when the cittas are bhavangas/life-continuum, which would occu